Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seeking clarity and understanding of "primary caregiver"

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

  • Seeking clarity and understanding of "primary caregiver"

    Hey all, thanks in advance to those that know this stuff inside and out.

    I'm 20 months into a very long separation/divorce negotiation. Everything has been worked out save for her insistence of the wording "primary caregiver" to be attached to her, and "parenting time" to be attached to my name.

    I have the kids in a mediation agreement three days a week, so as far as I know I make the 40% hurdle to be shared parenting.

    I think she's trying to get this tag in order to avoid using her income on the child support tables when she eventually goes back to work.

    My lawyer suggests I can let this go now, and then when circumstances change (she goes back to work), readdress it at this time so I can put this mess behind me.

    Is there any other issues around this designation? Can she move with the kids to another city for example?

    Thanks in advance as I say.

  • #2
    It does give her a little advantage, but if you have the kids more than 40% of the time and only pay the offset amount of CS then that arrangement would hold more weight.

    If that is all that is holding you back from signing, you are probably ok to let her have it. But you might want to suggest using the primary residence instead. That implies that in the case of schools, doctors etc her address would be the one registered. It doesn't give any advantage to her then.

    what you need to be clear is that you have joint custody. You want to be equal in all major decisions. That is the best way to make sure she cannot move the kids, or make a decision you don't agree with. It also means that you can't just move as well.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by billiechic View Post
      It does give her a little advantage, but if you have the kids more than 40% of the time and only pay the offset amount of CS then that arrangement would hold more weight.

      If that is all that is holding you back from signing, you are probably ok to let her have it. But you might want to suggest using the primary residence instead. That implies that in the case of schools, doctors etc her address would be the one registered. It doesn't give any advantage to her then.

      what you need to be clear is that you have joint custody. You want to be equal in all major decisions. That is the best way to make sure she cannot move the kids, or make a decision you don't agree with. It also means that you can't just move as well.
      Thanks for getting back to me, really appreciate it!

      1. She has no offset on CS right now as she has no salary, and is planning on going back to work for two years (so won't have an offset for 30 months or so). I think her angle is to avoid any income that she starts to earn then being subject to the CS tables. Is that what you meant?

      2. Not sure what you mean when you said "using the primary residence"

      Thanks again

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KevinMcK View Post
        Thanks for getting back to me, really appreciate it!

        1. She has no offset on CS right now as she has no salary, and is planning on going back to work for two years (so won't have an offset for 30 months or so). I think her angle is to avoid any income that she starts to earn then being subject to the CS tables. Is that what you meant?
        If and when she starts earning an income, it will be factored into the grosse "family" income and your c/s will be reduced accordlingly. The wording does not have any effect on this.

        2. Not sure what you mean when you said "using the primary residence"

        Thanks again
        The wording "primary caregiver" would be more reflective in decision making. Her, being the "primary caregiver" would have more ability to make material decisions regarding the child. Schooling etc.

        Changing it to "primary residence" takes the emphasis off of her as the more important parent, and puts the focus on the house as where the child lives most of the time. It equals out the notion that you are also a "primary caregiver" to your child. The child may live with the ex most of the time, making your house the childs "secondary" or "alternative" residence (although I don't like either of those terms), which is in fact more true.

        It is a matter of perception. Do you want to be looked at as the "parenting time parent" while she is the "primary caregiver"? Or do you want it to look like it is just a housing matter, with her having the primary residence?

        Comment


        • #5
          If she is choosing not to work (especially with the intention of not earning and thus not paying CS) then she is playing you. Don't let her do this. You can impute an income on her and you would the calculate CS as if she was making this wage. Ususally this would involve looking at what she was earning before the separation, what he skills could be applied to, or at least minumum wage at FT hours. BUT imputing an income is a big deal and you want to use this as a negotiation tactic, and a last resort. It probably won't make a huge difference now, but she needs to be financially responsible for her children as well. It's only fair.

          Like I said, you need to have the word custody in your agreement. She is sneaky and using terms to imply that the parents are equal, but it needs to be spelled out. She wants custody, she want decision-making power. "Primary caregiver" does not apply in this case and if you let her have it she will argue that means she has custody. The more vague you let the wording be, the more likely you will end up back in court.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by billiechic View Post
            If she is choosing not to work (especially with the intention of not earning and thus not paying CS) then she is playing you. Don't let her do this. You can impute an income on her and you would the calculate CS as if she was making this wage. Ususally this would involve looking at what she was earning before the separation, what he skills could be applied to, or at least minumum wage at FT hours. BUT imputing an income is a big deal and you want to use this as a negotiation tactic, and a last resort. It probably won't make a huge difference now, but she needs to be financially responsible for her children as well. It's only fair.
            Agreed

            Like I said, you need to have the word custody in your agreement. She is sneaky and using terms to imply that the parents are equal, but it needs to be spelled out. She wants custody, she want decision-making power. "Primary caregiver" does not apply in this case and if you let her have it she will argue that means she has custody. The more vague you let the wording be, the more likely you will end up back in court.
            Just as an aside, the courts and the legal field are getting away from using the term "custody" and "access" in agreements and orders as a means of getting away from the connotation that comes with the words. They are starting to use "parenting time" instead of access and "primary parent" instead of sole custody. It is more due to stigma of being an "access parent", and that it is somehow less of a parent then the "custodial parent".

