section 7...can they leave him with nothing?

[pippidee]

Quick rundown...my bf is making net $500 a week. He is paying $560 a month in table amount support. He gives me a very very conservative sum of $640 a month to help with rent..food...utililies. $1200 of $2000 used so far....leaves $800.

Now ex mom is wanting half of childcare for which she claims she is spending $1000 a month. Half of that is $500. That leaves about 300 to his name to pay for his car (because she won't transport the kids at all for visits), kids resps, cell phone (we do not have a home phone),,,and any other things that arise (outings for girls, medications, etc) He would basically have not a penny to his name after 50% of her alleged daycare costs. She is also claiming she was denied subsidy which I find hard to believe as I know people who make more in her town and receive it...plus I called subsidy office and they said currently no waiting list.

1) is it likely with his income they will make him pay half...close to half...or anything at all? What is your experience?
2) can we make her prove she was denied subsidy if this goes to court?

Also she made the decision to buy a house before their matrimonial home was even sold...now she is feeling the crunch because she never could afford it....and this brought about the demand for childcare expenses. Would the judge look at the fact that she owns a home but he can barely pay rent on a 1 bedroom apt? If we were ever to split...he would be on the street.

[inconsolable]

By Law she's entitled to section 7 expenses but she needs to prove them - cancelled cheques, copies of nanny/daycare contracts, etc. Note that s.7 monies to be reimbursed by the other party are calculated based on the costs of daycare after any tax credits and child benefits from the gov't are taken into consideration. If actual costs are 1000 then his portion, assuming they both make the same incomes, would be closer to 375 - 400. I'm no accountant so you should confirm any figures. Lawyers use a program called Divorcemate to figure these out. Fed. Gov't information on claiming daycare expenses on your income tax form is available online allowing you to determine what she gets back on her income taxes due to incurring costs for daycare.
He can claim hardship but it appears she can as well. If the child lives primarily with her, his concerns will be viewed, probably, as of less importance. S.7 expenses are based on both parties incomes: if he make's more money, he pays more money and vice versa of course.
Looks like nobody can afford a lawyer. Keep them out and try to negotiate something lower. Judges really can't care about either parties financial hardships but will view any child's situation with a careful eye and whomever the child resides with will primarily win out.

[Laughingstock]

I am in the court process for this issue right now.

We settled in 2012 out of court with lawyers. Lawyers made agreement that ex would pay babysitting and provide me with monthly receipt from her sitter of amount she paid. I then would reimburse her my proportionate share of this expense.

Ex refused to follow agreement, providing me monthly receipt though---She kept saying that her sitter would only give a yearly receipt. Ex just told me monthly child care amounts in e-mails.

So I paid ex for all of 2012 and part of 2013.....When it was obvious that ex was not going to come up with any receipts, I stopped paying.

Now we are in court.

Had a very recent case conference.

Judge said that our agreement the lawyers did is legally wrong.
He said that I should have never ever paid ex monthly.
He said that I should not have been paying anything until end of the year---after ex provides me with her income tax and CRA approved receipt from the babysitter.

He told ex that her income tax needs to be deducted off the top of the child care expenses before I owe her anything, and that she is being petty, fighting for nickels and dimes.

The judge told her that she had a certain number of days to provide me with her yearly income taxes and the CRA approved child care receipts.

Ex has failed to do so at this point......and we have another court appearance next week.

......I am still confused about what exact benefits/credits get deducted from her income tax off the child care expense.

There are many threads on here that I have viewed regarding this, but they are confusing...they don't give an exact income tax line number to deduct or they say that the benefits/credits just get added to ex's income.......but that is not what the case conference judge told us very recently-----He was clear that the amount had to be deducted right off the top of her child care expenses, she was seeking reimbursement for, before I owed anything.

[pippidee]

The verbiage in the divorce act states that section 7 is proportionate to income but also based on the payors ability to pay. How do they determine ability to pay? If you are going into overdraft every month as a result of half of daycare expenses do they say too bad so sad or is this a consideration?

[arabian]

500.00/week net (equates to 2166.00/month) as some months have more than 4 weeks.

[MS Mom]

I am in the court process for this issue right now.

We settled in 2012 out of court with lawyers. Lawyers made agreement that ex would pay babysitting and provide me with monthly receipt from her sitter of amount she paid. I then would reimburse her my proportionate share of this expense.

Ex refused to follow agreement, providing me monthly receipt though---She kept saying that her sitter would only give a yearly receipt. Ex just told me monthly child care amounts in e-mails.

So I paid ex for all of 2012 and part of 2013.....When it was obvious that ex was not going to come up with any receipts, I stopped paying.

Now we are in court.

Had a very recent case conference.

Judge said that our agreement the lawyers did is legally wrong.
He said that I should have never ever paid ex monthly.
He said that I should not have been paying anything until end of the year---after ex provides me with her income tax and CRA approved receipt from the babysitter.

He told ex that her income tax needs to be deducted off the top of the child care expenses before I owe her anything, and that she is being petty, fighting for nickels and dimes.

The judge told her that she had a certain number of days to provide me with her yearly income taxes and the CRA approved child care receipts.

Ex has failed to do so at this point......and we have another court appearance next week.

......I am still confused about what exact benefits/credits get deducted from her income tax off the child care expense.

There are many threads on here that I have viewed regarding this, but they are confusing...they don't give an exact income tax line number to deduct or they say that the benefits/credits just get added to ex's income.......but that is not what the case conference judge told us very recently-----He was clear that the amount had to be deducted right off the top of her child care expenses, she was seeking reimbursement for, before I owed anything.

