Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:15 PM
SadAndTired SadAndTired is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,161
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

So, I looked at the numbers and it seems like your ex has $36,000 a year and you have $49,000 ?

Not really getting how that isn't fair.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:17 PM
rthombe rthombe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
rthombe is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
I have to say, I really only took about 10 min and read a bit about how child support is calculated in Quebec... it is calculated by DISPOSABLE income, instead of gross income... I am sure in Ontario adapted this method, things would be completely different...

But it does make sense... when one owns a home or even rents a home, there are certain fixed expenses... whether you have equal access or less access, you still have those same fixed costs. To assume a NCP has no fixed expenses is outrageous... it really does make sense the way Quebec does things, more calculations involved...but in the end it is fair.
Disposable Income ... that's brilliant, and makes total sense!! I think if we did it this way, I wouldn't be in the trouble I'm in. The big problem for me is that my income implies much higher disposable income than is the reality -- if I had to do some math to figure out what my disposable income really was, and the support was based on *that*, it would make so much more sense.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:18 PM
Berner_Faith Berner_Faith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,329
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
Disposable Income ... that's brilliant, and makes total sense!! I think if we did it this way, I wouldn't be in the trouble I'm in. The big problem for me is that my income implies much higher disposable income than is the reality -- if I had to do some math to figure out what my disposable income really was, and the support was based on *that*, it would make so much more sense.
Unfortunately, even though it makes more sense...it would do you no good arguing something like this in an Ontario court.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:25 PM
mcdreamy's Avatar
mcdreamy mcdreamy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,438
mcdreamy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
My net monthly pay is $4500. I have a family of 4 living full-time at home, plus the two part-time kids.
I have to ask - does your now family of 4 include children that were born following separation, and the birth of your existing 2?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:33 PM
SadAndTired SadAndTired is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,161
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

I was wondering that too McDreamy.

Seems to me that if he had four other children after the first two, that he should have learned to manage his finances before deciding to have more children. Or that the new spouse could get employment to help the cost of raising their four children.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:45 PM
rthombe rthombe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
rthombe is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
So, I looked at the numbers and it seems like your ex has $36,000 a year and you have $49,000 ?

Not really getting how that isn't fair.
A good point, and I'm glad you brought it up. It's important to separate the kid-related expenses from the non-kid-related expenses. Child support is only supposed to support the kid-related expenses. That includes rent, utilities, transportation etc -- things that overlap -- of course. But without a separate agreement for *spousal* support, my money is supposed to offset only what is reasonable in that the children consume.

Now, as it happens, my ex is married and has a much more substantial *household* income than $36,000. Her husband's income does not factor into the costs of the kid-related expenses, and rightly so -- but it *should* factor into the non-kid-related expenses.

As such, you can't just look at the yearly income and say we ought to be the same. I should be supporting *some* of her rent, but not *all* of it. If she weren't married, or underemployed, and she was trying to live off that $36,000 then I'd say she'd have a good argument for spousal support. As it is, though, her non-kid-expenses should not be considered.

So she really is able to spend the entire $1100 on the kids. This allows her so much more freedom when it comes to entertainment, clothing, food etc. This is something that *is* addressed by the courts (I'll have to look for those references again), where there is concern that one parent will be disadvantaged over time when the kids enjoy a higher standard of living at one place compared to the other. I'm very concerned about this!

So the $36,000 figure is a bit of a red herring. She gets $13,000+ to spend on the kids per year, I get $4,800. If I were to spend as much as her, it would reduce my *net* income to roughly the same as hers (my net income is $4500/month - $700 support = $45,600 per year), but I don't have the second household income to pay for those non-kid expenses.

That's the rub. We can't consider his income, nor should we. But then we can't compare yearly net incomes, either, since that doesn't reflect the actual lifestyle. All we can do is look at what the tables say each of us gets to spend on the kids, and the setoff method leads to a gross disparity (when there is gross income disparity).
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:54 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,037
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
I think you missed the point again, Teyken. I have no intention of "using" the courts just to get her to talk -- if I'm forced to go to court it will be with every intention of winning.
I can't wait to see the costs award after you do exactly what you are "intending" to do... This is also why you are unrepresented in the matter and would probably would never find a reputable lawyer to take on representing you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
I meant financial suffering, obviously. Did you read my previous post outlining my income and expenses? I'm at rock bottom, waiting for financial disaster to happen. I *must* try to resolve this issue.
How about going to a financial counselor and learning how to better manage your finances rather than litigating a point you will lose on?

