Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

working under the table/child support

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • working under the table/child support

    Just wondering how that situation is usually handled in court?

    For example--My GF's ex is cutting his hours down at his job on the books to lower his yearly income/lower child support.

    He still has his business on the side, which he had on the books before they separated. When they separated, he started doing it under the table.
    We still see his ads on kijiji for this business...

    So how often is this type of situation taken to court? and what is usually the outcome?

    (GF has no plans of taking him to court...let it be...but we just wondered in general for some parents who receive absolutely no child support because the other parent works full out under the table.....GF considers herself lucky, he atleast is working the one job on the table/she's receiving a small amount of child support)

  • #2
    I have this same issue with my ex...He worked as a operations manager making $75,000 per year. Has not worked full time for 3 years now however, working for a moving company. (I'm assuming alot of funds under the table). I had requested his income to be imputed as he was paying me nothing. Judge said that he would never be able to pay less then $211.00 per month or $25,000 per year as he is university educated and employable. Judge also requested by the 15th of each months he provides me his job searches. I'm assuming in case we return to court. There a joke only stating internet and paper job search with date. Tell's me nothing. Could be costly to dig but if he doesn't have a paper trail your pooched as judge said you can't go on feelings or hunches.

    Comment


    • #3
      yes,it happened to me.my ex lost his job and worked under the table for over a year,one reason was to avoid paying child support and secondly to try to obtain spousal support.i suggest you copy and put away those kijiji ads or whatever other evidence you have....it may be helpful in the future.

      Comment


      • #4
        Have 2 teen age children. Both going to college in the fall. One child to live with ex, one to live with me. How does split child support work? What method do you use to figure this out. Ex makes around $125000.00 per year. I make $30000.00 per year. He pays me $1800.00 a month in spousal support.

        Comment


        • #5
          If kids are going to college then you will both pay tuition, split proportionately, him 80%, you 20%, unless the kids are getting OSAP or have set up education funds.
          I imagine it might look very similar to what splitting child support with younger kids is like:
          Using the 2011 Federal Child Support Guidelines table (google it).

          He will pay you for the child living with you, $1,090/month.
          You will pay him for child living with him, $241/month.
          Judge will take his payment, minus your payment and he will pay you the difference. $1090-241 = $849

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by KayD View Post
            If kids are going to college then you will both pay tuition, split proportionately, him 80%, you 20%, unless the kids are getting OSAP or have set up education funds.
            I imagine it might look very similar to what splitting child support with younger kids is like:
            Using the 2011 Federal Child Support Guidelines table (google it).

            He will pay you for the child living with you, $1,090/month.
            You will pay him for child living with him, $241/month.
            Judge will take his payment, minus your payment and he will pay you the difference. $1090-241 = $849
            This is incorrect. It *may* be split that way, but it's typically split in thirds with the child and each parent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks blink. I didn't know that. I come from a culture where paying for university education is wholly the parents' responsibility. Kids are not expected to chip in unless they want to. It's a "pay it forward" system that is understood just as the fact that even though your child turns 18 does not mean they are completely self-sufficient. I'm glad for your post because I thought it would be a 50/50 split but now I know that I will be paying 66% of my child's education with her dad only covering 33%. I need to start setting more money aside.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KayD View Post
                Thanks blink. I didn't know that. I come from a culture where paying for university education is wholly the parents' responsibility. Kids are not expected to chip in unless they want to. It's a "pay it forward" system that is understood just as the fact that even though your child turns 18 does not mean they are completely self-sufficient. I'm glad for your post because I thought it would be a 50/50 split but now I know that I will be paying 66% of my child's education with her dad only covering 33%. I need to start setting more money aside.
                There was a recent thread on this topic where the case law was presented to the 1/3 split for children. You can find it on the forum through the search.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KayD View Post
                  Thanks blink. I didn't know that. I come from a culture where paying for university education is wholly the parents' responsibility. Kids are not expected to chip in unless they want to. It's a "pay it forward" system that is understood just as the fact that even though your child turns 18 does not mean they are completely self-sufficient. I'm glad for your post because I thought it would be a 50/50 split but now I know that I will be paying 66% of my child's education with her dad only covering 33%. I need to start setting more money aside.
                  Don't forget any RESP will be exhausted fully prior to either parent or child to have to pay anything.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                    Don't forget any RESP will be exhausted fully prior to either parent or child to have to pay anything.
                    I've never understood this logic. Maybe you can explain it to me. What if only one of the parents contributed to the RESP? Shouldn't that go towards their share only? Why should the non-saving parent benefit from the actions of the saving parent?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                      I've never understood this logic. Maybe you can explain it to me. What if only one of the parents contributed to the RESP? Shouldn't that go towards their share only? Why should the non-saving parent benefit from the actions of the saving parent?
                      It is a good question. I know it as a general "truism" but, will do some research on how it became a truism. In fact, it may not be correct.

