Tweet
Is there a simple formula that is used to calculate percentage of extra expenses? I am currently paying 80% of extra expenses. When the time comes to exchange T4's, I know her income has gone up (almost double) while mine has dropped slightly. I don't think I would still be responsible for 80% given the new #'s.
-
-
Well.. before I answer: is anyone paying CS to the other?Originally posted by dg_sch
The reason I ask is because Extra Expenses are included in CS, except for big ticket items like daycare, medical, and BIG expenses.
A recent change to the CS Guidelines (May 2006) clarified Extra Expenses based on a Manitoba ruling. Yah see, the recipients are nickel and diming the payor to death with "Extra Expenses". $20 soccer fee... oh the payer must pay half. $15 skate sharpening. Oh the payer must pay 2/3's. School books. The payer must pay 3/4.
All of those are covered under CS. It is just a) must recpients do not realize they too must cover their share of CS... and b) that these "extra expenses" are what CS is for in the first place... but I digress.
A simple formula is if the children are 50-50, with little or no support, is to split the expense 50-50. Or... someone pay for one thing... then the other parent pay the next thing.
In the micro-manage, squeeze the ex for everything he/she has... is to sha reby income (again iof there is little or no support). BIG PAIN IN THE A$$. I am sure the legislators never actually run their laws through use cases. Everyone adjusting, back dating, withholding T1's...
Ahh... just split it 50-50 if there is little or no support.
BTW, you should adjust it each year when incomes change. Og course for a cool $5K, you can take the other person to court, force disclosure, get a court order for the new percentages, attempt to reclaim any expenses already paid and go for costs.
Enjoy! -
sheesh... I need a spell checker...
Comment
-
dg_sch
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/p...ksheet_2a.html
This is a government site that offers a step by step way to calculating your proportionate share of extra expenses and determining the extra expenses you would be responsible for.
I recall reading an article on a past case where a custodial parent wanted extraordinary expenses contributed to by the non-custodial parent. The expenses were in relation to hockey. The non-custodial parent had a good lawyer or something because they managed to show the court that hockey equipment and travel costs to games was not "extra ordinary" when considering hockey. That these expenses are part of the assumed responsibility of the parent signing the child up for the sport. The lawyer managed to explain that the custodial knew that these expenses were part and parcel to the signing of the child up for the sport and that they are not "Extraordinary". Since I have read that case I have always looked at extraordinary expenses in this light. I just wish I kept a link to the case. Hope the gov. site helps.Comment
-
An older site from pre 2000.
http://www.fbfamilylaw.mb.ca/childsupp2.html
5.0 Special expenses - Manitoba has a different view than most other provinces
Section 7 is a most confusing set of provisions, and the source of continuing controversy. As noted, the Manitoba Guidelines are different than the Federal provisions in this area.
The purpose of the section is to allow the court to add-on to the table amount an appropriate amount for certain specified expenses in controlled circumstances. These add-ons are for those expenses presumably not intended to be met by the table amounts. The table amounts are purported to cover the average expenses for the average family at a given income range. This is often a difference of degree, not kind.
The expense, although the court has the discretion to order otherwise, is usually allocated between the parents proportionately, based on their respective incomes. It should be noted that the proportion is determined after subtracting from each parent's income, the "threshold" amount, that is, the amount below which no support is payable. Some courts have added the table amount to the payee's income and deducted it from the payor before doing the math: Ness v. Ness (Man. Q.B.).
The more controversial issue has to do with defining what is "extraordinary". Manitoba 's leading case is Andries v Andries, which is discussed below. It posits a so-called objective test. The question, once reasonability and necessity are determined, is resolved by a review of the cost of the activity in relation to other costs of the same or similar activities.
The contrary approach, as found in Rains v. Rains, an Ontario Court of Appeal case, looks at the expense in relation to the family's finances to determine extraordinariness. Many of the other courts of appeal seem to prefer this approach - see McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (B.C.C.A.), or Raftus v. Raftus (N.S.C.A.) for examples.
The upshot, in Manitoba , is that applications for special expenses for activities, where the issue is whether or not they are "extraordinary", are rarely granted.
