Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

no child support due to shared parenting clause

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

  • #31
    Also, just to add:


    I think this is simply an issue of the judge forgetting to insert an update clause. I don't believe a judge would knowingly order that no c/s be paid forever, notwithstanding any material changes in financial situations. It just doesn't seem reasonable, as a person in the field (albeit not family law), that a judge would do that. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No.



    My reasoning for thinking the above is the order does order that NoA's be exchanged, which is step 1 to updating c/s. It is simply missing step 2, actually ordering that c/s be adjusted accordingly. Assuming the order is written as the OP provides, it is likely a judge would also think in a similar manner and order c/s be updated.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
      I think this is simply an issue of the judge forgetting to insert an update clause.
      Quite possible. Depends on the reasons for judgement. If the trial judge did not provide an analysis to arrive at zero CS, the judgement would be vulnerable to being overturned on appeal. If I were tunnelight's ex's lawyer I would go back to the trial judge to seek clarification on the CS order before approving its form.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
        I have the clause no child support payable by either party due to shared parenting in my final order. it doesn't mention anything about incomes and table amounts.



        there is a clause every year we will exchange tax returns.



        there is a clause also that within 30 days of obtaining new employment. I will inform ex.



        if I get a new job, and inform ex, do I really have to start paying her anything based on the wording of this order? Can I say we are still sharing custody on an 50.50 basis and don't agree to child support?


        This was the original post. More than likely the clauses were listed as: based on current income no support is payable; parties will exchange NOA on an annual basis; should OP obtain employment he is to update the other parent accordingly.

        My husband has two of the three clauses in his agreement as he was unemployed at the time of their order. As outlined by his lawyer and the judge who heard arguments on underemployment, the clause to update upon receiving employment was correct and the clause to share income information was also correct. I was sharing the knowledge I have received from both a lawyer and comments from a judge. You can takr it how you want.

        I believe hammerdad is correct in his assessment and he worded what I was trying to articulate well.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by CoolGuy41 View Post

          No, the prevailing case law is Contino v. Leanelli-Contino in the SCC.
          Nope. Rocksan is right- it's DBS.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by iona6656 View Post
            Nope. Rocksan is right- it's DBS.
            Can you pls post a link to it?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by CoolGuy41 View Post
              Can you pls post a link to it?
              I did a search on QuickLaw Advance (used by lawyers)- I looked up both cases and while Contino v. Leanelli-Contino has like 2 more cites in caselaw- it's also distinguished way more- and it's been treated negatively. DBS has not been treated negatively.

              I also searched the term "leading case law on child support" - and researched the secondary sources- legal articles, etc...it's D.B.S that is cited.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by iona6656 View Post
                I did a search on QuickLaw Advance (used by lawyers)...
                You must have misunderstood my request as "pls brag about your secret lawyer stuff".

                If by DBS you are referring to this, then it appears to be a SCC judgement on 4 appeals dealing specifically with retroactive CS.

                Comment


                • #38
                  no child support due to shared parenting clause

                  Parents have an obligation to support their children in a manner commensurate with their income, and this obligation and the children’s concomitant right to support exist independently of any statute or court order. To determine whether a retroactive award would be appropriate, the court must first consider the prevailing legislation and child support scheme. To the extent that the federal scheme has eschewed a purely need‑based analysis, this free‑standing obligation implies that the total amount of child support owed will generally fluctuate based on the payor parent’s income. Thus, under that scheme, payor parents who do not increase their child support payments to correspond with their incomes will not have fulfilled their obligations to their children.
                  Thats the part my husbands lawyer was getting at.
                  Last edited by rockscan; 06-26-2019, 02:03 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I should also add that I have read of, and a couple of people on this forum have had, judges not even looking at the paperwork at the first conference and immediately updating child support based on income before doing anything else.

                    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