Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

no child support due to shared parenting clause

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

  • no child support due to shared parenting clause

    I have the clause no child support payable by either party due to shared parenting in my final order. it doesn't mention anything about incomes and table amounts.

    there is a clause every year we will exchange tax returns.

    there is a clause also that within 30 days of obtaining new employment. I will inform ex.

    if I get a new job, and inform ex, do I really have to start paying her anything based on the wording of this order? Can I say we are still sharing custody on an 50.50 basis and don't agree to child support?

  • #2
    no child support due to shared parenting clause

    If your income goes up significantly then yes. If your incomes are similar then no.

    You are currently out of work correct? And your incomes are similar? Thats more than likely why they did the order the way it is. If you start working and your income doubles then some cs is paid but it would be on a set off basis.

    Child support is the right of the child. When you stop seeing it as “paying your ex” you will see it that way. Plus by withholding it or following an order for the current circumstances, you are demonstrating blameworthy conduct and leaving yourself open to punishment by the court.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rockscan View Post
      Child support is the right of the child. When you stop seeing it as “paying your ex” you will see it that way.

      Ex doesn't see it as right of the child and was using it to finance a $20,000 Mercedes Benz while earning minimum wage. It has never been, or will ever be anything other than me "paying me ex". It has always been quite evident from her body language when we saw each other - which is why I absolutely love and enjoy seeing her these days.

      Originally posted by rockscan View Post
      Plus by withholding it or following an order for the current circumstances, you are demonstrating blameworthy conduct and leaving yourself open to punishment by the court
      I thought blameworthy conduct was for contempt motions. Nothing in the order says child support must be paid or adjusted.. or that it is paid on based the parties income.. so I cannot in anyway be found in contempt.

      I get what you're saying though and will probably pay based on offset to keep my good rep before the judges.
      Last edited by tunnelight; 06-23-2019, 10:26 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
        there is a clause every year we will exchange tax returns.

        there is a clause also that within 30 days of obtaining new employment. I will inform ex.
        I think these 2 clauses are the leeway to what you are suggesting. though my getting a new job would automatically be a material change to child support in any event.
        Last edited by tunnelight; 06-23-2019, 10:51 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          It doesn’t matter what your order says. The prevailing case law on this is DBS at the Supreme Court. Regardless of what your order says, if your income changes you must update child support.

          And Im sure your ex does all kinds of things that make you cringe over her cash flow. Not relevant. Your income and her income support the child. Im sure my husbands ex hates the fact that I make more than her and can afford to take us away on vacations twice a year. Doesn’t matter, his income is what supports the kids. WE can live our life off my income all we want.

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree with you, somewhat. I have seen orders where child support was waved on consent and met with difficult hurdles to overturn later on. For example, if I was making more than ex and we agreed to no child support. Or they just decided on no child support because they both had the kids equally.

            Other aspect is, you're smart lady which is likely part of why you make good money. Child support originally was because women stayed at home and men worked. Now, when child support is payable and recipient is working but earning minimum wage, then child support becomes a sort of welfare cheque for low earners.

            My ex has never earned more than minimum wage. Earning minimum wage her take home cash basically equaled mine after child tax benefits, child support, and income tax. She will probably earn minimum wage forever more.

            Though with me now getting half of child tax benefits, offset child support, and no child support for I assume at least the next 2 years while I finish off University, she will push herself to increase her salary.
            hopefully.

            Even with offset, I can except high payments because she has the lowest possible child support guideline amount for a fulltime employee.

            Out of.m curiosity, your income doesn't play into play for child support does it? I mean, if I get a significant other, then would I have to pay more because there is more money in my house hold? It would seem like double punishment by my ex.. I get punished and anyone who dates me also gets punished...
            Last edited by tunnelight; 06-23-2019, 11:32 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              no child support due to shared parenting clause

              Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
              I agree with you, somewhat. I have seen orders where child support was waved on consent and met with difficult hurdles to overturn later on. For example, if I was making more than ex and we agreed to no child support. Or they just decided on no child support because they both had the kids equally.
              Unlikely. Unless the orders were consent agreements not orders they are almost always cs. Its the right of the child and a judge will not agree to no support. Normally those situations are extenuating circumstances.

