Well, why take a higher paying job if your success will only be held against you in the future. Once you're a support payor, you are a wage slave. Your freedom to choose your own career path, leave work to retrain, take time off for your family or your interests.. even some times even the choice about when or whether to retire are all taken away from you by the yolk around your neck from family law.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why Getting Ahead Doesn't Work In Family Law
Collapse
X
-
I agree with your decision to avoid a promotion leading to an inflated gross income. I would do the same thing. And let's all remember both parents have an obligation to support their children. Not just you. At the end of the day work/life balance is the key. Family first! It would be nice to see a day when CS/SS is based on net pay.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Links17 View PostThe difference if he loses the job family law will impute him the increased salary.
Comment
-
I fought tooth and nail to not have SS tied to my salary. To have it so would have been emotionally devastating.
As well, the last two years of my marriage, I got some good bonuses so my salary was high. Now I have to pay based on that high salary indefinitely. Yes, I am a wage slave. If I ever lost my job and couldn't find one that paid as well, my viable options would be to leave the country or become homeless.
Comment
-
is ss tied to income? does it have to change when your income changes?
for me the increased salary even after an increase in child supported and tax still resulted in more money at end of month. and even higher increases and better opportunities.
would you still not take home more money at the end of it all?
can't you take the job and just adjust cs next year?
Comment
-
Originally posted by trinton View Postis ss tied to income? does it have to change when your income changes?
I did quite a bit of research on CanLii as well and the cases were a mixed bag as to who won when an ex went after their ex to get increased in SS post separation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Canadaguy View PostWould love to see a court case that forces a dad (or mom for that matter) to still pay CS when they have no income.
57. In Khentov v. Bieler 2007 CarswellOnt 1832 (S.C.J.) Justice Czutrin found that the payor’s incarceration did not justify altering child support arrangements.
58. In Baldini (Connolly) v. Baldini (1999) 1999 CanLII 6717 (BC SC), 46 R.F.L. (4th) 407 (B.C.S.C.), the court imputed income to the payor because he had been fired for doing personal work on company time and using company material without permission. The court found that the consequences of the payor’s actions should be borne by him and not by his dependants.
59. I find the Applicant is solely responsible for the financial difficulties he now submits as the basis for significantly reducing his support obligations. ...But why should the Respondent and her children share any portion of that pain? Why should a support recipient suffer from a payor’s misconduct?
There are many many more cases like this, I just did a 30 second canlii search.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Canadaguy View PostGreat search Janis! Thank-you for the information. I was look for this type of case law due to my ex's under-employment. Find any other like this send em my way.
Comment
Comment