Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CS incomes VS fair circumstances

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

  • CS incomes VS fair circumstances

    HI all, new member, appears to be some great knowledge on here hoping to gain some insight before seeking counsel.

    quick run down. Married 10 years, One Child both worked full time. She earning approx $35 K per year as accountant, certainly would have increased with years of service.

    Divorced now for three years. Amicable no fighting, shared parenting arrangement, 50/50 with varied actual schedule but true 50 /50

    after marriage ended she decided on a career change. decided to become a nurse. in the beginning she worked full time taking upgrade courses. then began scaling back work and increase schooling, last year she worked almost nothing and full time schooled. income now $14K. One month ago she had a baby with the guy she has been with and lives with for three years. He has three children of his own. The house they live in is in my exwife name solely.

    So... I fully understand the Child support tables and calculation for shared amount support. its a simple matter.

    however..... I have two questions

    Does his income ever become her income as he in fact earns more than I. I believe for all legal reasons they are common law.

    Is there not any sense of fair justice or common sense ever applied that her loss or lack of income is from her own doing, should a income not be impued unto her that she is capable of making, IE $35 K previous to changing careers.

    As she now has a baby, she will not be working at all. How is this fair ?

    I have no issue paying a fair amount of support, it's my responsibility, but this whole matter just seems unjust, searching for answers.

    any insight is greatly appreciated.

  • #2
    Originally posted by abdad13 View Post
    HI all, new member, appears to be some great knowledge on here hoping to gain some insight before seeking counsel.

    quick run down. Married 10 years, One Child both worked full time. She earning approx $35 K per year as accountant, certainly would have increased with years of service.

    Divorced now for three years. Amicable no fighting, shared parenting arrangement, 50/50 with varied actual schedule but true 50 /50

    after marriage ended she decided on a career change. decided to become a nurse. in the beginning she worked full time taking upgrade courses. then began scaling back work and increase schooling, last year she worked almost nothing and full time schooled. income now $14K. One month ago she had a baby with the guy she has been with and lives with for three years. He has three children of his own. The house they live in is in my exwife name solely.

    So... I fully understand the Child support tables and calculation for shared amount support. its a simple matter.

    however..... I have two questions

    Does his income ever become her income as he in fact earns more than I. I believe for all legal reasons they are common law.

    Is there not any sense of fair justice or common sense ever applied that her loss or lack of income is from her own doing, should a income not be impued unto her that she is capable of making, IE $35 K previous to changing careers.

    As she now has a baby, she will not be working at all. How is this fair ?

    I have no issue paying a fair amount of support, it's my responsibility, but this whole matter just seems unjust, searching for answers.

    any insight is greatly appreciated.

    If she has a baby she's likely on mat leave, this would be her income. If she's not working and not on mat leave then you have an income imputed to her.

    The only time her spouse's income would come into play is if she were the payor and making a claim of undue hardship. That isn't the case, you just want to pay less for your child because your ex's new spouse makes more than you. Doesn't work that way. Why should your ex's new spouse pay more to raise your child simply because he makes more than you?
    Last edited by blinkandimgone; 03-03-2012, 04:47 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      As usual Blink is always a breath of fresh air,, with her sarcastic ,nasty comments. You must have been burnt real bad, very jealous, very envious and clearly made some really bad choices..... chill lady , take your pills.
      When someone asks for advice you don't have to be so angry and bitter--lucky dude who dumped you.
      Abdad---Your child support is completely separate as to her partner's income.
      You could probably have an income imputed to her, but the cost of doing this could be far greater than the support you owe.
      Unfortunately the system has many flaws and fair is very relative and subjective depending who is the payor and the payee.
      If you have a good relationship with your x--try to negotiate a middle ground.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
        If she has a baby she's likely on mat leave, this would be her income. If she's not working and not on mat leave then you have an income imputed to her.

        The only time her spouse's income would come into play is if she were the payor and making a claim of undue hardship. That isn't the case, you just want to pay less for your child because your ex's new spouse makes more than you. Doesn't work that way. Why should your ex's new spouse pay more to raise your child simply because he makes more than you?
        Thank you for your reply, dislike the assumption that I simply wish to pay less. I am 100% fine with whatever the law dictates. I am unaware of the law, can only use logic to assume what it may be. I am an upstanding DAD and child support payer thanks.

