Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Separation Agreement A First Blush

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

  • Separation Agreement A First Blush

    I had opportunity to view a second and what my wife considers "good" draft of the separation agreement. It was mostly what we had discussed previously. Our equalization was fairly straight forward and I understood most of that part. I will be taking over our current house and be "buying her out". She has already bought a house of her own. Custody, access was all as discussed with a childcare counsellor... Shared Custody 50/50 time joint decision making on all the major "life" items. Major extra expenses to be split proportionate to income, etc.

    The only surprise or maybe no surprise because I have been told that "her lawyer will try to make it so she doesn't have to pay child support to you"... is that they are proposing that she not pay child support to me. We had discussed that her paying was a possibility. For the past 4 years my wife had made about $20K more than me (Wife=$58K, Me=$38K), according to tables provided by the childcare counsellor on "paper" she should be paying me an offset amount of about $300 per month. It stated on the draft that because of similarity in incomes and expenses that child support would not be payable...? I argued this with my wife. She justified no CS to me by saying that she had told her lawyer she would be continuing to pay medical premiums for the 2 kids' (8 years & 11 years) benefits, purchase all their clothes (as this is something I have rarely done), buy all gifts for birthday parties of friends, and pay all "regular" visits beyond what her benefits pay for for optical and dental....

    I was thinking all along that she would be paying me $300 per month and that as my role as a father I would have to learn or start buying clothes, party gifts and stuff... it's just something you do for your kids. I assumed all other "extras" for the kids would be split proportionately to incomes.

    Should I be "fighting" for the $300 CS per month? Is it worth it? I have not presented a draft to my lawyer yet as I just had my first view at the SA last night. My wife wants to ask her lawyer for info on how they got to no Child Support so that she can better show me the break-down.

    I am worried that this is all going to turn to a pile of crap over money and stuff. Neither of us can really afford much more legal than the minimum.

  • #2
    Personally the situation would be offensive. I went through a similar thing with my ex, she "offered" to cover various expenses but how it was working was that she was in control. The daycare, camps, sports etc all had her name as the contact, while I had ceased to exist.

    She was buying the clothes out on shopping trips with the kids and they saw her as the provider of these outings. She decided what they wore and how much to spend, etc.

    It ended up being about power and control.

    You should approach this in a clinical mathematical way. You acknowledge the offer is fair and she is offering to pay at least $300 in costs per month in liu of $300 in CS. However you state that you prefer to participate directly as an equal parent and share the costs directly. Suggest that this is revenue neutral for her, but that her version does not reflect a fully equal shared parenting situation. If there were things like buying clothes that you didn't participate in before, you assert that divorce means that things change and the responsibilites with the kids will be shared.

    Offer her a "parallel" situation if the there are some things that she prefers to handle all by herself she may suggest a trade of responsibilities, but that you want this stated in a clear and equitable way.

    The two of you cannot sign a binding contract for $0 child support, the courts would always reopen this, but the situation you describe is one I've been in and it results in one parent being locked out of too much of the children's lives. The things she wants control of are actual parenting. In effect she relegates you to a 50% baby sitter. I don't suggest being agressive and argumentitive about this, just say no, it will be 50/50 responsibility.

    Comment


    • #3
      Not to mention that one or both of your incomes could change dramatically in the future. Child support is usually adjusted annually, but if you let her lock herself in at "cover some expenses in lieu of support" that's just too vague to be fair. What if her income improves? You would have no way to ensure that the children benefit proportionally to that increase. About the only thing I might consider would be to allow her to subtract the medical premiums she pays from her child support amount. But even that is iffy; what if you change jobs and get benefits that don't have a premium? There's just too much variability, so don't sign anything that doesn't have the flexibility to deal with that variability. Stick to the standard offset table child support and extraordinary expenses proportionate to income, both adjusted annually. So much easier and fairer. Don't let her be a control freak weasel.

      What if you're out shopping and see a cute outfit your child wants? Are you going to say "No, only Mommy can buy your clothes?" What if your child is going to a birthday party that falls on your time, and the ex didn't pack a present with the child at the switch? Are you going to say "No, Mommy didn't send a present so you can't give one to your friend?." These expenses are going to be incurred anyways. And child support is also meant to help with less tangible things, like your increased water bill because your kid likes super long showers, or the increased electric bill for the computer they left on overnight.

