Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child Support Hearing Next Week

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

  • Child Support Hearing Next Week

    I have an odd situation.... We're not sure the exgf will be honest in her Fiancial statement and don't suspect we'll even be able to see it until the day of the hearing.

    I know she's claim EI fraudulently up to March/April 2006. We know she's worked at least one day in the summer and she stated she's on their 'on call ' list....

    But here's the clincher - She's fully capable of working with her common-law bf and we became aware that's she worked for him for at least 1.5 weeks. But has chosen to stay at home looking after her 10 year old stepson.

    It gets even better though .... since Jan 2006 there has been an active custody order stating she is NOT allowed to be left unsupervised with her stepson AND since April 2006-October 2006 The Ministry of Children & Families also had a Supervision Order against her stating she is NOT to be the primary caregiver for ther stepson! But she did it anyhow!!

    According to the Federal Child Support Guidelines
    Section 19 (1) (a)
    The spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than were the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of the child of the marriage or any child under age of majority of by the reasonable educational of health needs of the spouse;"

    #1 - Even is she can not find herself employment, there is no reason she can not be working with her bf, which she has done successfully.

    #2 - She is supposidly being financially supported by her bf, but I understand we can not get support from him.... unless she claims hardship?

    I'm not sure how this all works, or if we'll get granted anything. She was successfully employed before she moved, she moved because her bf was able to find employment but claims she now can not find work in this city.

    We can not afford a Lawyer, but she's somehow maintained one.

  • #2
    smadax,

    I don't mean to criticize or defame in anyway

    A quick tip to remember if you are representing yourself and completing your own pleadings. That being, "first point writing." Get to the issue up front and write the facts to support subsequently how you got that conclusion. What will stick out is your first point! This is what the court will see.

    I will assume you have custody of your child and the issue is child support for behalf of your child.

    I believe your ex's stance is " I'm on EI" and I have another child to look after etc.

    Regardless, First family rule of thumb! The obligation to support the first child should not be superseded by a subsequent obligation to care for a step child. Moreover, If they are common-law, is the child really a step child? If they are not married this term "step-child" is incorrect unless the child was adopted. In all, first family obligation rule of thumb prevails.

    Don't get too wrapped up in whether they are truthful in their finances and circumstances. Regardless of same, you have to show the necessity of inputting an income to them for child support purposes. What steps have they taken to secure employment. Are they healthy etc

    I am not clear on their education or work experience, but I do agree that there are plenty of employment opportunities available to individuals the are sincere in working and generating an income.

    2 - She is supposedly being financially supported by her bf, but I understand we can not get support from him.... unless she claims hardship?
    The bf cannot be held liable for any support towards your child. Even if they were married, there is no legal recourse you can take. The claim would be seen as frivolous.

    I'm not sure how this all works, or if we'll get granted anything. She was successfully employed before she moved, she moved because her bf was able to find employment but claims she now can not find work in this city.
    There is no law that prevents a person from moving. However, the courts may be lenient with them initially but not for very long. If they choose deliberately to remain to be unemployed, the courts will input an income to them. Support of a child is paramount.

    We can not afford a Lawyer, but she's somehow maintained one.
    Perhaps they qualified for legal aid? No income, no assets etc. If you are successful in your claim of support for your child, you could request costs. Regardless if they are represented by legal aid or not, costs can still be awarded to the successful party.

    lv

    Comment


    • #3
      Family History

      You are an epiphany of knowledge, thanks for your input!

      They are not married, therefore I guess the boy will not be a "step-son"?

      She does not qualify for Legal Aid or Income Assistance because her bf makes VERY good money, therefore he is the financial provider for the family while she remains unemployed.

      Her claim will be "unemployed" possibly also stating "zero income". She does not know that I've been informed about her fraudulent claim to EI and also spoke to the EI investigator because her bf gave her the means to get FULL EI Benefits through the business he runs. Therefore I also believe EI has since ended her claim. If the burden of proof is on me, I have none other than my word and the name of the EI Investigator.

      August 2006 The Ministry of Children and Families made her move out of the residence due to the breech of the Supervision Order (being the unsupervised childcare provider for her bf son) and neglect. During this time that she was not able to care for the child, she was successfully employed for 1.5 weeks with her bf and then left to a Treatment Centre for 2 months.

      After completion of the program, The Ministry has since made a motion to remove the clause on the Supervision Order .... but there still is a condition in the bf custody order that she is NOT to be the primary caregiver for the child. Regardless, she is still caring for the child full time because no one is attempting to enforce the order. They have started a motion to have that condition removed, but it has not officially occured yet.

      Comment


      • #4
        smadax,

        They are not married, therefore I guess the boy will not be a "step-son"?
        that is correct. Perhaps she should be receiving the going rate for daycare worker and housekeeper or maybe she is by receiving free accommodation and as such an income should be inputted to her!

        She does not qualify for Legal Aid or Income Assistance because her bf makes VERY good money, therefore he is the financial provider for the family while she remains unemployed.
        Legal aid's criteria is on household income, and if the BF and her are living together, they would also consider his income for qualifying for same.

        Her claim will be "unemployed" possibly also stating "zero income". She does not know that I've been informed about her fraudulent claim to EI and also spoke to the EI investigator because her bf gave her the means to get FULL EI Benefits through the business he runs. Therefore I also believe EI has since ended her claim. If the burden of proof is on me, I have none other than my word and the name of the EI Investigator.
        You could request disclosure of her EI records. Fraud won't go over well with the court. Says alot in regards to a person's character. Get your proof by way of disclosure with the court or use the court form "request to admit"

        August 2006 The Ministry of Children and Families made her move out of the residence due to the breech of the Supervision Order (being the unsupervised childcare provider for her bf son) and neglect. During this time that she was not able to care for the child, she was successfully employed for 1.5 weeks with her bf and then left to a Treatment Centre for 2 months.
        This is somewhat irrelevant in regards to the child support issue. It may be relevant if custody and access were outstanding issues with your case. What kind of treatment centre? I will go out on a wire and guess - Alcohol and drug addiction is seen as a disease and may be seen as a disability. However if they are no longer in a treatment centre, they somewhat suggests that they are cured. It may be wise to request full medical disclosure of the individual.