        It seems odd to me that his income is not taken into account as in shared parenting the money exchanged is truly to equalize quality of life. It is not child support as each parent has costs to raise equally due to equal time with child.

        therefore does his income not contribute to that households quality of life ? PS he makes $1000 more than I per year. his income was not the point, just that he has one.

        Is there no accountability that she chooses not to work, chooses to reduce her income (in turn I am subsidizing her re-education of her own choosing not requirement, new career will provide less gross income than previous one)

        No acknowledgment that there is another income in that household contributing to quality of life.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by momforever1956 View Post
          As usual Blink is always a breath of fresh air,, with her sarcastic ,nasty comments. You must have been burnt real bad, very jealous, very envious and clearly made some really bad choices..... chill lady , take your pills.
          When someone asks for advice you don't have to be so angry and bitter--lucky dude who dumped you.
          Abdad---Your child support is completely separate as to her partner's income.
          You could probably have an income imputed to her, but the cost of doing this could be far greater than the support you owe.
          Unfortunately the system has many flaws and fair is very relative and subjective depending who is the payor and the payee.
          If you have a good relationship with your x--try to negotiate a middle ground.
          Sadly as usuall the guy is assumed to be a dead beat, trying to beat the system. things are changing thankfully. MOMFOREVER thank you for the support.

          I actually am dealing with this ahead of time, no arrears exist never have, never will. the amount has steadily increased as she worked less and schooled more, I chose to accept it, as eventually within a few short years she would be making income, agreed the cost to fight it was greater than the amount to pay monthly / annually.

          however with the choice at 40 years old to have a baby, the reality that she will not be in the work force full time for a great length of time, her schooling interrupted and unable to continue till she could return to the workforce fully, changes this equation that perhaps it is now worth taking the matter to task and have a fair income imbued unto her as her own child rearing responsibilities.

          For the sake of argument and to stir the pot...... what would happen if a man did this..... Oh my job doesn't make me happy, so I am going to do a job that makes me happy in life. So forgoe the fact that as a tradesman I can earn, 80 - 120 K per year, I choose to become a ski patroller... earning $30 - $40 K per year.

          any thoughts on what the courts would do and say ? ? ?

          How / why is this any different.

          For the record, my child's quality of life is maintained solely by myself anyway, all activities, clothes, trips, and monday - Friday is looked after by myself.

          Comment


          • #6
            From what I have read and understand, her new partner's income has nothing to do with CS. CS is based on both of the parents incomes and proportioned to the time each spends. I also have read that for SS her new partner's income is ignored, for example what if they split up or he has previous orders for his previous family, so it doesnt come into play.
            For sure there is such a thing as imputed income, or someone being underemployed, and you can look into this. All I am suggesting is you need to figure out, going after an imputed income may not be in your favour especially since she just gave birth.
            I am not suggesting you are trying to pay less, that is another poster.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by momforever1956 View Post
              From what I have read and understand, her new partner's income has nothing to do with CS. CS is based on both of the parents incomes and proportioned to the time each spends. I also have read that for SS her new partner's income is ignored, for example what if they split up or he has previous orders for his previous family, so it doesnt come into play.
              For sure there is such a thing as imputed income, or someone being underemployed, and you can look into this. All I am suggesting is you need to figure out, going after an imputed income may not be in your favour especially since she just gave birth.
              I am not suggesting you are trying to pay less, that is another poster.
              MOMFOREVER my comment of paying less was not directed at yourself.

              Thankfully SS is not applicable. Only Shared CS.

              Sadly the fact that she gave birth is truly a matter of optics, she is a grown adult and chose to have this child, her right to do so fully and I am happy for them, I truly am... but... reality is I am subsidizing their life due to their choices and it just doesn't seem right.

