Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Challenging the child support tables... possible?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
    The vast majority of payors will view their support obligations as being too high. This is because, as two homes are now being supported with the resources that once supported one home, the vast majority of newly separated individuals experience a dramatic decrease in their financial security and purchasing power. At a time when they are already pinching the belt, more is lost.
    I hypothesize this is because the vast majority of marriages break down because of financial reasons and the resulting financial strains that the couple has. The root of many divorces are financially related basically. One parent has a view of the family finances that is not realistic. Often it is because one (or both) of the parents have been financially irresponsible during the marriage.

    It is not uncommon to see Form 13.1s in family court with pre-existing debt well beyond reason in the family. Judges often comment on the massive marital debt and that financial consulting for both parents would be more appropriate than a court order.

    Most marriages breakdown due to financial expectations especially when children are involved. It isn't uncommon to hear a negative advocate lawyer try to argue "but parent X makes so much money" and a justice to respond in kind stating "but, your client spent so much of it and has unrealistic expectations"...

    My view is consistent with the reporting from Statistics Canada on the average debt that Canadian house holds are taking on. It is more similar to the debt crisis issue in the US that caused the financial melt down in that nation. Canadians are not that different than our next door neighbors these days on our debt holdings.

    Trying to litigate a better life style through spousal support and child support is a common truism. The reality being though that income and employment are not guarenteed and spousal support and child support are not intended to be "lifestyle insurance" for parents or their children.

    What someone makes today may not be the same the next day. People on average change careers 3 times in their life time. It doesn't mean that they always make more money with these changes in career.

    I further hypothesize that many people who get married have an unrealistic expectation of what it takes financially to support a family. Their unrealistic financial expectations can reek havoc in Family Law situations.

    Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
    It is inevitable that there will be some circumstances where individuals find results that are less fair than they would have liked. The family court system in Ontario strives to reduce the number of these situations, while keeping the overall costs low.
    I hypothesize that they find the results "less fair" because they have inflaited and unrealistic expectations on what is possible. More than likely the relationship breakdown was due to one or both of the parties failure to understand this basic principal in life:

    "It isn't about how much money you make... But, about how much money you have. A millionaire isn't defined by making a million dollars a year but, actually having a million dollars in the bank saved up."

    To add to this... A million dollars isn't much money in today's society really... It isn't enough to sustain a life style of say, living in the city, travelling all over the globe with your children and having what I like to call the "Friends" life style...

    Friends Lifestyle: Friends Rent Control - Television Tropes & Idioms

    If Monica or Chandler's apartment on Friends had been realistic for their income and New York City's high cost of living, it'd be a single room with maybe a kitchenette and a bathroom. Doing a scene with all six main characters would have been a total nightmare for the cast and crew. Also, especially in sitcoms, indoor sets usually have one completely blank "wall" where the crew and studio audience are, requiring the rest of the set to take up a lot more space than is needed to fit in all the requisite furniture and appliances.

    To emphasize, this isn't just about having a large or open plane home for the characters. It is about the correlation between typical price of living, financial stability of the characters, the quality of the place and its surrounding neighborhood, and then the actual size. Having a large home wouldn't be too expensive if it's in a "quaint" neighborhood, Suburbia, and/or smaller cities like Pittsburgh or Milwaukee which have low costs of living. And a steady day-job tends to be more lucrative than a wish-fulfillment career.
    Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
    Would it be worth having fewer hospitals to afford more judges and court houses? We live in a world (and province) with limited resources. Perfect justice, that being fast, fair and cost effective, cannot exist in such a world.
    To answer the question. Nope.

    Everyone in our society will require medical services some time in their life. In comparison only a small fraction of individuals will need to leverage the family law system. We as members of society have to realize exactly what you pointed out... We live in a society with limited resources. We all need to live well within our means for our society to succeed and to improve our society.

    Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
    The family court system operates to see fair results for all parties, often in situations that have no happy ending.
    More specifically... high conflict situations rarely have a happy ending...

    Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
    Ultimately, however, the best guarantee of fair and satisfactory results are reasonable negotiations conducted by adults who decide that acting with integrity and considering compromise is the most effective way to show their children how to behave, and to show their love for their children is greater than their hate for their ex.
    Well said.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Comment


    • #47
      just want to humbly point out, the argument of the "system is biased" comes up every so often, and the counter argument is almost always suggestive that the law = system. that assumption in my opinion is very incorrect.
      and here is why. in my point of view the people associated with the law make the "system" i.e. the "system" = "law + people implementing it in any capacity" i will note a few examples below.

      a) the OCL social worker makes an assessment based on truisms favoring the mother.
      b) as per the law the judge should take the recommendations into account only at trial and not before. most often the judges implement the crux of the report right away.
      c) by the time trial comes the status quo set by the previous judge on recommendation of the social worker is so lengthy that its almost impossible to remove or over turn.
      d) in theory it is possible ("LAW") to fight it out all the way to supreme court. but by that time the child may already be reaching the age of majority. i.e. "the system" at every step helped on party hold with their point of view while the other had an upwards battle to get what was rightly theirs.

      another example.
      the law does not allow your ex to have you falsely charged with DV etc. but few tears later she can have it done regardless of the law. in theory if you are not found guilty there should be no prejudice against you because of the false arrest ever. BUT, in reality. you will most certainly be disqualified for any job that requires level 3 security clearance etc. you will never be allowed to work with vulnerable people i.e. children, elderly etc.
      thats "the system" messing with you.

      or the cop who would have otherwise just let you go on a traffic stop would be sure to give you a ticket after she sees that you have a previous arrest record and so on.

      all this had nothing to do with CS. but it had every thing to do with "the system" which is part of deciding and implementing CS. it would be illogical for us to think that "the system" was and is skewed in other places but the CS amounts were decided sanely.

      also lets reverse the coin once again. if the ontario's (and rest of canada) way is the right way to decide CS then most certainly the mother's receiving CS in quebec should be living in sheer poverty, are they? and if they were; the feminist organizations would have run over quebec city by now. they havent! the calculations that work in quebec could certainly work here too.

      Comment


      • #48
        The tables are simply that tables, not bias, given an income a parent pays this much.
        But I believe the allocation of the fund should be pooled and split in a different way.
        Right now if you fall under the offset amount you you simply pay each other as if each has sole access. I believe a more fair method is to put both parents (support obligations) into a pool and then divide this by 50% in my case.
        By my calculations I have to spend more on the children than what I acutally pay her which if you then look that up is an imputed income of over 26,000.
        I believe I have posted it here before, I can't find it at the moment.

        Anyhow If you take the amount each parents support obligations and then pool the money and divide by the access then that seems like the most fair thing to do.
        And it could also apply to children who don't fall under the 40% threshold.

        Comment


        • #49
          I'm sorry this thread turned the way it has... it wasn't meant to start a gender based argument or anything. I respect that there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument. I also respect that many within the system need to work with what is legislated.

          I have two main issues with how the Child support tables are determined:
          1) the equivalence scale that was selected and
          2) the apportioning method (read model used to determine the formula)

          But I will focus on the equivalence scale and will put forward for others to evaluate a list of equivalence scales that were either considered or used for comparison when they were building the Child support tables. The Notes at the bottom are very important because you are not always comparing apples to apples.

          The scale highlighted in yellow was the scale determined to be the best estimate of the expenses for children.

          The scale highlighted in orange is the scale that was selected by the committee.

          Again my objection is that the system is flawed. Not that it is biased.

          ETA: One important note when looking at these numbers is that the 40/30 scale is used as an after tax scale in the apportioning method. All the scales in the table are intended to be pre tax scales save 1 (the 1986 StatsCan scale that specifies after tax).

          https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=0&output=html
          Last edited by SingingDad; 07-14-2013, 04:45 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            For the record, I expressed to my lawyer recently that I feared that my ex would quit her job, so I would have to pay extra support.
            He said not to worry about it, because a judge would just impugn the support payments, and state that she had been capable of making $x/year. Often, its a defense used against fathers who go from $80000/year jobs to $40000/year jobs to lessen their payments.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by notadeadbeatdad72 View Post
              For the record, I expressed to my lawyer recently that I feared that my ex would quit her job, so I would have to pay extra support.
              Hmm, what you call 'extra support', I call raising kids in proportion to your actual incomes.

              Originally posted by notadeadbeatdad72 View Post
              He said not to worry about it, because a judge would just impugn the support payments, and state that she had been capable of making $x/year. Often, its a defense used against fathers who go from $80000/year jobs to $40000/year jobs to lessen their payments.
              and how dare anyone decide where and how they work!

              Imputing income for CS purposes, other than for the purpose of setting someone's actual income (via other means such as under the table, gifts/support from others) is unjust.

              No one should be forced to earn a particular income - and no where else is that even considered for parents except in divorce. Married/single parents do not have judges ordering them to give more money to their kids if they make less than their 'potential'.

              I pay offset CS - I would love my ex to work more/make more/earn more than me - paying CS when you have the kids half the time sucks, but I would never think to impute an income to her - where and how she works is her business 100%. Not to mention in the offset CS case, it is not in the best interests of the children to pretend one parent is making more than they are - it puts them in an even worse position in that house.

