Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child Support, 50/50 Parenting, Lay Off

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

  • Child Support, 50/50 Parenting, Lay Off

    Hi Everyone,

    Have a question for a family member.

    Common-Law separation, a SA agreement is in place, 50/50 parenting on a 2-2-3 basis. Separation happened in September, have been in separate residences since Nov 1st, which is when CS started.

    Dad makes over $100k per year, Mom makes about $45k, Dad paid Mom off set CS for Nov & Dec. At the end of Dec Dad got laid off (he works for a union that usually does lay offs over the Christmas Holidays and he gets laid off almost every year). Dad didn't pay CS for Jan yet as he is laid off. Mom asked if he could make a partial payment or something until he is back to work, Dad refused. He also has refused to pay for day care. Mom asked him if he would watch the children, since he is off, however he refused saying he was helping his Dad out. So Mom had no choice but to put them in daycare so she can work and pay for the whole thing.

    Dad has said he will try and double up support in February if he gets back to work. Dad is usually called back by now, however about a month before the lay off, Dad was called into HR, as an email he sent Mom from his work email was very abusive towards Mom and HR flagged this email coming through the server (and no Mom did not go to HR about the email). Mom is starting to think that it is possible Dad may not get called back to work, at this point, due to the HR disciplinary action on his file.

    In the event Dad doesn't return to work, Mom is prepared to reduce CS, however she is wondering,

    When the material change would take effect? Right away or after a few months and would arrears be owed?

    What recourse she has to collect on CS with only a SA written and signed between the two of them? Can the SA be filed with the court even though neither of them used lawyers?

    Dad has emailed Mom many times over the past couple weeks saying how all she is doing is trying to reap him of his money, when he gets back to work she can continue reaping him of his hard earned money, etc. It is clear Dad isn't happy about his CS obligations and Mom is worried that even if he is back at work, she may not pay the past month (or however long it takes him to get back to work)

    Thanks!

  • #2
    If he was laid off did he qualify for unemployment?

    Comment


    • #3
      CS is usually based on annual earnings, so the fact that Dad was laid off in December shouldn't affect his obligations to pay CS based on the income stated in his most recent tax return (or Notice of Assessment). The reasons why his income dropped in December aren't really relevant. (And I don't think Mom can choose to reduce CS, even though I understand she's doing it to be helpful to Dad - it's the right of the child, so Mom can't set the amount).

      As to whether their agreement is enforceable or not - Mom should contact whichever agency handles child support enforcement in her province (in Ontario I believe it's FRO, in Alberta it's MEP) to find out.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by stripes View Post
        CS is usually based on annual earnings, so the fact that Dad was laid off in December shouldn't affect his obligations to pay CS based on the income stated in his most recent tax return (or Notice of Assessment). The reasons why his income dropped in December aren't really relevant. (And I don't think Mom can choose to reduce CS, even though I understand she's doing it to be helpful to Dad - it's the right of the child, so Mom can't set the amount).



        As to whether their agreement is enforceable or not - Mom should contact whichever agency handles child support enforcement in her province (in Ontario I believe it's FRO, in Alberta it's MEP) to find out.


        Ahem, the FCSG dictate that its based on most current income and go on to say that if line 150 is not a true picture of your income then you use other methods.

        If dad had a steady run of being laid off for December and it was established as being the standard for years then yes income tax would work.

        In this case, dad pulled a stupid and may be getting himself fired. If thats the case, he has to deal with the fall out and find new work and prove why his cs should go down.

        If hes simply being disciplined then he more than likely is on EI and his cs should be based on that until he goes back to work when it would then go up.

        Mom is not responsible for his bonehead moves that land him on the unemployment line. She should be filing with a maintenance agency and letting dad deal with the fall out. Its not like hes paying table level support. And his EI would be about 60% of his income which is still higher than mom.

        If she wanted to be reasonable, she could ask (in writing) what is happening with his work and when he expects to be earning a pay cheque again. Also ask for proof of his unemployment income (he just logs into his account and does a screen cap) and proof that his lay off continues.