In Parniak v. Parniak, per MacInnes J. , January 28, 1999 , the court held that evidence will be required of the "ordinary" expenses for the activity and it is up to the parent requesting the contribution to make out the case for a finding that in this case the expense is "extraordinary".Comment
-
From the current CSG:
Definition of “extraordinary expenses”
(1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(d) and (f), the term “extraordinary expenses” means
(a) expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse’s income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate; or
(b) where paragraph (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account
(i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate,
(ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities,
(iii) any special needs and talents of the child or children,
(iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and
(v) any other similar factor that the court considers relevant.Comment
-
Currently we have split custody. I have 1 child living with me and the other 2 live with her. I pay support for 2 based on my income and subtract support for 1 based on her income. The youngest is 9 and daycare expenses will only be for 4 weeks during the summer. With the changes expected in our respective salaries, I suspect that I will be responsible for less than my current 80% (maybe 70%??). Just trying to figure out what that magic number will be. For example purposes only...
Current:
Income A = 60K
Income B = 15K
Expected
Income A = 57K
Income B = 25K
What would the percentage of extra expenses break down to in the expected incomes?
On a side note, I did not realize that sports were included in CS payments. In the 5 years that we've been apart, the kids have NEVER been enrolled in sports, now that I'm "on the hook" for 80% the 2 with her are enrolled in soccer because I have to pay most of it. Not that I mind, they need to get out and do something.
ThanksComment
-
well, it should be:
you: 57/(57+25) = 70%
her: 25/(57+25) = 30%
You are a shining example of what is wrong with THE SYSTEM. You are both paying each other support and then all these stupid nickle and dime things on top of it... and then daycare.
"Umm.. I write you a cheque for $500... then you owe me $14.75 for Sally's soccor shoes... and I owe you $11.45 for Bobby's baseball bat.."... good lord.
BTW, I'm in the same boat. Pay full table amount for 50-50 access and pay 100% of any extra expenses, plus daycare, and day-to-day.
It would make more sense if you each deposited $$ into a bank account. And then paid for all things out of said bank account. So, you put in $400 a month and she puts in $200 a month. And that's the limit. So Sally's soccer shoes and Bobby's bat, and lessons and everything fixed comes out of that pool.
-or-
NO SUPPORT and you pick up the lessons and so on...
Forget child support. It completely does not work when you share kids. Well, except when you are the recipient...Comment
-
I completely agree with Decent Dad.
There should be no nickel and dimming, there should be something in place to cover the costs to raise health, happy children. Child support if there is to be CS should be deposited directly to an account to cover the costs of extra curricular activities, etc. In the event this money is not consumed each month there should be a way to divert the monthly balance to an RESP for the children to share equally once needed.
I am a firm believer that no individual “needs” support, but also believe that children need to be cared for. But when you share custody, there should be no actual money being handed to the custodial parent and expenses should be paid for as if the family were together. How would a dual income family pay for the child’s expenses and general care if they were together? That’s the way it should be after they separate. If the Ms. Covers the soccer this month from her income while Mr. covers back to school cloths, why should it change after separation? I must be from a different planet. And I guess it’s because the custodial parent suddenly feels they are deserving of something once there is a separation and suddenly their proportionate share goes out the door with the ex???
Dg_sch you seem to have a fairly decent relationship with the ex, kudos to you for putting the kids first, wouldn’t the ex be open to a more reasonable split of the extras without having to calculate to the last penny?
As a side, my understanding is that CS covers the “normal” costs associated in raising a healthy & happy child including some extra curricular activities within reason and in relation to what was previously enjoyed by the family and in line with the beliefs of the family prior to the separation. Extraordinary expenses, I understand, are supposed to be those more costly items, like day care, dental and medical expenses etc which may be outside what the custodial parent can afford or financially cover alone??Comment
-
I wouldn't say it even comes close to being fairly descent. She has refused to pay her portion of expenses for the child living with me because he wants no cantact with her, she has also recently told me that she plans on signing over custodial rights so she doesn't have to pay support for him. I feel sorry for him but his view is that my wife is his "new mom". Just looking out for my own if you know what I mean.Originally posted by FL_Needs_To_ChangeComment
-
FL...
The problem is, the brains that determined CS did many big things wrong. Such as, they assumed
a) the child(ren) would be with the recipient parent 100% of the time
b) that the recipient parent assumed all costs
c) that the paying parent had no costs
It does not take a rocket scientist to see how quickly that logic breaks down under any other conditions. That's why paying parents are sick to death of paying once, then twice, then three and four times for the same thing. It is like being punished for being involved. And, the cherry on the cake is the recipient does not kick in their share of section 7., let alone their share of CS (yes... they ARE supposed to be covering their share of CS).
Extraordinary means that: EXTRAORDINARY!
