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
  #31  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:19 PM
mcdreamy's Avatar
mcdreamy mcdreamy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
mcdreamy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Right there, you lose your entire argument. Has no one ever told you, for 2nd marriages, you move UP, not DOWN?

Why should your first children lose their benefits - why should your first wife waive cs?

lol, your new wife is *seeking employment*.. exactly how much money is she actually bringing into your household, right now. Maybe it's time she stepped up to the plate and your first wife had some income imputed to her.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:23 PM
SadAndTired SadAndTired is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,161
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

Well, although I appreciate you responding in a positive manner, I do think your logic is very flawed.

It isn't what is left over that makes it equal.

When you and your ex separated, you have $49000 to decide what to do with and how to provide a life for the children. She has $38000 to decide what to do with and how to provide a life for the children.

Just because her family income is higher, doesn't mean she isn't contributing that amount for herself and the kids.

You also have (a higher amount) to provide for yourself and the kids.

Because you've added a large amount of debt or more children, doesn't mean you should be able to limit your original responsibility for the kids.

You have simply made very different decisions on what to do post separation.

Last edited by SadAndTired; 01-24-2013 at 08:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:26 PM
Berner_Faith Berner_Faith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,356
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post

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).
Umm...what... so because your new partner decides NOT to work and NOT provide that "second household income", you want to reduce your CS obligations? Would you be here complaining if your new partner made MORE than your ex's husband? I highly doubt you would be using your reasoning saying how you should be paying your ex MORE based on this second income.

You want that second household income, tell your partner to get a job.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:31 PM
rthombe rthombe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
rthombe is on a distinguished road
Default

[QUOTE=Tayken;124027]
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]

Whoops. You've exposed your lack of understanding of real logic. Just because there aren't "thousands and thousands" of applications before the court doesn't somehow invalidate the argument. You can't say: "If you were right, someone else would have come up with the same argument by now."

The fact is, this is somehow a weird mathematical oddity. I actually fought against this idea when I first heard it, because the setoff just "seemed" right. But when trying to *actually* find out where the math was wrong, its inherent correctness revealed itself.

I posit that there are not thousands and thousands of applications merely because it's not obvious at first glance. Look at your reaction -- you still haven't suggested a single mathematical counterexample to suggest why the setoff is fair. Yet you play the "emotional" card to try to throw me off balance or something. You may be a good "live" debater, using psychological tactics to win, rather than just plain logic; but I'm here trying to find flaws in my logic, and you've contributed nothing so far.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:40 PM
dinkyface dinkyface is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,476
dinkyface will become famous soon enough
Default

There is one flaw: My understanding is that with shared (i.e. 40-60 or 50-50) custody, the CS guidelines presume that the costs of raising children are increased (as compared to, say, 20-80 or 35-65). Therefore, your ex can argue that straight set-off is appropriate, i.e. it is fair that she has the extra $, and that YOU should also be spending additional $ while the children are with you.

Last edited by dinkyface; 01-24-2013 at 08:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:42 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
Umm...what... so because your new partner decides NOT to work and NOT provide that "second household income", you want to reduce your CS obligations? Would you be here complaining if your new partner made MORE than your ex's husband? I highly doubt you would be using your reasoning saying how you should be paying your ex MORE based on this second income.
OK, I think my point was lost in the crowd.

First and foremost, our new spouses' incomes are not relevant to the calculation of support, unless there is an application for Undue Hardship, which there isn't.

I brought it up, just because someone made the point of trying to compare my post-support income with my ex's post-support income. You can't compare those things, with respect to child support. The only way that would be relevant is if my ex required spousal support, and she doesn't. And even if she did, that would be a separate calculation, something totally divorced from the child support calculation.

If I wasn't suffering (financially, Teyken, calm down ...), I may not be bringing this up, true. But that's just because it wouldn't be worth the time and effort, NOT because I wouldn't be right.

