Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 08-05-2009, 10:54 AM
Classic Classic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7
Classic is on a distinguished road
Default Post Secondary Support

Wondering if you may be able to give me some advise regarding post secondary education support.

I am divorced and am paying $1212.00 / month for child support for 3 children. (boy 18yrs, girl 17yrs, boy 15yrs) I also pay all the hockey fees, registrations ect.. for my 2 boy plus an extra $150.00 / month for my 2 boys extra ordinary expenses for hockey. The $150.00 is to be re-visited if one or both of the boys stops playing rep hockey.

My 18yr old is entering college for the first time this September and living at residence at the college and is no longer playing rep hockey.

My ex and I have had a string of emails back and forth regarding the costs. I have seen the receipts and applications and agree with the amounts.

Below is the latest email from me to my ex, followed by a response from my ex stating she will be contacting her lawyer.







Commencing September 1, 2009 I will be reducing the child support payment that represents my son's portion by 8/12ths to reflect the fact that my son will be living away 8 months of the year.

In addition I will be reducing the monthly payments of $150.00 for my two boy's hockey expenses to $75.00 per month to reflect that my oldest boy's involvement has changed and is no longer playing representative hockey.

One child’s portion of monthly child support is $404.00. This amount added with $75.00 from my oldest son's hockey expense payments amounts to $479.00 / month of cheques that you already have in your possession for the balance of 2009 (September – December 2009).

Please advise for the remaining 4 months of 2009 if you prefer to return the cheques and I can make the adjustments and re-issue them to you and I will pay my son direct, or keep the existing cheques and forward the money to our son on my behalf.

The following will be my payment schedule to our son for his first year of college:

September 1, 2009 - $479.00
October 1, 2009 - $479.00
November 1, 2009 - $479.00
December 1, 2009 - $479.00
January 1, 2010 - $406.06
February 1, 2010 - $406.06
March 1, 2010 - $406.06
April 1, 2010 - $406.06

Total support $3540.24, which represents 77% of the left over balance as pre-determined.




"Figured you'd say that. I will forward this to my lawyer and get back to you."




What can I expect from my ex's lawyer, and am I on the right track with my proposal?
  #2  
Old 08-05-2009, 11:35 AM
About_Time About_Time is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 311
About_Time is on a distinguished road
Default

A) You can't just decide to pay less CS and fire off an email to your ex. You need to go to court and get a reduction.

B) Even if the kid lives away from home during the school year, if he still lives with your ex during the summer and considers that his permanent address, then you're probably still going to have to pay your ex.

The ex's lawyer will very quickly send you a nasty letter laying the smack down. You should speak to a lawyer about your options, but they will most likely be less favourable than you are envisioning.
  #3  
Old 08-05-2009, 11:44 AM
billm's Avatar
billm billm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,431
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by About_Time View Post
A) You can't just decide to pay less CS and fire off an email to your ex. You need to go to court and get a reduction.
Not true. You can pay less CS if both agree or if there is no court order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by About_Time View Post
B) Even if the kid lives away from home during the school year, if he still lives with your ex during the summer and considers that his permanent address, then you're probably still going to have to pay your ex.
I agree that it seems that CS does not change when the child goes to school generally speaking, as the home must be maintained for the child to return to. Note that expenses related to actually living at home should be forwarded to the child - ie You should not have to pay for things like food and clothing for example as you are already doing this with CS - this should be considered when you pay your cost of schooling.
  #4  
Old 08-05-2009, 12:15 PM
dinkyface dinkyface is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,476
dinkyface will become famous soon enough
Default

Classic - from the payment schedule, it looks like you are reverting to the FULL base CS amount ($404), plus reduced hockey expenses ($75). That makes sense. But where does the 8/12 reduction come in? And is the remaining $75 for the youngest boy's hockey? (if yes then why included in the amounts for the oldest boy?).
  #5  
Old 08-05-2009, 01:01 PM
Classic Classic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7
Classic is on a distinguished road
Default

The 8/12th's reduction in CS is the 8 months my son is living away from home. I would pay $808.00 for my two kids still living at home, $404.00 to my son at college and the other 4 month's when he is living with his mother I will pay $1212.00. Yes the $75.00 is for my youngest son still playing hockey. I was proposing on using the left over amount of $75.00 from not having to pay for my older boys hockey towards the college tuition.
  #6  
Old 08-05-2009, 03:00 PM
Classic Classic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7
Classic is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks - Billm. I am paying my ex full CS, however I am proposing a reduction, only for the time he is away at school in CS to reflect the fact my son is living away 8 months of the year. The manditory CS tables don't apply in this case.
  #7  
Old 08-05-2009, 04:43 PM
billm's Avatar
billm billm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,431
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic View Post
Thanks - Billm. I am paying my ex full CS, however I am proposing a reduction, only for the time he is away at school in CS to reflect the fact my son is living away 8 months of the year. The manditory CS tables don't apply in this case.
It is my understanding that they DO apply, but that is based soley on information I have learned from this forum over the past year...
  #8  
Old 08-05-2009, 05:03 PM
got2bkid got2bkid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

Paying CS to the Custodial Parent when the child is away at University so they can "maintain the home" is one of my many pet peeves with the Guidelines. I mean really - hasn't the NCP maintained a home for the children in almost the exact same manner (for weekends, holidays, summers etc). for 18+ years without a dime of compensation??!!!

I mean the kid lives away and comes to visit, just like he to his father all those years. CS should STOP because at this point it is just BLANTENTLY spousal support. That money, ALL OF IT, should go to the child at school.

I know alot of people will argue with me, but there is no argument really. It is sadly obvious that the CP is getting money for an adult child that no longer lives at home (no matter how often he/she visits, remember an NCP can have the kids 39% of the time without a dime of compensation).
  #9  
Old 08-05-2009, 05:33 PM
billm's Avatar
billm billm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,431
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid View Post
Paying CS to the Custodial Parent when the child is away at University so they can "maintain the home" is one of my many pet peeves with the Guidelines. I mean really - hasn't the NCP maintained a home for the children in almost the exact same manner (for weekends, holidays, summers etc). for 18+ years without a dime of compensation??!!!

I mean the kid lives away and comes to visit, just like he to his father all those years. CS should STOP because at this point it is just BLANTENTLY spousal support. That money, ALL OF IT, should go to the child at school.

I know alot of people will argue with me, but there is no argument really. It is sadly obvious that the CP is getting money for an adult child that no longer lives at home (no matter how often he/she visits, remember an NCP can have the kids 39% of the time without a dime of compensation).
Excellent post. When the child becomes an adult (aka finishes high school and is 18 or older) and is attending school, then CS should go to them directly. If they become an adult and don't go to school, then CS should stop. Anyone have a comment for the other side (CS continues until they are done post secondary education)?
  #10  
Old 08-05-2009, 07:17 PM
TimS TimS is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19
TimS is on a distinguished road
Default

I think the biggest problem in this is that the Seperation Agreement is a legally binding agreement between you and your EX. Not you and your kids. You would need another formal agreement in place to deal with your kid in a legal manner. I can see the greedly lawyers smiling at the prospect of that.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Children's bennefits Wiser2008 Financial Issues 20 01-02-2014 11:19 AM
The suit against FRO moves forward part1 AtALoss Divorce & Family Law 51 09-30-2013 11:01 AM
press release: Ontario's Family Responsibility office Peggy Parenting Issues 8 10-22-2010 10:20 AM
post secondary support 2hopefull General Chat 10 04-01-2010 03:26 AM
Post Secondary Ed/CHILD SUPPORT lkpd Financial Issues 1 06-11-2009 11:52 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 PM.