Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Retraining costs

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    He's saying that you should make your arguments based on what's best for the children, which is what has to guide the court, not financial matters.

    If you bring $$ signs into your argument you present yourself as money motivated as opposed to child centred.

    That can backfire on you, bigtime.

    Comment


    • #17
      Yes I understand that very well.

      I have a whole argument prepared based on child development experts opinions, new trends quoted from case law and both parties history as parents.

      However, in the application / motions, it is required to put something regarding support. Hence my questions.

      Financials will never be part of my main argument, but a by product of it.

      I delayed court action many times in the past, and tried continiuously to settle out of court, moving closer to where my daughter is living... All to minimize the damage this process can have on her, and provide her with a better environment where both parents are available and ready to care for her.

      She will always be my main focus.

      Comment


      • #18
        Ballpark numbers you are within 39% of her NDI just between a 75000 income and your EI benefits. @ 75K she's going to be paying out 22% in income taxes...leaving her with 58500 net....before things like child support/CCTB/tax breaks/etc are calculated into the mix.

        You are currently getting EI benefits, but if you look at your last 3 years income taxes...what's the average? She can argue that YOU be inputted that income just as easily as YOU can get her inputted @ 75K. (She's going to argue if YOU can use your EI, then SHE can use HER Mat leave income)
        Last edited by NBDad; 07-13-2010, 05:09 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          I'm sure she will NBDad...

          The only difference is that I lost my job before separation, sent out 100+ resumes without success and now having to retrain to get a job.

          And she quit hers.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Underdog View Post

            I do believe, however, that she didn't compeltely quit her job. According to empoyment laws, your employer is required to hold on the new mother's position a year after mat leave, in case she decided to take an unpaid year off after mat leave.
            I don't know about any of the rest of it but I did want to comment on one point. Your ex was off work for maternity leave and chose not to go back but took a differrent job instead that pays less.

            Have you considered that it may have been a choice she made to allow her more flexibility and time with the young child/children rather than a full time position? Would a judge seriously consider her 'under-employed' if she chose to change careers in the best interests of her family?

            Very curious, indeed.

            Comment


            • #21
              She quit her job and moved in with her parents 2 hours away - To be close to her parents - That's the only thing close to a reason that I got from her. I bet she will have a reason that I will only know about in court.

              I don't think there was any need for her to choose a job with more flexibility, if thats her reason, when I'm unemployed and available to take care of our daughter full time.

              Comment


              • #22
                My point was that she may have chosen to change careers to offer more flexibility because SHE wanted to be able to be there more for her family, nothing to do with daycare arrangements or costs.

                Sometimes it is ok - and often best - to put family first before money. Some people WANT to be able to stay home with their children more once they come along and nowhere does it say one is obligated to return to the same job after having a child or even stay in the same profession. People make life choices for all kinds of reason but if she made a lifestyle change to accomodate her growing family then good for her. Whether YOU think there is a need for her to have more flexibility doesn't matter.

                Where she lives or choosing to live with her parents is irrelevant. How could having a loving and supportive family close by be bad for either her or the child?

                IMO, your story has changed throughout your posts in this thread and it leads me to believe you're seeking support to be vindictive. You've gone from saying she quit her job on purpose (strategically even ) to make less money and pay you less to she didn't really quit her job to you don't actually know what her reasons are for choosing not go back to her previous position, and honestly - it's entirely none of your business.

                You need to stop being so concerned about the choices she's making in HER life and make some attempts to get YOUR life back on track without expecting her to pay for your education. Figure out a direction and start moving.

                Comment


                • #23
                  What is their reason for change in employment? Not sure of the event timeline, but was it before or after the birth of your 14 month old child?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Underdog View Post
                    My ex quitting her job was purely strategic, so a judge would ask the same question you asked and she would get out of paying SS.

                    Had I quit my job and intentionally became under employed, I would have been penalized by the court and had my income imputed.

                    I couldn't get my retraining paid by EI due to recent cancellation of such programs, due to significant increase in the numbers of unemployed people in Ontario (almost doubled in the last 2 years) and lack of government resources.

                    OSAP will only consider helping out full time students in certain programs. My part-time study program is not one of them.

                    In earlier settlement offer letters, I offered shared parenting, where I would take care of our daughter during my ex's work hours, until I finish my retraining and get a job, but she refused and after mat leave didn't go back to her high paying job.

                    I do believe, however, that she didn't compeltely quit her job. According to empoyment laws, your employer is required to hold on the new mother's position a year after mat leave, in case she decided to take an unpaid year off after mat leave.

                    In a year's time, after she gets what she wants in court, she will quietly go back to her $75,000 a year job.
                    Sounds to me like she made the choice to change her career after the birth of her child. Not sure though if his references to maternity leave are for his child or another she may have had after they seperated.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Underdog View Post

                      I couldn't get my retraining paid by EI due to recent cancellation of such programs, due to significant increase in the numbers of unemployed people in Ontario (almost doubled in the last 2 years) and lack of government resources.
                      And this I find curious as I know a bunch of people who have been through and are currently going through the Second Career training program through EI. I just checked their website too and they are advertising even MORE services beginning in August of this year so not sure which training programs it is you're referring to that were cancelled?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I was looking at Second Career website the other day and in FAQ there was mention that funding had been cut and the waiting list was extensive. Of course things can change from day to day. They might not also have updated the FAQ lately, but I was certainly cursing the screen when it was clear I wouldn't come close to qualifying.

