Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are you serious??

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

  • Are you serious??

    I just spoke to a lawyer on the phone about revisiting child support. He cautioned me that since it is 50/50 the judge will take the offset amount and divide it in half since it is equivilant to 6 months, 6 months. Is that true??? I have never heard such a thing!!!!
    Last edited by baclayton; 09-26-2011, 01:35 PM. Reason: more info

  • #2
    he told me to go to mediation in hopes that my ex is not real smart???? excuse me??

    Comment


    • #3
      Half the offset amount is actually the preferred way to divide the responsibility of financing for the children if both people are really paying half.

      The idea:

      Person A amount = 700/month
      Person B amount = 500/month

      This implies that the parents should contribute a total of $1200/month between them.

      Traditional offset:

      Offset amount = 200/month.

      But this means person B pays $700 per month while Person A is only paying $500 per month. Thus, not really fair.

      New offset amount = 100/month.

      This means each person is contribution exactly half, $600/month.

      Much better solution. Half offset for the win!

      Comment


      • #4
        I REALLY like that concept since it makes sense. HOWEVER, my lawyer advised me its very unlikely that would pass a court challenge since the "traditional" approach is the "norm".

        Now, if the net recipeient "agreed" to it, maybe you could get it.

        QUESTION: is my lawyer right that if the recipient (my wife) disagreed with it, is it pretty well a given that the court would impose "traditional" offset (ie. $200 in this example vs $100 for "better" way). ?

        I would really appreciate any feedback on this.

        Comment


        • #5
          There's case law to support the method I mentioned of half offset. Poke around on the forums a bit you can find the relevant case. It was quite radical at the time and a lot of families are hoping to adopt it since it seems much more fair when you understand the logic of why traditional offset is wrong... it takes "haves" and gives to the "have nots" in an unbalanced way that is remnicient of how child support is often just a hidden form of spousal support.

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe "tayken" was kind enough to get the reference in Canlii. HOWEVER, it was only for "interim" child support arrangements, not the final order. I gave this to my lawyer and she didn't think it would fly.

            Can you show an example of where the court imposed the "new" system (much fairer IMHO) on the 'final" child support order ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Sorry I don't have another case on my radar, though I know that in most cases, interim measures usually become permanent as status quo duration increases short of material changes in circumstance.

              Interestingly enough, the OP's lawyer indicated that this half offset was what was expected in his or her case and they seemed shocked.

              From what I've seen though, even ones own lawyers rarely have an interest in doing proper leg work to get support payments to be fair. My lawyer arranged for me to pay a grossly inflated amount of spousal support simply by not getting any information from me or my ex spouse before calculating it.

              For example, she assumed my ex spouse had zero income which wasn't quite true, and she did not take into account my family expenses (family health insurance premiums and life insurance) which both are supposed to reduce my spousal support amounts.

              When the separation agreement came through I was finally able to lower the SS by a small amount but it remains higher than it should have been... and there's no way to get back the money I overpaid for the entire time we negotiated the agreement (11+ months).

              I know well how unreasonable ex spouses can be... you could try outlining it on paper as total CS bi-anually, line up the columns and indicate the balancing point amount month by month. It should be hard to argue against the logic of that maybe it's worth a try.

              Comment


              • #8
                Really really REALLY depends on the judge. You can agree to almost anything, assuming you aren't totally signing away support.

                The problem with any kind of calculations on the fly, is they can be a HUGE pain in the ass if both sides aren't amicable about it. If there is any kind of conflict involved, it can become a nightmare.

                The "normal" way of calculating things is to use the NOA's and the tables, simply because if you are going to argue about it, the judges need SOME sort of standardized way of ruling on things. (and the CS tables are supposed to take into account things like income taxes/etc as part of the figures). It's a pretty general consensus that the table amounts are pretty over inflated and need some revamping.

                It's ALWAYS in EVERYONE'S best interests to work together. Involving the court should be for extreme situations only.

