Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paying Full Table CS with 50/50 Shared Parenting

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by stripes View Post
    But if I recall right from earlier threads, there wasn't a plan, at least not one that you and Mom both agreed to.
    The plan was that I pay -->child goes F/T school --> Mom finds job. Mom decided not to work, contradicting our signed agreement.

    The core problem was that the agreement you signed a few months ago said that you agreed to pay full CS until Mom was employed full-time, with no time frame or deadline set.
    Not a few months....7 months. Thank you for pointing out another great reason for the court appearance ... to get a time frame/deadline set. If that's all that happens that day I walk out smiling.

    Mom has no obligation to work full time or any time at all.
    I'm surprised Stripes. Go back a few posts and re-read. My ex has an obligation to earn what she's capable of earning. (Drygdala Test). Also chek out the Welfare laws at the bottom of the post. No obligations? huh?

    There's an order bearing signatures whereby she agrees to obtain full time employment. Why would you say she has no obligation to do that? Do you feel a judge will say she has no obligation? I truly hope you're not serious.
    Intentional unemployment is also irrelevant because with your agreement, you agreed that you would pay full CS indefinitely until Mom decides to work full time.
    We both agreed that she return to full time employment...and signed it. I anticipated that she would follow the agreement. This is a material change. As the content of the Drygdala Test...her intentional unemployment is VERY relevant.

    if I were Mom's lawyer, I would just respond with "well, my client will let you know if and when she is in full-time employment, until then, we stick with the agreement which specifies that you pay full CS". And as of now, that is completely legit.
    Great..then I'll go over all the changes in circumstances...(increased costs of shared custody, etc).

    We will not stick to the agreement because she was supposed to have found a job by now and has decided not to. Do you really think the judge will feel it's in the child's best interest to have my license taken away and thrown in jail because I cant afford it..and my ex is being lazy? Thank the lord some posters here arn't judges

    So I would focus on changing the wording of the agreement to include a sunset clause - the current CS arrangement will switch to offset as of January 1 2017 [or whatever]. Once you have that in place, arguments about imputed income, intentional unemployment, welfare, under the table earnings, extracurricular expenses and so on will make some sense. Right now they don't and just add extra verbiage and irrelevant tangents.
    Definitely a good idea. Another good reason for the date in court. To clear some things up and reword the order. I agree.
    I would also be careful with the "material change in circumstance" argument. If all you have is that Mom isn't doing her share of the driving, that's not a material change (unless the price of gas were $20/litre).
    You're only talking about gas. I have a boat load of proof that there have been significant increases in costs since shared custody.

    According to Section 9(b) of the CSG guidelines, that alone will be enough to warrant a variation in CS.
    Arguments about your girlfriend and her daughter also don't fly. Providing financial support for these people is a choice, not a responsibility or an obligation. The daughter's mother and father are responsible for supporting her, not you.
    Luckily I look at the current laws...and not the perceived laws of odf users.

    CSG does indeed look at whether or not there are other family members in the home, and it is in fact taken in to consideration. It is not a choice now. I have a legal duty to be a father figure for step children as well.
    Under Section 10(2)(d) CS could be varied if:
    Quote:
    (d) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other than a child of the marriage
    aka (stepchildren)

    Stripes the laws, statues, caselaw and guidelines clearly disagree with most of your points. I'll take them as constructive nonetheless.

    To close off this post, one shouldn't forget that Welfare itself imposes laws to it's recipients.
    We musn't forget that Welfare is short term.
    Ontario Works Act, 1997
    (a) purpose of Act
    [35] The essential purpose of the Ontario Works Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, Chapter 25, Schedule A (“Act”) is to provide “temporary financial assistance to those most in need while they satisfy obligations to become and stay employed:” see Act, s. 1
    She does have obligations. Trust me.
    Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-15-2016, 02:34 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Not sure i agree about you having a legal obligation to support your gf's child. What is your legal obligation to her...?

      IMO, a legal obligation to support a child that is not a child of the marriage wiuld be if you and the girlfriend weny on to have a new baby together that you did in act have a legal obligation to support.

      I see no legal obligation for you with yor girlfriend's child.

      Comment


      • #93
        I think a lot will depend on the exact wording of your agreement. What precisely does it say?

