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
  #41  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:11 PM
dinkyface dinkyface is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,476
dinkyface will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rthombe View Post
That only works mathematically if the shared costs are actually DOUBLE the non-shared costs.
Well .. keep in mind that when an NCP (with, say, 38% time) pays full-table CS, they are presumed to have NO ($0, NADDA) child related costs (other than the CS). I'm not saying it makes any sense.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:21 PM
rthombe rthombe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
rthombe is on a distinguished road
Default

You kind of lost me here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdreamy View Post
Right there, you lose your entire argument. Has no one ever told you, for 2nd marriages, you move UP, not DOWN?
What do you mean with UP and DOWN? Support amounts? If I have a second marriage I should pay more support to the first? Not sure what you're saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdreamy View Post
Why should your first children lose their benefits - why should your first wife waive cs?
I'm most definitely not saying that! What I'm saying is that there was an unfair bias from the beginning, but I had credit back then and didn't notice. Now I have no credit and a bigger family, and suddenly it's come to light exactly how unfair the original agreement was.

It's not the second family that should reduce benefits to the first; it's the second family that exposed an pre-existing flaw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdreamy View Post
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.
See my response to Berner_Faith. Also note that she *would* have income imputed to her -- as would my ex's husband -- if a claim of Undue Hardship were successful. But without that claim, our spouses' incomes are irrelevant to my argument.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:30 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 SadAndTired View Post
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.
What gets lost in all these offset calculation discussions is what is best for the children. It doesn't matter who is contributing what, the question is: what level of support would result in the best outcome for the children?

Who cares about the rights or responsibilities of the new partner? The focus should be on the children, and what level of support would be best for THEM, since, after all, CS is theoretically the right of the children. Anything else is a red herring.

I think we can all agree that, in a shared custody situation, a flow of money to a household with a higher income is not in the best interests of the children. It may respect the rights of the new partner, but deference should be given to the individuals for whom CS is theoretically given: the children.

Or, I guess we could just call it recipient support and stop pretending.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:36 PM
rthombe rthombe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
rthombe is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
What gets lost in all these offset calculation discussions is what is best for the children. It doesn't matter who is contributing what, the question is: what level of support would result in the best outcome for the children?
Cheers to that! Thanks for bringing it home.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:41 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,089
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
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.
Again, I have to provide positive feedback on Sadandtired's very relevant and application of logic to the matter.

To further the valid point made by Sadandtired, which I am sure everyone is astonished by, the only way that the other person in this matters income could be considered is if the OP claims "undue hardship". Good luck with claiming that I say with a 49,000 after tax and CS income.

I note the very logical statement highlighted and underlined advice from Sadandtired that this OP really needs to consider. This is the same logic a justice would apply probably on the balance of probabilities.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Last edited by Tayken; 01-24-2013 at 10:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-24-2013, 09:56 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,089
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
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.
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."
Then, stop wasting time on this message board and bring forward your Application and save everyone from the evils of offset child support.

How did you "exposed your (my) lack of understanding of real logic"? Please do share you definition of "real logic" then? How is my argument illogical then? Do you have some magical ability to show everyone, every lawyer, every justice and the government how their calculations are wrong?

I hope you say that to the judge hearing your matter in oral arguments. Please do let us know what the judge says and orders.

/popcorn

Good luck with your "logic" on that argument. It will fall on deaf ears and come with a costs award against you as well probably.

Quote:
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.
Do you have a PHD in pure math or something? How come no one else has seen the flaw you have seen? Math is pure logic and any error in calculation would bubble up quite easily. You are mixing "feelings" with what you claim are your "math" abilities. Unless you are a PHD in pure math from UoW I don't see how you are going to even communicate and identify to the court what this flaw is you are alledging exists.

Feel free to provide the formula that demonstrates the flaw.

Quote:
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.
Firstly, you are bringing the evidence forward in your argument that it is. I am simply arguing that it is correct and fair. You are the one identifying the "flaw" in the calculation. I don't have to prove something works when it is ordered every day, thousands of times a day across our country.

You are the one coming forward with "magical evidence" (read: magical thinking) that you have found some flaw, some problem some "injustice" in how offset calculations are made.

We would all love to see the error in the calculation. I am no PHD in pure math nor am I going to claim it is "perfect" but, no one, despite the hundreds of people who come here lamenting and claiming they have found some error be it in Divorcemate, the SS guide lines, CS guide lines, etc have provided any cogent and relevant evidence in support of their argument.

Quote:
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.
Actually, I am using Soctratic questioning methods to your argument. No "trick" and most litigation lawyers use the same techniques in breaking apart an argument.

Socratic questioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't have any "magical powers" as you are suggesting to "throw you off" or using "psychological tactics" to "win". I am using Soctractic questioning, the other poster who does this is Mess.

In fact, you have provided nothing in support of your argument as you can't answer with supporting evidence any of the basic questions brought forward:

1. Please "clarify your thinking".
2. I am challenging your assumptions.
3. Asking you for the evidence in support of your argument.
4. Providing alternative viewpoints.
5. Identifying implications and consequences you may face in your argument.
6. Questioning the question.

PS: I am not as smart or "magical" as you are trying to project in that last statement. I am just well researched in Family Law and regurgitating information you can find yourself easily through applying Google search and the search on CanLII. So, don't for one second think I am some mind controlling expert or something I am not.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:03 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,089
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 Janus View Post
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.
I have no doubt that you are probably well qualified to tackle the problem, have a senior management position and a high income earner. This is just an assumption based on your writing style and the logic applied quite often when you are not hurling personal insults.

