Originally posted by stripes
View Post
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.
Mom has no obligation to work full time or any time at all.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
Quote:
(d) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other than a child of the marriage
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
(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
Comment