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: ex·traor·di·nary
Pronunciation: ik-'stror-d&-"ner-E, "ek-str&-'or-
Function: adjective
1 a : going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary <extraordinary powers> b : exceptional to a very marked extent <extraordinary beauty> ...
CS is supposed to cover all those expenses. And, if Dg_sch was not an involved parent, he would never see those costs. He would simply cut his cheque and be done with it. Nice, eh.
But, you are caught between a rock and hard place. If you do not spend the $$ on lessons... your kids go without. You do... and you go broke (I know... I'm living the dream).Comment
-
Why does this not surpise me. As soon as Mom has no way of getting cash from Dad.. its out the door for the kid. They used to do that a 18 when CS would end automatically. Put somehow some idiot continued support until the kids are 30. I assume it was to prevent Mom for giving the kid the boot. Dad pays once... and then keeps on paying.Originally posted by dg_sch
I have also noticed in non-amicable divorces, the boy kids go with Dad (at some point). I wonder if Mom ever think of the damage they do which drives their kids away. Kids are adults a lot longer than they are young, easy-manipulated children.Comment
-
I am living both sides of the fence, I have an ex that wants nothing to do with his children (since they were 3 & 4) and they have formally taken on the name of my CL husband (of more than 11 years) they are 16 & 17 now. My ex went psycho on me and among other thing kid napped the children threatened to kill them and tried to leave the country. CL has recently been denied access to his daughter of 12. His marriage lasted 18 months, the ex remarried after getting pregnant shortly after. Through the grape vine learned she was unfaithful 2 years into that marriage and they divorced. She is currently on husband #3 trying to get pregnant. Moved the child (and the second child) to Thunder Bay (to be with #3) after convincing the court the father was an emotional threat to the daughter as the daughter was "afraid I hated her mother, and would harm her if she came to visit". The ex asked dad to relinquish parental rights when she married the second husband, and when he refused, (of course she wanted to have a clause included that CS continued) denied access for almost 8 months during that whole ordeal. Court ordered an assessment, which cleared the dad of course. Access resumed, and she sought more money for the extraordinary activities. When she didn't get that, she again denied access with this BS about emotional abuse. We were again ordered to take Psychological testing to rule out PAS. We were again unequivocally proven to have NEVER been any threat to the child emotionally or other wise, and it clearly stated that the child (then 9) had made this up because of something she "may have heard or learned" but the specialist wouldn't state if it was from the mother or her side of the family. Even with this ammo the courts still sided with the ex and told the dad to explain to the court how he planned to undertake strict supervised access once again, and tell the court his regime for counselling for the sake of the child so she does not feel threatened while visiting. You see, when they first separated, which really wasn’t a separation, it was the dad going where the work was, the ex sought an exparte order on the bases of abandonment to have access supervised within her city. It took 6 years to disprove that and make the court see the dad was not a threat. Several years later and god knows how much money and we are back where we were 10 years ago. The custodial parent need only say "she feels" and it is cast in stone, in the interim we must pay and keep paying. The kicker, she is now a lawyer herself and can twist the law to her own benefit. Those extra expenses just keep pilling up, yet the dad, who is the world's best dad, has zero access even email is returned, letters returned unopened, and no telephone contact as the ex screens the calls and coincidentally is never home.
So I apologise if I offended dg_sch or Decent Dad, I misunderstood the situation with dg_sch to mean they were on speaking terms and know from posts that Decent Dad is living the family law nightmare.Comment
-
Extra expenses
From that online worksheet about how to calculate Child Support, I got from it that if you are sharing 50/50 custody, you take both parents incomes, find out what the tabled amount is they should be paying, find the difference between those two amounts, and the person with the higher income pays the other that difference.
When it comes to extra expenses (such as daycare) it looks like whomever pays for them can simply deduct that annual amount from their income amount and pay the tabled amount for that instead.
Example:
parent A's salary: 80,000 - CS = $719/month
parent B's salary: 50,000 - CS = $462/month
So parent A owes parent B - $719-$462 = $257/month
BUT if parent A pays $6000 in child support for the year, he can deduct that from his income and factor that into the table.
80,000 - $6000 = $74000 so the child support now is $673
So parent A owes parent B $673 - $462 = $211/month
Does this seem right? I swear this is like the "example" they give in the guidlines. I would also then imagine parent A could claim those childcare expenses in total on his taxes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong!Comment
-
No apology required. I didn't find anything you said as offensive.Originally posted by FL_Needs_To_ChangeComment
Comment