Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 04-29-2019, 10:33 AM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,363
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

The problem with the money argument is that it doesnt matter. She could only tell him he owes money and alienate the kids, the judge will only look to the law and the agreement. What does the agreement say about the money. Did he pay what it said. Thats the answer to the questions.

Most parents in legal cases are money grubbing jerks who use the kids as bait. This isnt new. Focusing on it will only frustrate you. Get through the conference and go from there.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-29-2019, 09:27 PM
tilt tilt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 129
tilt is on a distinguished road
Default

“New partner” doesn’t mean recent, it means the partner since the original relationship.

When you go to court it is important to go with clean hands. Judges look at parenting time (if it has been denied) and support (has the correct amount been paid). She hasn’t denied parenting time (you said she has given him extra time too). Your partner negotiated to pay less than table by a significant amount AND hasn’t been paying full Section 7 (including refusing to pay when he was asked for a legitimate expense). But the biggest problem is that he has not increased his child support despite making an extra $10,000 vs three years ago. So he is underpaying by $400 a month plus whatever the section 7 over the $200 he has been paying. She looks good, he doesn’t; and here he is asking to pay even less money.

Judges see non-custodial parents attempting to manipulate parenting time get to off-set (especially when the kids hit school-age and are “easier” and less of a time-suck) all the time. Since the agreement is very recent (only two years!), was signed with a legal waiver, and there have been no parenting time issues you should be prepared to have no change in parenting time but have the support re-adjusted to the current income as well as section 7. If he is lucky he won’t have to pay the retro arrears right away. The obligation to update support to match current income is on the payor, just telling her isn’t enough - he has to increase the actual money his children are recieving. The fact it was an on-consent agreement makes it even less likely to Judge would alter the parenting time (surely he is aware of how hard it is to argue a material change in circumstances). It is more likely she will get what she is asking for vs what he is asking for, and if this went to trial she would get costs.

If any of this is news to him, then his lawyer is not fully informing him of all potential outcomes. Watch out for a lawyer that only tells you what you want to hear.

You asked if her asking for money reflects badly on her and the answer is NO. She is asking, on behalf of their children, for the money their children are legally entitled to. Her NOT asking would reflect poorly on her - she is doing exactly what the Judge expects her to do. This will probably lead to a favourable outcome for her - especially if she has not been denying parenting during all the years of underpayment. It is all about the children’s best interest.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-30-2019, 10:20 AM
EmilyJ EmilyJ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 15
EmilyJ is on a distinguished road
Default

To be honest, I've not been voicing too much opinion on the matters to my partner as it's his situation and relationship with his so I'm in no way meddling in this as the "new partner". That's why I felt somewhat put off by your comment suggesting that my involvement was detrimental. I have an internal opinion based on the personal history (which is not as black and white as I've outlined) but nonetheless, I've kept that to myself for the most part.

That is why I came to this forum for advice rather than air it out to the personal parties involved. I've remained diplomatic this entire time and have continued to make efforts with their mother so the boys see us all getting along. So has my partner.

I understand that an agreement is an agreement but there were multiples texts and conversations between both of them and requests to her lawyer prior to him signing where she promised that if she moved, she would lessen the support and allow him 50/50. Yes, it was his mistake not ensuring that be put in the agreement but that's where the frustration comes in.

There's also a text of her saying she would agree to all of these changes if he paid for the amended paperwork. When she realized what the off set amount actually was is when she started fighting back to which my partner tried to increase several times to settle.

He's made 4 settlement offers at this point. All way above the off set amount. All allowing her to keep the $500 a month benefit without claiming anything. All saying he'll pay his proportionate share of all expenses. There's been numerous efforts on his side to settle this outside of trial and courts and she's ignored each. She's ignored every single offer without being willing to discuss. She won't attend mediation. Nothing.

She's been manipulating the schedule to her benefit now and hasn't been giving him the same access at all and isn't telling him when she's having other people watch the kids on her time like she used to so it doesn't look like additional access time.

She changed her mind entirely and said she'll only give him the kids the full 50/50 if he pays even more. Where is the logic in paying more to have the kids more? Is she really using her kids as bait?