            So long as the agreement is pretty clear on roles and is well worded (ie. clear on your being able to attend and be involved in all major decisions of the child), I think not having "custody" in it benefits you. It eliminates the idea or feeling of possession that "custodial" parents get.

            I have to deal with a lot. My ex loves calling me an access parent and somehow making herself appear more important she is the one with "custody".

            Comment


            • #7
              Im alittle confused...
              If you have full custody of a child and the other parent still has the child over 40% of the time, does that mean there can still be a deduction in child support?
              I thought that only implied if you have shared custody and I heard in some cases joint custody can reduce the amount also.

              Comment


              • #8
                thanks for the clarity ...

                I think she is angling for NOT having to use her income for the tables when she does get a job. I think it would be left to me to reopen the case in two to three years time when she has a job (section 9 I think?) in order to make things more equitable.

                My lawyer gets the feeling I should just say "OK", and get this closed up as the legal costs and time just continue to mount.

                It might be easier to fight this issue in three years when it matters and she's on the hook for her own legal fees.

                Thoughts?

                (this is such a great service guys, I have a laywer, but a second opinion is so nice to have)

                Comment


                • #9
                  If your intention is to get this over and done with, and save costs, then your lawyer is right ().

                  The question is...do you want to be involved in making the major decisions for your child (schooling, health, religion, where to live). If you want that, you can't let her have the title "primary caregiver". (my apologies, I wasn't aware that the court has actually imposed a meaning in relation to custody towards the term). To give her that advantage now means you will never get it back, regardless of what happens in the future.

                  It's not an easy decision to make, and I urge you to take a few days to really think about it and realize what the consequences of both options are. This may be one of the biggest decisions of your life and you don't want to be hasty.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tugofwar View Post
                    Im alittle confused...
                    If you have full custody of a child and the other parent still has the child over 40% of the time, does that mean there can still be a deduction in child support?
                    I thought that only implied if you have shared custody and I heard in some cases joint custody can reduce the amount also.
                    Yes. CS has nothing to do with custody, it has to do with time spent with each parent. A good thing too, I'm sure there would be more custody fights if CS was based on custody.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by billiechic View Post
                      If your intention is to get this over and done with, and save costs, then your lawyer is right ().

                      The question is...do you want to be involved in making the major decisions for your child (schooling, health, religion, where to live). If you want that, you can't let her have the title "primary caregiver". (my apologies, I wasn't aware that the court has actually imposed a meaning in relation to custody towards the term). To give her that advantage now means you will never get it back, regardless of what happens in the future.

                      It's not an easy decision to make, and I urge you to take a few days to really think about it and realize what the consequences of both options are. This may be one of the biggest decisions of your life and you don't want to be hasty.
                      Tell me if I'm wrong but I think I'm covered in that regard.

                      Her lawyers stated "I want the parenting clauses to reflect the parties have joint custody of the children, my client has primary care and your client has specified access as detailed"

                      The mediation report that is included has me getting the kids 3 days a week.

                      So I think it's just the CS tables in the future as my exposure.

                      is that correct? and if I give that up now I'll never get it back? Even if you can prove >40% and a circumstantial change (she gets a job)?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by billiechic View Post
                        If your intention is to get this over and done with, and save costs, then your lawyer is right ().

                        The question is...do you want to be involved in making the major decisions for your child (schooling, health, religion, where to live). If you want that, you can't let her have the title "primary caregiver". (my apologies, I wasn't aware that the court has actually imposed a meaning in relation to custody towards the term). To give her that advantage now means you will never get it back, regardless of what happens in the future.

                        It's not an easy decision to make, and I urge you to take a few days to really think about it and realize what the consequences of both options are. This may be one of the biggest decisions of your life and you don't want to be hasty.
                        I agree completely. Once you've conceded she is the primary caregiver, what is to stop her from seeking sole custody? You need an agreement on joint custody. Without that, do *not* allow her to be designated a the primary caregiver.

                        Such a designation is an admission by you that she is the most important parent and is should be allowed make most of the decisions in the children's lives without your knowledge or agreement. Is that really what you want?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If you decide that she can be designated as primary caregiver (aka has sole custody), then I'd recommend that you require she provide a blanket 'consent to release of information' letter, to ensure that you have free access to all info about your child from govt agencies (e.g. ohip, dr, dentist, daycare, school, passport, immigration, sport/hobby groups etc.). This is because, although family law rules indicate that non-custodial parents have the same right to info as custodial parents, the privacy laws override them, effectively blocking you from this info.

                          Also require that you be informed of any change in dr/dentist etc within 1
                          week of change, and that you be notified IN ADVANCE of any dr/dentist appointments.

                          All of the above is because saying in your court order that you are to have input into health/education issues is useless if you cannot find out what is going on (or can only find out weeks later)!!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If his agreement says they have joint custody, but she is "primary caregiver", IMO we are looking at perception more then substance.

                            So long as it says joint custody any other description is more reflective on amount of time the child spends in each house. Not who the more important parent is.

                            I may suggest to the ex that you prefer primary residence over primary caregiver, as it is less offensive to you as you feel each parent has an equally responsibility and entitlement to be a caregiver. The phrase primary residence is more reflective of the actual circumstance (the kid does spend most of her time there).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              relief to know it's not an access issue and only future money (though that matters)

                              The landmark case for re opening this stuff later is this one

                              British Columbia Family Law Blog: SHARED CUSTODY AND THE CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES CONTINO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

                              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