                And to the OP...you need to decide if the $$$ you stand to gain from CS outweighs the time, effort and cost to drag him back to court. Unless he's gone from making minimum wage to 6 figures, any increase in income is going to have a negligible effect on CS. The extra couple hundred you'll get a year, is going to be paying off the lawyer for the next 3-5, JUST for that one court action.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The math of 50/50 and using full offset means that it costs twice as much to raise the kids in two homes as compared to one (not fair to the higher income earner because it is not true)

                  The math of 50/50 and using half offset means that it costs the same to raise the kids in two homes as compared to one (not fair to the lower income earner because it is not true)

                  So somewhere between half offset and full offset would be fair in that a two home arrangement the parents would spend more to raise their kids than a single home situation with full CS, but not twice as much.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Now figure out how to calculate that, AND get the existing crop of CS recipients to agree to it. AND get all the organizations that so heavily influenced the existing calculations to agree to it.

                    Good bloody luck The very fact it makes sense is why it'll never happen

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Would everyone agree then that in a 50/50 custody the "norm" (at least currently) is full offset vs "Half offset" ?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think shared custody is still uncommon enough that there many not be a "norm" at this point. Most people in shared custody seem able to work together well enough to not need court and simply work out the matter between them in a logical and simple way that may have nothing to do with the Guidelines.

                        If you want something that is likely to stand up in court, using full offset is more likely to be upheld than other methods. But there's no set amount of support for shared custody that necessarily works for everyone.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by winterwolf7 View Post
                          Half the offset amount is actually the preferred way to divide the responsibility of financing for the children if both people are really paying half.

                          The idea:

                          Person A amount = 700/month
                          Person B amount = 500/month

                          This implies that the parents should contribute a total of $1200/month between them.

                          Traditional offset:

                          Offset amount = 200/month.

                          But this means person B pays $700 per month while Person A is only paying $500 per month. Thus, not really fair.

                          New offset amount = 100/month.

                          This means each person is contribution exactly half, $600/month.

                          Much better solution. Half offset for the win!
                          In your example the two incomes are close. I don't see how this would work if there is a huge difference in the two incomes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It works exactly the same way but the unfairness gets even more exaggerated.

                            Person A amount = 1700/month
                            Person B amount = 300/month

                            This implies that the parents should be spending about $2000/month to support the children between them. Each person should be responsible for half of this or $1000.

                            Offset amount = 1400/month.

                            That means that Person A is assumed to have $1000 in child expenses plus they are paying $1400 on top of that, for a total cost of $2400 per month.

                            It also means that Person B spends their own $300 but has an extra $1400 to work with. Thus they end up with a surplus of $700 since they are also expected to have $1000 in child expenses.

                            Person A = $2400 in costs, much higher than their table amount.
                            Person B = $700 net profit after paying their expected expenses.

                            Simple math, unbalanced result is very obvious.

                            Half offset would again be giving each parent what they needed for $1000 in child costs without exceeding table amounts.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              CS tables are not intended to be based on expenses.

                              For example, two CP's live in different apartments in different areas of town and very different rents. Even if all other expenses are the same, there will be a difference of several hundred dollars per month. But CS is not affected by rent or any other expense.

                              Approaching the question by claiming that CS tables are based on each parent supposedly having the same expense is an exercize in frustration and failure. The tables aren't intended to be black and white that way.

                              The intent of the tables is to at partially equalize the standard of living in each household. The child should not feel that one parent has a nice, lovely house and the other is a hole. The child should not feel that one parent can do a lot for them and the other cannot.

                              The system isn't perfect, and cannot be perfect. If too much flexibility is built in, then the tables become meaningless and litigation goes on and on and on. The tables are strict, with full knowledge that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

                              A large intent of the tables was to take the question of how much support out of the courtroom. Once the tables were mandatory, that argument pretty much evaporated. Many couples now can avoid court altogether, if they are sensible, realizing that CS is a slam dunk.

                              Arguing the set off calculations based on shared expenses is only rational if shared expenses are the only issue in setting the table amounts, which is false. So the argument will just lead you around in circles.

                              The tables are not perfect and there are alternatives, but making a convincing argument for change requires addressing all the issues, not just one.

                              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