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
  #1  
Old 01-07-2019, 04:52 PM
SurftheWave SurftheWave is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 23
SurftheWave is on a distinguished road
Default Activities 50/50 Split or Proportional Case Law

Did some searching but couldn't find any case law where a judge decided that an activity like basic soccer was considered ordinary and not "special". Anyone have some case law they can share for this?

For the past 6 years we have agreed to share costs 50/50 for hockey, soccer and summer camp (about $1000 total costs each year) because we have defined these as ordinary expenses and we have a 50/50 shared custody situation.

Now in court the Ex has decided she won't support these activities anymore financially. She says she will take the child but not pay for the activities.

Will the judge make her pay 50% or proportional to our incomes? Her income is zero because she quit her job because she is too depressed to work. So let's assume the judge agrees with her because if an income is imputed I know the result of proportional splitting expenses but really would like to know about 50/50 sharing of expenses and what the court will do.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:46 PM
StillPaying StillPaying is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 175
StillPaying is on a distinguished road
Default

Are you paying full table or offset child support? If offset, these non s7 expenses should be split 50/50, otherwise child support should cover them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-07-2019, 08:26 PM
tunnelight tunnelight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 349
tunnelight has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

If she's agreed that they are extra ordinary expenses for past 6 years then she can't just change her mind. The same way a father wouldn't be able to in the same situation with the genders reversed.

It is an extra ordinary expense in your case and is not covered under basic child support.

She may be able to get a break from paying 50.50 and only paying based on what ever income is imputed to her.

If she quit her job then she has done so willingly and her latest income should be used.

I have come across a case previously where a father quit job due to depression after court litigation and tried to reduce child support. Judge stated depression is not an excuse to quit job and subsequently not pay child support. The same principal should apply here given family law is not supposed to be in relation to a parents gender.

A judge would order the parent described above to continue paying 50 percent if it was a dad OR if there is a court order that she must pay 50.50 for the extra ordinary expenses.

A judge, given their general bias against fathers, would be unlikely to order her to continue to pay 50.50 if she has depression. Unless she's a total tool faking the depression or using it as an excuse to not work or because she hates her job.

It just so happens most of our judges are empathetic and offer sympathy to females more than they are and would to males.

Questions:

What does your current court order or agreement say about payment of these expenses?

What are your latest salaries respectively ?

Last edited by tunnelight; 01-07-2019 at 08:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:53 PM
SurftheWave SurftheWave is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 23
SurftheWave is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StillPaying View Post
Are you paying full table or offset child support? If offset, these non s7 expenses should be split 50/50, otherwise child support should cover them.
That is why we are in court. We have been paying offset but she wants her offset based on my $75k salary and her $0k salary, so essentially she wants me to pay full even though I have 50/50 access schedule.

Any case law that states what are non s7 expenses and that they are split 50/50?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tunnelight View Post
What does your current court order or agreement say about payment of these expenses?

What are your latest salaries respectively ?
Our current agreement says nothing about ordinary expenses. For the past 6 years we have been sharing them 50/50 except for daycare was proportional. That was the only expense we paid as per our incomes.

I agree with what you are saying which is why I am looking for some case law to show some judge out there has said soccer is an ordinary expense and is shared 50/50 not proportional.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-07-2019, 11:52 PM
Janus's Avatar
Janus Janus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,106
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

If income is not imputed, where would she be getting the money to pay 50% of activities? Failing to impute income means the judge agrees that she does not have to earn income and does not have to pay any child support (even in the form of an offset reduction) which means the judge probably also agrees that she doesn't have to pay for sports.

I would ask for 50% anyway because that is the six year status quo, but the real fight is the imputation of income.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-08-2019, 06:47 AM
Mom 2 Two Mom 2 Two is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 468
Mom 2 Two is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tunnelight View Post
If she's agreed that they are extra ordinary expenses for past 6 years then she can't just change her mind. The same way a father wouldn't be able to in the same situation with the genders reversed.

