Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child Support Revisited

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Child Support Revisited

    In 2011 child support was granted based on 2006, 2007 and 2008 income taxes and was set to commence October 1, 2009. The order was filed with FRO and they have been attempting to collect. Arrears are now above the $20,000 mark.

    My ex has now filed his 2009, 2010 and 2011 income taxes with the CRA and is now saying that he is going back to the courts to have the previous years of 2009 and 2010 recalculated where child support is concerned.

    Would the courts reopen the child suport for 2009 and 2010 and recalculate it and issue a new order.

    When served with the original paperwork he refused to deal with any of it and basically said that he can't afford a lawyer so he wasn't going to do anything about it. End result was I got everything I was asking for. He has not paid anything since then and has been out of work since November 2009.

    The order states that we exchange financials in November every year and I will provide him with mine and he has stated he will provide me with his. I have no p-roblem recaclulating based on his 2011 taxes. He says his income is only $2000 which under the guidelines means he owes nothing in support for our 2 children. Is that possible or do I have to petition the court to have his wage imputed to at least minimum wage. He has been out of work for 3 years with no luck but I don't know how much he has been trying to find something. He has been living with family but that will also come to an end soon as the family member he was living with passed away and the remaining familhy is selling the home so he will have to move.

    Thanks.

  • #2
    If he can prove his income was less than what was imputed, he may be able to have arrears waived. However, it may be hard. He will have to put forth arguments why he didn't put this information forward earlier. But I do think it is reasonable to adjust c/s to the amount he actually earned or, if he earned nothing, equal to full time min-wage.

    You should request that an income equal to full time min-wage be imputed for the purposes of c/s and s7 expenses.

    It is no slam dunk case for him, but it is not outside the realm of possibility. His tardiness in filing his tax returns are no ones fault but his own, but if it is true he is earning less than what was ordered, I see no reason why you wouldn't consent to the reducing c/s...at least to what it would be if he made min-wage.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
      If he can prove his income was less than what was imputed, he may be able to have arrears waived. However, it may be hard. He will have to put forth arguments why he didn't put this information forward earlier. But I do think it is reasonable to adjust c/s to the amount he actually earned or, if he earned nothing, equal to full time min-wage.
      The court will not bankrupt parents is the other reason that he can bring forward the material change regarding arrears. A judge will consider it as they don't bankrupt parents generally.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you both. That is pretty much what I thought. I will in the end reduce the amount of support owed to at a minimum full time minimum wage but I am not about to make it easy on him as going through the courts could have been avoided in the beginning but he didn't want to deal with things. So he left me no choice but to proceed by that route.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by AlexaJJ View Post
          Thank you both. That is pretty much what I thought. I will in the end reduce the amount of support owed to at a minimum full time minimum wage but I am not about to make it easy on him as going through the courts could have been avoided in the beginning but he didn't want to deal with things. So he left me no choice but to proceed by that route.
          Make sure you have offers to settle made in accordance with Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules served. Give the other party every reasonable opportunity to do what is right. If it does come to court and at the time of costs, all the offers to settle will be considered when awarding costs should you be successful in your position.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by AlexaJJ View Post
            Thank you both. That is pretty much what I thought. I will in the end reduce the amount of support owed to at a minimum full time minimum wage but I am not about to make it easy on him as going through the courts could have been avoided in the beginning but he didn't want to deal with things. So he left me no choice but to proceed by that route.
            So two wrongs are going to make a right?

            Man, and we wonder how lawyers become wealthy....it is by people being willing to shell out their kids education money because they are unable to control their emotions.

            Just offer to settle and move along. Use the money you would've spent on a lawyer fighting a possibly losing battle to take the kids on a vacation.

            Comment


            • #7
              Who said anything about me using lawyers. I don't have money for a lawyer because I do everything I can to ensure that our kids are taken care of and have what they need which is more than I can say for my ex. I will draft all my own materials and attend court by myself if I have to which is what I did originally but I will not just sit back and let him off the hook when it comes to supporting his kids. He has made the choice not to work legally. The thing is once my ex finds. Thank you both for your answers. All of this could have been avoided if he would have just dealt with the issues when I served him instead of yelling and screaming like he was a two year old.

              Comment


              • #8
                Just know, that just because each of you are self-represented doesn't mean that the courts won't award costs in the court deems that there was excessive litigation (or essentially wasting of the courts time). A court may still award costs against the party that a) is less successful in court and b) is deemed by the courts to be unreasonable.

                And as a tax payer, please don't waste tax $$ on what should be an easy issue to deal with on consent.
                Last edited by HammerDad; 10-15-2012, 02:41 PM. Reason: to re-word slightly

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am fully aware of the cost consequences as I work in a litigation law firm, we just don't practice family law here. If I can avoid going to court then I absolutely will but I will not just sit back and let him not support our children.

                  HammerDad, your last paragraph is what is gong to have to be repeated over and over to my ex as he thinks because he doesn't have a job then he doesn't get to pay and support his kids and he will push that issue and not settle anything until he gets it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by AlexaJJ View Post
                    HammerDad, your last paragraph is what is gong to have to be repeated over and over to my ex as he thinks because he doesn't have a job then he doesn't get to pay and support his kids and he will push that issue and not settle anything until he gets it.
                    I agree. I cannot stand unreasonable people. People who put emotion and fluff over logic and reasonableness.

                    If your ex is one of those people, I am sorry for you. But don't stoop to his level as no one will win in the end.

                    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