Shared Custody support payments

[epinecone]

Dad needs help

I need help.

I have my three small kids for 52.7% of each week living with me. I still manage to keep my job as a Senior Manager for a construction company by compressing my work week into 4 days. I also farm with my parents. The plan is that I will eventually buy my parents out and farm full time.
We have an interim order for Equal Shared Parenting / Joint Custody. My kids are 5, 3, and 1.

For the last year I have been paying 1500 per month in CS and 1000 per month in spousal support and barely getting by between support payments and constant legal bills. I also pay the special expenses directly.

My lawyer keeps telling me I am so "screw#d". She says I will be lucky if they do not get retroactive payments for both Child Support and Spousal Support. She has told me that I have no option but to pay the table amount of child support, and the "draft" guideline amount of spousal support. This is based on a gross income of 140k.

My former spouse works 36 horus a week for $12/hr and I have a six figure salary.

I need someone to tell me if it is really likely I am going to end up paying the maximum amount of support because of our income difference?

If I end up paying the table amounts, I will be ruined. I currently have trouble after CS, SS, and my own mortgage, utilities and groceries just getting by. I need help but have no idea where to find it, and I cannot believe that what my lawyer told me is really going to happen.

[billm]

You can get a second opinion.

How long was the marriage? What did the marriage do to your wife's ability to earn? You don't have to pay the 'draft' guildlines - they are NOT law and they are guidelines - SS should be based on what happened in the marriage. CS is based on actual incomes and how much you each have the kids. The two of you can agree to any SS amount, your lawyer is telling you the worst case scenario.

Any difference in your incomes with respect to raising the children is handled by CS, so SS should be separate issue and if she is not given an incentive to earn more than $12 and work part time, then most likely she will not and the best incentive anyone can have is that working harder means a better lifestyle.

The problem with the SS calculator is that it is too easy to use, but in fact may not be fair with respect to what happened between two adults in a marriage. If you want to share your incomes as when you were married, then sharing NDI (net disposible income) is the way to go, but to me that should be the last resort when it is impossible to separate your incomes due to for example a long term marriage where one partner has permanent career damage.

[epinecone]

second opinion

We were only married for four years. The Childrens mother was an office administrator when I met her in Toronto in 2003. We moved to Alberta in 2005 because we both wanted to raise our kids in the country. I have paid spousal support for the last year so that she had the opportunity to upgrade her skills, which had remained current through volunteer work while we were married.

She has stated privately that she likes her current job and has no intention of changing positions to make more money.

I cannot afford to pay the table amount of child support. Will a judge order it by default, or is their some other consideration. My former spouse has told me that she has no interest in discussing CS in mediation, and would prefer to let a court decide. She has stated that she does not care what I can afford, only that the court will decide what is fair.

[billm]

We were only married for four years. The Childrens mother was an office administrator when I met her in Toronto in 2003. We moved to Alberta in 2005 because we both wanted to raise our kids in the country. I have paid spousal support for the last year so that she had the opportunity to upgrade her skills, which had remained current through volunteer work while we were married.

She has stated privately that she likes her current job and has no intention of changing positions to make more money.

I cannot afford to pay the table amount of child support. Will a judge order it by default, or is their some other consideration. My former spouse has told me that she has no interest in discussing CS in mediation, and would prefer to let a court decide. She has stated that she does not care what I can afford, only that the court will decide what is fair.

CS is table driven unless there are some extenuating circumstances.

See my post here regarding the set off method that is usually used. You will pay less than the table amount, you pay the difference between your table amount and her table amount - is that what you have been paying?

There is no reason to go to court over CS - just use the set off method as that is what the court would do anyway (as far as I know...).

Four years of marriage should result in very short duration of SS.

I don't know if the fact that you make considerably more than your ex combined with the fact that you each are providing a home for the children (50/50 custody), will result in anything other than very limited SS and set off CS calculation. I don't see why it should.

[epinecone]

Thank-you. That is what I was afraid of. The set off method says I will pay 2800 a month, which is more than I can afford. I am going in to debt now every month at 1500 CS and 1000 SS.

I have been working in the construction industry so that I can take over the farm, and the funny thing is that this job is the one thing that will prevent me from doing that.. If I make too much money the CS load every month will keep from ever being able to take over the farm. Not to mention that I will never be able to transition to the farm because there is no way for me to pay $2800 per month and fight the legal battle for a variance order.