      Comment


      • #4
        You could make a counter offer of under that 300 because you agree to the medical benefits but feel that it is best to have the ability to effectively provide for your children's clothes, gifts, etc while they are in your care cause you are most likely going to buy it anyways. There will need to be clothes in both houses and you don't need to be running to her for her to buy extra stuff for you. and when it's a friend on your side you don't want to be asking for gift money please. Puts you in a position of constantly begging for things. That isn't equal and will cause resentment down the road.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just do everything 50/50 and mathematically. Adjust CS yearly based on previous years income in July. If she pays for medical insurance, reimburse her according to your income ratios.

          Clothes, camps, sports, that are normal and covered by CS normally - split 50/50 . Extraordinary, medical, dental - split according to income. Just keep track and balance out monthly.

          This way you can, for example, register all the sports stuff, and she can buy all the clothes, and you simply keep receipts and there should be no arguments (note that this is not working with my ex in that she only thinks that money should flow her way, but that is another story - it COULD be great if your ex is simple and straight forward).

          The 'she buys all the clothes' thing is BS and a money grab. My ex was a stay at home mom, so she bought all the clothes. Now I go clothes shopping with my girls etc - things change, you will be an equal parent with equal time.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm sitting at the other end of the table on this. My draft SA says I will pay all expenses in lieu of CS as well. My ex and I calculate that child costs are equal to the disparity in net after tax incomes. We're choosing instead for me to maximize SS amounts to her. We do have a different situation in that she makes far less than I do. The spirit of the agreement is for both households to have approximately equal after tax income. In fact she will likely be better off in this regard should she work part time and supplement her income.

            We don't see any control issues - she can take the kids clothes shopping, etc. And just itemize the expenses to me monthly. Under shared we both have say in education, recreation etc. anyway.

            The SA is totally open to being changed in the future based on change of circumstance including significant income changes for either of us. We are both determined to play fair on this.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mess View Post
              In effect she relegates you to a 50% baby sitter. I don't suggest being agressive and argumentitive about this, just say no, it will be 50/50 responsibility.
              This is exactly what I had told her when we "talked" Friday night afterwork. Which turned into a major S@#t show and just flared up both of our emotions. I realized I had to drop the topic before I said something stupid. I know things will change with separation and divorce... I assumed all along that my role in the kids' lives would be changing (for the better in my opinion). I feel inferior in that my wife assumes I can't handle clothes shopping and the like, it can't be rocket science. Heck go to a reputable store, find a nice clerk and ask for help, easy. My kids are getting to the age where they know what they like anyhow. I want to be a full-father not a sitter.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have talked to various friends, family and other sources over the weekend and think that it is best if I stick to my guns for the support that is payable to me. My wife has said all along she wants to be fair. If CS is payable according to our income difference of $20K for the past 4 years then this is fair. I had posted previously about SS payments and most comments returned were to not bother as it would be more of a fight and legal expensed to argue SS would be foolish money spent. I have also talked to EAP lawyers and they advised the same.

                CS seems very simple math... My wife I think is realizing that she is getting in over her head and may have bitten off more than she can chew. She bought a new 2010 vehicle, bought her own house to move to and told me she was offered a credit line from her bank to make her downpayment, have monies for home inspection and the like. A dumb move I think to borrow from a credit line for a major purchase before the ink is dry on a separation agreement and equalization adjustments. To speak of which they calculate that I should owe her $50K in equalization... Had a friend mention that perhaps I should offer her that I would only agree to no CS if she walks and doesn't take the $50K...?

                When we argued last Friday she was even spouting off about sawing off halfway on CS at $150/month. Commented on how it was ONLY $3600/year, my thoughts were that $3600 x 10 to 12 years adds up. She again spouted on well do you want to cut off at $36000 flat? She is angry, scrambling and is finally realizing that with her new house, car and downpayment on her LOC that life will be changing. No more fancy $130 hairdoos, no pedicures every 2 weeks, no new shirts every week... life will change for her more than for me that is for sure.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Don't talk numbers too much, talk formula for CS (offset method adjusted yearly).