              Other aspect is, you're smart lady which is likely part of why you make good money. Child support originally was because women stayed at home and men worked. Now, when child support is payable and recipient is working but earning minimum wage, then child support becomes a sort of welfare cheque for low earners.
              You’re mixing up spousal and child support. Child support is to provide for the children and in off set—equalize the households. Spousal is for spouses who sacrificed their careers for the other person. My husband made 1/4 his ex’s income and STILL had to pay. Imagine how that felt knowing she was bringing in 100g to his 25. His kids, he shared the cost.

              My ex has never earned more than minimum wage. Earning minimum wage her take home cash basically equaled mine after child tax benefits, child support, and income tax. She will probably earn minimum wage forever more.
              That was obviously a poor decision in your marriage. Best advice to any couple, both of you get jobs and contribute.

              Also good advice—stop getting angry about having to contribute to your kids’ expenses. The sooner you let that go the better off you will be. They are your kids and you have an equal responsibility. Your ex was obviously underemployed while together or when you had kids, it was ok while together, you can’t suddenly expect someone who did fuck all before to shape up and contribute.

              Out of.m curiosity, your income doesn't play into play for child support does it? I mean, if I get a significant other, then would I have to pay more because there is more money in my house hold? It would seem like double punishment by my ex.. I get punished and anyone who dates me also gets punished...

              Nope my income means nothing. He never claimed hardship or failed to pay his support. His ex hates it because she thinks our standard of living should cover his kids. Too bad. If you do meet someone hopefully they will be understanding that you have obligations to your children. I know this isn’t forever and that he has kids to support so we don’t even discuss or get upset about it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Also good advice—stop getting angry about having to contribute to your kids’ expenses. The sooner you let that go the better off you will be.

                ... you can’t suddenly expect someone who did fuck all before to shape up and contribute.
                Out of all the good advice already given, this is an important part. Letting go is very important, so you can move on and find positives in your life.

                The last part is the harsh truth, my lawyer had made the same point to the judge. With ODSB, SS, CS, CBT, subsidized housing and other income my ex made more than my monthly wage so what incentive did she have to work.

                There is nothing you can do about your ex, so time for you to be selfish. Don't give her anymore of your time and energy, invest it in you.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Asphenaz View Post
                  Out of all the good advice already given, this is an important part. Letting go is very important, so you can move on and find positives in your life.



                  There is nothing you can do about your ex, so time for you to be selfish. Don't give her anymore of your time and energy, invest it in you.

                  This is my mantra and has been for a number of years now. Thanks to a fantastic doctor I have been living this. It’s also a take on the courage to accept the things I cannot control idea.

                  My doctor has constantly said to me “you cannot control others, you can only control your reaction”. It is completely true. My husband will now say to me “how do you stay so calm?” And I remind him that getting upset only wastes your energy, not theirs.

                  Find a hobby, start running, playing a sport, making new friends, joining a group etc. Look at things you used to like to do when you were single, go back to doing it. Invest your time and energy in YOU. You will find your mental health improving and your energy spent with your kids will be positive too.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                    Child support is the right of the child. When you stop seeing it as “paying your ex” you will see it that way.
                    That is not even remotely a tautology. In some cases, child support helps the child. In other cases, child support is simply "paying the ex". Most shared custody situations where the recipient has repartnered likely involves some element of "paying the ex".

                    Originally posted by tunnellight
                    I have the clause no child support payable by either party due to shared parenting in my final order. it doesn't mention anything about incomes and table amounts.
                    While I disagree with rockscan on child support always being of value to the child, she is right in that child support is considered to be the right of the child. That means that you pretty much cannot contract your way out of it. It does not matter what your agreement says, if you should have been paying support, then you could be liable for support.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      That is not even remotely a tautology. In some cases, child support helps the child. In other cases, child support is simply "paying the ex". Most shared custody situations where the recipient has repartnered likely involves some element of "paying the ex".







