Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #16
    The time that each parent spends is not Dad's or Mom's, it's the child's. It a right of the child.

    A better word to use would be "agreed", not "allowed". The child's time is not property of either parent.

    Separation agreements/Court orders are like cars. The minute you drive them off the lot they depreciate. The most recent parenting schedule was appropriate at the time it was made but it's not appropriate a month, a year, five years hence. You recognized that the children's needs change over time early on in this thread. You can't have it both ways by stating the kids needs change and should be with you, but then for $$ purposes you rely on an agreement that is outdated in order to cling to your desire to retain full table CS.

    How important is it to you that Mom gets full CS? Cause now you're squeezing 45% down to 39% and claiming that even at 39% the setoff is not automatic. Hmmmmm. That's just ridiculous and blatantly self-serving.

    All this at a time when Dad has been paying only slightly less than table amount and only recently backed off on section 7 expenses. One wonders whether Dad even has a say in the extra cirricular activities in which the children are enrolled.

    From here it appears that Mom is creating an issue over $75/mth and some section 7 expenses. What's that a couple thousand a year at most?

    From what you wrote, if I was that Dad and she dragged me into court over that small an issue, I would also be asking for a change in the parenting arrangement and a change to CS to reflect shared parenting. I don't blame him one little bit. Especially when considering that you are not only subordinating the children's time with their father to time with their step-siblings, but also using language that conveys that Mom is "allowing" him to spend time with his kids?!?!? Hello, no wonder he has said some of the things you reported above.
    Last edited by dadtotheend; 04-03-2011, 04:30 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      "So my question is why should the set off method not be used when 40% is achieved? (and seriously - 39 is the same as 40!)"

      Bill, I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be. You're right about 39% being so close to 40% so where do we draw the line? That's certainly not for me to decide. The 40% mark is simply the guideline figure, and Judges are unlikely to introduce a setoff if custody falls directly on 40% and even slightly more unless there has been a material change in circumstances. We are only asking that the ex be responsible for CS under the guidelines and as it stands, if our lawyer was correct, and our own assessment of his partial disclosure is correct, he should be paying an additional $500-$600 per month and should have been for several years. That is a significant number which essentially doubles what he pays now.

      Comment


      • #18
        Those are two separate issues.

        If you feel his income has been depressed, then challenge it. But your setoff argument is weak.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Linear View Post
          ... You're right about 39% being so close to 40% so where do we draw the line?
          You seem to draw the line such that he pays 100% support for 61% time with mom.

          Originally posted by Linear View Post
          ... That's certainly not for me to decide.
          Thats simply a cop out. Of course it is something for you decide.

          Comment


          • #20
            "All this at a time when Dad has been paying only slightly less than table amount and only recently backed off on section 7 expenses.

            From here it appears that Mom is creating an issue over $75/mth and some section 7 expenses. What's that a couple thousand a year at most?"


            DTTE - This is not about a $75 increase in CS. Read my previous post or better yet the full background post. We're talking about roughly $500/mth, possibly $600. And also about this being the 1st time an increase has ever been requested, and it being requested to a man who is making significantly more money than when the original order was made. Seeking a variance in CS in our case is most definitely in the best interest of this children.

            "One wonders whether Dad even has a say in the extra cirricular activities in which the children are enrolled."

            Why must one wonder that? Have I insinuated in any way that Mom is the only decision maker here or are you simply implying we're difficult people to get along with? There has never once been a single argument over which activities the children enroll in and the decisions therein have never been made unilaterally.

            Once again, this is not a custody issue, it's about CS. He may be asking to change the custody arrangement that has been working perfectly for seven years but that's his right. He'll have his opportunity to address it with the judge and it will be settled.

            And as far as CS goes, we don't determine the table amounts, and we don't dertermine percentage thresholds, but we do live by them. If his orderred access is 28% and my wife allows more, great. If the courts say setoff is not used, then setoff is not used. Should she unilaterally reduce his CS because she has allowed him some additional access that brought him near the 40% threshold? Not likely ... he's not paying the appropriate amount as it is.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Linear View Post
              ... 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?

              Comment


              • #22
                "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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    "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.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Linear View Post
                      "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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        "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.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Linear View Post
                          "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%?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              "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.
                              Last edited by Linear; 04-03-2011, 05:24 PM. Reason: Meant to say AS opposed to a 4/3 3/4 split - NOT OPPOSED

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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)

                                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