        Does it say that you agree to pay full table child support until Mom finds full-time employment, at which time Mom will notify you and the child support arrangements will convert to offset in recognition of shared parenting (which could be next week, next year, never)?

        Or does it say that Mom will find full time employment as of date xxx, and as of date xxx the child support arrangements will convert to offset in recognition of shared parenting?

        I suspect that like many contracts, the devil is in the details. You may believe that Mom ought to be working (and I think she ought to be too), but how exactly is your document worded? I'm asking because if you go into court telling a judge about what in your opinion Mom should be doing or ought to be doing, Mom will come in with her own opinion about what Mom should be doing or ought to be doing. That is not the same as having a document which spells out that Mom has committed herself to paying offset child support. You'll end up in an expensive and time-consuming he said/she said. Get your order amended first, then pursue the issue of Mom not working.

        With respect to section 9c, unless you have adopted your girlfriend's daughter, you do not have a legal duty to provide for her. If you wanted to make the case that you "stand in the place of a parent" for her, you'd need lots of evidence that you have fulfilled the obligations of a parent over a long period of time, and if you and your girlfriend were to split up, you would pay child support for her daughter. So be careful with that one.

        Comment


        • #94
          Geez, LF and his dead horses.



          Originally posted by Tayken View Post

          The Respondent must obtain and is currently seeking employment. Once the Respondent is employed full time for over 30 days, she shall provide the Applicant of her income, and the child support will be modified using the offs
          Can you try again? The grammar on this is awful. The first sentence is so bad that I doubt two lawyers even looked at it.

          An order or agreement would not state "is currently seeking employment". They never write orders or agreement in the present tense.

          What you have is a friendly suggestion that the other party should do something. Not that they must do it and by a specific date. You have no real option to bring this matter back. The only one you have is "undue hardship" which you don't really have.

          You accepted the terms of an agreement where the other parent's income was not imputed for the purposes of calculating child support. You are out of luck. You accepted the terms of an agreement where the other parent is allowed to make 0.0.

          Did you review with a lawyer? If so you should punch that lawyer in the eye.

          Good Luck!
          Tayken
          Why are we still talking about this??

          Comment


          • #95
            Okay, I missed that. Yes, this is not a commitment by Mom to obtain full-time employment, it's a commitment by Mom to notify Dad if and when she finds full-time employment, which is very different. Get this fixed, and everything else (imputing income, etc) will be much easier.

            Comment


            • #96
              http://http://www.ottawadivorce.com/...d-boost-20067/

              Here it is again. Very comprehensive advice that LF ignored. 20 pages worth actually.

              No worries about missing it Stripes. I know everyone is just trying to help. I just hate to see people waste their time responding when he doesn't listen.

              Comment


              • #97
                I get what you're all saying.

                Motions to change child support are there for a reason though. I'm confident that I have enough material changes. I'm also confident that we all expected ex to work.......she agreed to that so that we could go offset.

                Like I said. ..in the very least the judge will probably set a time frame (deadline) for ex to have found employment until imputation occurs. I will walk out of court happy if that is the case. I don't see why that wouldn't happen.

                Also, a lot of talk about what I agreed to. I agreed to her working then going offset. She agreed to that also. She needs to be held accountable for the terms that she agreed to also right?
                Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-15-2016, 04:21 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                  My partner works all she can as a full time student and I do in fact act as a father figure for my other step child (D5's bestie). This won't be me whining about having to pay for other ppl, but in family law it actually does mean something.

                  Under Section 10(2)(d) CS could be varied if:
                  (d) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other than a child of the marriage
                  This means other biological children, such as if you had a child from before the marriage that you were also supporting, or if you had a new biological child afterwards. You have no legal duty to support your girlfriend's daughter. Even if you were married to your girlfriend, there's no in loco parentis court order legally requiring you to support her child.

                  Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                  This will also be reflected while analyzing the budgets of the 2 households to paint a picture of the 2 standards of living.
                  This is only relevant stuff if you are claiming undue hardship, which I don't think you are doing, are you? You really have to be drowning in debt for that, I think.

                  When you're grasping at straws, make sure they are relevant ones. Stick with the concepts of her being deliberately underemployed based on her not seeking employment as was anticipated, and ask for imputation of income to be followed by regular financial disclosure and updates.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Hey Rioe. I miss chatting. Hope your summer's going well!