I would happily take the children more of the time, but that is'nt "fair". Like it is "fair" that I have to pay the entire cost of raising the kids in their home with me, and the entire cost of raising the kids in their mothers home.

I am not sure if I have any other options than to start farming now, which will result in a significant drop in income, but will wipeout my ability to keep supporting the kids across two homes. I feel trapped. If I keep working in this job I will be barely making ends meet and not be able to take over the farm, If I quit working in this job I will have trouble making ends meet and It will take alot longer to turn the farm into a profitable enterprise.

My parents are talking about retiring in a year and a half.. That's when I need to be running the farm.. Anybody out there have any thoughts on what I should do, because I am running out of them.

Thank-you.

[billm]

epinecone, What does your ex say about all this?

[epinecone]

Billm,

She says she wants the table amount of support, and says she does not care what it costs me to have the children on the 52.7% of each week that they are at home on the farm. She says that the plan to take over the farm ended when she left and that it is not an option now. She says she does not want me paying for extracuricular, clothing, etc directly and that I should be paying it to her as full CS.

I have asked if she would mediate on the issue of CS, but she has refused to mediate on anything to do with money. She has sent an offer for division of property, full CS, and SS.

:-( With the setoff method in consideration, looking at the table amount I would pay her minus the table amount she would pay me.. I think I am probably screw*d..

[got2bkid]

Your ex is clearly NOT thinking about what's best for the children. What is good about draining your household, when the children live there 1/2 the time? How can THAT be good for the children, sheesh.

I don't know if you can get a reduction, but I think it does pay to get a 2nd opinion from another lawyer. I know our lawyer gave my husband some very bad advice at the beginning (i.e. - just settle, you;re screwed etc.) and over the course of the years has cost us so much.

[billm]

Billm,

She says she wants the table amount of support, and says she does not care what it costs me to have the children on the 52.7% of each week that they are at home on the farm. She says that the plan to take over the farm ended when she left and that it is not an option now. She says she does not want me paying for extracuricular, clothing, etc directly and that I should be paying it to her as full CS.

I have asked if she would mediate on the issue of CS, but she has refused to mediate on anything to do with money. She has sent an offer for division of property, full CS, and SS.

:-( With the setoff method in consideration, looking at the table amount I would pay her minus the table amount she would pay me.. I think I am probably screw*d..

Well, it seems pretty clear that you cannot let her dictate your overall lifestyle of farming.

It seems she admitted that she accepted that choice when you were together, hopefully in an email or some other proof, so she can't force you to not take over your parents farm and keep paying at your current income rate.

She wants it all, so she is asking for your worst case scenario, so you don't have much choice other than to fight her and go to court. Hopefully you can convince her that you have a right to choose your own lifestyle and start farming, and pay yearly adjusted CS based on both your incomes. Also in court she won't get much time of SS considering your very short marriage.

Sorry but her denying mediation shows she is not reasonable, and she thinks you have all the responsibility to make most of the money to raise your kids - at least you didn't stay with her longer! You have to continue to fight. I can't see that you becoming a farmer, which was your plan while together and taking over your parents farm, which you can probably show is a stable business can be called being 'underemployed' and your CS should be varied yearly based on income.

[epinecone]

Thank-you Billm,

It is reassuring to read your reply. I am hoping that logic, reason, and fairness will apply the next time I am in court. Admittedly, so far the court has been fair. The court allowed Equal Shared Parenting/Joint Custody even though she insisted it would not work, and so far the court has been focussed on the children. I can only hope my luck holds out with fair circuit court QB justices until this is done ;-)

[JDaddy]

I know that I am posting to an old thread but I very much disagree witht he mathematics that were posted below.

In a 50/50 arrangement, the CS support should be half of the difference of the Table amounts for each parent. It is called the pro-rated setoff approach.

Using some of the numbers that were provided below;

Father's Table amount is $1000
Mother's Table amount is $500
Total contribution from parents is $1500

If both parents care for the children equally, then each should have half of the total contribution, there $750. Since the Father's contribution to the pot is $1000, he should give the mother $250. This way, both have the same amount of $$$ to care for the children on an equal time basis.

Based on the same numbers above, using the full table amount would leave the father with $500 and the mother with $1000. The mother would have twice the $$$ has the father to care for the children for an equal amount. That does not work. The pictures gets worst the larger the difference between the incomes.