It is an extra ordinary expense in your case and is not covered under basic child support.

She may be able to get a break from paying 50.50 and only paying based on what ever income is imputed to her.

If she quit her job then she has done so willingly and her latest income should be used.

I have come across a case previously where a father quit job due to depression after court litigation and tried to reduce child support. Judge stated depression is not an excuse to quit job and subsequently not pay child support. The same principal should apply here given family law is not supposed to be in relation to a parents gender.

A judge would order the parent described above to continue paying 50 percent if it was a dad OR if there is a court order that she must pay 50.50 for the extra ordinary expenses.

A judge, given their general bias against fathers, would be unlikely to order her to continue to pay 50.50 if she has depression. Unless she's a total tool faking the depression or using it as an excuse to not work or because she hates her job.

It just so happens most of our judges are empathetic and offer sympathy to females more than they are and would to males.

Questions:

What does your current court order or agreement say about payment of these expenses?

What are your latest salaries respectively ?


So how do you prove she has agreed and has been paying 50/50 for last 6 years? I am in same boat... ex paid 50/50 for soccer hockey and health benefits. And then just decided to stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:38 AM
StillPaying StillPaying is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 175
StillPaying is on a distinguished road
Default

The argument is usually what is considered extraordinary and special, not the other way around. I believe everything should be ordinary until proven otherwise.

In shared situations, if both parents are taking part in the activity then it should be a shared cost. If it's s7, then you would pay according to incomes. Since you're in court, get an income imputed and continue to fight for status quo. Unfortunately, a lot of the times there is nothing you can do if the other parent refuses when it comes to activities. This is the main downfall with week about access; you don't have a set day to plan activities.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:51 AM
SurftheWave SurftheWave is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 23
SurftheWave is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
If income is not imputed, where would she be getting the money to pay 50% of activities?
People receive all sorts of income from various sources like child support, spousal support, ODSP, child tax benefit, subsidy (daycare/housing), working under the table for cash, disability claims, new partner who's make big bucks, etc. So even if a court doesn't impute income for offset child support the person still has income to pay for activities that are considered ordinary when in a shared custody/access situation.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:53 AM
SurftheWave SurftheWave is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 23
SurftheWave is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StillPaying View Post
The argument is usually what is considered extraordinary and special, not the other way around. I believe everything should be ordinary until proven otherwise.

In shared situations, if both parents are taking part in the activity then it should be a shared cost. If it's s7, then you would pay according to incomes. Since you're in court, get an income imputed and continue to fight for status quo. Unfortunately, a lot of the times there is nothing you can do if the other parent refuses when it comes to activities. This is the main downfall with week about access; you don't have a set day to plan activities.
The problem isn't taking the kid to the activity, the problem is getting her to pay. She agrees to sign the kid up, take 'em and watch every day but she refuses to pay a dime. Says if I want to do it, it is on my dime but she will fully support the activity.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-08-2019, 10:27 AM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,534
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

No the problem is an ex refusing to earn money and meet their obligations.

Your main focus should be on her decision to quit her job and not work. As someone else said—too sick to go to work, too sick to run a daycare.

The activities are moot. Kids grow up and they grow out of sports. Yes you have status quo on the sports but they are not always necessary or EXTRA ordinary. Parents lose jobs, get sick and can’t afford things. Its a fact of life.

Get out of the weeds and work on your cs argument.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Case Law, Case Conference and Mediation Free-spirit Divorce & Family Law 5 09-30-2012 09:55 PM
Postponing Case Conference frustrateddad1970 Divorce & Family Law 2 06-18-2011 11:38 AM
Support calc 50/50 split, disproportionate income Paytable2 Financial Issues 15 09-08-2010 11:08 AM
No doc been served from Respondent for case conference nick2009 Divorce & Family Law 6 01-22-2010 07:38 PM
50/50 Split of Property Proceeds - What should contract say? MMMarie Financial Issues 6 02-13-2006 11:50 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:12 PM.