                    Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                    This means other biological children, such as if you had a child from before the marriage that you were also supporting, or if you had a new biological child afterwards. You have no legal duty to support your girlfriend's daughter. Even if you were married to your girlfriend, there's no in loco parentis court order legally requiring you to support her child.
                    Actually, the children don't have to be biological. You can refer to the gov't site here. SECTION 10: UNDUE HARDSHIP - Children Come First: A Report to Parliament Reviewing the Provisions and Operation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines - Volume 2

                    Kind of did my homework.

                    It states:
                    PARAGRAPH 10(2)(D): LEGAL DUTY TO SUPPORT ANOTHER CHILD

                    The legal duty to support other children (in a second family, for example) can cause undue hardship if the parent also has to pay the table amount. These other children may be the parent's biological children, adoptive children, or stepchildren.[226] These commitments may reduce the financial resources available for the children involved. This provision provides financial relief and promotes equitable treatment of all children whether they are natural children, adoptive children, or stepchildren.
                    But I don't want to get hung up on the step child thing. It's just another piece to the puzzle when comparing the 2 households. Ex's is richer than mine.

                    This is only relevant stuff if you are claiming undue hardship, which I don't think you are doing, are you? You really have to be drowning in debt for that, I think.
                    Yes I am. I just don't like to talk about it much here as a) it's embarrassing as hell ; b) Peeps tend to stomp me down saying its too hard to prove.

                    I decided to sit in on a case while awaiting FLIC the other day. Dad's situation was a lot like mine. He was claiming undue hardship and had just got 50/50 about a year ago paying full table CS.

                    Mom said what everyone says here .. Hey, he has a cell phone with internet.

                    The judge's face looked upset, he looked at her and said.. you have a cell phone with internet and a car but you still got social assistance. (like my ex)

                    Rioe, my bills and debts are out of control. FRO has garnished half my wages for EI this summer also, making me miss a CS payment. (Who can live on $390.00/Month?)

                    There's so much more to my finances and debts that I just don't want to get into. Just trust me that I'm having a tough time....and ex is not.

                    When you're grasping at straws, make sure they are relevant ones. Stick with the concepts of her being deliberately underemployed based on her not seeking employment as was anticipated, and ask for imputation of income to be followed by regular financial disclosure and updates.
                    All straws are relevant Rioe. All the above advice is great though Thanks.

                    a) There have been significant MCC's.(i.e Increased costs of shared custody)
                    b) I'm suffering undue hardship (Unreal debts, etc)--> and yes Im drowning
                    c) Intentional unemployment by ex
                    d) Standards of living Test (Her household is richer and its provable)

                    I could go on.

                    Again, in the end if the judge simply sets a deadline for her to find employment than it was a good day .. and I see no reason why the judge wouldn't.
                    Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-15-2016, 06:20 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Your girlfriend's school/tuition/books etc is obviously not feasible right now if she cannot support HER own child.

                      She should quit school right away and find a full time job until you guys are on your feet. That will be faster and offer immediate solution (instead of court).

                      Comment


                      • Sorry S&T .. I can not read your post. I even tried to take you of the ignore list to see and it seems ODF has made you permanently on ignore. Our battles weren't that bad were they? :-)

                        Comment


                        • ... but if you look at examples of what constitutes "undue hardship", it's things like being evicted, having a vehicle repossessed, being unable to afford the basics of life with no prospect of the situation improving, etc. There's a difference between being in debt and being destitute. If Kid is still going to ballet class and other extracurriculars, you're probably not suffering unduly. You're just in a financial tight spot, like many other people. The key word is "undue": extreme, excessive, extraordinary. Unless the contrast between your household and Mom's household is extreme (you're dumpster-diving for food and she's taking three-month vacations in the Caribbean), the simple fact that there are more goodies at Mom's house than at yours doesn't mean anything. My ex has a higher household income than I do because he is remarried to a high earner, but that has zero relevance to child support.

                          And unless you've been cohabiting with your girlfriend and her child for at least two years, AND you have demonstrated the intention to treat her child as yours, you don't have a stepchild. You have a live-in girlfriend who has a child.

