Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

no child support due to shared parenting clause

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Janus View Post
    There is nothing noble about paying child support in a situation where it does not help the child. It may be mandatory, and therefore foolish to not pay, but it is not noble.

    I never said he was noble. Im saying when his kids come at him saying he did nothing and stole from them and ruined their lives he can tell them he paid his share regardless of his situation or the impact to him financially.

    I will mutter about how they are spoiled under my breath haha

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rockscan View Post
      I never said he was noble. Im saying when his kids come at him saying he did nothing and stole from them and ruined their lives he can tell them he paid his share regardless of his situation or the impact to him financially.

      I will mutter about how they are spoiled under my breath haha
      I'm not sure the kids, once they have reached that level of independence and seen you for who you really are, would even make such comments. If they do, then it is an indication they are still under the influence of their mother. Yes, they are grown up and can understand terms such as child support but they are still my children and I only dare talk about court stuff with them. The same as I haven't over the years I've used effective ways to counteract the influences of the mother. There are better ways then throwing child support in there to justify you're a good dad.

      Being a good dad isn't just about paying child support. It's a lot more to it than just money. Child support is just a law of punishment and accountability for parents who abandon their kids. Parents, who are involved, shouldn't be punished by child support. I get it in cases where the mother doesn't work and never worked and the father agrees child should be with mom.

      There was a poster on this forum that gave up claims for child support for a consent order of him getting custody. Likewise, I would not ask for child support if I was give custody, unless I really wanted to punish my ex while I live the dream. It's just not really in me and I don't find it too manly or looking good on me if I require monthly monies from an ex to support myself and the kids. I enjoy being independent. It's very rewarding and satisfying.

      And Finally, parents who alienate their children to the point of no access shouldn't expect any child support. They should expect reversal of custody and criminal proceedings against them and jail time. They should be expected to pay child support upon their release. I have zero empathy for any parent who does this type of thing or games the system to supervise their very own childs time with their other parent. It's these type of parents who are the real deadbeats who should NOT be awarded with "child" support.
      Last edited by tunnelight; 06-24-2019, 08:53 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        My husband has not only been alienated but also labeled a monster. I don’t think he should have to pay anything since they are both old enough to know better but the courts disagree. His ex simply wants to see him broken, beaten and bloody. Pretty sick thing to do to the father of your children.

        I was alienated and grew up on welfare due to no cs. We put ourselves through school while paying to keep a roof over our heads. 35 years later I see my parents as equally bad. Their hatred of each other was the thing that had a lasting effect. They both know not to go there with us. At the end of the day they made the decisions they did and have to live with the consequences.

        This is why I say leave the bs out of it. These are your kids. You chose your ex to be their other parent. It is a tough pill to swallow but you are not alone. One day they will have kids of their own and see just how hard it is.

        Comment


        • #19
          Thank God for maintenance enforcement agencies.

          You have kids - you pay what you are supposed to pay in accordance with child support guidelines period.

          If you want to be a super mom or dad on top of paying child support then that is a good thing but irrelevant to paying.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by rockscan View Post
            You chose your ex to be their other parent.
            Actually, she lied to me about already being pregnant to get me to have unprotected sex with her.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
              Actually, she lied to me about already being pregnant to get me to have unprotected sex with her.


              You still had a choice!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by arabian View Post
                Thank God for maintenance enforcement agencies.

                You have kids - you pay what you are supposed to pay in accordance with child support guidelines period.

                If you want to be a super mom or dad on top of paying child support then that is a good thing but irrelevant to paying.
                Except for no one here is trying to avoid legal obligations. Just seeking to clarify the wording of the order. Save your salts for your cucumbers.

                Edit: just to add, ex should actually be paying me 75 a month based on guidelines. but guidelines are just that in shared custody, just guides. you can come up with your own amounts. You can even agree to no child support under shared parenting. you are allowed to actually do that.

                lastly, I overpaid for 6 months so ex wouldn't change mind about 50.50.. and another 6 months when I lost my job, because of court delays and exs firing of her 3rd lawyer a week before her motion to actually try and impute income to me and seek full table amount. judge said I could get it all back since I should have paid offset for first 6 months and zero for the following 6 months if I decided to proceed with my motion to be scheduled in about 2 months time. I offered to let it go because I wanted to just bring an end to the court proceedings and start reintegration absent of any ongoing court conflict between us. Judge fell in love with me. Not sure who you are taking me for. but okay. whatever floats your paper boat!
                Last edited by tunnelight; 06-24-2019, 10:29 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                  You still had a choice!
                  I trusted her!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    you have a kid you have an obligation to give them the best you can.... blaming the other parent for your current situation doesn't help your child.

                    I doubt the judge fell in love with you. You are not unique. Your situation is/was likely boring to judge. Get over yourself.

                    Get a job. As a tax payer I'm tired of people like you who game the system.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by arabian View Post
                      you have a kid you have an obligation to give them the best you can.... blaming the other parent for your current situation doesn't help your child.

                      I doubt the judge fell in love with you. You are not unique. Your situation is/was likely boring to judge. Get over yourself.

                      Get a job. As a tax payer I'm tired of people like you who game the system.
                      Nobody is blaming my ex for me being involuntary employed. That is nobody's fault.

