Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Daycare costs and CCTB

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

  • Daycare costs and CCTB

    My partner and her ex had an agreement that she would collect the full CCTB amount for the children and use that money to pay for their full-time daycare expenses (over $1000 per month). He has never paid child support or S7 expenses so this was the best deal she could get.

    However, now the ex has approached CRA and had the CCTB retroactively adjusted for shared custody for more than a year.

    They have now told my partner that she owes them more than $4000 back. They assessed the ex and sent him around $2400 most of which he immediately spent on other things.

    My partner has already spent this money on child care for more than a year. She has all of the receipts and cashed checks to prove it.

    What should she do? They are separated more than a year, but have no agreement. There is potential for her to have a case conference soon but she is really loathe to spend any more money on lawyers.

    Note: They do in fact have 50/50 shared, but she has paid 100% of the S7 expenses since separation.

  • #2
    Is there an order for CS? If so, sounds like it's time to get on that - but she should have done that long ago.

    Comment


    • #3
      No, they have agreed in e-mail to not pay CS since they share custody.

      My partner has been reluctant to bring the matter to court sooner because she is concerned about her ex hiding his income (he works under the table for cash) so that he can pursue her for child support.

      Comment


      • #4
        Perhaps the email agreement regarding CCTB and daycare expenses could convince CRA to reverse their decision? (seems like a longshot, but can't hurt to try).

        I'd say he voided your agreement by applying for CCTB, so you're fully justified in pursuing a new agreement in court.

        How old is the child? Perhaps this daycare/CCTB situation only has 1-2 more years to run? And it will take you at least 1 year to sort out in court. So it will become an issue of getting arrears from him, which makes it less likely to succeed.

        He already agreed to be imputed at the same income level as your partner, perhaps that is a useful argument to continue imputing at the same level i.e. he'd have to provide believable income info to justify some other level.

        Another idea ... presumably he is running form providing any income info ... so you can suggest that all S7 expenses be split 50-50 (using the same 'equal-income' assumption that justifies no CS). Might be a useful as a settlement offer once the screws are on him in the form of court action (otherwise he'd just ignore such a suggestion).


        Fear = excuse. BUT, it sounds like she will have a big job (LOTS of time and anxiety) to get this sorted out. And lawyer fees will eat up these few thousand in a blink.

        Sucks.
        Last edited by dinkyface; 07-24-2012, 10:13 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          So do they have an agreement or not? First you say they had an agreement about CCTB, then later you say they don't have an agreement. So I'm thinking that the CCTB thing was simply a verbal agreement and nothing else was covered. They definitely need a separation agreement, to consolidate and maintain what they have been doing for the last year, before he decides to go behind her back and change something else she thought they had agreed to. Like custody arrangements.

          It is hard, expensive work to determine an accurate income for a self-employed person to use for CS calculations. However, they have a status quo of considering their incomes equal for CS purposes, by virtue of having mutually determined that their offset CS amount is zero. Does she have any rough idea what his income might be, and if it would be worth the fight to have it more accurately reflected? That's the first thing to consider.

          The second thing to consider is that based on their incomes being considered equal, he should be paying 50% of all section 7 expenses, which includes child care. Now that he has voided their previous CCTB agreement regarding daycare, maybe she can try approaching him to contribute to daycare the proper way.

          If he takes her to court and tries to get CS out of her because he underrepresents his income to CRA, she needs to find out what a person doing his type of work typically earns, including the under the table amounts, and ask that this number be used as his income. This is called imputing an income, and it comes up when self-employed people deliberately underrepresent their income, or when people are deliberately underemployed to avoid CS obligations. They're essentially doing it already by considering his income the same as hers, so if he tries to go to court to claim his income is really lower, she can argue that he's established over the last year that his income is approximately the same as hers, if not greater.
          Last edited by Rioe; 07-24-2012, 10:28 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Sounds like an agreement to waive CS, which she doesn't have the right to do. CS is the right of the child. She needs to get a proper written agreement done.

            CRA won't care what they agreed to in an email, especially given that it goes against tax law. She cannot complain that he filed for something he was entirely entitled using the argument that she chose to WAIVE something that was not hers, but the childs in order to continue to fraudelently continue to claim the rax benefits. CRA did the right thing, she made bad choices and can't expect CRA or family law to support her claim of unfairness.

            Comment


            • #7
              I can touch on the issue of them agreeing NOT to share the CCTB...