But, you are probably smart enough to know that throwing good money after bad isn't worth the risk nor is it the risk of upsetting a status quo of 50-50 custody and access to dispute 8,400 a year in offset child support payments.

Ultimately, I would assume that you rather not fight it out in court to win on principal as it doesn't win anything for the children involved in the matter and only results in two parents who are trapped in years litigating over "money" and not really focusing on what truly matters... Their children.

Also, I kindly ask that you pack up your personal insults towards me and put them in a better wrapped package when delivering them on this forum.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-24-2013, 11:06 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
But, you are probably smart enough to know that throwing good money after bad isn't worth the risk nor is it the risk of upsetting a status quo of 50-50 custody and access to dispute 8,400 a year in offset child support payments.

Ultimately, I would assume that you rather not fight it out in court to win on principal as it doesn't win anything for the children involved in the matter and only results in two parents who are trapped in years litigating over "money" and not really focusing on what truly matters... Their children.
I agree completely. I am sure that thousands of other payors of offset support have made the same calculation. If you are paying offset, then you have shared custody, and the quantum of payments is substantially less than a CP/NCP situation. Both of these factors make the value of litigation substantially less.

For example, a payor knows that a "fair" CS payment would be $300, and would be arrived at through a proper calculation of 9(b) and 9(c)... but 9(a) determines a value of $500. Going to court and winning would "save" $2400 a year, at a cost of $24,000 (or more) even after costs are awarded.

But it gets even worse, because of a substantial history of erroneous case law in shared custody situations, the payor is in fact unlikely to win, and in fact might see the error compounded as many judges will in fact increase payments beyond the offset.

The net result is that nobody in their right mind goes to court to fight offset CS, despite the fact that it is manifestly unfair and is contrary to the directions of both the legislation and the supreme court. It is especially disappointing since the injustice created by the excessively high offset payments hurts the children, who after all spend half their time with the parent who is being financially hurt by these payments.

I truly believe that if the courts looked towards the best interests of the children, then they would do a complete 9(c) calculation with every single case. Their refusal to do so is baffling, and leads me to have little faith in the system.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-25-2013, 12:10 AM
involveddad75 involveddad75 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Some where, out there.
Posts: 709
involveddad75 will become famous soon enough
Default

Hi everyone, ok I'm going to jump into this conversation and would like some feedback.
I actually was thinking the same thing as the OP was thinking.
I finished court last June so this june we have to file for the change in offset.
At that time I was going to file a motion of change, baised on the fact that the Judge in our 14 day trial never heard anything regarding debt. incurded during the relationship (common law). or any of the property issues, (she took off with a car and sold it before Ihad a chance to put a lean on it). So left me with more debt.
Summary, of our case, two girls, and we are both single parents. No extra children to muddy the waters.
Mom left relationship debt free, and gone into debt over legal fees.
I was left with $60,000 in comsumer debt at date of seperation. My ex had bad credit so we had everything on my credit cards.

This is my sit. I'm really try hard not to be emtional and always look at things from the children's persective.

Below is my arguement as it is right now.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-25-2013, 12:18 AM
involveddad75 involveddad75 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Some where, out there.
Posts: 709
involveddad75 will become famous soon enough
Default

Incomes are hypotheical

Parent 'A' earned in 2011: $60000.00
Parent 'B' earned in 2011: $35000.00
Based on Table amounts and the following calculations:
Parent 'A' table amount would be:
$892 (basic amount for 60000)
=$892
Parent 'B' table Amount would be:
$508 (basic amount for 35,000)
=$508
Table amounts are government amounts based on what the average family would spend for room, board, clothing, etc.
Given our incomes and the amounts we should be spending on our children, the children Child A and Child B have a pool of money each month of $1400 spent on them.
The guidelines state that if the access is between 40% and 60% then each parent pays the other as if each has sole access to the children.
Given that the current calculation of the Parent 'A' paying the mother $384 dollars a month which is the difference of the two amounts 892 - 508 roughly equals $384 a month
This means that Parent 'B' actually has $508 + $384 = $892 to spend on the children, or 63% of the pool, and Parent 'A' actually has $892 - $384 = $508 to spend on the children or 36% of the pool.
Currently the children live equally with both parents; however their pool of money is not balanced between the homes they live in.
That means that parent 'A' who must house, feed and clothe the children must do so with less money than what Parent 'B' has to spend.
Now Parent 'A' is trying to maintain the same standard of living for the children as Parent 'B' has in their home. Parent 'A' has to spend $892 on the children to maintain the same standard of living. Using the calculation and the table amounts that is like paying $892 + $384 = $1276 into child support. That would be an imposed imputed income of $88,600 when Parent 'A's income is actually $60,000 that's an imputed income of $28,600 that Parent 'A' doesn't have.
The Solution
I propose the following calculation to balance the children's lives in both homes.
We take the $1400 and divide by the 50% the children spend in each home.
That would give each parent $700 to spend on the children's room, board, and clothing.
Given that amount the payment from Parent 'A' to Parent 'B' would me $892 - $700 = $192 to Parent 'B' each month.
This would give an equal amount of funds to both parents to help raise the children.
While maintaining that Parent 'A' given his higher income still pays %63 of the children's costs which is still fair.
This would allow the children to have the same style of cloths at one house, as they do at the other house. This would benifit the children becuase they wouldn't see a disparagy in standards of living between the homes.
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 12:24 AM.