                      While I disagree with rockscan on child support always being of value to the child, she is right in that child support is considered to be the right of the child. That means that you pretty much cannot contract your way out of it. It does not matter what your agreement says, if you should have been paying support, then you could be liable for support.

                      Janus, I have a hard time with this myself considering my husband’s ex makes double his income and his kids aren’t suffering. However, having grown up without cs because my father was of the opinion he had “paid enough money” to my mother, I am not going to encourage him to shirk his responsibility. We can afford the several hundred a month to meet his obligations and while he may see it as blood money on a bad day, one day he can look his kids in the eye and say he did what was required of him. My father on the other hand knows to not even broach the subject with me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Janus View Post
                        That is not even remotely a tautology. In some cases, child support helps the child. In other cases, child support is simply "paying the ex". Most shared custody situations where the recipient has repartnered likely involves some element of "paying the ex".
                        What if the ex never re-partners? is it better then?

                        Is it more palatable if it's a truly a single-income household the CS is going to?

                        While I disagree with rockscan on child support always being of value to the child, she is right in that child support is considered to be the right of the child. That means that you pretty much cannot contract your way out of it. It does not matter what your agreement says, if you should have been paying support, then you could be liable for support.

                        Agreed. Trying to contract out of it or stipulate how and when it is spent is just dumb.

                        My ex is trying to include in his offer that instead of paying me CS- he'll place 60% of it in a trust for D2. He said that in co-parent counseling - and I promptly told him to politely fuck off. The minute you try to do that- it just looks hella controlling.

                        Now that I know his motivation though. I might- *MIGHT* - agree to putting 50% away to D2s RESP. I already put 60% of it away in a savings account- I just don't tell the ex I do that. Partly because a small petty part of me likes that it pisses him off that he's paying me CS. But I also realize- if we go to shared (at some point in the faaaar future)- I'll be paying him. As long as my kid is taken care of (she is)- we're good.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by iona6656 View Post
                          Is it more palatable if it's a truly a single-income household the CS is going to?
                          In a shared custody situation? Of course it is.

                          Are you actually going to argue that in a shared custody situation, it helps the children for child support to be paid to the wealthier household?

                          I understand the public policy issues at play. If we use a partner's income to determine child support levels it can create a lot of unacceptable incentives. On a general level, it makes sense to not count the partner's income. However, on a specific level, when child support flows to the wealthier household, it almost always hurts the child in question.

                          It is ok to say that partner's incomes should not matter, while acknowledging that this rule often leads to incredibly unfair outcomes that are very detrimental to the children involved.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                            he can look his kids in the eye and say he did what was required of him.
                            There is nothing noble about paying child support in a situation where it does not help the child. It may be mandatory, and therefore foolish to not pay, but it is not noble.

                            It reminds me of factory owners trying to tell their workers that it is noble not to take sick days. Or like religious leaders telling people that while life sucks now it is all good because they are righteous people who will get rewarded in the next life. People in charge always try to make the people suffering feel good about that suffering.

                            Fuck. that. shit.

                            I pay child support because if I don't very bad things will happen to me. It does not help my children in the slightest and in fact very much hurts them. I feel no pride in paying, in fact I feel shame for stealing from my children by handing over money that I would have spent on them. Unfortunately, I have no choice, because the consequences of not paying are even worse for my children than the consequences of paying.

                            So I pay, but I don't have to feel good about it, or make up some nonsense about "duty" and "responsibility". It's unfair, and it's not going to change.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                              "you cannot control others, you can only control your reaction”.
                              Yup. Controlling your reaction also puts you in control. Soon as you react, you've given power to the other person and are ultimately being manipulated, which in turn causes anxiety and can effect self esteem.

                              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