                        If he has applied and been turned down, that is that.

                        He won't get spousal if she simply doesn't have the money, the courts won't put the child's primary household into peril to provide spousal. I do think that they would look at minimum CS from him rather than go by his 3 year average.

                        People have a right to change careers for personal reasons, but they also have an obligation to work to their potential. Quitting your job to have "flexibility" is wonderfully vague. So vague it wouldn't fly. I'm not saying she couldn't come up with a concrete argument, but none has been presented. Demonstrate a lack of affordable daycare, and a lack of sufficient sick days and vacation time to care for a child with your $75k job and show that your new minimum wage job will give you plenty of sick days to look after your little boo. In reality it is usually the opposite, the professional salaried position usually has the richer benefits.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Found it here:

                          http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/tcu/search.asp?chosen=28

                          And I do agree with your post to a certain degree that she should be employed enough to support herself and the child which she appears to be doing regardless if it's with the help of her parents or not.

                          I disagree that she should be forced to seek out a higher paying job to help pay for his retraining if she is sufficiently supporting them. He hasn't said she's making any demands on him for support so the fact he would want to take money away from the support of his child to pay for spousal or retraining seems odd to me.

                          She's currently making roughly 1600/month and he feels it's ok to consider asking for $1730/ month in spousal. Really now, that sounds vindictive to me. He wants to impute an income on her and ask for spousal support when he claims to actually make $3000 more on EI than she does working. I don't see him running to court to ask the to impute HIM an income based on his potential to earn.

                          I couldn't see anywhere that he said if he was currently paying child support. Something just sounds off in this whole story.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Ok..

                            I do pay child support based on my EI benefits, and ex is asking me to pay for half of daycare expenses.

                            Ex keeps her cards close to the chest but did say once in mediation that she is quitting her job to move with her parents for the supportive environment.

                            I DO NOT think this is the reason why she is quit her job - and I do believe she will go back to it after her year of unpaid leave starting May '10 ends. Quitting her job will weaken my offer of taking care of the child while she is at work and achieving shared parenting. That is the reason in my opinion.

                            Ex had our daughter in May 09 - I lost my job in Aug 09 - we separated Nov 09 - Mediation fell through Mar '10 - ex mat leave ended May '10 - ex found a part-time job and put child in daycare without telling me Jun '10.

                            Blinkandimgone - I wonder if you would support a father who decides to quit his $100,000 job and work in McDonald's instead, earning $10/hr, upon separation. Would you be as considerate of his feelings and need to spend more time with his kids ? Society calls these people 'deadbeats' and that is exactly what I call my ex.

                            She witnessed firsthand before separation the nightmare that I was going through trying to find a job. With that in mind, and knowing that income will not be available from my side in the near future, she does what every responsible parent does in this situation... Quit her job... The only source of decent income that is available to support our child...

                            Wonderful...!!!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
                              I disagree that she should be forced to seek out a higher paying job to help pay for his retraining if she is sufficiently supporting them. He hasn't said she's making any demands on him for support so the fact he would want to take money away from the support of his child to pay for spousal or retraining seems odd to me.
                              She cannot be forced to work in this society, but like anyone in a similar position in this society she can have income imputed to her reflecting her ability to earn a wage she had been earning for years. The same would applied to me, you and anyone else who quit a job and decided it was fine to earn less.

                              If she has a reason, a real reason that she can explain and show, then the courts would take that into account. She hasn't given one (according to Underdog). Based on the info we have, she should be treated just like any man who quit his job.

                              There are cases on Canlii regarding parents who quit jobs and ended up earning 10k or so less and the judge felt they had reasonable cause. The courts wouldn't force someone to stay in a job they hated or was stressful or unhealthy if they were legitimately trying to earn up to their potential somewhere else.

                              Again, if "flexibility" is the issue she has to show what the difference is, how it is necessary and why she couldn't stay in the same career. She does owe Underdog this explanation.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                If he was able to support himself and his child on it then by all means go for it. You have an obligation to help support your child as well regardless of how much money you make or don't make, proportionate to your income. She isn't asking for anything unreasonable and technically it's family law that requires you to pay CS based on your income, not your ex wife.

                                As for the daycare, as convenient as it would be for you to watch the kid now while she is at work it isn't a suitable long-term solution as you won't be able to do that when you are working - assuming you DO plan to work.

                                Soyour ex wife DID give you her reason for moving in with her parents, which is a very valid reason, especially during such an emotional and difficult time when your marriage is ending. Just because YOU don't agree with it doesn't make it any less valid. She needed the support, she took steps to get it.

                                You consider your ex wife to be a 'dead beat' even though she is supporting herself and the child on her own income with minimal help from you? She's doing more to support the child then you currently are so I find your analogy quite hypocritical. She seems to be doing quite fine, I wonder if the fact that she is fine and moving forward is the reason you're so bitter towards her.

                                Before you decide to turn this into an attempt to paint me as biased towards and against mothers/fathers in family law, I'd suggest you do a bit of reading around first.

                                Comment

                                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.
                                Working...
                                X