Custody Variation (Joint to Shared) - Change in Circumstances?

[billm]

Originally Posted by Linear

... Should she unilaterally reduce his CS because she has allowed him some additional access that brought him near the 40% threshold? ...

Yes of course!

The set off method should be used in this case, using actual incomes.

What are the two incomes anyway? Do she work full time or do you support her?

[Linear]

"You seem to draw the line such that he pays 100% support for 61% time with mom. "

No sir, I don't draw that line. The guidelines draw out that line.

"9. Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account"

I wasn't consulted the day this was decided. But we, as do most divorced families in Canada, have agreements based on it.

[dadtotheend]

It's plain to see that this is about money for you. As billm says above, you are passing the buck and copping out on the mature thing to do because it happens that the law (an ass) may support your position.

You are so close to shared parenting that pursuing this matter on the basis you present just doesn't pass the smell test.

And you are also jeapordizing "...the custody arrangement that has been working perfectly for seven years ..." by taking this back to court. Is that best for the children?

Again, if you feel that he has under-reported his income then come up with a reasonable estimate of his current income and after applying the set off method then figure out whether he has been underpaying.

I'm not engaging with you any more on this issue.

[Linear]

"What are the two incomes anyway? Do she work full time or do you support her?"

She works full time - 30k. His income is tough to determine based on his disclosure. However a realistic figure is between 90k-100k.

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by Linear

"You seem to draw the line such that he pays 100% support for 61% time with mom. "

No sir, I don't draw that line. The guidelines draw out that line.

"9. Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account"

I wasn't consulted the day this was decided. But we, as do most divorced families in Canada, have agreements based on it.

Last post --------> They are guidelines only. You are not bound by them. Stopping passing the buck.

[Linear]

"And you are also jeapordizing "...the custody arrangement that has been working perfectly for seven years ..." by taking this back to court. Is that best for the children?"

Which thread are you reading? We're not bringing a custody arrangement to court.

[Mess]

Originally Posted by Linear

"You seem to draw the line such that he pays 100% support for 61% time with mom. "

No sir, I don't draw that line. The guidelines draw out that line.

"9. Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account"

I wasn't consulted the day this was decided. But we, as do most divorced families in Canada, have agreements based on it.

And as I wrote before, the courts are a method of last resort for people who can't come to an agreement like sensible adults. Most parents who split stay out of court and come up with compromise solutions. The table amounts are not a compromise.

You are being pretty clear here, you are intent on keeping dad below 40%, you are intent on seeking the guideline amounts. Dad supports the chldren over 1/3 of the time on his own, but you want him to pay 100% of the support amounts.

You are using the step-sister to pull heartstings for an unfair financial arrangement. The 60/40 rule is arbitrary. Why not 70/30? Would you then fight to keep him at 29%?

[Linear]

I understand what you both are saying with regards to threshold and setoff. Even if we agreed with your position and employed the setoff calculation he is still likely paying approximately $200 short each month. I can't give a solid amount, but this is a realistic figure.

Let's say for the sake of arguement we use the setoff method for our case. And as a result, due to his increased income, he pays the same (unlikely considering the setoff is likely to be 60k which is much higher than the oincome he is currently based on)

Let's also pretend for a moment that there is no CS or custody battle going on.

Now, let's say that this year the ex is busier than usual and sees the kids slightly more than the agreement of 28%, let's say 33%, what then? Do you realistically feel he would agree to an increase? Well, you would have to know this person to make the call, and I do, very well. It would be a mess putting us back in court year after year.

[Linear]

"You are using the step-sister to pull heartstings for an unfair financial arrangement."

I resent that. The children are unware that we are currently dealing with these issues. There are no heartstrings being pulled.

"You are being pretty clear here, you are intent on keeping dad below 40%"

That's not accurate. We've discuss a 50/50 arrangement (between my wife and I), however we're concerned about it being alternating weeks as opposed to a 4/3 3/4 split for example. Perhaps there's nothing to worry about, but perhaps there is. Perhaps alternating a week on/off is not ideal for the relationship between all the children, perhaps another 50/50 split is possible.

[billm]

For 50/50 (3 kids) I do

M/Tu Dad
W/Th Mom
F/Sa/Su alternates between mom and dad (ie alternate weekends).

For us this is far better than week about as it feels for the most part that I am still seeing and raising them full time.

This also helps for routine (everyone knows who is doing what during the week for any given week in the future)