Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Income Decreased

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

  • #16
    Our Order stipulates we notify each other of any/all changes to income immediately because it does impact the other parent financially; your right though, it doesn't mean she will, case in point.

    I did not impute an income on her, the judge did in our Order because of her past actions with regards to stopping work for no valid reason.

    She told the judge she did not feel financially responsible for our children that it was my responsibility, well she ended up with an imputed income. The amount is fair and it means I am not fully financially responsible for our children. So for me going to court way back when was a good thing, my ex did all the hard work for me.
    Last edited by first timer; 12-05-2014, 09:41 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by stripes View Post
      No, you pay what the law and your agreement says you pay until you have a legal piece of paper saying otherwise. You don't get to just decide that your ex should be imputed (not "inputted") some arbitrary amount of income and then pay what you want to pay. You are not a judge. You use the most recent income information available; if you think this does not reflect her true earning power, take it to mediation or to court.
      My income is not changing, it is the same. It is her income that is changing. I am not changing anything. She is requesting more CS from me (offset) because her income has decreased. I did nothing nor did I approach her on the subject, she came to me.

      According to our agreement, she has a material change in circumstances. She has to provide me with information (employment records, reason for changes, etc) and request a change in child support.

      I can simply say no, I do not agree to the change and according to our agreement she has to first take it to mediation and pay 100% of the mediation. I can sit thru mediation, agree on nothing and then after a few $1,000'ish she has to file a court application. Then a year after court we go in front of a judge and he says income will be imputed to her because she cannot reduce her income and expect a reduction in CS.

      I just need to find the case law out there to show the judge why our situation imputed income would be the case.

      Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
      There are many cases to back up the fact that changing jobs for reduced income is actually in the best interest of the children so your case law you have backing you up may be worthless to you.
      Please provide.

      I won't change the CS without first having the discussion and trying to agree on something, maybe a compromise in the middle for CS or something. But before I agree I have to run the full numbers and see the cost vs. court benefit. But it helps to have case law proof to backup my main point:

      "That child support is the right of the child and that both parents have a financial responsibility to provide child support to each other for the child. If either parent has a change to reduce their child support obligation it must be for just cause and not for personal benefit."

      For example my CS went down because I got a huge bonus the one year. The next year my income was lower because I didn't receive the bonus. Totally out of my control. However, I was still making the same base income and didn't switch jobs to work for less pay because I felt like it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Canadaguy - you will like this one from Alberta. This is a notably hard-nosed judge:


        https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...GFuY2VzAAAAAAE


        and I'll throw this in to for those of you who think women don't earn more than men:

        https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...cHBvcnQAAAAAAQ
        Last edited by arabian; 12-07-2014, 07:47 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
          My income is not changing, it is the same. It is her income that is changing. I am not changing anything. She is requesting more CS from me (offset) because her income has decreased. I did nothing nor did I approach her on the subject, she came to me.

          According to our agreement, she has a material change in circumstances. She has to provide me with information (employment records, reason for changes, etc) and request a change in child support.

          I can simply say no, I do not agree to the change and according to our agreement she has to first take it to mediation and pay 100% of the mediation. I can sit thru mediation, agree on nothing and then after a few $1,000'ish she has to file a court application. Then a year after court we go in front of a judge and he says income will be imputed to her because she cannot reduce her income and expect a reduction in CS.

          I just need to find the case law out there to show the judge why our situation imputed income would be the case.

          I won't change the CS without first having the discussion and trying to agree on something, maybe a compromise in the middle for CS or something. But before I agree I have to run the full numbers and see the cost vs. court benefit. But it helps to have case law proof to backup my main point:

          "That child support is the right of the child and that both parents have a financial responsibility to provide child support to each other for the child. If either parent has a change to reduce their child support obligation it must be for just cause and not for personal benefit."

          For example my CS went down because I got a huge bonus the one year. The next year my income was lower because I didn't receive the bonus. Totally out of my control. However, I was still making the same base income and didn't switch jobs to work for less pay because I felt like it.
          You're assuming a lot of things. I am not a lawyer, but my sense is that the bolded sentence in your agreement, on which you seem to be pinning your hopes, won't hold up. Who is to say when an employment change is "for just cause"? What constitutes "just cause": my doctor told me to cut back my work hours, I'm phasing into retirement, my company reorganized, I'm tired of really long commutes, I don't like my colleagues any more, I want more time with my family, I'm changing fields? You may see your ex's job change as a nuisance for you, because it means you're on the hook for more money, but to her, the reasons for the change may be completely justified.

          Your ex doesn't have to get your permission to change jobs, any more than she has to get your permission to repaint her kitchen. HammerDad is right.

          Similarly, I don't think the part about reducing child support obligations is relevant here - neither of you are attempting to alter your obligations, you're both still obligated to pay each other the table amount (offset) - only the dollar figure attached to those obligations is changing.

          And I don't think it's going to be as simple as refusing to increase your payments, sitting through a couple of mediation sessions, and then going before a judge who will see it as right and obvious that your ex should be imputed a higher income, once you throw in a few case law references. I think it is just as likely that the judge may see you as unreasonable in refusing to follow very simple FSCG calculations and hit you with costs and arrears. My understanding is that when attempting to impute income, the burden is on you to prove that your ex is deliberately choosing to not work, not on her to justify why she changed jobs.

          My ex took a partial leave last year because his new wife had health problems. His income dropped. I had to pay more in offset. It's life, it happens. I didn't try to have income imputed on the grounds that he could have been earning more money, and therefore he should have been earning more.

          What number is on line 150 of your most recent annual tax return?
          What number is on line 150 of her most recent tax return?
          What are the guideline payments for each?
          What is the difference between the two payments?
          There you go.

          Comment


          • #20
            Great post Stripes but unfortunately this guy doesn't get it. He thinks he holds all the cards. He will find out the hard way.

            Comment


            • #21
              I appreciate the information stripes, berner. I do get it and now have to sit down with the other party and we have to decide together if we impute or use table amounts based on our situation.

              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