With all due respect, I know what you're saying about the agreement and the consequences of signing it but he's not some delinquent father that just wants more money in his pocket.

If it means more time with the boys at the end of this, he's fully prepared to leave it as is but I don't think it suggests he "looks bad" by asking for what he trusted she would give him when he moved (access and offset) and for what's fair?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-30-2019, 01:55 PM
EmilyJ EmilyJ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 15
EmilyJ is on a distinguished road
Default

Case conference went well today.

While the judge stated that the agreement likely wouldn't be fully set aside as my partner could have and should have retained counsel, she said that the wording of the child support section was too vague in regards to the access laid out in the agreement and their respective incomes.

She said that both incomes would and should be taken into account based on the threshold met so I'm hoping this brings them closer to at least compromising. Even it's not full table and not the full off set. A middle ground that works for everyone.

Next is the settlement conference in June which is a different judge so who knows what will be said there but my partner is going to put some though into some more ways this could be settled to hopefully avoid going to trial.

Sounds like his ex and him both said they didn't want to be there today and it was a very civil respectful exchange so there's hopefully some light at the end of the tunnel for them to salvage their relationship for the boys.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-30-2019, 04:00 PM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,863
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Sounds positive.


The issue the ex will have with the agreement is that her lawyer prepared it and it is sounds very one sided. Judges don't like agreements when the terms of the agreement are unconscionable, especially when it is the benefit of the one that drafted it. There will be certain things that judges won't change, simply because the your partner agreed. But clauses that could be found to be unconscionable, they may be altered. Paying full c/s while having 55/45 parenting time and incomes that are 60/40, is not a clause that will likely stand.


Your partner did himself no favours falling on his sword when the agreement was prepared. Now he is reaping the benefits. Hopefully the two of them are able to come to a middle ground.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-30-2019, 04:09 PM
EmilyJ EmilyJ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 15
EmilyJ is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
Sounds positive.


The issue the ex will have with the agreement is that her lawyer prepared it and it is sounds very one sided. Judges don't like agreements when the terms of the agreement are unconscionable, especially when it is the benefit of the one that drafted it. There will be certain things that judges won't change, simply because the your partner agreed. But clauses that could be found to be unconscionable, they may be altered. Paying full c/s while having 55/45 parenting time and incomes that are 60/40, is not a clause that will likely stand.


Your partner did himself no favours falling on his sword when the agreement was prepared. Now he is reaping the benefits. Hopefully the two of them are able to come to a middle ground.

Sorry, are you saying that the sections of the agreement calling for almost full table amount based on what's laid out as a minimum of %43 percent will likely not stand and that he's reaping the benefits now of signing it in the first place?

They make only a 10k difference now in salary and she only has 1 more weeknight than him a week.

Or are you saying my partner is basically in trouble by agreeing to it or the opposite.

It sounds like the judge erred on the side of both incomes needed to be brought into the equation based on the minimal difference between each and the access already going on. That the off set approach was most likely to be used in determining the amount but it sounds like that could change judge by judge and we'll have a different one at the settlement conference.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-30-2019, 04:18 PM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,863
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyJ View Post
Sorry, are you saying that the sections of the agreement calling for almost full table amount based on what's laid out as a minimum of %43 percent will likely not stand and that he's reaping the benefits now of signing it in the first place?

They make only a 10k difference now in salary and she only has 1 more weeknight than him a week.

Or are you saying my partner is basically in trouble by agreeing to it or the opposite.
I am kind of saying both.


Your partner is in trouble for signing the agreement. This motion is part of the trouble. Because he fell on his sword years ago, he now has to go through this rigamarole to get what should have been standard offset c/s.


Your partner may be successful, there are no guarantees. I do think that her lawyer drafting the agreement and making it very one sided increases the chances of success. But the level of success will likely be measured, and likely specific spots that the judge believes the agreement is unconscionable. But court is very much a crap shoot, so there are no guarantees.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
child support, interim order, off-set method, separation agreement, shared custody


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 PM.