Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does spousal support apply?

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

  • Does spousal support apply?

    My wife and I are in the early stages of sorting out our separation. We both work full time and have children. I will be paying net child support (50/50 shared custody) but how is spousal support decided? We both make a decent living, I make approx 25% more but I was thinking it doesn't apply in our case since we are both self-sufficient. Are there any rules to go by?

  • #2
    What does she think?

    If you were married long enough you may have to pay SS if it went to court, I don't know in this case (I have avoided lawyers and courts for the most part!)

    In my opinion, your marriage has not effected either of your income earning, you are both in the same general income range, and the difference in income with respect to raising the kids is compensated by CS. So I don't see the need for SS, nor do I see the entitlement for SS.

    Split all assets and debts 50/50, adjust CS yearly based on income, and get on with your lives!

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree with BllM
      Your salaries are close, you pay some CS. There would be no SS.

      FN

      Comment


      • #4
        There are three aspects to SS: entitlement, quantum and duration. Unfortunately (for a payor, not a recipient), courts seem to automatically award entitlement. However, for how much and for how long are to be determined.

        If the marriage was relatively long, and/or your ex-wife had given up a career to stay home and raise the children (ie. compensatory case), quantum and duration would be higher than if the marriage was relatively short and/or she did not give up a career to stay at home with the children. It sounds like she's working full-time now, so the courts would not deem this a compensatory case. However, they could still see her as requiring SS on a "needs" (or non-compensatory) basis. For example, she may need monies to establish a home for herself where the children will be living 50% of the time.

        Hopefully you and your ex are able to discuss matters amicably. "Need" can always be shown and sometimes court does not require a lot of evidence backing up the claim of need.

        Just my 2 cents worth...

        Comment


        • #5
          I muse to myself that the posters above all think it is just fine that she makes 25% less and things are generally even. I wonder how they would feel if it was reversed. *sigh*

          Presuming that she stayed home to have your babies for a certain amount of time, she would have missed out on her pension fund contributions for that time. But this will be equalized when your two CPP accounts (for the time you were married to separation date) are added together and split 50/50. Also the court's view is that if you agreed to her staying home with the kids, then you are also agreeing to help her financially in later years so your two work pensions would be split in the same manner as CPP. Presuming you have not been married for a long time, this would not make much difference.

          Comment


          • #6
            Just to add...

            Been married for over 20 years...the wife took MAT leaves each time but returned to full time work after each child was 1 year old. We plan to avoid lawyers as much as possible and I have no problems paying CS based on my higher income level. Assets will be split 50/50 and part of the equalization payment will include any difference in our pension values. The matrimonial home will be sold and proceeds split and we have enough household contents for each of us to set up a new home. Both of us are in management and make comfortable salaries. I am not looking to shaft her but I guess my view was that SS was paid if the wife was a stay at home mother or only worked part time and needed support to get established.

            Comment


            • #7
              hi there here is a link that you can go to that may help you out
              Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines

              best of luck

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by yearsgone View Post
                I muse to myself that the posters above all think it is just fine that she makes 25% less and things are generally even. I wonder how they would feel if it was reversed. *sigh*
                It is just fine that she makes less - she makes what she makes based on her abilities, efforts, education, etc - all things that she determined as an individual independent of marriage and family (from what the poster has told us). What is not 'fine' about that?

                Making within 25% of another person generally puts you in the same ecnonomic level, especially considering taxes etc.

                Originally posted by yearsgone View Post
                I wonder how they would feel if it was reversed. *sigh*
                The same.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I agree with billm.

                  The facts here are pretty straightforward. Both spouses make reasonable livings, there does not appear to be a need for SS. The mom only took a year off for each of her kids, and almost certainly suffered no career impairment. Based on her described carreer, she probably received a top up to her EI for at least 17 weeks. Even if she didn't no SS would appear to be warranted here.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by yearsgone
                    I muse to myself that the posters above all think it is just fine that she makes 25% less and things are generally even. I wonder how they would feel if it was reversed. *sigh*

                    I don't recall stating an opinion either way in my post - just some general rules that courts seem to use when determining whether SS should apply.

                    I muse to myself that any statement that can be misconstrued is turned into an "anti-woman" statement. Instead of having my opinion falsely advertised, for the record I don't think it is fine that a mother (or father for that matter) not be treated fairly. However, it appears that both parties in this case have the means to provide for their children. Kudos to the mother for not automatically assuming that her role as "mother" excludes her from roles such as "employee" and "breadwinner". And kudos to the father for taking on household responsibilities to permit the mother to re-enter the workforce.

                    You wonder how I would feel if the situation were reversed? I'd say "Kudos to the father for not clinging to his role as dad as an excuse to not work outside of the home. Kudos to the mom for recognizing that a man is just as capable of rearing children as a woman."

                    I wonder what family law would be like if instead of automatically assuming women are the only sex capable of being a parent and men are only as good as the money they bring in, it could be recognized that either sex can be both parent and financial contributor. *sigh*

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Would also like to add that based on netting together what each of us would respectfully pay each other in child support, I as the higher income earner will be paying the net difference in CS to my wife resulting in equal income levels in each household. To me, this seems fair.

                      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