Opinions please

[Links17]

Nope...my ex doesn't pay the full expenses of me having my child. Not even close.

Again, you have an agenda...its misogynistic and its boring.

I made it pretty clear I wasn't speaking about your specific case, I was speaking about the way the system is designed (i.e: the non custodial parent pays for the child as if they are 100% responsible for the expenses of the child.) and in lieu of Money the custodial parent provides services - that sort of falls apart in shared custody though because they both provide equivalent parenting but one parent finances the other parent.

I'm sorry I don't excite you :/ - I'm just trying to deconstruct the flaws with the system.

[AnarX]

Links,
I understand your mathematical expressions but I am curious to know what you think are the flaws in the system.
The way I see it, it is six of one and half of a dozen whatevers. The system is an arbitrary set of rules we are forced to follow. I think the whole thing is flawed. What do you think are the flaws?

[standing on the sidelines]

Links,
I understand your mathematical expressions but I am curious to know what you think are the flaws in the system.
The way I see it, it is six of one and half of a dozen whatevers. The system is an arbitrary set of rules we are forced to follow. I think the whole thing is flawed. What do you think are the flaws?

maybe start a different thread for this discussion?? way off topic from this threads subject matter.

[billm]

So it means that "officially" a shared custody payor would pay for all the expenses of a child when they have them (+ the fixed costs) and they will also pay the other parent to have the child then they will also pay proportionate S7 expenses and then they will parent the child almost equivalently to the other parent.

The receiving parent is NOT paying child support at the end of the day - they are just receiving LESS child support since they don't have the full responsibility. Offset child support, just means LESS child support because they have the child less.

Every minute the child is with the receiving parent, they are theoretically FULLY paid the costs by the payor parent (and then some) so there is no ACTUAL out of pocket expenses, thats the way the system is designed.

This is FALSE.

It is assumed that the receiver spends their table CS amount as well.

The 40% cut off is not reasonable (because it assumes the ncp parent has same costs and a ncp parent that does not see the child), but for 0% access (full CS) or 50% access (offset CS), both parents are raising the child financially in proportion to their income.

Read the CSG Links17.

Now specifically in the case of offset CS Links, what if the offset CS is $200. Obviously that does not cover 100% of the cost of raising the child in the receiver's house.

A few problems exist though (but your point Links17 is not well taken).

1. Offset CS mathematically assumes it costs twice as much to raise the child in two homes as compared to one home - this is clearly false. Offset CS should be possibly half the difference between table amounts to compensate for this.

2. A parent that has access to their child less than 40% has many significant expenses (maintaining larger home, food, and probably clothing), that are not fairly considered by the CSG as they are in other countries. Overnight access should reduce CS obligations.

3. Section 7 is shared in proportion to income, and SS should be adjusted after considering CS AND S7, however most judges/lawyers do not understand this. In my case if the NDI after CS and SS is 50/50, I am still 'expected' to pay S7 in proportion to income, rather than a fair 50/50, which is clearly not reasonable.

[Links17]

Hmmm...

So in offset they DO consider the income of the receiving parent or do they just reduce CS because the receiving parent has the child less?
___________

2. A parent that has access to their child less than 40% has many significant expenses (maintaining larger home, food, and probably clothing), that are not fairly considered by the CSG as they are in other countries. Overnight access should reduce CS obligations.

I was reading the leonard-contelli case the other day and its quite funny that the judge refers to the 40% threshhold as the "cliff effect" and "legal fiction" and she (I believe it was the chief justice) says its a matter for parliament. She seems to recognize it as stupid.

Have you read the leonard-contelli case - the judge really analyzes the offset issue. I didn't fully absorb everything but the judge does a pretty thorough analysis.

[Berner_Faith]

Hmmm...

So in offset they DO consider the income of the receiving parent or do they just reduce CS because the receiving parent has the child less?
___________
I was reading the leonard-contelli case the other day and its quite funny that the judge refers to the 40% threshhold as the "cliff effect" and "legal fiction" and she (I believe it was the chief justice) says its a matter for parliament. She seems to recognize it as stupid.