In Quebec, they have a clear process that is used to share the pot for all ranges of custody arrangements. The 60/40 rule does not exist in Quebec. If you have the children 75/25 your split the pot in the same way. Makes a lot of sense.

In some case laws outside of Quebec, this approachl has been used, mainly when the mother has a higher income than the father. Go figure!

JDaddy

[billm]

In a 50/50 arrangement, the CS support should be half of the difference of the Table amounts for each parent. It is called the pro-rated setoff approach.

Note - my comments are discussing 50/50 shared custody CS payments.

Does anyone use or know of anyone using this 'pro-rated setoff approach'? I am using simple set off method (greater income earner pays the difference between the CS table amounts) which assumes that the cost is DOUBLE when the children are raised equally in two homes, which is not true.

The 'pro-rated set off method' assumes there is no increase in cost when the child lives equally in two homes, which is also untrue.

So perhaps the most reasonable way to use the CS tables in a equal shared custody arrangement is to pay somewhere between half and the full difference in the table amounts for each parent.

As a side note - when one says 'the cost of raising the children in shared physical custody increases over a single home environment'....one could also word it that a reasonable parent would spend more of their income in a shared situation on raising the children. My point is that the cost to raise a child is not fixed, it is a decision by the parent on how to spend their money. So the truth of how to determine CS in shared physical custody, may involve the concept that parents might in deed not spend more, and as a result the standard of living for the child decreases and perhaps that is what reasonable parents would do in that situation.

[billiechic]

. My point is that the cost to raise a child is not fixed, it is a decision by the parent on how to spend their money. So the truth of how to determine CS in shared physical custody, may involve the concept that parents might in deed not spend more, and as a result the standard of living for the child decreases and perhaps that is what reasonable parents would do in that situation.

I think this is often the case. When the money to live on is cut in half there are things that you can't cut in half (like mortgage/rent, food, utilites etc) Maybe they are reduced because you move to a smaller home, but they are not half. Therefore, you are forced to cut some of the spending for both yourself and your children in order to provide the necessities. So yes, the standard of living DOES decrease, but hopefully the Quality of living (no more fighting, time with both parents) increases at least proportionally so that there is not real "loss" for the kids.

[JDaddy]

Quebec uses the Prorated Setoff approach by default.

There are several case laws across Canada where the Prorated Setoff approach. However, as you read them you notice that this approach is often used only when the mother earns more than the father.

You may be right that the costs of raising your children in a 50/50 custody arrangement is more expensive than for a sole custody situation. However, this has never been proven as such. Furthermore, even if it is, who says that there is more money available to pay for it. I would strongly argue that what the children loose in the material world, they gain much more by having equal access to both parents.

I was married in Quebec but separated in Ontario. We lived 80% of our relationship in Quebec. It is odd to think that if we were to use the Quebec approach (Prorated setoff) as compared to what is often used in Ontario (Full setoff) I would be required to pay half the mount in CS. It's amazing the difference makes depending on the side of the Ottawa River you live on.

Most lawyers that I have met in Ontario, do not seem very good in math. They like the forms and tables. (I had a roomate that was studying to become a lawyer - I was studing to become an engineer - and I can tell you that he had very few courses where he had to do any math). Every time I expressed my thoughts about the prorated setoff approach, I had to walk them through a simple scenario where one parent had no income. With this scenario, the payor would not only have to pay the full table, amount which is the same as for a sole custody situation, but would also have to pay for his full half of expenses when the children are with him. "Umm", the lawyer would say, "I see your point", but they quickly add "well that's the way it is done." I would say, "what can we do to fix that?" and most would say, "life is too short to get into this". Of course, why would lawyers argue with the courts to change the way they do things, even if what they do is wrong.

So, to change the system, we, like other groups have done in the past, have to make some noise, take charge, go to the media, talk to people, post blogs on various websites, join forces and hire some big wigs to fight this. I would be more than ready to put money in a pot for this to happen.

[phatkid77]

Two things that rang in my head on page 2....

1. Courts are bound to follow the guidlines, mandated..even setoff method?

2. To go to court just for CS is ridiculous!!! (Someone tell my STBX that)

I like the prorated method!! Me pay 640 her 599..divide by 2....would have me pay $71 month!


We are going to offer 33% more than the difference between oour set off..so, not $140...rather $304... She will not take it unless her lawyer can talk sense into her.. I know it.