Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

new spouses and child support

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

  • new spouses and child support

    I have heard that the income of a payors(NCP's) new partner can be included when extra-ordinary expenses are being calculated. Is this true?

    Does it go the other way? Can the income of the recievers (CP's) new partner be included to lower the extra-ordinary expense contribution of the NCP?

  • #2
    more info.

    I mean other than by claiming "undue hardship".

    Comment


    • #3
      To my knowledge, claims of Undue Hardship, are the only cases that account for household income for both parents.

      Comment


      • #4
        Undue Hardship

        Recently Divorced, have children 50-50 but paying quite a sum of Sousal Support. She moved right in with another man, but both are showing zero income. Court assumed her of income of 35K and she is not working and living off what I pay.

        Can she try to take me for more if she does not work and show nothing in a years time on her T4?

        Can I push the fact that she has two possible incomes in the home and they are soaking me for all I have? To get a reduction in Spousal Support?

        Comment


        • #5
          When calculating extra-ordinary expenses the incomes of both parents are taken into account as this is paid relative to income. The court develops a ratio of income of one parent to the other, and this is the ratio for payment of extraordinary expenses. When doing this they include CS, SS and any tax benefits on the income for the receiving parent’s ratio, and less any payments for the child/spouse from the paying parent.

          To reduce or eliminate SS the payer must show that the receiver has the ability to work and be self supportive. Or is self supportive with other means.

          Usually if there is no income an income is inputted on the person (as indicated by Girard) based on past history of employment and/or education. There can be a termination date placed on SS as well. This will offer the receiving person a time frame in which to become self supportive, and the SS is essentially to help them through this period.

          "Girard" you indicated that you have the children on a 50-50 split.
          You did not mention CS only SS, is this because there is no CS ordered? Or is it paid relative to your perspective income as extra ordinary expenses are paid?

          "Girard" I do not think she would win a claim to increase SS purely based on no income, she would have to demonstrate why she has not gained employment to support herself as well she would have to show need and your means. If this was me, and she was seeking an increase, I would ask the courts to review her attempts at meaningful employment, and if it shows that she is basically not trying, ask to have the SS terminated, or at the very least have a date of termination put on the order.

          Comment


          • #6
            Undue Hardship

            Thanks for the information. And I do pay CS. That is not an issue for me. Paying SS on the basis of revenge is! A six year term negotiated out of court is something that I should not have agreed to. I would like to cut his back.

            But after a year, if she chooses not to work, and is relying only on the CS and SS that I pay (kids are telling me that she has no plans to work)....can I ask the courts to reduce my SS on the fact that she is not trying to be self sufficient? Especilly if she is living with a guy who is not working as well.

            And if he does gain employment...does his paycheque factor into her income calculations?(After they have lived together for 3 months) Or is it strictly her T4.

            I beleive that if they were to both work, their incomes and my SS would grossly outweigh mine.

            Comment


            • #7
              http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc...7bcsc1509.html

              This outllines what is expected to be covered by CS,

              I find there are a number of expenses claimed by Ms. MacDonald that are quite properly regarded as included within the child support payment. If the children did not attend a private school, they would still require clothing and shoes, school supplies, and money for field trips and other incidentals. These types of expenses are to be paid from child support and are not extra-ordinary expenses. The fact the children attend a private school does not render these expenses extra-ordinary within the meaning of the Guidelines. While Ms. MacDonald must buy uniforms for the children, there is no evidence the cost is any greater than public school attire.


              And it goes on to state;

              I am not satisfied, however, that all the expenses claimed by Ms. MacDonald can be regarded as within the purview of s. 7. Many of the expenses claimed relate to costs she would have incurred in any event as the primary resident parent and thus should be covered by the monthly child support payments. This would include expenses for additional ice time, skate sharpening, living expenses during out of town tournaments, as well as miscellaneous items such as hockey tape and socks. In my view, items of this nature are not properly regarded as extra-ordinary expenses.

              For the purpose of reducing SS, you would have to show she has made not sufficient effort to gain meaningful employment. And that she is capable of working full time at a meaningful job.
              The household income would only factor in if there were a claim of undue hardship. Which is usually claimed by a paying parent, and this is a "very" hard issue to prove. Generally it goes on household standards of living. At present yours is higher, although one would reasonably expect a man to support himself and not live off the funds of another man's ex wife's CS payments.
              This is more of a moral issue, but I think if push came to shove you could show she has not made any effort, and is capable. Maybe a judge would see this for what it is, her milking the cash cow so to speak. Why work for it when you can get it for free.
              Sorry I could not be of more help.

              Comment


              • #8
                http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc...008bcsc68.html

                In this case the onus was on the ex and her new husband to prove the need for continued support. But the new husband was employed. The purpose of the SS order was satisfied, IE to help ex wife get back on her feet and become self supportive, so termination was requested.

                http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc...anlii5076.html

                In this case SS was reduced after looking at the new husbands impact on the financial stability, need & means, after a material change in circumstances had been shown to exist.

                http://www.canlii.org/en/advancedsearch.html

                With this link you can do your own searches for similar cases.

                Best of luck.
                FL

                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