Have you read the leonard-contelli case - the judge really analyzes the offset issue. I didn't fully absorb everything but the judge does a pretty thorough analysis.

Yes Links they do consider the income of BOTH parents. For example, is Parent A has the children 58% of the time and makes $100K a year and parent B has the children 42% of the time and only makes $50K a year, parent A will be paying offset support to Parent B, even though they have more access then parent B.

[billm]

Hmmm...

So in offset they DO consider the income of the receiving parent or do they just reduce CS because the receiving parent has the child less?
....

Yes, CS offsest considers the income of both parents.

CS offset means to subtract full table amount of one parent from the full table amount of the other. The one who makes more pays the difference to the other.

The problem with this is that it means mathematically that it costs twice as much to raise kids in two homes as compared to one, which is not true.

This means the greater income earner pays a disproportionate share of the costs. The greater the income difference, the more unfair the straight set off method is.

A more fair approach would be to pay less than the difference (such as half the difference).

[Rioe]

A more fair approach would be to pay less than the difference (such as half the difference).

That's the only fair approach when access is about equal. Both parents put their table CS amounts into the common pool, and then each draws out half the pool.

What would be even better would be to have parents draw out from the pool in proportion to their access time. That would smooth away the cliff at 40% we have now that causes so many battles about access.

[Links17]

But this is what contelli/leonard is about and I think the supreme court decided to go with a value that was NOT the offset.

[AnarX]

Since people are offering up their opinions on what would be a "fair" change in the law, I offer my recommendation: abolish all family law and let the insurance companies pay for managing this nonsense. Darwin can handle the people who do not get a co-habitation agreement before shacking up.

What options do I have?

Offer her cash. Say: "If I give you $X, would you let me see my little girl?? Pretty please?"

[FB_]

Since people are offering up their opinions on what would be a "fair" change in the law, I offer my recommendation: abolish all family law and let the insurance companies pay for managing this nonsense. Darwin can handle the people who do not get a co-habitation agreement before shacking up.



Offer her cash. Say: "If I give you $X, would you let me see my little girl?? Pretty please?"

Who says money can't buy happiness!!!

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk

[Gooddadbadbreak]

Offer her cash. Say: "If I give you $X, would you let me see my little girl?? Pretty please?"

Offer my ex wife cash, so I can see my child?
I think no!!!

[AnarX]

Sorry, son but here is a reality check: That is what the rest of us have to do.

The demands put upon us are only concealed behind legal gobbledee-gook that only professional arguerers can understand. We end up paying them more just to understand what in the world is going on.

You have a chance to save yourself some money by skipping the lawyer fees and the rest of the formalities.

Then again, maybe her intention is to deliberately get back at you for something and this is her only way. Only you would know. If so, it explains her behavior and would suggest that it will keep going and going.

[Gooddadbadbreak]

Sorry, son but here is a reality check: That is what the rest of us have to do.

The demands put upon us are only concealed behind legal gobbledee-gook that only professional arguerers can understand. We end up paying them more just to understand what in the world is going on.

You have a chance to save yourself some money by skipping the lawyer fees and the rest of the formalities.

Then again, maybe her intention is to deliberately get back at you for something and this is her only way. Only you would know. If so, it explains her behavior and would suggest that it will keep going and going.

That's where you are WRONG!
I don't have to pay, and until the judge says I do I will not give ANY money at all!


I have my cousin finding out information for me about my ex on facebook.
My ex has me blocked, but she's friends with my cousin.
Then I will know if she is indeed up to anything.

[arabian]

Well go before a judge for whatever reason (custody/access) and let us know how that goes. I'm sure you will be ordered to pay CS at that time. I think you might have just been flying under the radar for many years.

Even if you weren't ordered to pay CS don't you believe it is the morally right thing to do to help support your child? Why should the mother have to do it on her own?