Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child support calculations

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

  • Child support calculations

    Just a quick question (or 90)

    How often is child support based on a "projected" income rather than the year previous?

    What you pay in 2009 is based on line 150 from 2008, 2010 based on 2009 & so forth, is this the standard method?

    The reason I ask is because my ex is asking the court in his documents to base his CS on projected income which is what keeps the payments lower than they should be and would result in my having to file motions almost yearly IF he sends me his notice of assessments.

    Any insight is greatly appreciated.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Kimberley View Post
    What you pay in 2009 is based on line 150 from 2008, 2010 based on 2009 & so forth, is this the standard method?
    That is what I do - note that my agreement does not state 150 necessarily, it states to use 150 if that reflects income accurately, and an other method if not (specifies one other method, my incorporated business' income, as an example because I am currently using that).

    CS agreements should NEVER specify an amount, but rather a formula and when to adjust (ie yearly based on CS tables and previous years tax NOA).

    As for basing CS on future income - that is completely stupid - it should be based on actual income and adjusted yearly, why play the guessing game?

    Comment


    • #3
      So who decides what's projected? Can you project he's going to make 1 billion next year? What happens if he "projects" he's going to make $500, and winds up make $50,000....what's the proposed method of fixing the difference at the end of the year to ensure the child is properly provided for as is their right?

      The court system deals in facts. The method you quoted is probably the most common...in actuality you are supposed to calculate CS at each pay. Since that's a royal pain in the ass, the courts typically use the "based off last years NOA line 150 amounts" instead. That way the CS still gets paid properly, it's just offset by a year.

      I would reply with using the method quoted, perhaps toss in a response similar to "dealing in actual facts would be preferable, not in make believe numbers".

      Comment


      • #4
        Gotta remember with billm though, he's special if memory serves. His financial settlement does not reflect what is most common

        But he does make a valid point about the method of calculation. Though I'm unsure if FRO will enforce if an actual number is not present in the order...anyone have experience with that?

        Comment


        • #5
          What he is asking seems absurd to me.... I also find myself asking why is he trying to put the onus on you for seeing that adjustments be sought by you.
          It is extremely common that support is based on the previous years income just as you have outlined.

          the problem is that he can predict anything he wants as speculation, seems to be more an effort just to pay the minimun by what ever means possible. Sorry for his luck but the courts prefer to base in fact.

          A better route to protect everyone's interest is to have it written into the that there be discloure each year by a certain date and that the support be adjusted on a subsequent date. This is a common practice too.

          Comment


          • #6
            Another poster brought up FRO. My agreement was written pretty much as in my previuos post. Here lies the problem my ex is to disclose and has refused repeated requests over the last 5 yrs, by myself and my lawyer to do so. I cant afford to pay more to the laywers. FRO CRA or anyone else for that matter cant and wou't give any info/help. I know I could go with out a lawyer as well he is in contempt. Just think it more productive that when something is put in an order that these agencies are able to do something for you. Saving everyone the time pursueing this in court. never mind tax dollars and court expense.

            Just my little vent but still think the principle of doing this is a good idea. Guess its based on the parties cooperating..... yah ok.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm asking that the court impute an income; in 2008 he made more than 40000, in 2009 more than 50000, and then suddenly took a layoff and did not go back (citing he didn't want to travel to/from anymore even though he was getting paid for those expenses too) so suddenly it drops to just over 24000, and now he's claiming he only made 13000 last year & shouldn't have any support arrears from the entire year.

              I don't believe I'm being unreasonable with the imputed income in any way.

              In his form 13.1 he claims he pays 800/month rent & 700/month child care for his other 2 children that live with him (he had more children after we separated), but in his bank statements filed with the court from his Default Hearing, I can only find 3 months where a cheque for 800 went through the account, and nothing for 700. I also cannot find anything more than 2 months where bank machine withdrawals come anywhere near either of those amounts; in most months, no money was taken out from any ATM.... so how are those being paid if he is claiming that this is the only bank account they have, that he has those 2 big items to cover, and he's out of work with a family of 4 being supported by his CL wife on about $23000 a year unless he's working for cash under the table.

              BTW, I do know that's exactly what he has been doing; he's in construction & even took the kids to sites that he was working when he was taking them for visits back in early to mid 2010.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by NBDad View Post
                Gotta remember with billm though, he's special if memory serves. His financial settlement does not reflect what is most common

                ...
                Huh? We split all assets/debts 50/50, equal custody using offset method for CS adjusted yearly, and time limited SS.

                Nothing special about that (other than it is completely fair )

                The only thing is that I use my one man company income instead of my personal income, which more accurately reflects my income for CS calculation purposes (makes my CS greater than if I used my personal tax return, but like I said, it is more accurate).
                Last edited by billm; 05-26-2011, 05:50 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I vaguely recall your spousal support calculation was done differently than just plugging the numbers into divorcemate or whatnot. That's what I was referring to.

                  In any event, getting back to the OP:

                  "having additional children does not preclude him supporting his existing children".

                  13K is below minimum wage. He should be making AT least minimum wage/full time hours. (~ 24K/year).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kimberley View Post
                    I'm asking that the court impute an income; in 2008 he made more than 40000, in 2009 more than 50000, and then suddenly took a layoff and did not go back (citing he didn't want to travel to/from anymore even though he was getting paid for those expenses too) so suddenly it drops to just over 24000, and now he's claiming he only made 13000 last year & shouldn't have any support arrears from the entire year.

