Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help with Understanding "Change in Standard of Living?"

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

  • #16
    The last thing that you want to hear is that your family does not have the same level of importance as hers seems to have.

    I would suspect that if there was an order or agreement in place where by she was financially responsible for one or more of the children which reduced dad’s proportionate share of CS, then that would not diminish, nor would it stop, unless she went back and asked for a change due to a material change. This type of shared financial responsibility I understand happens when both parents share equally in the physical care of the children, (minimum 40/60 split). If she is on Mat leave she is still financially responsible however her share may diminish and equally dads would increase.

    IE if mom’s share (based on her income) was $250/month and Dads was $450, the net result would be dad paying $200. If her level of income had changed then her share would change accordingly. IE if her share changed to $125, and dad’s income remains unchanged, he would then be expected to pay $325.

    A piece of a case, Justice M-E. Wright addressed the same debate in Orth v. Orth reflex, (1999), 176 Sask. R. 192 (Q.B.) and said at para. 42:

    The factors to be considered by the Court and enumerated in s. 9 of the Guidelines recognize that there is an increased cost associated with shared custody as well as a joint obligation of the parents to contribute to that cost in accordance with their ability to do so. Maintaining two homes in which children will reside for approximately equal time results in many duplicated expenditures and by necessity, increases the overall cost of providing for the children. While reference must also be made to the amount otherwise payable by each spouse pursuant to the applicable table, a set-off of those amounts is not automatic as is the case in situations governed by s. 8 of the Guidelines. Furthermore, the mere existence of a shared custody arrangement does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the amount of support that one spouse would pay absent such an arrangement. There is a broad discretion in the Court to consider the means, needs and circumstances of the children and of the spouses.

    Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63 (CanLII) is a commonly sited case, where in it states,

    Crossing the 40% threshold does not bring with it an automatic reduction to the support obligation. All it does is bring an automatic entitlement to have the issue of “appropriate” support considered (Contino, para. 30). Each party carries an onus to show the overall fitness of the award.

    Comment


    • #17
      http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc...1bcsc1163.html

      In this case both parties remarried.
      Dad's income with second family was about $45,000, and mom's went up to $86,000. They initially agreed they had split custody, but judge disallowed some of the days when he went back to make the 40/60 calculation himself. Bottom line, dad sought to reduce support due to mom's increase in standard of living and his reduced standard of living since they shared custody. The ultimate result was that dad's support went from $359 to $381. It's worth a read for you to understand how one case, where only the perspective changes, changes the bottom line result. I think this case could have easily had a completely different outcome with a different judge.

      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