Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-30-2014, 11:20 AM
BrentF BrentF is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 4
BrentF is on a distinguished road
Default Support when ex choses to not go back to work

My ex-wife and I have two children (11 and 13). We have both re-married and she has a toddler with her new husband and has chosen to not go back to work. Over the course of the last 5 years before her child, she was actually paying me for child support since she made more money than I did. With both of our children, she actually went back to work early and did not fulfill her entire maternity leave.

Yesterday I was presented her 2013 notice of assessment and her expectation of child support payments. With my 2013 notice of assessment, in relation to hers, I would now owe her 25% of my take-home pay a month and that is not economically feasible.

Here are the details I want to use in my fight:
  • She chose to return to work early with both our children
  • Over the last 5 years, she has made more money than I have
  • The child she is staying home for isn't my child
  • She is fully capable or working and it is her choice not to
  • Both our children are at the age where they could stay home by themselves for a few hours before and after school combined before someone is with them or picks them up.
  • she does not drive or pick the kids up from school, they take the bus

I have no issue with child support and when I had to pay when she was on maternity leave, I did without question, even when it was for a child that was not my own. The fact that prior to her maternity leave, she was making substantially more money than me and then she had a job waiting for her after maternity leave and chose not to go back to work (for a child that is not mine) and now expects me to pay for her choice when she was and is fully capable to work, this is where I have an issue.

Is there a fighting chase with this?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-30-2014, 11:33 AM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,966
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Look up "imputed income".

A parent cannot refuse to work. The courts may give some leeway for maternity leave, but once maternity leave is done, they have an obligation to contribute financially to the child.

Here is one case that is on point:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...VwcG9ydAAAAAAB
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-30-2014, 11:56 AM
Once.is.enough Once.is.enough is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 217
Once.is.enough is on a distinguished road
Default

Try talking to her perhaps you could agree on no child support either way and a fifty fifty share of section 7. Might be cheaper then court in the long run.

If she won't agree then impute income to her former level before maternity leave. Shouldn't be hard but the legal cost might be prohibitive for you. You could allways try self representing.

In my opinion unless there is a large difference in income between you no child support either way would be the MANLY thing to do.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-30-2014, 12:06 PM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,966
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Once.is.enough View Post
would be the MANLY thing to do.
The best interests of the children and the child's right to be supported by both parents are gender neutral.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-30-2014, 12:45 PM
Once.is.enough Once.is.enough is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 217
Once.is.enough is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
The best interests of the children and the child's right to be supported by both parents are gender neutral.
Best intrest in my opinion is to stay out of court and not Quayle over a few dollars. If you need more go out and earn it. Regardless of what people on here preach about gender spending an afternoon in family court would suggest otherwise.

Keep the blinders on and keep preaching.

What Does "In A Child's Best Interests" Really Mean?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-30-2014, 12:58 PM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,966
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Once.is.enough View Post

Best intrest in my opinion is to stay out of court and not Quayle over a few dollars.
I agree with you this.

Quote:
Keep the blinders on and keep preaching.
Nah, I'd rather just stay up-to-date with the relevant law and do what I can to provide actual meaningful information. And in doing so maybe help a member to avoid court by using that information.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-30-2014, 01:04 PM
BrentF BrentF is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 4
BrentF is on a distinguished road
Default It isn't a question of want.....

So here's where I stand. Before her new kid, she worked full time, actually making $20,000 a year more than me. With our two kids, she went back to work early and didn't fulfill her maternity leave.

With this kid, she chooses to not go to work when her job was available to her. Our kids are 11 and 13 and are able to be home alone before and after school so there is no need for their mother to be home. They would be home alone for about 45 minutes a day.

For having to be forced to pay 25% of my pay to her because she doesn't want to work negatively affects everyone except her.

It isn't a choice to pay. It is make the 25% payment or the mortgage. Plain and simple.

Added to the fact that we share custody 50-50 so it isn't like they are there all the time.

For those yo you that say for the betterment of the children, there will be no extracurricular activities like soccer and hockey because I won't be able to afford to. This will be to the detriment of everyone except the ex.

