Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

child support payments to increase May 1

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

  • child support payments to increase May 1

    Child Support Payments to Increase May 1, 2006



    First Time Since 1997 Federal Child Support Guidelines Have Been Amended
    to Reflect Increased Cost of Living and Tax Rates

    TORONTO, April 25 /CNW/ - Concerned that the federal government is not
    doing enough to inform Canadians about the impending changes to the Federal
    Child Support Guidelines, Family Lawyer Steve Benmor wants to get the word
    out.
    "The kids are the ones who may suffer if people are not aware of the
    increase they are entitled to and therefore do nothing about it," explains
    Benmor. "If, for example, the custodial parent is entitled to an additional
    $200 more per month, this adds up to $2,400 per year, tax free. This could
    make a tremendous difference in the life of a child."
    In addition to changes in child support payment amounts, the amendments
    also attempt to address the conflict surrounding what constitutes an
    'extraordinary expense' and whether a spouse is entitled to receive payment.
    Under the terms of the guidelines the expense must be necessary in relation to
    the child's best interests and reasonable in relation to the means of the
    spouses and those of the child and to the family's spending pattern before the
    separation.
    The change considers the expense and whether it exceeds what the spouse
    can reasonably afford, taking into account her income and the amount that the
    spouse would receive under the applicable table.
    "The whole area of extraordinary expense has always been difficult to
    argue and one that with the new language, in my opinion, is going to result in
    more litigation," contends Benmor. "With the change, people will argue over
    how much of the children's programs the custodial parent can cover on her
    income given the table amount. The higher the income of the custodial parent,
    the more difficult it will be to convince a judge that she cannot afford the
    extra expenses on her income."
    Anyone with a child support agreement or order in place is urged to
    contact their Family Lawyer to find out more about the new guidelines and the
    impact they may have on future support payments.
    The guidelines can be found at
    http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/20.../sor400-e.html

  • #2
    "Under the terms of the guidelines the expense must be necessary in relation to the child's best interests and reasonable in relation to the means of the
    spouses and those of the child and to the family's spending pattern before the
    separation."

    an often overlooked "EXTRAORDINARY" expense of the child is access and contact travel.

    If access and contact is the right of the child's, is it not logical and common sense that both parent's make a contribution to same either by assisting with the physical traveling or as an alternative make a monetary contribution to same. After all access and contact and incident's of such are determined on the child's best interest.

    Gasoline and maintenance on a vehicle is expensive this day and age and costs are only going up. It can also be noted that energy costs such as gasoline are excluded from COLA and the consumer price index. If energy costs were factored into cola, you would see inflation hovering at 30% a year the last few years.

    Something to think about indeed.

    Comment


    • #3
      Count on more litigation over this one. Actually count on more litigation if the SCC rules against the four fathers in the retroactive child support case currently before the high court.

      Money, money money...

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Divorcemanagement-

        The retroactive child support case you refer to, I assume no decison has come down yet?

        Do you have any further information on it? I am very curious where it is at.

        Thanks,
        WTI

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm sure it will hit the front pages of the newspapers when the decision is made. I'll also try to write up a blog post at the time.
          Ottawa Divorce

          Comment


          • #6
            They should do an assessment every, say, 3 years; the cost of living is getting so freakin' ridiculous! Actually, it's crossed my mind at times that much should depend on the locations, too, beyond just the province, but that would only lead to NCP moving to the middle of nowhere, and CP moving to the city.

            Comment


            • #7
              The retroactive child support decision is, in my view, going to be one of those big decisions akin to opening pandora's box. No decision has come down from the SCC yet, but it is expected some time this year from everyone I have talked to about it.

              It's going to be a tough decision and frankly, if the fathers in this case lose (remember they were following the law in their cases) then it points to bad legislation from Ottawa, and maybe Ottawa might want to re-examine the issue of child support... NOT!!

              Joking on the re-examining child support issue. Ain't gonna happen. It's political dynamite, hugely divisive issue and certainly not something that is a priority area for Stephen Harper.

              Comment


              • #8
                re-examination

                sure they will re-examine Sean ... and re-evalute the amounts that were too high to begin with, to increase them ... make the recipient happy, that's what family law is about.

                sorry, that was bitter.

                I am trying to stay off the bitter train.


                CS isn't fair, but it pleases women's groups. Women's groups support politicians, that keeps them in office. Don't bite the hand that feeds, I suppose.

                The new ammendments make me very sad - the whole system makes me sad - and I will fight to change in my small way, everyday.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by workingthruit
                  CS isn't fair, but it pleases women's groups.
                  How can you say that? I don't understand your thinking on this one? I personally think forcing parents to pay for post-secondary education for kids over the age of majority is unfair, but the amounts? Not accounting for the differences of location between you and I, but if anything, I would say child support amounts are LOW. I would bet that if everyone added up the ACTUAL costs of raising their kids and compared it to the guideline amount set out for their income bracket, we'd find most parents (at least, those with an 'average' combined income) are spending more than the guidelines would indicate will cover a child's needs.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Okay okay, let's slow down for a second here folks.