              I don't make a large sum of money, I make a good trademan income. I maintained the home and all the costs associated, to maintain the same quality of life for my child, maintain the same school for my child, maintain her neighbourhood friends. I am but one income. their household is two incomes, yet I pay ? and I pay an amount that the "optics" of is just not right.

              Comment


              • #8
                Ab

                You sound like a responsible great father and lucky child. Unfortunately the system has flaws, and I totally understand that it just doesnt seem fair, your x having 2 incomes and then choosing to have another child and change professions,,, I have continued to support my children through univeristy,,, I get it, I really do. The rewards of doing the right thing and investing in your child will reep rewards you can't even imagine,, way better than monetary.

                In some cases the choices you make can greatly effect your life in a very positive or negative way. For you, I dont believe there is much room to move, unless you try to impute an income. If you are successful you will probably get costs if not the consequences may lead to great tension between you and your x.
                I have read quite a bit on this subject, (not to do the ME thing) but in my case my x has employed his new partner and is paying her salary that is 10 dollars more an hour than he pays any other staff who does the same job. His 2 other staff members have been employed with him for over 10 years and his new partner does not have the same experience yet he is filtering approx 20k extra a year her way,,,, in that case the other partners salary comes into the equation as he is trying to reduce his income for support purposes.
                You maybe more successful if you just approach her and ask her to be reasonable that you are not trying to dodge your responsibility but would appreciate her reviewing the situation and ask for a fair resolution.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What is the mother's views about this situation? Have you approached this topic ,with her, and articulated/exchanged your views as you did in the above post ?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by abdad13 View Post
                    It seems odd to me that his income is not taken into account as in shared parenting the money exchanged is truly to equalize quality of life. It is not child support as each parent has costs to raise equally due to equal time with child.
                    I must have missed the part where you offered to share some of the costs of raising his kids? You think it's perfectly reasonable that he should take on some of the costs of raising yours because he has a relationship with your ex. If you find yourself in a relationship with someone else who has kids do you think you should be on the hook for paying to raise their children so her ex can pay less?

                    Think about what you're really asking for here.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Look on the bright side Blink: At least they didn't accuse you of being a woman hater this time :-D

                      [lesson]

                      To the OP: Blink's advice was correct and her assumption that you were looking to pay less CS was reasonable based on your post. In fact, that's *EXACTLY* what you asked. You got the correct answer and, should you decide to heed it, it will save you a lot of money and heartache in the future.

                      Douchebag1956 has a hate on for some people here and will take advantage of any opportunity to try to stir something up. She didn't add ANY information to the thread, and only sought to ally herself with you in a pathetic attempt to gain support.

                      You were whining about having to pay CS despite the fact that your ex's new guy makes more money than you. Those of us who can read saw exactly what you were after and it looks bad on you. It would look even worse to a judge were you to ever try to do anything about it. If I were you, I'd be thanking Blink for helping you avoid making a bad decision.

                      FTR, CS is based on the payor's income, and only the payor's (or payors') income. It is theoretically equal to the percentage of one's income that would normally be spent on raising one's children. It doesn't matter if the recipient is a bazillionaire and the payor is a pauper: The payor is expected to pay a percentage of his/her income on his/her kids. Period. Easy-breezy.

                      Also FTR, the only people that Blink seems to despise more than deadbeat parents are women who think that men owe them something, that they aren't respomsibile for their own lives, and that men are obligated to support their lazy asses because they'd rather watch soaps and eat bon-bons than work for a living... hence Douchebag1956's vitriole.

                      [/lesson]

                      I sadly note that none of the olde leaned posters seem to be on here much anymore... I miss seeing the advice of all the people who helped me through my case - and very successfully so. I know that they avoid this place because it's become less of a place where one can get cold, hard, factual information and more of a social board where people only come to validate their feelings, cry about their shitty lives, and carry on personal crusades. In short, it's become a place where people can act in the manner that likely got them here in the first place. I feel sorry for all of the people who come here for advice and won't get it, but will instead be subjected to the excrement to be found here these days. It's a shame, really.

                      Have a wonderful day, everyone!