You are at rock bottom at the numbers I produced regarding your situation? I hope other parents who have a lot less correct you on what defines "rock bottom".

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
I hope I don't lose horribly -- if the judge has basic math and logic abilities, there should be *some* relief applied.
No, there won't be because you are not applying good logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
BTW, doesn't *everyone* go to court to "get what they want"? Isn't that the point? I want to be treated fairly, and I think that's a decent use of the courts.
Honestly... See the high lighted point. The answer to your question is no. People don't go to court to get what they want. They go to court to resolve a dispute. Your dispute is with the federal government in this matter and not the other parent. So, you are willing to drag them in and put your own custody and access on the line.

Also, if you have a final agreement / court order for what "material change in circumstance" are you going to even try to argue to have this heard before the SCJ? Because you "want" something. Good luck with that sir.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
Good advice, and I did that. A few of them. They all thought it was a tough sell, but definitely worth the attempt. As I mentioned before, Section 9(a) does not mandate the set-off method, and judges have broad discretion to adjust the amounts.
Really would love for you to list the names of these barristers and solicitors who said it was "definitely worth the attempt". In fact, I challenge you to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
Actually, you can. If one parent refuses to address a real issue, the courts may be used to force mediation or other resolution. In fact, that may be what happens here. I'm considering applying for an order because:
You clearly have issues with "control". You want to force someone to do something through the courts. This is known as "legal abuse". What happens when you don't get what you want and the court orders otherwise? Back to court for another attempt?

Forced into mediation... Really, do you understand what "mediation" is as a process. If there is any undue influence then it isn't enforcable and no mediator would even agree to meet with you if either parent was forced into it even if court ordered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
1/ I feel I have *a chance* to win, and
2/ she refuses to acknowledge my complaint, never mind enter into a reasonable discussion about it.
You have no chance to win. If you present your arguments the way you are here you will surely lose and have costs on a substantial basis ordered against you. Also, I truly hope that the court orders that you no longer be able to bring any future motions forward without leave of the court's permission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
She isn't required

What choice do I have? I even offered mediation, and she wouldn't respond to the request. When there is a complaint, and one side refuses to engage, it's time to file.
Children are safe, child support guide lines are being followed and you are having your own personal financial issues and that you can't manage on 49,000 in after tax income.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
Something tweaked in your brain on this one, Tayken, sorry. As I mentioned above, my "suffering" is purely financial, this is a problem I *do* want solved -- by the courts if necessary -- and I have in no way indicated any sort of vengence was sought.
You want to "control" the other parent and throw them into litigation because you can't manage your own personal finances. Sorry to say, you do have issues and probably need to seek therapy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
I'm not trying to harm her in any way, I merely seek the reasonable and rational resolution where we get equal amounts to spend on the kids when they're in our care.
You have more than equal amount to spend. See SadAndTired's comment which I fully support. Which should be amazing to you in consideration to the disagreement we have running on this board if you actually read more than your own "contributions".

Sadandtired, I will do a proper response and agreement to your very frank observation to this matter that is very appropriate and well stated. (Credit where credit due I say.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
We seem to have unearthed some sort of bias in you. Your statement is not in any way supported by things I've said.
See my above highlights where you in contravention of the hearsay rule again provide evidence to the fact that you are "controlling" and seeking the attention of the court to solve *your* problem. A problem that is yours and yours alone to solve and not the responsibility of the public court system.

Miss use the court system and you will be ordered to pay costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
The "fact" is: the offset method provides *far more* money for my ex to spend on the kids than for me. This was well supported by the calculations I shared in the post. There is no emotion here, only math.
To that I provide you this link to consider regarding the difference between "math" and "feelings" people written by a highly qualified professional:

When Math People and Feelings People Negotiate

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
I hope she does, so she can at least be presented with my side of the argument.
You present yourself as a "math person" but, leveraging the above link to the article I quote:

Quote:
Feelings people, on the other hand, usually don’t have a clear idea of what they want. They often feel that they have been taken advantage of, and they want to be compensated for their injury – whether it’s a personal injury claim, a business deal gone bad, or a divorce which included some “bad behavior” in their point of view (sometimes the math person agrees, but more often he or she doesn’t). They may feel entitled to a substantial settlement to make up for the past and/or to give them a feeling of security in the future. They may be in shock over what has happened to them, or they may be feeling much fear about what will become of them in the future. Feelings people may see themselves as facing impossible problems in the future, so that they need a substantial settlement to provide the security that they feel they cannot provide themselves.

