Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

retroactive chid support

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by trinton View Post
    Welfare was trying to get child support from me retroactive to a date they alleged they sent me a letter, the judge turned around and said it can only go back to the date an application was brought to court, they got no retroactive claim and had to write it off.

    If you asked for it in writing and he didn't pay, then I don't know what would happen in that situation, they will generally question the delay in bringing in an application for support. Dad will most certainly consent to pay ongoing child support the case conference meeting and that will look good on him.
    This begs the question....

    why was your child on welfare while you had the means and ability to pay child support?

    why did it take welfare filing suit to collect arrears and on going support for you to pay support?

    It's extremely aggravating as a tax payer that welfare has to spend the money to get child support awards in court in order for perfectly capable adults to support their own children.

    My tax dollars spent to raise your child, my tax dollars spent to get you to court to pay for your child and my tax dollars wasted because they can only collect child support back to the date of application. Ridiculous.

    Comment


    • #17
      I was led to understand that CS was payable from the "date of separation". Once that date has been established then the clock starts ticking!

      Comment


      • #18
        ^^^ That's true, but there are circumstances in which CS may change - for example if the living arrangements of the kid change (goes from 50/50 to full-time with one parent, or other other way around). The payor is responsible for notifying the recipient of changes as soon as they take effect and proposing that CS be adjusted, and vice versa. However, of this doesn't happen for some reason (e.g. in example above, the kid comes to stay full-time with one parent, but that parent doesn't notify the other one about the change or request full table child support for a long time). In those cases, the court will generally adjust CS retroactively to the date the first notification or request was made (although in some cases they'll go back up to three years, depending on why there was no notification or request). The idea is that the onus is on both parents to ensure that the child receives proper CS not just the payor, so the recipient is responsible for notifying the payor if things change.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by stripes View Post
          ^^^ That's true, but there are circumstances in which CS may change - for example if the living arrangements of the kid change (goes from 50/50 to full-time with one parent, or other other way around). The payor is responsible for notifying the recipient of changes as soon as they take effect and proposing that CS be adjusted, and vice versa. However, of this doesn't happen for some reason (e.g. in example above, the kid comes to stay full-time with one parent, but that parent doesn't notify the other one about the change or request full table child support for a long time). In those cases, the court will generally adjust CS retroactively to the date the first notification or request was made (although in some cases they'll go back up to three years, depending on why there was no notification or request). The idea is that the onus is on both parents to ensure that the child receives proper CS not just the payor, so the recipient is responsible for notifying the payor if things change.
          We were talking about in the case where there is no current custody,access, and support order.

          Where there is a child support order in effect, the paying parent has to inform recipient of any changes in income and provide yearly disclosure of income, failing to do any of those will result in retroactive award to date his or her income was changed(if mom goes back to court and makes that claim with justified reason in delay of variation if there is delay).
          Last edited by trinton; 08-06-2016, 12:47 PM. Reason: Cs

          Comment


          • #20
            ^^^ yes, but that would fall under the heading of "blameworthy conduct" (if paying parent won't provide up to date financials, s/he is effectively providing false financial info). There are also cases of retro CS where there is no blameworthy conduct (e.g. where parents disagree about whether a kid moving residences is a permanent or a temporary change), and in these cases, retro CS is usually limited to the point when the recipient parent asked for an increase. Similarly, if one parent took the child away right after birth and had no contact with the other parent for sixteen years, and then came back and asked for sixteen years of retro CS (this really has happened), a judge would be unlikely to grant all sixteen years.

            Comment


            • #21
              Theres also the issue of unjust enrichment. Like the parent who doesnt tell the other parent they have a child and 13 years later comes knocking at the door for 13 years of support.

              There are rules about child support. Sometimes these rules dont apply to all cases which is why a judge is required.

              If you knew you had to pay child support and refused to not only pay but also update accordingly then youre not getting out of paying.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                This begs the question....

                why was your child on welfare while you had the means and ability to pay child support?

                why did it take welfare filing suit to collect arrears and on going support for you to pay support?
                Those are some harsh questions/assumptions not knowing the history or details.
                Last edited by trinton; 08-06-2016, 03:44 PM. Reason: Small correction

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by trinton View Post
                  Those are some harsh questions/assumptions not knowing the history or details.
                  No assumptions. You're bragging about not having to repay welfare for child support. I didn't accuse you of that, you stated it.

                  As someone who made themselves broke paying legal fees to get child support, it pisses me off that by virtue of not working and not paying, the social services department will take on that task for you so they can get their money back.

                  Makes me wonder why we wouldn't all collect welfare if we're having trouble getting court orders established for child support.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                    No assumptions. You're bragging about not having to repay welfare for child support. I didn't accuse you of that, you stated it.
                    I never owed them any child support to begin with. I was disputing their claimed amounts to 0$ even if their claim was procedurally correct, which it obviously wasn't.

                    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