                  Even if CS is small now, that may change in the future.

                  Stay out of her finances, don't do anything in exchange for CS, just do CS the 'normal' way - there are many years ahead.

                  As for clothes shopping, you sound defensive, don't engage her. Again, work out the process, not the details - she can buy all the clothes she wants for the kids, she just has to keep receipts, as well you, and you can balance it out monthly as with all shared expenses.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Crickey - a dad in a kids clothing store without mom around is going to get a LOT of offers of help. They ALL assume you are helpless...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dinkyface View Post
                      Crickey - a dad in a kids clothing store without mom around is going to get a LOT of offers of help. They ALL assume you are helpless...
                      LOL! Cute kids help.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well my kids are surely cute! Of course i am biased.

                        I still have not received the "envelope" from my wife, I wonder if she is thinking and going back to her lawyer to get clarifications on items. Again the only thing I had issue with a first blush was the "Child Support not payable". I have made efforts to not discuss anything with her since our last blow-up. My lawyer is on stand-by and I will give him the documents after I review them.

                        My cousin is legislative council for a Province and when I discussed CS with her she said the process is cut and dry and should be a non-issue. Offset tables have become a standard in 95% of Shared Custody settings. I would be willing to pay some of the benefit premiums and am willing to pay my proportion of medical expenses, schooling and the like. I would even be willing to pay 50/50 for sports and extra-curricular. I will even consider paying daycare at 50/50 (I pay for my weeks, she pays for hers) rather that trying to go "proportionately".

                        I don't understand why her lawyer would try to convince her that not paying the CS is in her best interest for the kids'. I want to be able to use those monies as I see fit in their upbringing. Is that not fair?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by eyeswideopen View Post

                          I don't understand why her lawyer would try to convince her that not paying the CS is in her best interest for the kids'.
                          That statement makes the assumption that lawyers care about the best interest of the children. That may be true in a system where they were appointed by a government overbody protection set up to protect kids on an even wage, without the goal of promotion, status and prestige. But sadly we don't live in a people focused legal system

                          Lawyers want to win. Lawyers want to build their resume. Lawyers want to set precedence, lawyers want to make $$$. I would hazard a guess that her lawyer doesn't give a crap about what is in the best interest of the kids.

                          Maybe the question should be : I don't understand why my ex feels she should be exempt from what every other parent in this country is responsible for?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by eyeswideopen View Post
                            Well my kids are surely cute! Of course i am biased.

                            I don't understand why her lawyer would try to convince her that not paying the CS is in her best interest for the kids'. I want to be able to use those monies as I see fit in their upbringing. Is that not fair?
                            Interstingly my spouse's lawyer was of the opinion that she SHOULD put CS payments in the agreement - the lawyer's going to argue in their client's interest.

                            Speaking from the position of the higher income earner (you STBX in this case) transferring income directly as SS is more tax efficient - income is taken from a higher tax bracket and given to a lower tax bracket.

                            If you really believe that your kids' expenses will be less than the CS you would be getting then you should demand CS.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Got back from bringing the kids to my parents for a few weeks visit and summer vacation. Also save them from the b.s. of my wife moving out to her new house, she get possession next week. First night back and we had another 'discussion' about the CS. Told her I felt that it is plain unfair and that if CS is indeed payable and with a 20K difference for the past 4 years I think that it is? She started spouting off from advice from her lawyer about maintaining an equal quality of life and stuff therefor she shouldn't pay because her expenses, new 2010 car and new house cost more. My thoughts, should have bought a smaller house or sell the car and buy a use one. Heck I'm going to stay in our smaller current house and drive a 12 year old car that is in need of maintenance... Am I missing something here? I figured offset table amounts for CS was easy to figure out.

                              She's not saying that she doesn't agree to paying the CS she would just "keep it simple" and not pay me a cheque directly and then sort out the transactions later for extras. She'd rather just "handle everything". I explained that this just puts me into the roll as the every second week babysitter rather than a father who "fathers" his kids. I would love to avoid arguing this is court. I don't know how to express these feelings to her, she get's all defensive.

                              She is now threatening to get our current house appraised and she feels it is worth more than our "agreed" amount. I just told her to do what she needs to do, get me a draft for my lawyer...

                              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