        He would need to demonstrate his efforts to find new work. Its very much like a hardship/purposefully underemployed situation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
          In the event Dad doesn't return to work, Mom is prepared to reduce CS
          You meant that mom is prepared to pay CS since she will have a higher income.

          I mean, that is what you meant, right?

          What recourse she has to collect on CS with only a SA written and signed between the two of them? Can the SA be filed with the court even though neither of them used lawyers?
          If the agreement has actual numbers, then it can be enforced. If it has vague descriptions of money to be paid, then it cannot be enforced. The lack of lawyers is totally irrelevant.


          Mom is worried that even if he is back at work, she [he?] may not pay the past month (or however long it takes him to get back to work)

          Thanks!
          If Dad has been laid off, then he is having serious financial pressures now that will be having an impact upon her children. I appreciate that many mothers can't worry about anything besides themselves, but perhaps you can advise the mother in this case to actually spare a thought for her children and not collect support from a household that is struggling financially.

          Comment


          • #6
            IF someone is utilizing a child maintenance enforcement agency (MEP/FRO) they can certainly negotiate a lower payment (with a schedule of make-up payments down the road when they are again employed).

            Comment


            • #7
              Berner, a Form 26B, Affidavit for Filing Domestic Agreement has to be filed with the Court with the Agreement. They send it to FRO who sends a package to the client to complete, including a statement of arrears.
              Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Janus View Post
                You meant that mom is prepared to pay CS since she will have a higher income.

                I mean, that is what you meant, right?

                If the agreement has actual numbers, then it can be enforced. If it has vague descriptions of money to be paid, then it cannot be enforced. The lack of lawyers is totally irrelevant.


                If Dad has been laid off, then he is having serious financial pressures now that will be having an impact upon her children. I appreciate that many mothers can't worry about anything besides themselves, but perhaps you can advise the mother in this case to actually spare a thought for her children and not collect support from a household that is struggling financially.


                I would assume when the adjustment period comes (July) if mom is making more than dad then yes she would be paying CS. However can Dad really go from making over $100k and now just claim to be making nothing? The question was how soon does the change take place? Dads been laid off since before the holidays, not sure when he will be called back or if he even will. So does the change take effect right away? Meaning for Jan Dad doesn't owe CS because he is laid off?

                Mom is willing to work with Dad but he also shouldn't be allowed to not pay anything. Even day care when he refused to take the children. Please tell me you agree with that?

                What if now without the CS moms household is struggling even more than dads? Seeing how she now loses the CS and has to pay all day care fees because Dad won't watch the children while he is off work? Is it fair mom has to now scramble to make ends meet because of dads screw up?


                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                  Ahem, the FCSG dictate that its based on most current income and go on to say that if line 150 is not a true picture of your income then you use other methods.

                  If dad had a steady run of being laid off for December and it was established as being the standard for years then yes income tax would work.

                  In this case, dad pulled a stupid and may be getting himself fired. If thats the case, he has to deal with the fall out and find new work and prove why his cs should go down.

                  If hes simply being disciplined then he more than likely is on EI and his cs should be based on that until he goes back to work when it would then go up.

                  Mom is not responsible for his bonehead moves that land him on the unemployment line. She should be filing with a maintenance agency and letting dad deal with the fall out. Its not like hes paying table level support. And his EI would be about 60% of his income which is still higher than mom.

                  If she wanted to be reasonable, she could ask (in writing) what is happening with his work and when he expects to be earning a pay cheque again. Also ask for proof of his unemployment income (he just logs into his account and does a screen cap) and proof that his lay off continues.

                  He would need to demonstrate his efforts to find new work. Its very much like a hardship/purposefully underemployed situation.


                  Yes and no... Dad is and has been laid off every year since mom and him were together (7 years)... however it is always before the holidays and he is hired back after the holidays. This is the longest he has been laid off and he has no recall date. Could this be because of the HR issue? Most likely because mom works in the same area as dad and knows others have been hired back instead of Dad.