                    Regardless of what political or social movement may have driven the development in the Child Support Guidelines in the mid-90's, the point is that they are here and they exist and we have to deal with them. It should also be noted that one of the primary driving forces behind the guidelines in the first place was the fact that government want a cookie cutter approach to dealing with child support - so that everyone was getting roughly the same amount depending on the income of the payer. Before the guidelines, child support was all over the place. So it was an attempt to simplify the process and *theoretically* reduce litigation.

                    Well, it's ten years later and support awards have been standaradized but the litigation has increased - not necessarily on the table amounts, but on the section 7 expenses and lately, with litigation on child support for adult children. (Which personally I believe is a load of rubbish because there is no similar legislative requirement for married families to support adult children, but I digress.)

                    The government also made a pile of money from the tax changes to child support when the guideline was implemented in 1997.

                    Are we better off because of the guidelines? Beats me. The 40 percent rule created an automatic framework for both parents to try and "beat" the guidelines - do you know how many Court Orders I have seen over the years where dad has the kids for 39% of the calendar year? Lots!

                    So the SCC in it's wisdom eliminated the 40% rule last fall (on a case by case basis if I am not mistaken) and it will be interesting to see if that decision is going to force parents to drop their collective agendas of increasing or decreasing time with the kids to avoid or collect child support.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by sasha1
                      How can you say that? I don't understand your thinking on this one? I personally think forcing parents to pay for post-secondary education for kids over the age of majority is unfair, but the amounts? Not accounting for the differences of location between you and I, but if anything, I would say child support amounts are LOW. I would bet that if everyone added up the ACTUAL costs of raising their kids and compared it to the guideline amount set out for their income bracket, we'd find most parents (at least, those with an 'average' combined income) are spending more than the guidelines would indicate will cover a child's needs.
                      This is my thinking - and I don't expect you to agree, and that's ok too - but I try to be fair all the time - recalling I am one who believes Dad have equal rights!!!
                      I live in the GTA - one of the highest COL areas in the country. My child support is about $700 total a month for 2 children. That SHOULD only be half of what it costs to raise our children. I SHOULD be contributing the other half. Too many people seem to think that CS should cover the entire expenses of raising children. Do you know what I mean?

                      The 'guidelines' were set out to be simple, and anything more fair would be complicated.

                      The way the tables and guidelines are set out now is patently unfair to paying parents - they end up supporting their children 2x. Once at the other parents, and once at their house. (except in rare situtations where payor has NO costs associated with caring for children)

                      And I do understand what you are saying Sean - but I don't agree that we have to be stuck with the guidelines, and if we aren't careful, we could be stuck with something even more hateful and horribly unfair - the proposed spousal support guidelines.
                      One of the beautiful things about democracy is that we always have the right to fight what we disagree with ...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        [QUOTE=workingthruit]I live in the GTA - one of the highest COL areas in the country. My child support is about $700 total a month for 2 children. That SHOULD only be half of what it costs to raise our children. I SHOULD be contributing the other half. Too many people seem to think that CS should cover the entire expenses of raising children. Do you know what I mean?[QUOTE=workingthruit]

                        Are you saying you only spend 1400 more to clothe, feed, shelter( I doubt a 3 br place in TO is cheap and you would only have to get a 1 br otherwise) entertain, etc 2 children. Don't you think that if you were making 20 000 and your ex was making 100 000 that the children should suffer since in your opinion you HAVE to pay for half the costs of raising them?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well I agree with workingthruit... I end up supporting my daughter twice because when I have her I'm paying for all the expenses that CS is suppose to cover - in that sense it's unfair - because unless I have her 40% + then I don't get any relief.

                          Jenny - if you made 20 and x made 100 wouldn't Spousal Support bump up your income and therefor help you pay for half of raising children - and children wouldn't be suffering.

                          just my 2cents

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The child support tables always did factor in cola. If ones income did increase, this increased amount was cross referenced against a new payable amount.

                            Once an child support order is in place and if a material change was to occur such as a payor's income to increase or decrease, it is up to the parties to vary the order.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CatvsLion
                              Well I agree with workingthruit... I end up supporting my daughter twice because when I have her I'm paying for all the expenses that CS is suppose to cover - in that sense it's unfair - because unless I have her 40% + then I don't get any relief.

                              Jenny - if you made 20 and x made 100 wouldn't Spousal Support bump up your income and therefor help you pay for half of raising children - and children wouldn't be suffering.

                              just my 2cents
                              I am certain that $1400 a month is ample to feed, cloth, shelter, and entertain my children - I would have to pay rent/mortgage, phone, utilities, groceries, etc, etc whether I had children or not - they do not increase my monthly expenses by greater than $1400 a month.
                              My ex also pays half of S7 expenses, so it is literally just basic needs that are covered by CS. Child Support isn't for me - it's for the children.

                              Don't even get me started on Spousal Support Catvslion - the whole idea that a woman who is no longer in a relaionship with a man expects him to continue to support her, blows my mind.

                              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