Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shared Custody - Is my math wrong?

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

  • Shared Custody - Is my math wrong?

    From CanLII - 2016 ONSC 771 (CanLII)

    [90] Accordingly, effective immediately they will visit with the applicant from after school on Tuesdays and Thursdays until the commencement of school the following day. They will be with the applicant every alternate weekend from Friday after school until Monday before school.

    [92] As for child support, it seems clear that Guideline support is payable to the respondent. If there is any remaining dispute, I may be spoken to.
    How is that not 50%?

  • #2
    Sounds like a modified 2-2-5-5 to me.
    Over 2 week periods, 7 access days = 50%

    Comment


    • #3
      He isn't getting the access during "School time" - its a trick that is played to transfer wealth.... if you are an access parent when the kids are in school its the other parent's custodial time... God forbid his ex-wife doesn't get to live off his 125k salary... who who would have though divorced people don't have to pay for their ex-spouse...

      Comment


      • #4
        So, if I understand what you're saying...

        If I am the primary access parent, and my ex has the schedule above, her access time is calculated as only the hours the kid(s) are at her home? Not the full day, including school hours?
        I hadn't considered that before and always assumed full days were used in the calculation.

        Comment


        • #5
          I thought it went normally by overnights and this to me is 7 of 14.

          Comment


          • #6
            My basis is Quebec rules, they go by hours.. but maybe this judge is trying that...

            Comment


            • #7
              It looks like 50% to me too ... but glancing over the case, the judge awarded sole custody to the respondent even though the applicant wanted joint, on the grounds (as far as I can tell) that the applicant was being a dick and was mainly responsible for harassing the respondent, falling behind on support, not letting the kids talk to her, not showing up on time, and other screwups. The judgment refers to the kids "visiting with" the applicant.

              However, the applicant testified that he had had bought a home big enough for the kids and was otherwise getting geared up to have the children living with him half-time (as opposed to hanging around McDonald's during awkward access visits).

              It looks like he's being penalized financially for being a dick, which is not what child support ought to be used for.

              Comment


              • #8
                He was an idiot... he gave them rope to hang him with.... he forgot he is a dad in family court - if a mom did these things she would NEVER lose shared custody... a dad.... sorry buds... Judges are just looking for an excuse somtimes...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Off topic question within this thread, but if the case is from 2016, why can I not find a J. Gray among the list of Ontario Judges. I can only find a Lionel Gray and a Douglas Gray

                  deputy judges: Provincial Judges and Deputy Judges of the Small Claims Court | Superior Court of Justice
                  superior court judges: Judges of the Superior Court of Justice | Superior Court of Justice

                  I often look up the judges when people post cases, so I can get a feel for their rulings. Ideally I'd love to see a database of family court judges with a summary of how they tend to rule to see which ones I'd have a better chance with.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                    He isn't getting the access during "School time" - its a trick that is played to transfer wealth.... if you are an access parent when the kids are in school its the other parent's custodial time...
                    Ah yes, I had overlooked that. I am actually familiar with that trick. I remember once that I had worked out how circular the definition was. If I am deemed to be the custodial parent, then I actually have the kids more than 60% of the time (if we include school hours) and as such I am the custodial parent.

                    If I am an access pseudoparent, then I have the kids less than 40% of the time (if we exclude all school hours), which makes me an access parent.

                    The reality of course is that my schedule is symmetrical with that of my ex, but definitions can swing it either way.

                    I was thinking it was a weird math error, but I think stripes is correct. The judge played a trick to punish an asshole by making him pay more child support than he should. Frankly, it scares me a little when judges have such a blatant disregard for the law.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      I was thinking it was a weird math error, but I think stripes is correct. The judge played a trick to punish an asshole by making him pay more child support than he should. Frankly, it scares me a little when judges have such a blatant disregard for the law.
                      As well, the implementation of off-set or set-off child support is purely at the discretion of the judge. As well, many judges don't even understand how it is calculated.

                      Court is always a gamble...

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken

                      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