This will be a fight because she has displayed greed in the past. When she left the kids with me, I was primary caregiver for 70% of the time for an entire year, yet she tried to sue me for back child support......

All I want is what is fair. I provide for the kids, take them to their activities, take them on family vacations. This would completely change everything.

To be honest, I am scared this is going to ruin me, my relationship with the kids and my current wife.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-30-2014, 01:15 PM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,966
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

BrentF - get your lawyer to send a letter stating that it is your position that it was her decision to not return to work. That she still has an obligation to support the children financially notwithstanding this decision. That she is capable of working and had a position available to her to return to. That you are willing to discuss an arrangement to deal with this amicably, outside of court. But that should she pursue you for c/s, you will seek an income imputed to her equal to the amount she was earning at her prior position.

There is a good amount of law that backs up the above. If you read the case I posted, it is pretty much bang on. If you click the cited cases, you will see other ones that are also similar to this one.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-30-2014, 01:16 PM
Straittohell Straittohell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 721
Straittohell is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Onceisenough, I read the case posted by HammerDad, it is eerily similar to this situation.

Did you read it? If you did, how could you have possibly come to the conclusion that BrentF should roll over on this matter?

Case law aside, his ex has essentially made herself deliberately unemployed to give her new child an enriched upbringing, and now wants BrentF to pay for it. This is a fairly sudden change from the status quo, so one cannot argue that he should have planned his mortgage and other finances adequately for this scenario.

We can all agree that this should stay out of the courts, but your reason being should be that he simply not put up a fight. My reason for him keeping out of the courts is that his ex should not be expecting him to fund her new family. Somewhere in between that is the answer, but from the sounds of it, she doesn't seem to interested in negotiating.

As I delve more and more into this forum and reflect on my own situation, I realize that avoiding pettiness is a nice idea in theory, but by letting the other party gain an inch at a time, you essentially commit to losing a foot in the long run.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-30-2014, 03:08 PM
Once.is.enough Once.is.enough is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 217
Once.is.enough is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Straittohell View Post
Onceisenough, I read the case posted by HammerDad, it is eerily similar to this situation.

Did you read it? If you did, how could you have possibly come to the conclusion that BrentF should roll over on this matter?

Case law aside, his ex has essentially made herself deliberately unemployed to give her new child an enriched upbringing, and now wants BrentF to pay for it. This is a fairly sudden change from the status quo, so one cannot argue that he should have planned his mortgage and other finances adequately for this scenario.

We can all agree that this should stay out of the courts, but your reason being should be that he simply not put up a fight. My reason for him keeping out of the courts is that his ex should not be expecting him to fund her new family. Somewhere in between that is the answer, but from the sounds of it, she doesn't seem to interested in negotiating.

As I delve more and more into this forum and reflect on my own situation, I realize that avoiding pettiness is a nice idea in theory, but by letting the other party gain an inch at a time, you essentially commit to losing a foot in the long run.
Re read my post please. I suggested he make an offer to not exchange child support in either direction. I also suggested sharing extras fifty fifty. This in my opinion would be a very fair offer and the proper thing to do. If the ex doesn't agree then go to court and seek to impute income to her former level.

That is not rolling over. Rolling over would be just paying what she asks.

I would add not to sit on it for too long and if necessary ask for it to be retroactive. Hopefully the ex will see the benifit to her in the offer and settle. This may save considerable expense in legal fees. Far more than would be gained by reciever a few hundred a month in cs.
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 Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paying CS while ex-spouse decides to not go back to work jennw Financial Issues 5 08-13-2007 12:14 PM
recipient to pay back over payment of child support dickstacie Financial Issues 4 05-18-2007 04:34 PM
Difficult situation please advise Mikesgal Divorce & Family Law 5 05-09-2006 02:56 PM
The Concept: Standard of living gooddadgoingmad Divorce & Family Law 7 02-20-2006 09:59 PM
Back Child Support Fresh Starts Financial Issues 10 11-04-2005 11:09 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:33 AM.