                      Gary
                      Last edited by Gary M; 03-04-2012, 12:23 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think you're ex's boyfriend's income should come into play if she is not working full time because he is then partially supporting her, and she is a package deal - he has to partially support her child as well.

                        If she were not living with someone then my view is that her income, even if very low because of going to school, should be used for CS calculation - as long as she is soley supporting herself on her income.

                        This view though seems to be against the idea that if she was employed full time at 35K, but was living with a millionaire, that his income would not effect CS. She is still being supported by him obviously, and the CS calculation should be effected, however that does not seem to be the way the law works.

                        To me, the underlying philosophy is that children should be raised by parents in proportion to their income and the CS tables dictate how much. BUT the CS tables are saying "this is how much you should spend on your kids if you make X per year AND you support yourself AND there are no other factors that effect your standard of living". So to blindly apply the CS tables, as if often done, is not a fair way to share the cost of raising the child.

                        I think you're main problem is that (perhaps), her boyfriend will continue to work full time, while she may continue to be underemployed and therefore be partially supported by her boyfriend. In that case, you are paying too much CS if you simply use her income. However, it may not be worth it to fight over it.

                        The one 'advantage' you have is that her new child is not considered in your offset CS payment (though arguably they should be!), which is a disadvantage to her.
                        Last edited by billm; 03-04-2012, 12:49 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by billm View Post

                          To me, the underlying philosophy is that children should be raised by parents in proportion to their income and the CS tables dictate how much. BUT the CS tables are saying "this is how much you should spend on your kids if you make X per year AND you support yourself AND there are no other factors that effect your standard of living". So to blindly apply the CS tables, as if often done, is not a fair way to share the cost of raising the child.
                          You are correct Bill: It is a broadly applied, "cheap and easy" solution for the courts. I don't think it's particularly fair either (and I an not a CS payor) but I do recognize that there has to be some sort of a standard... Can you imagine the backlog if each and every CS case had to be argued and determined? How about the gajillions more dollars that would be injected into lawyers' pockets?

                          Yes, there are grossly unfair applications of the tables (one parent living in someone's basement and eating KD while paying CS to an affluent CP who doesn't need it, thus ensuring that the payor is never able to enjoy even a half-assed acceptable standard of living, let alone provide a suitable place for the kids to visit) but we're stuck with what I call the "80% Solution" - meaning that the broad brush is perfectly suited to 80% of the cases and so justifes screwing the 20%.

                          CS Tables and SS Guidelines are recognized to be imperfect but necessary, and the Industry openly admits that there will be anomalies (like mine, where I pay SS to a deadbeat mom who does not pay CS for the 2 kids I raise on my own 100% of the time). It sucks, but it's all we've got until something better comes along.

                          I'll tell you one thing, though: As long as unreasonable people are willing to fuel the fire (of the Divorce Industry) it will continue to burn brightly and consume us all.

                          Cheers!

                          Gary

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gary M View Post
                            I sadly note that none of the olde leaned posters seem to be on here much anymore... I miss seeing the advice of all the people who helped me through my case - and very successfully so. I know that they avoid this place because it's become less of a place where one can get cold, hard, factual information and more of a social board where people only come to validate their feelings, cry about their shitty lives, and carry on personal crusades. In short, it's become a place where people can act in the manner that likely got them here in the first place. I feel sorry for all of the people who come here for advice and won't get it, but will instead be subjected to the excrement to be found here these days. It's a shame, really.

                            Have a wonderful day, everyone!
                            Sadly Gary, one of them, Logicalvelocity, is no longer with us. It is a shame more people who work in the Divorce "industry" don't communicate on this board. I guess they are all too busy making money and handing out the bad advice people often seek to justify here.

                            Good Luck!
                            Tayken

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Reading this I certainly agree that this board seems to have gone to the dogs. Seriously, the OP here got a mild slap from Blink, and is not likely to follow that proper and informative advice becasue some bigmouth feels threatened by a confident and capable parent like Blink.

                              Lucky are those who got beeotch-slapped by Dadtotheend, mess, garyM, Blink and many others. What I have learned from these senior posters (and again I think the qualifications for "senior" status are laughable) has been invaluable.

                              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