Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Parenting Issues

Parenting Issues This forum is for discussing any of the parenting issues involved in your divorce, including parenting of step-children.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 06-10-2015, 05:21 PM
cpartener cpartener is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 42
cpartener is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teenwolf View Post
What arguments are Jane and her lawyer thinking? Be prepared for some possible non-sense.
Jane/Lawyer will only (and repeatedly) say that the parenting plan is not shared parenting as Jane is listed as primary residence, thus full support.
We're suspecting that Jane/Lawyer will claim that full support should be maintained as status quo and that she can't maintain the children without it. She plays the victim well.

Apart from 40/60 split…
~ We must make decisions together on schooling, medical and any s.7 expense. (George is the only one taking Judy/Elroy to the counselling she insisted on) (Judy has a slight learning delay, not significant but both parents had to/must continue to sign off on assessments and schooling plans equally)
~ Neither parent can enroll the children in activities without the other’s approval – NOT just her approval, BOTH have to approve.
~ The children have 2 distinct homes with all necessities – children can function in each home without the other home or parent. Items don’t travel between homes (toys can travel between homes as long as they return).

What other factors do we need to spell out shared parenting??

We’re not the kind of people to drag others through the mud, but what do we need to prove against Jane? She likes to make things up and sling it our way.

Unfortunately, our lawyer didn't have the start date for offset CS written into the agreement, so it's kind of our word versus theirs.

George's CS payments are larger than his mortgage payments. If this doesn't get settled as offset, I'm afraid George will have to claim bankruptcy. How will the courts look at him after that?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-10-2015, 06:28 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
blinkandimgone blinkandimgone is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,312
blinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the rough
Default

Primary residence term pretty much only defines what address the kids will use for the purpose of things like school district. It has no bearing whatsoever on custody, access, parenting, decision making or child support. Period.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-10-2015, 06:42 PM
Teenwolf Teenwolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 419
Teenwolf is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpartener View Post
What other factors do we need to spell out shared parenting??
Have you researched Canlli for case law in your province? That's where I would look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpartener View Post
George's CS payments are larger than his mortgage payments. If this doesn't get settled as offset, I'm afraid George will have to claim bankruptcy. How will the courts look at him after that?
The pessimist in me thinks the court will direct him to pay in accordance with the CS tables.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-10-2015, 09:46 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Rioe Rioe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,337
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpartener View Post
What other factors do we need to spell out shared parenting??

We’re not the kind of people to drag others through the mud, but what do we need to prove against Jane? She likes to make things up and sling it our way.

Unfortunately, our lawyer didn't have the start date for offset CS written into the agreement, so it's kind of our word versus theirs.
Get a calendar. Go back over the last six months, or a full year if you can, and highlight all the nights you had the children vs when Jane had the children. Figure out the % of time each of you had the children. If they are both between 40% and 60%, you have an offset CS situation.

Wording in the agreement on primary residency is kind of meaningless. A judge will care about the fact that you both have the children about the same amount of time. Make sure your proof demonstrates that clearly. Printing out a calendar with the days highlighted in two different colours would be a nice visual for a judge.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-11-2015, 03:31 PM
cpartener cpartener is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 42
cpartener is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teenwolf View Post
Have you researched Canlli for case law in your province? That's where I would look.
The pessimist in me thinks the court will direct him to pay in accordance with the CS tables.
I’ve just looked in Canlli, and I have to say that my eyes started to gloss over. How do you know what’s relevant, what applies and what doesn’t?

Teenwolf – When you say you think the court will direct him to pay in accordance with the CS Table, you mean full support or Offset?

