Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When support exceeds 50 percent of gross income

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

  • When support exceeds 50 percent of gross income

    Curious what happens when support orders exceed 50 percent of gross income for a payor. I'm assuming this would happen when a payor has support obligations with two former spouses. Perhaps spousal and child support with one or more former spouses. As each support obligation would be dealt with separately how would a payor deal with this?

    ...I don't recall seeing anyone on this forum discussing this very issue. But I'm assuming it is likely to have happened. Are both the orders (with both former spouses) reduced or does the second/later order get reduced while the first one gets table amount?

    Does the law even speak to this? Jurisprudence?

  • #2
    In Quebec support can never be more than 50% (by law). I think its more to do with lots of kids.

    Comment


    • #3
      It could be considered a case for undue hardship, perhaps.

      Comment


      • #4
        In Ontario FRO can only garnish 50% of income at source.
        But this doesn't stop orders from ordering more than 50%
        For instance if you have multiple ex's or if you were earning a lot of money and then lost your job, and couldn't get a job as high a paying or as high a status.
        For instance if you were a CFO and they close an office. Then trying to get another CFO position is very hard sometimes you have to start mid way down the ladder again.

        In any situation FRO can only garnish 50% of income. They simply add the amount not paid to arrears. And eventually take your licence away.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes I imagine it would be a case for undue hardship but my question is how does the payor get all support orders looked at together...and do they all take a hit or just the last one...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Serene View Post
            Yes I imagine it would be a case for undue hardship but my question is how does the payor get all support orders looked at together...and do they all take a hit or just the last one...
            If there are multiple support orders for multiple children in multiple households, one household does not affect the other.

            My ex has another daughter with someone else. I'm sure his support obligations are in excess of 50% of his net.

            Both myself and the other mom have been ordered guideline support, irrespective of each other.

            In enforcing multiple orders, I believe FRO enforces the orders chronologically. ie. my order would be first, other mom's order would be second.

            He is currently claiming undue hardship. However, when there is an undue hardship claim, his spouse's income becomes relevant.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
              If there are multiple support orders for multiple children in multiple households, one household does not affect the other.

              My ex has another daughter with someone else. I'm sure his support obligations are in excess of 50% of his net.

              Both myself and the other mom have been ordered guideline support, irrespective of each other.

              In enforcing multiple orders, I believe FRO enforces the orders chronologically. ie. my order would be first, other mom's order would be second.

              He is currently claiming undue hardship. However, when there is an undue hardship claim, his spouse's income becomes relevant.
              As does your spouse's income as well.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by involveddad75 View Post
                As does your spouse's income as well.
                Yes, my spouse's income had to be contained in the response because the ex claims undue hardship. Personally, I had no problem disclosing this information, but I did wonder why what my current husband makes has any bearing at all on the idiotic choices my ex made.

                His claim will end up baseless based on this disclosure though. My hubby and I make approx. the same as the ex does on his own.

                My daughter is his first child. He never lived with the mother of his second child. Legal or not, I think his undue hardship claims needs to be shifted to the second child - but I haven't investigated that much due to the incomes at play here.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why would one child be less deserving than the other in your opinion?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Serene View Post
                    Why would one child be less deserving than the other in your opinion?
                    I don't either child is more deserved than the other.

                    It's a matter of circumstance and the choices/decisions the ex made, not the children involved.

                    I have a great relationship with the other mom and my daughter's sister, so my thought process is strictly a logical, time-related one.

                    I don't think he should be able to claim undue hardship at all really. His problem is that he makes bad choices.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Why would one child be less deserving than the other in your opinion?
                      Legally speaking a child that is from divorced parents > new child from still composed family.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Then solution would be easy, to support both children equally, like parents who live in intact families do. Take amount for two children based on his income, and divide equally for both kids. problem solved! and it is fair to everybody.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I believe the premise of current child support legislation (I'm certainly not experienced in this area) is that you are expected to provide for your children after the failure of the marriage. Your decision to have more children should not negatively affect your first children. In other words, spreading one's sperm does not equate with 'sharing the wealth.'

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by arabian View Post
                            I believe the premise of current child support legislation (I'm certainly not experienced in this area) is that you are expected to provide for your children after the failure of the marriage. Your decision to have more children should not negatively affect your first children. In other words, spreading one's sperm does not equate with 'sharing the wealth.'
                            Very well said Arabian.

                            If CS is reduced, how fair is that to existing children?

                            In my case, my ex chose to leave the mother of his other child in order to pursue a relationship with someone else, leaving that child and mother essentially homeless in his wake.

                            He could still be spreading his sperm - and therefore his paycheque - across the continent. If CS isn't set up the way that it is - ie, by household - then how fair is decreasing CS based on the promiscuity of dear old dad?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Toutou View Post
                              Then solution would be easy, to support both children equally, like parents who live in intact families do. Take amount for two children based on his income, and divide equally for both kids. problem solved! and it is fair to everybody.
                              The families aren't intact though.

                              With your proposal CS is reduced per child based on how much unprotected sex the payor has.

                              I'm not sure why existing children should suffer financially because dad can't wrap it up and be a responsible adult? But with your proposal above CS is a constantly decreasing amount because dad has no morals or responsibility. Talk about punishing a child over and over and over agan.

                              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