              If you go on the CCRA website, they have a Q&A on this very topic. Basically, IF both parties have shared custody, the CCTB MUST be split. One party cannot "give" his share to the other

              Comment


              • #8
                Actually CRA was sent the e-mail agreement, and all of the daycare receipts paid by the Mom, and they still reassessed her retroactively for the entire year and gave half of all the money to the Dad instead... which would be fine if the Dad had actually been paying half for the daycare, or would use the CCTB money to support his children.

                They have "agreements" through e-mail, texts and verbally but both seem reluctant to sign a formal separation agreement. There has been a draft one tossed around forever but neither will sign it for the fear that the other is hiding something that can't be dealt with once it is signed. It's been going like this for 2 years.

                So summary:

                Mom receives CCTB of 800/month. She spends more like 980/month for child care (there are two kids). Dad pays nothing and agrees Mom can use the CCTB for the daycare so he doesn't have to pay.

                Then Dad files with CRA for shared custody (without a separation agreement strangely) retroactively to a year before and CRA tells the mom she has to pay another $4000 in back pay. They give the Dad $2400 in cash which he promptly spends on himself. He refuses to pay the Mom for the daycare, saying he already "took care of it last year".

                My question to him is, "Oh yeah? Show me your receipts."

                Historically the Dad always had a very similar income to the Mom. That is why they waived support initially (the offset was like $5/month) and split the daycare 50/50. A year later though, though, he quit his good job and is now working under the table. He claimed below minimum wage last year, yet if you look at the simple expenses of his house and car the numbers don't add up. He recently got a new girlfriend to help pay his bills as well.

                So people really think chasing $4000 in arrears in daycare expenses isn't worth it in court?

                Obviously they need an agreement but the Dad is very uneducated, yet very textbook NPD. Extremely chaotic individual with no emotional control even after 2 years. Mediation was tried 3-4 times but he walked out when he realized the mediator wasn't going to give him exactly what he wanted. He is so confident he dismissed his lawyer and has informed his ex that she will lose if she takes him to court to pay for his own children's daycare.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by FightingForFamily View Post
                  ... has informed his ex that she will lose if she takes him to court to pay for his own children's daycare.
                  Please say that neither of you believe this!

                  Well, it appears that the arrears are accumulating at the rate of (at least) $400/month? That seems like a good incentive to pursue it in court!

                  Another point against him: his action needlessly reduced the combined $ available to support the child: before, total benefits were 800/month, now they are 400+240 /month?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The mom secured subsidized daycare spots starting next month, so luckily thanks to her efforts both parties will have greatly reduced daycare costs. She had been on the waiting list for the last 2 years.

                    So the arrears won't accumulate much higher at least.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The arrangement they had with the CCTB was under the table, between the two of them, unenforcable, and dependant on good will.

                      It seems that she was already of the opinion that her ex has NPD and is untrustworthy? In which case, harsh as it sounds, she made a bad decision to trust him to stick to a personal, verbal agreement.

                      The CRA has rules and their position is not negotiable, once the custody status of the children has been made clear to them.

                      Considering your opinion of the ex's disordered personality, a court order requiring setoff table child support and proportionate section 7 expenses should have been obtained in the first place. When he gave up his job, he should have been imputed a wage.

                      You can't change the past, you can only do what you should have done in the first place. This is not just seeking a year's worth of child care arrears, it is putting an order in place to prevent this from continuing for another 10 years.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree with Mess.
                        Last edited by winterwolf7; 07-25-2012, 11:32 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          She has been in touch with her lawyer yesterday to follow up on getting the first case conference, after which she should be able to file a temporary motion for child support.

                          My partner has not placed much weight on getting court orders because she believes that no matter how much she spends in legal fees to get appropriate orders in place, due to his NPD he will never follow them. She considers most court orders to be unenforceable against someone with NPD considering her limited means.

                          Sure it's possible but you'll go bankrupt trying to enforce orders against someone who claims to have a 19k income while driving a brand new 2012 sport car and just moving into a new house.

                          Is it too much for a motion to impute him to his normal income (35k) and ask for set off support and section 7 for daycare with arrears?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If she doesn't believe he will follow a court order, then how can she believe he will follow a verbal agreement between the two of them? If she believes he will never follow an order, then she should concentrate on supporting the child herself without his help, and if he pays something occasionally, then consider it a bonus.

                            In my opinion she is doing the right thing in seeking an order, even if it is only to wash her hands of the issue and pass it off to someone else. Whether or not he obeys the order is not in her control, nor is it really in the court's control. You can't get a court order to stop a person from being an idiot. The court can eventually, if it goes that far, make an order to seize assets, but the court can't change who he is.

                            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