                    I don't believe I'm being unreasonable with the imputed income in any way.

                    In his form 13.1 he claims he pays 800/month rent & 700/month child care for his other 2 children that live with him (he had more children after we separated), but in his bank statements filed with the court from his Default Hearing, I can only find 3 months where a cheque for 800 went through the account, and nothing for 700. I also cannot find anything more than 2 months where bank machine withdrawals come anywhere near either of those amounts; in most months, no money was taken out from any ATM.... so how are those being paid if he is claiming that this is the only bank account they have, that he has those 2 big items to cover, and he's out of work with a family of 4 being supported by his CL wife on about $23000 a year unless he's working for cash under the table.

                    BTW, I do know that's exactly what he has been doing; he's in construction & even took the kids to sites that he was working when he was taking them for visits back in early to mid 2010.
                    Imputed income is not a shoe in for you. In fact if what you said is the aguement I think he may have one. He could argue that the extra time saved on traveling gives him more time with his family and it just wasn't worth his time to travel. I don't think that will be your business either way in my opinion. If that work at that pay level is not available locally and it is what he could find, I think it would be a stretch to ask a judge to order him to return to a job that travel is expected and time away from his family. I dunno maybe the judge would but I personally would fight it.

                    Now if you could prove that he could find work in his felid and make the same money at home then that might be a different story. But in todays economy I also think that might be hard.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by NBDad View Post
                      I vaguely recall your spousal support calculation was done differently than just plugging the numbers into divorcemate or whatnot. That's what I was referring to.
                      ...
                      Yes I am not using SSAG, (thankfully we came up with a much better method that does not do income sharing (income sharing to me should be the exception, not the rule). Our relationship is over, and so is income sharing - I only pay SS to compensate limited career damage.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by LostFather View Post
                        Imputed income is not a shoe in for you. In fact if what you said is the aguement I think he may have one. He could argue that the extra time saved on traveling gives him more time with his family and it just wasn't worth his time to travel. I don't think that will be your business either way in my opinion. If that work at that pay level is not available locally and it is what he could find, I think it would be a stretch to ask a judge to order him to return to a job that travel is expected and time away from his family. I dunno maybe the judge would but I personally would fight it.

                        Now if you could prove that he could find work in his felid and make the same money at home then that might be a different story. But in todays economy I also think that might be hard.
                        He has less time off work now (his claim) with a job that's 20 mins from where he is living now; he has stated in his documents that he only has 2 days off a month (weekend) as he is also trying to justify why he has only been in contact with the 4 children that live with me once in a full year now.

                        His field makes no difference at all, none, zero.

                        He was UNEMPLOYED of his own choice (or rather, appearing unemployed) in an area he grew up in, where he can work in any kind of construction as he has 25 years experience, he can work on a dairy farm, he can drive trucks, tractors, high-hoe, road construction, forklift. He has worked for a company that puts weeping tile in fields for drainage of water from crops, he has built homes from the bottom up, he has done every possible job on a dairy farm that can be done, he's got certification for construction equipment, he is even CPR/first-aid certified - the list is endless.

                        And I don't think I said I wanted a Judge to order him to 'return to the job' where he travelled, but he sure as hell could have HAD a job that FRO could find in the first place rather than working for cash that cannot be garnished or traced, and being an irresponsible parent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How do one prove he could find work in his field? even if there was job posting in his area in his field, does one think a Justice would impute his income? he can apply but doesn't mean he got the job, and actually would be makng what he made, no?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TLCRN View Post
                            How do one prove he could find work in his field? even if there was job posting in his area in his field, does one think a Justice would impute his income? he can apply but doesn't mean he got the job, and actually would be makng what he made, no?
                            Imputation was at the core of my trial, so I'll share what I learned through case law readings and the statements of various justices in conferences and trial.

                            The burden of imputation lies with both parties. However, most of the work is on the support payor to demonstrate why income should not be imputed to them.

                            The payee must show the average income earned by the payor historically, varying between 3 and 10 years based on tax NOAs. Imputation of the average historical income becomes very easy if the payor does not have very strong arguments about why their income has dropped. If the payor is unemployed, s/he must show why that is so, that they have aggressively tried to find employment through evidence of job search, or otherwise explain why the should not be employed due to reasons such as disability or absolute lack of job availability. This disability would need great substantiation by experts who can be cross examined. (see Beninger v Beninger in BC courts for dramatic example of disability and income change affecting support) In summary, the burden of proof demonstrating why income should go down is on the payor, not the payee. Demonstrating income for imputation is the burden of the payee.

                            If the income has gone down but not disappeared, then the burden is on the payor to explain why it is reasonable that it went down. Justices will approach the reasonability test based on the evidence presented. A pleading by the payor that they 'just wanted to change jobs' isn't sufficient basis.

                            To build a case proactively, and bring sufficient evidence for a settlement conference to be productive review, the payee seeking imputation of income should seek disclosure of job search from the payor, including an affidavit of search activities including company names, search contacts, interview dates, etc. This becomes material for cross examination to see if the payor was searching aggressive enough.

                            If both parties do lazy evidence gathering, they can expect an imputation judgment based on the status quo. If either party wants to win their case for imputation, they must prove their case forcefully. This is doubly true for the payor.

                            FG

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You have just answered most of the questioned which is very helpful. Thank you.

                              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