                      The fact that you're so bitter towards me is enriching to me. I love haters. My lawyer said the judge was in love with me. Her tone towards me was complete opposite of yours.

                      I'm actually as unique as they get. Show me one case on canlii where father was ordered to not pay any child support in shared custody. I dare, double, triple dare you to! Cases of pre-existing shared custody with mothers income higher excluded. It must be after the father always paid but lost his job.

                      My case was impressive to the judge. She said she gets parents all the time who quit jobs or take Lower paying jobs and ask to reduce child support. Mine isn't one of them. I was let go due to not a fault of mine, have provided candid job search efforts, and made wise decisions to go back to school. She was really quite impressed by me. Get over it because I can't. I don't think I'll ever get over the fact I'm freed of obligations to pay support and over my success. I consider myself one of a kind and special.

                      Get a job? That's as bad as a bad employment coach gets.

                      Nobody's gaming the system hun. My ex already tried that. Didn't go too well with the judge. my ex stood up crying saying it was her old lawyer who said income should be imputed.. yeah right... her lawyer himself came to me and my lawyer saying my offer was reasonable and that he's rying his best to get his client to settle.

                      Judge gave me greenlight to continue my university. Sorry to say, but I'll be gladly and with great joy taking your tax dollars for at least the next 2 years. Hahaha.

                      Lat but not least, going by the assumption that the order is based off incomes, I'm technically then imputed income to match my ex's income since child support is set to zero. So I'm technically fulfilling a child support obligation, but not a penny more than my ex is. sorry, I know this isn't what you wanted to hear. have a problem, write a letter to the family law reform group. they'll get back to you within 24 hours.
                      Last edited by tunnelight; 06-24-2019, 11:25 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        tunnelight's brain:

                        Be humble!
                        Be humble!
                        Be humble!


                        tunnelight:

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
                          I have the clause no child support payable by either party due to shared parenting in my final order.
                          If the order says you don't pay CS, don't pay it.

                          if I get a new job, and inform ex, do I really have to start paying her anything based on the wording of this order?
                          See above.

                          Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                          It doesn’t matter what your order says.
                          It totally does matter what your order says.

                          Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                          The prevailing case law on this is DBS at the Supreme Court.
                          No, the prevailing case law is Contino v. Leanelli-Contino in the SCC.

                          I can't seem paste it off my PDF but the bottom line is paragraph 156. Essentially the SCC has ruled that the trial judge can screw you any way he wants with CS in a shared parenting situation (it's in his discretion). The reasons are a bunch of long-winded BS that only serves the interests of lawyers.

                          You are in a good position, tunnelight. If you start making double what your ex makes, she can attempt to vary the order on the grounds of material change but I would think in that case you would have the financial means to defend yourself properly. Focus on getting a job. It looks like your order allows you to work without being parasitized.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I would tread carefully with cool guys advice. While shared parenting situations are at the discretion of the judge, not providing updated income information is considered blameworthy (the DBS case). If you end up making double or triple what your ex makes and you don’t advise her, you could be dinged with a retroactive award and costs.

                            Even if your agreement says (or doesn’t say) exchange info, the FCSG say all support payors are obligated to provide up to date income info.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              My opinion:


                              The order provides that no c/s is paid. So, until ordered or you agree otherwise, you don't have to pay.


                              Now, here comes the BIG FREAKING CAVEAT: your order also provides that you each exchange NoA's. That was likely put into the order contemplating updating c/s at some point in the future should there become a difference large enough to warrant it. Given the suggestion in the original post, that may be now. You can't become Bill Gates and expect c/s to be zero forever.



                              So while you don't have to pay c/s now per the order, should your ex filed a motion to change requesting that c/s be updated, it is likely a judge would order you to pay going forward if your income has substantially increased (and potentially provide for arrears).


                              It sounds like you may have been in university/college for the first order, which would make sense that if you have 50/50, and she makes nominal income, there be no c/s paid. But if you have graduated and/or are working making a significant income now, it is reasonable that c/s be ordered now as situations have changed.


                              I would think very big picture here and be reasonable about this. Life changes, motions get filed and different judges order different results. You don't want to be on the wrong end of a motion to change where you get hit with c/s, plus arrears and costs.


                              From a practical stand point, I would:


                              1. follow the order and not pay;
                              2. provide the ex with my NoA when I had to; and

                              3. if the ex asks c/s be updated, agree to a set off amount as it is likely their income has also increased (even if nominally).


                              If you become completely resistant to paying c/s, and are earning a bunch more than you used to, be prepared to get creamed in court.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                                I would tread carefully with cool guys advice. While shared parenting situations are at the discretion of the judge, not providing updated income information is considered blameworthy (the DBS case).
                                It seems the mental dust bunnies in rockscan's head have imagined additional advice that I did not dispense.

                                Even if your agreement says (or doesn’t say) exchange info, the FCSG say all support payors are obligated to provide up to date income info.
                                Yes, that's probably why the judge included that crap in the order.

                                No chance of tunnelight's ex getting FRO to garnish wages based on income statements alone. Contino suggests no chance of his ex mounting a successful appeal either.

                                He has his daughter half of the time - family law BS aside - that is his half of $$ and time: simple, fair; what it should be.

                                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