                  Mom is working towards being able to make ends meet without dads CS but because this is only the second month and mom was left with other bills from dad ($700 cell phone bill, $400 cable bill, $1500 furniture loan) she isn't getting as far ahead as she would like, but she will get there


                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                    However can Dad really go from making over $100k and now just claim to be making nothing?
                    The biggest problem with losing your job is that you make less income.

                    So yes, if Dad tends get laid off regularly, and this time around he didn't get his job back, then he very well might have a precipitous drop in income.

                    The question was how soon does the change take place? Dads been laid off since before the holidays, not sure when he will be called back or if he even will. So does the change take effect right away? Meaning for Jan Dad doesn't owe CS because he is laid off?
                    Theory vs reality. In theory, CS reflect current income. In reality, we usually calculate CS based on last years income. Not only is that a good predictor of current income but over time it works itself out almost perfectly on the average.

                    Technically, if his income is zero and a judge would accept that, then his CS for the month would indeed be zero.

                    Mom is willing to work with Dad but he also shouldn't be allowed to not pay anything. Even day care when he refused to take the children. Please tell me you agree with that?
                    I think he should have taken the children. I think that tactically speaking he made a horrible mistake and he will get killed in court as a result.

                    What if now without the CS moms household is struggling even more than dads?
                    I think we can be fairly confident that the household that has lost an entire income is doing worse than a household that has lost some payments.

                    Is it fair mom has to now scramble to make ends meet because of dads screw up?
                    Well, there are two standards here:

                    A) What is best for mom?
                    B) What is best for kids?

                    If you care about A, then Mom should extract child support from Dad and aggressively pursue enforcement measures.

                    If you care about B, then Mom should recognize that taking money from a house that has lost a shocking amount of income would be terrible for her children and she should in fact probably agree to voluntarily start paying child support immediately.

                    Offhand, I like to think about what is best for kids, but by the sound of it you are looking out for mom. Nothing wrong with that, just a different priority.

                    I'm not sure what you mean by "fair". Generally, support issues have nothing to do with "fair" by any definition.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I would tend to disagree Janus... if mom cannot pay rent or utilities or daycare because dad isn't contributing how do you see that to be in the best interest of the children?

                      Dad is most likely collecting ei, not that he is admitting that to mom, dad also had a lot of savings, which of course were not split because they were common law. I have my doubts Dad is suffering due to his savings. Mom doesn't really want to go to court over this, the question was more regarding is CS payable for Jan if dad starts back to work in Feb, even though he was laid off for the month of Jan?


                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Trust me. No one likes to deal with child support issues. And that includes FRO.

                        Did he quit his job, get fired, or laid off?

                        Is he intentionally unemployed?

                        If she got fired or is intentionally unemployed, he better find a new job because he is expected to pay the same amount. If he got laid off, he can reduce CS until he find's a new job.

                        You're just going to have to take a break on tanning and getting your nails done for some time.

                        Why not forget about daycare and give him the opportunity to spend more time with his children now that he is out of work? Truth be told.
                        Last edited by trinton; 01-11-2017, 01:28 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me that if regular layoffs are part of his job then his annual income reflects that. Logic to me dictates that if CS is based off of his last year's income, then that is the proper amount to pay each month including the month or months he is laid off.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PeacefulMoments View Post
                            I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me that if regular layoffs are part of his job then his annual income reflects that. Logic to me dictates that if CS is based off of his last year's income, then that is the proper amount to pay each month including the month or months he is laid off.
                            unemployment insurance pays less than what he would normally get paid.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by trinton View Post
                              unemployment insurance pays less than what he would normally get paid.
                              Yes, but what I meant is that his total annual income includes both the working income and the unemployment. This has been a regular occurrence for many years. This means that the CS if based off of that number is an average if you will, of the income for the year including the period of lower income from EI. So by my logic (not necessarily correct lol) that means the CS should be the same each month when based off of that complete annual income.

                              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