I should clarify “George's CS payments are larger than his mortgage payments. If this doesn't get settled as offset, I'm afraid George will have to claim bankruptcy. How will the courts look at him after that?” Based on having taken over the full marital debt and having paid full support even though it should have been Offset, George could only afford a home the next town over in a lower income area. The neighbourhood is okay, but he’s barely making ends meet because the Full Support is more than the mortgage he could get. It’s not a case of “Yay, our mortgage is less than our cs”, it’s a “Holy crap, our cs is more then we can afford but we need to provide a home for the children.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
Get a calendar. Go back over the last six months, or a full year if you can, and highlight all the nights you had the children vs when Jane had the children. Figure out the % of time each of you had the children. If they are both between 40% and 60%, you have an offset CS situation.
Wording in the agreement on primary residency is kind of meaningless. A judge will care about the fact that you both have the children about the same amount of time. Make sure your proof demonstrates that clearly. Printing out a calendar with the days highlighted in two different colours would be a nice visual for a judge.
I’m big on spreadsheets, we’ve definitely got over 40%. We can’t understand where Jane’s is argument could be.

~Based on the payouts Jane received from the marriage settlement, George/Jane’s mortgages should be the same + she’s got a two year head start on paying hers down.
~George incurs over 140km in commuting daily + parking, whereas Jane incurs under 10km with occasional commuting within a 20km radius.
~George is expected to maintain his current employment (and commute) to provide benefits for the children as Jane has turned down benefits under her employment.
~George pays more on s.7 and each parent pays equally on school expenses and daily expenses.

It just makes no sense as to what she could argue.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-12-2015, 12:01 AM
Teenwolf Teenwolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 419
Teenwolf is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpartener View Post
I’ve just looked in Canlli, and I have to say that my eyes started to gloss over. How do you know what’s relevant, what applies and what doesn’t?
Searching Canlii is a skill, which you will get better at through time. Use the advanced search and put in key words that will get you cases that contain them. Also put a filter on the date, as you don't want to go back too far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpartener View Post
Teenwolf – When you say you think the court will direct him to pay in accordance with the CS Table, you mean full support or Offset?
I wasn't referring to either. Rather, he will pay based on his line 150 income regardless of his bankruptcy. Whether it's the full amount or offset, it will be based on his line 150 income.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpartener View Post
I should clarify “George's CS payments are larger than his mortgage payments. If this doesn't get settled as offset, I'm afraid George will have to claim bankruptcy. How will the courts look at him after that?” Based on having taken over the full marital debt and having paid full support even though it should have been Offset, George could only afford a home the next town over in a lower income area. The neighborhood is okay, but he’s barely making ends meet because the Full Support is more than the mortgage he could get. It’s not a case of “Yay, our mortgage is less than our cs”, it’s a “Holy crap, our cs is more then we can afford but we need to provide a home for the children.”
You're mingling two separate issues: offset CS and a reduction in CS due to possible undue hardship. Seeking offset CS is based on the fact that you're in the 40/60 range. And you want to keep this parenting arrangement because it's in the best interest of the child(ren). Taking on full marital debt and struggling to make ends meet would be an issue for reducing CS - not offsetting it. Undue hardship is an uphill battle in court.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-12-2015, 12:48 AM
stripes stripes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpartener View Post
I’ve just looked in Canlli, and I have to say that my eyes started to gloss over. How do you know what’s relevant, what applies and what doesn’t?

Teenwolf – When you say you think the court will direct him to pay in accordance with the CS Table, you mean full support or Offset?

I should clarify “George's CS payments are larger than his mortgage payments. If this doesn't get settled as offset, I'm afraid George will have to claim bankruptcy. How will the courts look at him after that?” Based on having taken over the full marital debt and having paid full support even though it should have been Offset, George could only afford a home the next town over in a lower income area. The neighbourhood is okay, but he’s barely making ends meet because the Full Support is more than the mortgage he could get. It’s not a case of “Yay, our mortgage is less than our cs”, it’s a “Holy crap, our cs is more then we can afford but we need to provide a home for the children.”
The only thing determining offset is the proportion of time the kids spend with each parent. I wouldn't bring up George's mortgage (or his commute, or his debt load) because it's irrelevant and judges are unlikely to be sympathetic. After divorce, many people's standard of living goes down. A not-so-nice house in not-so-nice neighbourhood and debt is part of the standard package. If you can prove you're over the 40% threshold, that's all you need.

