Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child support while ex lives with her parents

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by ehbe1036 View Post
    I piock up or drop off the kids at her parents place. I doubt there would be any issue with me seeing them anytime I wanted.
    sounds like you dont have a separation agreement written yet? just calculations turned into an order?

    if thats the case i would say have the kids for over 40% for at least 6 months thus being able to argue a status quo should she decide to reduce your access.

    also have no spousal written and signed in an agreement, otherwise she can come back and bite you for spousal robbery

    when you have that in writing you can then go back to court and ask for an offset retro to the date you started having them for over 40%.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by singledad99 View Post
      Legally, it is not your business how much her expenses are and whether or not she is paying anything to her parents.

      If the amount was calculated based on child support table, there is nothing you can do about it. If you are paying more than the table amount then you should see if cost of litigation is worth the savings you might or might not achieve with litigation.
      Well not 100% correct. If all matters of child support are resolved on a FINAL basis then you are correct. (i.e. a court order marked FINAL made on consent or at trial) If matters are still before the Court Rule 13 Applies and full and frank disclosure is required in accordance with the Rules.

      This is clearly outlined in Form 13/13.1:

      http://www.divorcemate.com/library/F...structions.pdf
      http://www.dyment.com/articles/financial-statement.pdf

      The above links as they provide more details which the actual forms do not include that are very helpful. The original forms can be found at:

      Family Law Rules Forms — Ontario Court Services

      Good Luck!
      Tayken

      Comment


      • #18
        To be honest, I'm not asure how my lawyer has calculated my payment. All I know is there will be no requirement for spousal support and the amount I pay will not change if her salary goes down, only up.
        It sounds like you have a combination spousal-child support. I would speak to your lawyer before considering taking it back to court.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
          It sounds like you have a combination spousal-child support. I would speak to your lawyer before considering taking it back to court.
          Blended?

          For CRA purposes don't lawyers generally have to explicitly state the amount payable for CS and SS as SS is taxable?

          Comment


          • #20
            I don't understand how this is possible. I have the kids 43% of the time, make 98K, she makes 43K and I'm paying $1700.00 yet you think I should be paying less than $1000?

            Comment


            • #21
              You are correct, it is a combination...

              Comment


              • #22
                So take the advice given in this forum and contact your lawyer for the separate amounts.

                Or...perhaps a better question for you would be...what amount each month are you claiming as spousal on your taxes?

                ...the difference would be the Child Support.

                Or perhaps you have a copy of your final agreement. The amounts should be specified there.

                If you have been paying based on 40% access...then the offset method should apply. Again...this would be detailed in your final agreement.

                In the end...if the amount for CS is the offset amount and correct...you have the option of the other advice on the forum. Imputing a fill-time minimum wage on your ex foe the purposes of CS and S7. Unless her amount used is already calculated at that...full-time minimum wage.

                ...time to find final agreement.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ehbe1036 View Post
                  You are correct, it is a combination...
                  You may want to pay them separately.

                  SS is tax deductable, CS is not. If you are combining them as a lump sum CS payment you are robbing yourself of about an $9600 tax deduction.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    For CRA purposes don't lawyers generally have to explicitly state the amount payable for CS and SS as SS is taxable?
                    There are a number of reasons for doing this.
                    - Include it all as CS (higher than guideline CS, no SS); removes tax burden from recipient, usually results in earlier termination of support.
                    - Include it all as SS (CRA hates this and, if rumours are true, burn your previously submitted receipts before auditing you again for past years); good for the parties in terms of tax, but can easily lead to a mess.

                    It provides people with a single number to work with going forwards that they reach on agreement. Simplicity and certainty are benefits to everyone involved.

                    You may want to pay them separately.

                    SS is tax deductable, CS is not. If you are combining them as a lump sum CS payment you are robbing yourself of about an $9600 tax deduction.
                    Part of the agreement may be that he takes on that tax burden (and thus saves it from his ex). A prudent person would contemplate the financials involved, and having an in-depth discussion with their lawyer, before seeking to re-open both spousal and child support.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by singledad99 View Post
                      Legally, it is not your business how much her expenses are and whether or not she is paying anything to her parents.
                      In a shared custody situation, section 9c) explicitly takes into account the needs of each parent. Clearly, if she is living with her parents, her needs are lower.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        In a shared custody situation, section 9c) explicitly takes into account the needs of each parent. Clearly, if she is living with her parents, her needs are lower.
                        While a literal reading, the case law would seem to support the notion that this may increase the support obligation in certain cases - you are not likely to see any downward adjustments.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Janus View Post
                          In a shared custody situation, section 9c) explicitly takes into account the needs of each parent. Clearly, if she is living with her parents, her needs are lower.
                          Strange. I always thought that CS was not based on need; rather, based on the payor's income. The judge from my GF's last court appearance even stated this.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            but no matter what, the court will take into account individual circumstance - like if either parent has medical bills that are taking a large portion of available income, the remaining income will just not cover the amounts listed in the standard tables. So perhaps if the payor is doing their best to say, keep the family residence going and the payee is living at the parents, rent free, food and other expenses paid for there could be a cause for the court to take that type of information into account as well??

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ddol1 View Post
                              but no matter what, the court will take into account individual circumstance - like if either parent has medical bills that are taking a large portion of available income, the remaining income will just not cover the amounts listed in the standard tables. So perhaps if the payor is doing their best to say, keep the family residence going and the payee is living at the parents, rent free, food and other expenses paid for there could be a cause for the court to take that type of information into account as well??
                              Your examples sound like a case for undue hardship, which still doesn't base CS on the CP's need; rather, the CS amount is based on the payor's ability to pay, after his/her undue hardship circumstances are considered. Another important aspect to undue hardship is that it's a high threshold to prove.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                CS amount is based on the payor's ability to pay, after his/her undue hardship circumstances are considered. Another important aspect to undue hardship is that it's a high threshold to prove.
                                Aptly said.

                                Child support is the right of the child. If the custodial parent is able to support themselves and the child on little to no expenses then there will be a higher amount of disposable funds, which shall benefit the child.

                                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