Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paying Full Table CS with 50/50 Shared Parenting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Beachnana View Post
    If the only work she finds is in PQ Imhope you have a no relocate clause that's iron clad.
    Current order has nothing on mobility. But previous order did.

    It would be an uphill battle at this point. D4 has a group of buddies in her school (her teacher even sent me an e-mail listing all of their names and describing how amazing, smart, patient and popular she is. (She was the only one that could name a baby kangaroo a "Joey" .. lol).

    Also, if thats her next chess move (moving to PQ for work)..I have Gatineau a hop, skip and jump away from me .. maybe 10-15 mins.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rockscan View Post
      Lets back up. What was said when you exchanged taxes? Anything?
      We haven't exchanged taxes yet. We both filed a bit late (but still by deadline). but have to wait for our NOA's. (Order states it must be our NOA's).

      Comment


      • #33
        "seeking"

        Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
        A judge can't order someone to work so I doubt the order specifically says she must obtain employment. Seeking (looking) for employment is very different than obtaining employment.
        If you read the posts then you'll see Stripes said that she doesn't have to "seek" employment if she doesn't want to. I responded with "there's an order to seek employment" ... so seeking employment doesn't sound optional to me. Be sure to read the posts carefully.

        --> permalink 20 ; pg. 2

        Comment


        • #34
          I did read the posts. Her seeking employment could be looking at job postings every day. That is seeking employment. You have zero proof she isn't seeking employment. You're focus shouldn't be on proving she isn't seeking employment, your focus should be on imputing an income.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
            I did read the posts. Her seeking employment could be looking at job postings every day. That is seeking employment. You have zero proof she isn't seeking employment. You're focus shouldn't be on proving she isn't seeking employment, your focus should be on imputing an income.


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
            Not sure where I wrote that my focus was on proving she wasn't seeking employment .. although it would be very easy by printing all the available jobs. So your theory that I have zero proof is faulty. If it was my focus I have very good proof she's not seeking.

            My focus is on imputing income. I'm not forcing anyone to work..(geez ).. just to follow the judges orders and get offset going via imputed income or whatever else I need to do to to achieve that.

            Comment


            • #36
              putting myself in your ex's shoes ( don't hate me) but I would not be rushing to work. She knows you would have to go through a motion to input income and if you do then she can get a job but until then a quick look on the Internet, maybe even a few lame interviews and she has "seeked" employment.

              I think you need to budget for full CS for a while - that sucks for sure but the cost of having D4 50% of the time --- priceless.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Beachnana View Post
                putting myself in your ex's shoes ( don't hate me) but I would not be rushing to work. She knows you would have to go through a motion to input income and if you do then she can get a job but until then a quick look on the Internet, maybe even a few lame interviews and she has "seeked" employment.

                I think you need to budget for full CS for a while - that sucks for sure but the cost of having D4 50% of the time --- priceless.
                Yep. Having 50/50 is priceless.

                I was just curious if anyone else paid full CS in a shared custody. 50/50 position.

                Too bad welfare just pours money around to anyone who doesn't feel like working. Ahhhhhh well....I'll pay for a few years ... then impute.

                Comment


                • #38
                  The welfare system does not reward recipients for working. If the job is lower pay and just meets the cutoff line the. They cutoff, so in most cases the person is worse off. Not here is no graduating scale. Work a year and we will allow you to wein yourself off by gradually reducing our support. Nope cut done your on your own. So unless a person can secure a job which nets more than welfare covering daycare, transportation, clothes, etc which are costs of going to work why bother!

                  I worked for quite a few years with people trying to get off welfare. They would get a job and loose every support already in place. Not a great incentive.