In my opinion, going through your ex's NOA/Income tax looking for minimal credits received to share with you is "nickelling and diming" someone. Depending on the incomes involved, there may be little in credits to recoup....and if your income is high, you wouldn't benefit by claiming these deductions.

My ex's lawyer insisted on doing what you are going to court to do right now. The ex paid his lawyer nearly $400 an hour to find a total of $9 in tax credits.

Did she pay for daycare? Then you owe your share of that daycare. Paying it as she pays for it would be the respectable thing to do. Holding on to reimbursement for monthly expenses so that you can confirm you aren't overpaying by $20 it just making problems where there weren't problems.

There isn't a line number on the tax return to go find the information you are looking for. Its a combination of credits provincial, federal - some are non refundable tax credits, others are monthly amounts you receive as a result of the expenses. It's a confusing mess.....and if your ex works (which I assume she does since daycare is required), unless she's on minimum wage without another income earner in the home, the credits are minimal. The credits also don't have any direct bearing on her ongoing expenses.

Maybe the daycare she's paying isn't on "receipt", meaning maybe the daycare providers is doing the work "under the table". Forcing them to produce receipts will INCREASE monthly daycare costs, and you may be worse off with your share of that expense.

[MS Mom]

Quick rundown...my bf is making net $500 a week. He is paying $560 a month in table amount support. He gives me a very very conservative sum of $640 a month to help with rent..food...utililies. $1200 of $2000 used so far....leaves $800.

Now ex mom is wanting half of childcare for which she claims she is spending $1000 a month. Half of that is $500. That leaves about 300 to his name to pay for his car (because she won't transport the kids at all for visits), kids resps, cell phone (we do not have a home phone),,,and any other things that arise (outings for girls, medications, etc) He would basically have not a penny to his name after 50% of her alleged daycare costs. She is also claiming she was denied subsidy which I find hard to believe as I know people who make more in her town and receive it...plus I called subsidy office and they said currently no waiting list.

1) is it likely with his income they will make him pay half...close to half...or anything at all? What is your experience?
2) can we make her prove she was denied subsidy if this goes to court?

Also she made the decision to buy a house before their matrimonial home was even sold...now she is feeling the crunch because she never could afford it....and this brought about the demand for childcare expenses. Would the judge look at the fact that she owns a home but he can barely pay rent on a 1 bedroom apt? If we were ever to split...he would be on the street.

Daycare expenses have nothing to do with her buying the matrimonial home. That's like saying that he doesn't have to pay his share of the expenses because she went on vacation. One has nothing to do with the other.

Expenses are split proportionate to income. So, if he makes 50000 and she makes 50000, then they would split it 50/50.

His income + Her income divided by his income equals the percentage he must pay towards that expense.

Just because there is no waiting list for subsidy, doesn't mean that she qualifies for it - it doesn't take a higher level of reasoning to work that out. And, because other people in her town make more money, doesn't mean that she's slacking. Again, one has nothing to do with the other.

My next door neighbor makes $100G a year. That doesn't mean I don't need my ex's contribution to the expenses, nor does it mean that I make 100G a year. The next door neighbor is a gas fitter - I'm a payroll manager.

You aren't going to make a case for paying or not paying these expenses with ludicrous statements like this.

[arabian]

Children are not supposed to suffer because the parents divorce. That is why CS is the right of the child.

[MS Mom]

500.00/week net (equates to 2166.00/month) as some months have more than 4 weeks.

He's making about $40G a year and paying support for two children. That's how the math adds up.

$40G a year isn't enough money to support yourself independently and two children through child support. It's only reasonable that he has nothing left at the end of the month. The fact that he contributes to RESPs is remarkable really.

He doesn't make enough money, this where the problem lies. I make a little more than that and have trouble supporting myself and one child while receiving child support.

[pippidee]

Apparently you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I did not say anyplace that she qualifies for subsidy based automatically on their not being a waiting list. Qualification for subsidy is based on one factor how much you make. Also. I said she bought her own home, not the matrimonial home. I hope no one on here takes your advice since you don't bother to read before making your own ludicris claims.....

[pippidee]

................

[pippidee]

CS and section 7 are completely different entities...perhaps I need to find a place where the people giving me advice have a more advanced level of knowledge on the subject than I do...since that is definitely not here. He is paying the table amounts of support....section 7 and anything else are discretionary and at the determination of a judge or between the parties.

[MS Mom]

If she's an RN - why does subsidized daycare factor in anywhere? An RN would never qualify for subsidized daycare and probably makes a sufficient amount to buy her own home. Good for her. Good for the kids.

You've decided that your spouse's ex is milking your spouse because she expects him to pay his fair share.

[pippidee]

I have not decided it. I see that he has almost no money at the end of the month...and I also see her state that she cannot find full-time work as an RN and therefore does make little enough to qualify for subsidy. How do I know? Because I make more than her AND I qualify in the same town!!!!!

[MS Mom]

CS and section 7 are completely different entities...perhaps I need to find a place where the people giving me advice have a more advanced level of knowledge on the subject than I do...since that is definitely not here. He is paying the table amounts of support....section 7 and anything else are discretionary and at the determination of a judge or between the parties.

They are different.

You contradict yourself in these posts. You say the agreement states that there are no S7 expenses. You state that there is an expectation that he pay half.

If she's an RN and he works in a factory making substantially less, his share would be significantly less than half of the daycare costs, even if he were responsible for S7 expenses. But, you claim the agreement states he isn't responsible.

So, if there's no material change that would warrant her looking at this agreement again - ie, she is now employed, wasn't when the agreement was made - or she earns more money, he earns less, whatever.....there needs to be a change that would warrant re-visiting this again.