Why can’t you see what you’ve done to me and how disadvantaged I will be in the future? they often ask. Why can’t you see how you’ll be so much better off than I will be? They feel helpless and seriously disrespected when their proposals are rejected. Discussions feel increasingly painful, as the math person seems to reject the feelings person’s point of view. The feelings person may feel abandoned and disrespected, especially if he or she was in a relationship with expectations of being taken care of – whether by an insurance company, a business partner, or a seemingly successful spouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
So far I haven't heard any solid reason why the setoff method is fair. If I lose in court, it will be because of the general predisposition against the higher income earner, not because there's anything wrong (or emotional!) about my argument. That said, if I go to court, it will be with the hope and expectation that logic and reason (and math) will prevail.
Sorry to say, if it was incorrect there would be thousands upon thousands of Applications before the court with your complaints. The simple fact of the matter there isn't because most people are much more reasonable than you probably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
If, as a side effect, my filing gets my ex to talk, that would be lovely. But make no mistake, the *purpose* of filing is to get a court date and win.
You want to go to an adversarial system to "talk"? You want to go to a system of law where there is an Applicant and a Respondent to instigate communication with the other parent? Honestly, you really need to go down to the court house and sit in on some long motions and family law trials.

Court will only bring you to conflict and not "talking" with the other parent. It will only create more conflict. In fact, you present your argument wrong and come across as you are in these messages a judge may make an order regarding custody and access you do not like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
This is obviously a hot-button topic for you, Teyken, but please try to dig a little deeper before jumping on your soapbox.
Thank-you for providing more insight and evidence to the "emotional reasoning" behind your "facts" in this message and the others you provide. Your argument is incredibly weak and you will not find a willing justice on the stand who will listen to you.

In fact, spend some time searching CanLII and hopefully you will change your position. No one on this board will convince you otherwise.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:56 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,037
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
So, I looked at the numbers and it seems like your ex has $36,000 a year and you have $49,000 ?

Not really getting how that isn't fair.
Sadandtired, I have to agree with you 101% on this statement and very relevant observation to the fact.

What we are witnessing here is someone who is possibly applying "emotional reasoning" to their argument. A justice will come to the same conclusion on the balance of probabilities you so rightfully so identified.

The justice will even ask the same logical question too.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:10 PM
rthombe rthombe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
rthombe is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
I was wondering that too McDreamy.

Seems to me that if he had four other children after the first two, that he should have learned to manage his finances before deciding to have more children. Or that the new spouse could get employment to help the cost of raising their four children.
Sorry, my fault -- a misunderstanding due to poor wording.

I have 2 other full-time kids; one with my new wife, one is her child from a previous relationship.

There's definitely an important point here. I can't try to argue that my expenses are too high *because* of my two other kids: the "First Family First" principle. I find that a little harsh, but I see the point, exactly as you said: you had the child support responsibility BEFORE you took on MORE responsibility, and you can't punish the original family because of that decision.

However, I think if you look at the outline of my income and expenses, I definitely don't give a lot to the new family. And my wife *is* seeking employment; but she's a new immigrant and her education is not recognized here, so it's been tough. When she's more gainfully employed it will definitely ease the stress on our finances.

However, these factors aside, unless a case of Undue Hardship is made (and I'm not making it), the other children and our other spouses are immaterial to the main argument: it is unfair for my ex to have $13,000/year to spend on our two children while I have $4,800.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:13 PM
rthombe rthombe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
rthombe is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Sadandtired, I have to agree with you 101% on this statement and very relevant observation to the fact.

What we are witnessing here is someone who is possibly applying "emotional reasoning" to their argument. A justice will come to the same conclusion on the balance of probabilities you so rightfully so identified.

The justice will even ask the same logical question too.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Tayken, did my math elude you in my response to this?

Trying to compare my $45,000 to her $36,000 is a logical error, unless spousal support is on the table. Which it isn't.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
child support, off-set method, set-off, shared custody


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Self Employment and Variance Order epinecone Financial Issues 7 04-14-2011 04:34 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:40 AM.