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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 04-14-2008, 01:38 PM
FL_Needs_To_Change's Avatar
FL_Needs_To_Change FL_Needs_To_Change is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern Ontario
Posts: 1,261
FL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura aboutFL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura about
Default

Courts will assume to their benefit, or the benefit of the child(ren) in question but NEVER to your benefit.
My husband had a hard time trying to get reduced CS since he had a second family to support, we learned the hard way to point everything out. His second family did not diminish his responsibility to his child of the first marriage, but she too made more then he did and wanted more money. We pointed out the increased costs to maintain a home for all three children, allow a room for the child of the first marriage for visits, (ex wanted child to have her own room) and we all know a four bedroom home is expensive and equilly expensive to maintain, we had to clarify the differances in a 3 and 4 bedroom home, and all associated costs to this.

The courts made all kinds of assumptions for the ex, but not the non-custodial parent, for that we finally realized, any assumptions in our favour would never happen, we became quite meticulous in making sure we verbally pointed everything out.
  #22  
Old 04-14-2008, 01:52 PM
Beaudoin Beaudoin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 59
Beaudoin is on a distinguished road
Default

This case IS for my first child. So are you saying that the Court won't consider that I'm having to pay support and access to two children living 90km away from my second marriage?
  #23  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:35 AM
FL_Needs_To_Change's Avatar
FL_Needs_To_Change FL_Needs_To_Change is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern Ontario
Posts: 1,261
FL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura aboutFL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura about
Default

Your first obligation I understand was your first family of two children, yet having that responsibility does not diminish your responsibility to your second family.

The courts will take into account your first family, but you have to make them "completely" aware of that issue and all associated financial obligations you have with them. Or they may rule as if you have a single child to support.
  #24  
Old 04-15-2008, 09:08 AM
Beaudoin Beaudoin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 59
Beaudoin is on a distinguished road
Default

Actually, it's just the opposite. My first family (family of 1) is asking me for more money, and I need the courts to consider that I have a second family of 2.
  #25  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:22 PM
FL_Needs_To_Change's Avatar
FL_Needs_To_Change FL_Needs_To_Change is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern Ontario
Posts: 1,261
FL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura aboutFL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura about
Default

It would apply with the same basics, you'd provide the details on the costs associated to access to the other two children and to maintain a decent home for quality access.

Take your gross income (since this is how the CS tables work) subtract all your deductions, taxes, CPP, etc. to get your net.

Less both CS, payments that you are presently making.
Less your living expenses and travel and access costs.
If need be, itemize the costs associated to both families, I'm quite sure a court will weigh all the costs you bear for access and CS and determine your means relative to her need.
If the courts see this the same way that I am, your obligation to family #1 may actually decrease, specifically if they determine that you meet to 40% threshold and she is at a higher advantage financially.

This whole issue of family #1 asking for an increase in CS really throws me for a loop since she makes more and has a higher standard of living according to you.

One note with respect to the math behind the child support guidelines is that there are many assumptions.
1) The formula assumes that the paying parent has the higher income
2) The formula assumes that the paying parent has no financial costs associated to the children. IE clothing, food, shelter, medical, dental etc. and that the non-custodial parent has only “single” person costs
3) Primary purpose is to “equalize” the standard of living for the child(ren) relative to the incomes of their parents, not increase the standard of living for the receiving parent

The flaws in the actual CS tables are many; pointing them out very briefly may help your explanations of costs. Remember the courts will not make assumptions that benefit the paying parent. If you politely and briefly reiterate the reasons for the CS guidelines and how the ex’s request goes against the basic fundamentals of the reasoning for the implementation of the tables, this may be to your advantage.
  #26  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:30 PM
FL_Needs_To_Change's Avatar
FL_Needs_To_Change FL_Needs_To_Change is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern Ontario
Posts: 1,261
FL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura aboutFL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura about
Default

http://www.canadianfamilyresearch.org/child12.pdf

A good read
  #27  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:51 PM
Beaudoin Beaudoin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 59
Beaudoin is on a distinguished road
Default

Thank you so much for your ongoing support and advice. I truly appreciate what you've done here. It has really helped me! Honestly. This was a great resource. I'll let you know how it goes.
Closed Thread


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
Support Variation wildrose Financial Issues 89 02-02-2011 11:14 PM
Joint Custody, Father giving up more time choochoo Divorce & Family Law 3 09-23-2010 08:25 PM
Separation agreement questions - shared custody, sharing CCTB/UCCB, am I being fair? Aelon Financial Issues 15 07-12-2010 06:46 PM
Assuming is never a good option. SilverLining Political Issues 5 04-26-2009 10:30 AM
Time Limits gvjt Financial Issues 0 10-08-2007 10:38 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:58 PM.