                      My theory (unconfirmed) at this current moment is that the money is invested for the benefit of the child. So it may relate to the "best interests" test... This is where I am going to start the search for info...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        It is a good question. I know it as a general "truism" but, will do some research on how it became a truism. In fact, it may not be correct.

                        My theory (unconfirmed) at this current moment is that the money is invested for the benefit of the child. So it may relate to the "best interests" test... This is where I am going to start the search for info...
                        I just started contributing to an RESP for both my children thinking it would cover my portion. I am very interested in what you find Tayken! Thanks for looking in to this!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I do not know if this helps..... lawyer indicated that it is 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 however the parents 2/3 is actually proportionate to income. So one parent can pay more thatn the other.

                          second is the issue of the child, and the child must max the available grants, bursuaries, OSAP first, the remainder then is divided.

                          I did a good job saving for their school when I was working and put into the RESPs which we then received the immediate grants from the government at my time for every $2,000 the government added $1,000 and this is recorded and checked when the money is removed - if it does not go towards an approved educational facility, the government takes back their grants dollar for dollar but not any interst or gains made on the savings. Lawyer said that when you are married it is assumed that it is a 50/50 shared deposit regardless who actually earned it (remember that we are in the 50/50 no fault so it is assumed both parents income is shared 50/50 wiithin the RESP.

                          SO first the child must max out any,grants, OSAP etc., then the split is the child now pays 1/3 (via a part time job) of what is left, the parents 2/3 proportional to income. When school is finished the child has to at least pay back the OSAP under the rules set by the contract the child signed in the first place before receiving any OSAP funds. Interesting to note that poor parents are expected to pay less towards schooling (via the higher OSAP loans available due to the parents lower incomes) and the exact opposite when the parents make large amounts of money, OSAP can be actually NIL. (I also took note that the child would in effect pay slightly more than 1/3 because the OSAP and any othe loans would need to be repaid after school is finished and in theory the child should then be working full time and possibly supporting themselves.?) -- Hope this may have been of help.

                          Last but not least, and I did get caught here!!!

                          My ex who cashed out and closed the kids RESP accounts - Legally!!
                          The RESP deposit was made after opening the account for each seperate child where the accounts were set up as joint for either myself or my then wife would be available to help each child as they went through school (the withdrawals required a signature of one parent and the child).

                          The kicker?? My Ex who managed to legally cash out the children's remaining RESP funds, closing out the respective accounts for each child and she was not required to place the funds in a new RESP. My perspective is - the RESP accounts are closed, the money for their future tuition payments is gone and the money did not need to be transfered to a new RESP..... perhaps she is using the funds to finance her divorce???

                          The initial RESP deposit can be withdrawn by either parent at any time and to gain full control over this money (and after paying the kids tuition using our joint account/money used to pay for household bills, utilities, food, taxes my ex then, after refusing to replace the joint funds....... we after all had saved a significant sized RESP for each child, she just rufused to return the money then she closed out the resp accounts!! (Bank is not allowed to discuss these funds with me anymore due to privacy laws but "under the table" :-) --- she could do this because enough of the RESP money had already been removed to pay previous year's tuition to cover the government grants and interest these funds earned.

                          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