No announcement yet.

Overwhelmed divorce newbie help

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    24 hours is a pretty standard parttime workload.

    Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk


    • #17
      Thanks everyone for your responses. I have a plan now for imputing income and how to do it.


      • #18
        Originally posted by Ilovemykids View Post
        She attends University full-time and supposedly is graduating with a BA anytime this spring, but she won't answer my emails as to what her plans are this summer. From our afterschool provider she mentioned she is taking a few summer courses and is going back to school for another degree in Sept. She didn't work last summer and it appears she isn't this summer.

        My question is this? Do I have a leg to stand on to impute income to her.
        Personally, I think so, but I'm not a judge.

        In an offset situation, the CS exchange due to a difference in salaries should be a supplement to the lower earner's income. It should not be the majority of, or certainly not the whole of, their income. If one parent chooses not to work, that is their choice, and the other parent should not be forced to subsidize that. Offset situations are one of the main reasons imputation should exist. Any parent should be working to their full potential to support their child. Potential differs vastly between people, of course, and offset CS minimizes any vast differences in the children's lifestyles between houses. But choosing not to work and expecting CS to increase is irresponsible.

        Adults with children have a special responsibility to them. They must earn an income to support that child. Whatever else they want to do, such as attend school, is secondary. In an intact marriage, a couple might agree that one of them could attend school because the other's income is sufficient to permit that. In a divorced couple in an offset situation, one person's decision to attend achool should not be forcefully subsidized by the increased CS of the other person. The CS is not going to the child then, it is blatantly supporting both the child and the ex, which is not the intention of CS.

        I would make an effort to have her income imputed to that which a person of her current education could reasonably make if they entered the workforce right now, instead of continuing in school. Full time minimum wage at the very least. She has a child to support; she can't just blithely keep being a student on your dime. That basically turns the difference between table and offset with income imputed to her into SS for her, which is not what was agreed to nor is it the purpose of CS.

        If she still wants to attend school, that's fine, especially if it will someday help her earn a greater income. She can get student loans, apply for scholarships, work part-time, ask her family for help, etc, everything normal students do to afford school. But as a mother, her primary responsibility should be to support her child, not her education, and a decision to choose education over employment should not increase your financial responsibility to your child.

        The fact that she does not seek summer employment like most students do just demonstrates that she is treating your CS like SS to support her education, and not as meant for the benefit of the child.

        Start with trying to impute full time income for someone of her education and experience, and let her 'negotiate' you down to part-time for two years.


        • #19
          So what is the best way and easiest way to figure out how to impute income and thank you Rioe excellent post and really captures everything that is going around my head especially now that I am gearing up to request her lawyers consent to amend my answer.

          She just completed a BA is bilingual and has some professional experience working for Parks Canada as an administrator (8 years ago). What is a solid way to present my argument.


          • #20
            You need to persuasively show that she should be making X dollars and is choosing not to.

            Judges do not like "crystal ball gazing"; they do not make decisions based on possible future events. They must make decisions based on what has occurred before and what the evidence shows today.

            You can present what she made 8 years ago as adminstrator, but that's probably not relevant to today. You can try and find out what sort of starting salary she could earn working in her field with her degree... but this is crystal ball gazing.

            Generally most people have to settle with stating she has to pay her bills she could work at the bare minimum 24 hours per week at minimum wage. This is around 12,000 per year.

            If she has 2 children and makes 12,000, her child support table amount is $94.

            I don't see it as worthwhile to pursue imputing her income to save yourself $94 per month when you could lose and have to pay costs in the thousands.

            It's your life though.


            Our Divorce Forums
            Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.