              Comment


              • #52
                You must have misunderstood. The case for imputing income is only a contingency in the event that one parent maliciously decides to reduce their income in order to get away with paying less for support.
                Yes, it does hurt the kids in the long run because lower income=less money for the kids.
                My ex is rather vindictive in nature, due to the fact that I caught her in an affair, and I refused to "take her back" because she left me.

                She misrepresented her income initially, and I caught her on it (she reported about $10g lower than what she was really making). She also falsely reported to CRA that she had the kids full time so she would get 100% of the CCTC.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by notadeadbeatdad72 View Post
                  You must have misunderstood. The case for imputing income is only a contingency in the event that one parent maliciously decides to reduce their income in order to get away with paying less for support.
                  Yes, it does hurt the kids in the long run because lower income=less money for the kids.
                  My ex is rather vindictive in nature, due to the fact that I caught her in an affair, and I refused to "take her back" because she left me.

                  ...
                  I still don't agree with imputing in that case. If that is her reason for working less, she is stupid - it hurts her more than anyone else. Still her call how much and where she works (with respect to CS anyway). As long as her actual income (ie what she is living on - work, gifts, etc) is used to determine CS, that is fair.

                  Its not your place to tell her.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    If she's capable of working, and has the skill set to earn a particular income, and has made such an income, then why should the father suffer because she decides to be a dickhead and quit her job to collect more CS?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by notadeadbeatdad72 View Post
                      If she's capable of working, and has the skill set to earn a particular income, and has made such an income, then why should the father suffer because she decides to be a dickhead and quit her job to collect more CS?
                      Because it is up to her how much and where she works, as with any free person.

                      Also, why do you suggest a parent 'suffers' simply because they use offset cs method based on actual income. If she was less capable of earning what she does now, and worked full time but made less overall - does that mean the other parent 'suffers' - and its the kids that the CS is for so that is who the question of suffering is about - and kids are raised in accordance with what their parents make, as is in marriage or single parenting.

                      You raise your kids in proportion to income, not the potential income of what you wish your former spouse makes. Also, if anyone is 'suffering' financially, it is the parent who works less - CS does not compensate dollar for dollar, far from it.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        IMO, I think the solution is that it should be on actual net income...now I'm exculding self-employed here.

                        100 dollars in child support is 100 dollars.....

                        100 dollars in the houshold of a payee is less after taxes...How is that helpful to children ?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          You're putting words in my mouth. If she's unable to work due to specific circumstances, then yes, the offset amount would work in that case.

                          However, if she is more than capable of going to work, has been working, but decides, "Hey, I'm going to screw him!" and quits her job, then why does she deserve the extra support? She would turf $2000/month to gain an extra $300/month in income. But, my ex wife is entirely irrational an immature, and I wouldn't put it past her to do something like this. This is a woman who claimed $1000/month income (even though it was $2000), and said that she spent $500/month on clothing, $300/month on alcohol, and $60/month on food.

                          I realize this is a bonehead move, but hey, my ex is capable of those kinds of things. When she left, she left me with a rather sizable debt that was in both our names, and she refused to pay any of it. Her response was, "You pay half of my rent, and I'll pay half of the loan!"

                          Um...first, I'm not legally obligated to pay any of your rent, because my name is not on the lease, but sure, if you want to do that, your rent is $400/month, I'll pay $200/month, and the loan is $1000/month, so you pay $500/month. Sounds fair.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            If she's capable of working, and has the skill set to earn a particular income, and has made such an income, then why should the father suffer because she decides to be a dickhead and quit her job to collect more CS?
                            As my ex put it "My full-time job is a stay at home mom"

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by notadeadbeatdad72 View Post
                              You must have misunderstood. The case for imputing income is only a contingency in the event that one parent maliciously decides to reduce their income in order to get away with paying less for support.
                              Yes, it does hurt the kids in the long run because lower income=less money for the kids.
                              My ex is rather vindictive in nature, due to the fact that I caught her in an affair, and I refused to "take her back" because she left me.

                              She misrepresented her income initially, and I caught her on it (she reported about $10g lower than what she was really making). She also falsely reported to CRA that she had the kids full time so she would get 100% of the CCTC.
                              How many children do you have? 1 or 2
                              If you have shared access, and two children each should be able to claim 1 child as a dependent.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I have 2. And that works fun as long as both parents are being civil to one another. When one parent is as vindictive as mine...she's trying to screw me every turn she can get.
                                She told me to claim one child as a dependant, and that we would split CCTC. Neither of those happened, so I had to notify CRA myself of the situation. She had falsely reported that she was the primary parent of the children.

                                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