                          A material change in circumstances is something which, if it were known at the time the agreement was signed (or the order was issued), would have led to a different outcome. The fact that things cost money is not a material change, nor is the fact that Mom is unco-operative (you knew that at the time you signed the agreement). If something like a disabling accident had occurred, or a sudden windfall, or (on the positive side) a recovery from a debilitating addiction or condition, then you might have a material change. But if all you've got is the fact that money is tight and you're dealing with a parent who is being a jerk - your circumstances might be changing, but the changes aren't material, that is, they don't "matter" enough that they would have led to a different outcome had you known them at the time you signed the agreement.

                          But all of this stuff is distraction. You signed a bad agreement which committed you to paying table child support indefinitely to Mom. Until you get that changed, all of this other stuff - hardship claims, changes in circumstance - is just chasing your tail and spending lots of time focusing on Mom.

                          Comment


                          • Not going to make this thread about whether or not I am suffering undue hardship. I know I am...I can prove it. We'll leave it at that.

                            Section 9 of the CSG .. I'm above 40%. I have shared custody. CS should be altered. (Section 9 B is all I really need for a MCC...and I can prove it). Instead of listening to what you say constitutes Changes of circumstances...I think I'll follow the guidelines and laws.

                            I made the grave mistake of believing ex's lie that she would work. Unfortunately her benefits from welfare are too good.

                            Unless the contrast between your household and Mom's household is extreme (you're dumpster-diving for food and she's taking three-month vacations in the Caribbean), the simple fact that there are more goodies at Mom's house than at yours doesn't mean anything. My ex has a higher household income than I do because he is remarried to a high earner, but that has zero relevance to child support.
                            The standard of living test will be very useful to me. I have a ton of expenses. Ex has no utilities, barely any rent and a ton of money and free time. I have a chart, so I'll be fine. Judges will want to compare budgets.

                            And unless you've been cohabiting with your girlfriend and her child for at least two years, AND you have demonstrated the intention to treat her child as yours, you don't have a stepchild. You have a live-in girlfriend who has a child.
                            Cool. We've cohabited for 2 years now and of course I treat her as my own. So I guess all is good. I do have a step child.

                            Would you like a third try?

                            The fact that things cost money is not a material change, nor is the fact that Mom is unco-operative (you knew that at the time you signed the agreement).
                            No I didn't. She apologized for the false allegations, was very cooperative and promised she would gain full time employment in a prompt manner so that we could graduate to offset. This was our agreement.
                            your circumstances might be changing, but the changes aren't material, that is, they don't "matter" enough that they would have led to a different outcome had you known them at the time you signed the agreement.
                            I'm 100% certain the judge won't agree with your "opinion" of the situation.
                            You signed a bad agreement which committed you to paying table child support indefinitely to Mom
                            Yes ma'am .. and she was supposed to work. We agreed she would work F/T and switch to offset. No deadline? Groovy!..Lets get one next appearance. As I've mentioned before, I can prove she's swatting away job opportunities. Judges wont like that.

                            You've also stated Stripes that she has no obligation to work full time, or at all. I truly hope you've digested some of my posts (Welfare Act, Drygdala Test, etc).

                            I also hope you've peeked at the Child Support Guidelines on what it takes to vary a CS order (For example - 9(b)). I meet that criteria whether you agree with me or not. It's the law.

                            I don't think anyone's chasing their tail. Even if the judge sets a deadline for ex to get employed ... I walk out happy. Don't you agree that's worth the court date alone? Along with some possible rewording of the order?
                            Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-15-2016, 07:55 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                              I get what you're all saying.

                              Motions to change child support are there for a reason though. I'm confident that I have enough material changes. I'm also confident that we all expected ex to work.......she agreed to that so that we could go offset.

                              Like I said. ..in the very least the judge will probably set a time frame (deadline) for ex to have found employment until imputation occurs. I will walk out of court happy if that is the case. I don't see why that wouldn't happen.

                              Also, a lot of talk about what I agreed to. I agreed to her working then going offset. She agreed to that also. She needs to be held accountable for the terms that she agreed to also right?
                              If you find this thread redundant than just hit the "ignore" button perhaps? No one is forcing you to participate.

                              Comment


                              • Best advice I've heard all night Arabian. It's quite redundant. I feel very repetitive. lol
                                With some posters its hard to even have a convo. It's just "you're wrong here".."you're wrong here"..."costs against you here", without really even taking a deeper look in to the situation. I should be used to it by now.
                                Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-15-2016, 08:17 PM.

                                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