There is only ONE relevant argument I'm making here: child support should not be grossly weighted so that one parent has $1100/month to spend on the kids while the other only has $400. All the other circumstances as to WHY this disparity has caused me such grief is really immaterial -- we can debate until we're blue in the face about whether I should be able to support my family or not on my income, whether I should have remarried and had another child etc ... but none of that affects the main point, that the offset is *inherently* unfair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
You want that second household income, tell your partner to get a job.
Yikes! Harsh! Look, man, you know nothing about my wife's situation, so please leave her out of this. The fact is, her current unemployment is FAR out of her control, and she is doing EVERYTHING she can to rectify it. She is one of the most hard-working, sacrificing and responsible people I've ever met, and it is KILLING her that she's not working yet. Save your judgements for your own friends and family.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:45 PM
Berner_Faith Berner_Faith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,356
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Not judging...but if you are suffering because of a lack of a second income, that is your responsibility as a couple to fix. If she can't work, maybe you need to take on a second part time job? There are many people that work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet.

I can agree that the guidelines are not exactly fair, but bring this to court and you will have more financial troubles than you do now.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:47 PM
Janus's Avatar
Janus Janus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,255
Janus will become famous soon enoughJanus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
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.
Try here Toronto Family Lawyer | Ontario Father's Rights Law Firm | North York Divorce Lawyers

He probably would.

Quote:
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.
The reason is that while the position may be correct, and while it is a position that should be supported with reference to the Contino case, it is in fact not backed up by case law. Judges continue to almost completely ignore 9(c), despite being explicitly told not to. It takes a very rich person to fight the tide, and most of us do not have the financial resources to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:57 PM
rthombe rthombe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
rthombe is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinkyface View Post
There is one flaw: My understanding is that with shared (i.e. 40-60 or 50-50) custody, the CS guidelines presume that the costs of raising children are increased (as compared to, say, 20-80 or 35-65). Therefore, your ex can argue that straight set-off is appropriate, i.e. it is fair that she has the extra $, and that YOU should also be spending additional $ while the children are with you.
That only works mathematically if the shared costs are actually DOUBLE the non-shared costs. It's true and stands to reason that some factor should be added to factor in these extra costs; but it's also true that we should share the burden equally (by proportion of income).

For example, some courts have applied a 50% multiplier to the offset amount. In other words, they're saying that if an intact family with my income would spend $1100, I should in fact $1100 + 50% = $1650. Of course, my ex would have the same math applied to her: she should spend $400 + 50% = $600. But if you do that then the offset really needs to be shared, because you've now factored in this higher-than-intact cost (which is what section 9(b) is referring to). The result would be that I should pay her $(1650 - 600)/2 = $525.

There's some debate about how accurate this 50% factor is, and I would argue that it's a bit high; but I would accept that there should be *some* factor, and under the circumstances would even accept 50%. It would still end up in a net reduction for me of a couple hundred dollars per month.

On the other hand, to suggest the offset properly accounts for section 9(b) costs, you're saying the multiplier needs to be 100%: my $1100 becomes $2200, her $400 becomes $800, so the support is $(2200-800) / 2 = $700 (what the straight offset is requiring me to pay). I think it's a *very* big stretch to suggest the table amount represents only *half* of what is required to raise children in a shared custody situation.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:11 PM
rthombe rthombe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
rthombe is on a distinguished road
Default

Can you clarify a bit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
Well, although I appreciate you responding in a positive manner, I do think your logic is very flawed.

When you and your ex separated, you have $49000 to decide what to do with and how to provide a life for the children. She has $38000 to decide what to do with and how to provide a life for the children.
Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
Just because her family income is higher, doesn't mean she isn't contributing that amount for herself and the kids.
I'm not clear on what you mean here. I truly *do* believe she is spending $1100 on the kids; she can afford to because her husband can pay for non-kid expenses that she would otherwise be unable to manage.

I don't think you can compare annual net post-support incomes, unless you also include the entire family income. And under law you're only allowed to do that if there is a claim for Undue Hardship.

If you don't include the entire family income, then all you can look at is the table amounts and assume each side is spending what the tables say they should on the kids. If one family *actually* spends more or less than the tables say, because they have more or less support from outside sources, can't be factored into the required child support amount.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
Because you've added a large amount of debt or more children, doesn't mean you should be able to limit your original responsibility for the kids.
More children, yes, debt no. The debt came out of the marriage and divorce, and did not reflect my personal choices or lifestyle after separating. I most definitely agree that my new children should not limit my original responsibility for my first children, and I've tried to show that I'm not doing that. While it may be true that I'm feeling more financial pressure while trying to support the new children, my arguments about fairness have been strictly focused around our shared responsibility for the 2 original children.

The fact that I'm financially strapped speaks to my *motivation* for getting this sorted out, but doesn't affect the argument that there is something very unfair going on here.
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 12:30 AM.