                  You will need to input income and wein her off yourself. Do not wait for the system to do it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I was puzzled by the idea of a an order requiring a party to "seek employment" when it's so vague and unenforceable (what on earth does "seek employment" mean? Looking at kijiji every now and then? Sending out CVs?). Then it occurred to me that this might be in the order as a way of establishing that (in the opinion of the court) the party is employable and there are no barriers to his/her employment. An order to seek employment seems to be a way of saying "this person can be employed". That would be useful in an effort to impute income, whether or not the party actually does go out and look for work.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by stripes View Post
                      I was puzzled by the idea of a an order requiring a party to "seek employment" when it's so vague and unenforceable (what on earth does "seek employment" mean? Looking at kijiji every now and then? Sending out CVs?).
                      It's my fault. I could have fought all that in the last SC ... but that's what OP wanted. They wanted me to say "No .. school in my area".."No .. CS is offset I cant pay it", etc. I'm so damn low conflict and was to the moon that I achieved the 50/50 joint custody stuff that I didn't feel it warranted a trial.

                      Originally posted by stripes View Post
                      Then it occurred to me that this might be in the order as a way of establishing that (in the opinion of the court) the party is employable and there are no barriers to his/her employment. An order to seek employment seems to be a way of saying "this person can be employed". That would be useful in an effort to impute income, whether or not the party actually does go out and look for work.
                      Very true. I agree it's super vague but the wording will work in my favor when I go to impute. She can be employed .. but Beachnana explained it well .. she would lose the food shelters, free medical, low income housing, free bus fare, free, free ,free ... why even look for work?

                      Tayken posted a blurb from one of WD's case transcripts not long ago and I remember the judges wording .. something along the lines of "I find that Ms ____ has not made any efforts to find employment and has stayed on social assistance for too long", etc. Not sure the exact wording. So I'm sure it must be frowned upon sooner or later by the courts.

                      I just started the thread because I'm doing a ton of stuff with D4, paying her pizza, milk, etc at school .... I have her in an amazing dance class (which is expensive .. AND WORTH IT). I buy her new shoes, clothes, book bag (when her zipper ripped), etc.
                      Her extra curriculars I do also
                      - class = $60/month
                      - recitals = $25.00/ticket
                      - Costume = $70.00
                      ---no help from ex.

                      I'm just feeling it financially when that full table CS gets deducted every month. Plus some left over arrears that Im paying off slowly for abducting our child and hiding her. (Kind of sucks that I have to pay for that).

                      I'll simply wait it out and impute her income. Or wait until NOA's come in and have a discussion about offset when they arrive and see what she says.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        This is totally unrelated to this thread but I thought Id post anyways for some input.

                        Yesterday ex called me and asked if I wanted to take D4 to the "Aladdin" play at her school (on her parenting time) ... Of course I jumped at the opportunity.

                        D4 then told me "mommy is having a man over to check all her furniture, toilets, beds, etc to make sure they're okay in case a tornado comes".

                        I know I know .. she's 4 .. which is why it could mean anything. But still curious about your thoughts? i.e - boyfriend? ministry of education checking if her daycare is safe? CAS?

                        Just found it strange.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Or she's moving!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Paying Full Table CS with 50/50 Shared Parenting

                            I have a feeling the judge put it in for two reasons:

                            A) to set a date for when it was ordered

                            B) to provide you with back up for imputing her income

                            Think about it, most stay at home moms with ss and cs can milk it until the kids are in school and parents can work full time. Your order shows that kid should be in school and she should be working. I think having this in the order provides you with the ability for a future motion to show that she knew she had to do it. I also dont think you need to wait two years. If you can, you should look into imputing an income after the one year mark of the order. To me giving her a year is reasonable. Especially when youre available during full days in the summer to provide her with extra care if necessary. I hate to say this but if it was a man who was sitting on his ass you KNOW the courts would impute it. That judge gave you an ace.

                            Again, just my two cents...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The order also states that we were to find daycare while looking for school so that she could seek employment.

                              so yes I think you're all right about that.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Ex pulled me aside this morning at drop and asked about CS for this month. I let her know that it came out of my account on the 16th, like every month. She said she didn't receive it and is calling FRO today. All I know is my account feels the crunch.

                                Sooo .. I guess this means there's no Welfare? No clawback? Interesting

                                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