Don't overthink what Jane is spending money on, or how unfair it is that life is hard for George. Just demonstrate that the children reside with George not less than 40% of the time over the course of the past year.

In terms of what to ask for, you might ask for the order be amended to read "The residence of [kids] shall be not less than 40% of nights over the course of calendar year to be spent at the home of each parent. This parenting regime shall be shared parenting as contemplated in Section 9 of the FCSG".
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-12-2015, 01:05 AM
Teenwolf Teenwolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 419
Teenwolf is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
Don't overthink what Jane is spending money on, or how unfair it is that life is hard for George. Just demonstrate that the children reside with George not less than 40% of the time over the course of the past year.
Agreed. And you want the 40/60 range to continue because it's in the best interest of the child(ren) - not because George is in a financial pinch.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-12-2015, 09:32 AM
cpartener cpartener is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 42
cpartener is on a distinguished road
Default

Please trust that this should have remained 100% solely about Judy/Elroy!!

We've dealing with a PC to resolve some issues causing stress on the children, which should have been taken care of months ago but Jane delayed. The agreement is open in one respect and we asked the PC to solidify this which would have increased our time by a fraction - we'd still be under 45%. Unfortunately, Jane has been refusing to adjust the schedule arguing that we were only seeking to change the cs, BUT WE HAVE OVER 40 ALREADY, another 2% doesn't make a difference!!!!!!!!

Offset is 40/60, it doesn't matter if we had 60, we'd still be paying her because George makes more. We've never argued that. She gets the cs, we pay more proportionally in s.7. It's not an argument on that front.

Because she wouldn't sign the agreement without a year of FS, she's now arguing that she's entitled to it forever, that she has primary custody and any change we make is only out of greed.

She won't consider the adjustment in days to make things better for the kids - EVEN THOUGH we're already within 40/60. And PC was at a stalemate because of it.

It's maddening watching Judy/Elroy in tears and stressed out every other week (schedule is rather abnormal) and she refuses to acknowledge it and adjust the schedule (which the agreement leaves open, but both parties have to agree of course). Jane just wants her money and now that we're in June, it's all she can see and the PC process is now halted and we're headed back to court.

I know it seems like I'm mixing the two up. I just need to get a feel for what we're looking at and how to broach this. We're not terribly confident in our lawyer. We want to make sure that what we thought is supposed to be happening is the general belief of everyone else. That we're not coming at this from left field.

Yes, our standard of living is lower, but the kids wouldn't know it and that's what matters. as a child of divorce myself, we go to great pains to ensure that Judy /Elroy live the happiest lives possible. Jane refuses to acknowledge the one flaw in the schedule that makes them upset/stressed and now we're caught in a fight over money again.

Sigh. This never ends, does it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-12-2015, 12:15 PM
Links17 Links17 is offline
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,166
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

This is the perspective of the courts generally:
-Mothers with no jobs or low income should get full child support.
-Either they keep the dads at below 40% or they let them get above 40% but through their "discretion" they decide that the dad should still pay more than the mathematical offset.

The courts absolutely do NOT care that the dad will go bankrupt NOR do they care that he has no home. All they care about is Mom and the kids....

If I were you I would not talk about the financial hardships of paying full support because the judge will use that to infer you are interested in custody for financial benefits .

Family Law is bias, unless the mom is straight up crazy.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Faulty to assume Shared Parenting: here's why SilverLining Divorce & Family Law 44 06-29-2014 01:41 PM
Shared Parenting first timer Parenting Issues 0 03-20-2011 12:08 AM
Australia, article: Shared parenting for divorce couples 'harmful to children' vts Political Issues 22 06-21-2010 01:47 PM
Shared parenting, Status quo, Imputing income, Court costs & Protection form ex lies Underdog Divorce & Family Law 7 04-03-2010 06:39 AM
North Dakota Shared Parenting Decent Dad Political Issues 20 08-31-2006 11:14 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:33 AM.