        After completion of the program, The Ministry has since made a motion to remove the clause on the Supervision Order .... but there still is a condition in the bf custody order that she is NOT to be the primary caregiver for the child. Regardless, she is still caring for the child full time because no one is attempting to enforce the order. They have started a motion to have that condition removed, but it has not officially occurred yet.
        They appear to be involved in a child protection matter and only would be relevant to your case if custody and access were outstanding issues with your child. In essence as you mentioned, they somewhat ignore the order.

        I would focus on inputting an income to her, either by way of employment or she should be receiving a monetary amount of income for the duties she is completing in the home ie: such as housekeeping and child care. On the face of it their excuse to not seek employment is ie to care for this other child whom she currently has no legal obligation to do so. As such she should be receiving compensation.

        lv

        Comment


        • #5
          Great Idea!

          Thanks for the great advice LV, I'll try it during our hearing and hope it works. I'm gonna have to put some serious thought into this "first point writing" ... hard not to be emotional about things when it's personal. To me, it's all relevent, hard to be non-bias and objective this close to the fire!

          Comment


          • #6
            Further Research....

            What is this "Standard of Living" calculation that is mentioned when discussing Child Support? Would this make a difference in my case at all, taking into account their household standard, compared to ours??

            Because their household brings in about $50,000/year with one child. While we're struggling with less that $20,000/year and four kids!

            Comment


            • #7
              smadax,

              the standard of living for claims of hardship can be found in the Ontario child support guidelines as an appendix II which can be found here.


              http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/R...391_e.htm#BK33

              COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD STANDARDS OF LIVING TEST (Subsection 10 (4))

              Definitions

              1. The definitions in this section apply in this Schedule.

              “child” means,

              (a) in cases where the Divorce Act (Canada) applies, a child of the marriage or a child who,

              (i) is under the age of majority, or

              (ii) is the age of majority or over but is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause to obtain the necessaries of life, or

              (b) in cases where the Act applies, a child who is a dependant under the Act; (“enfant”)

              “household” means a parent or spouse and any of the following persons residing with him or her,

              (a) any person who has a legal duty to support the parent or spouse or whom the parent or spouse has a legal duty to support,

              (b) any person who shares living expenses with the parent or spouse or from whom the parent or spouse otherwise receives an economic benefit as a result of living with that person, if the court considers it reasonable for that person to be considered part of the household, and

              (c) any child whom the parent or spouse or the person described in clause (a) or (b) has a legal duty to support; (“ménage”)

              “taxable income” means the annual taxable income determined using the calculations required to determine “Taxable Income” in the T1 General form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency. (“revenu imposable”)

              Test

              2. The comparison of household standards of living test is as follows:

              STEP 1

              Establish the annual income of each person in each household by applying the formula

              A – B – C

              where

              A is the person’s income determined under sections 15 to 20 of these guidelines,

              B is the federal and provincial taxes payable on the person’s taxable income, and

              C is the person’s source deductions for premiums paid under the Employment Insurance Act and contributions made to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan.

              Where the information on which to base the income determination is not provided, the court may impute income in the amount it considers appropriate.

              STEP 2

              Adjust the annual income of each person in each household by

              (a) deducting the following amounts, calculated on an annual basis:

              (i) any amount relied on by the court as a factor that resulted in a determination of undue hardship, except any amount attributable to the support of a member of the household that is not incurred due to a disability or serious illness of that member,

              (ii) the amount that would otherwise be payable by the person in respect of a child to whom the order relates, if the pleading of undue hardship was not made,

              (A) under the applicable table, or

              (B) as considered by the court to be appropriate, where the court considers the table amount to be inappropriate,

              (iii) any amount of support that is paid by the person under a judgment, order or written separation agreement, except,

              (A) an amount already deducted under subclause (i), and

              (B) an amount paid by the person in respect of a child to whom the order referred to in subclause (ii) relates; and

              (b) adding the following amounts, calculated on an annual basis:

              (i) any amount that would otherwise be receivable by the person in respect of a child to whom the order relates, if the pleading of undue hardship was not made,

              (A) under the applicable table, or

              (B) as considered by the court to be appropriate, where the court considers the table amount to be inappropriate, and

              (ii) any amount of child support that the person has received for any child under a judgment, order or written separation agreement.

              STEP 3

              Add the amounts of adjusted annual income for all the persons in each household to determine the total household income for each household.

              STEP 4

              Determine the applicable low-income measures amount for each household based on the following:

              Low-income Measures

              Household Size
              Low-income Measures Amount

              One person

              1 adult
              $10,382

              Two persons

              2 adults
              $14,535

              1 adult and 1 child
              14,535

              Three persons

              3 adults
              $18,688

              2 adults and 1 child
              17,649

              1 adult and 2 children
              17,649

              Four persons

              4 adults
              $22,840

              3 adults and 1 child
              21,802

              2 adults and 2 children
              20,764

              1 adult and 3 children
              20,764

              Five persons

              5 adults
              $26,993

              4 adults and 1 child
              25,955

              3 adults and 2 children
              24,917

              2 adults and 3 children
              23,879

              1 adult and 4 children
              23,879

              Six persons

              6 adults
              $31,145

              5 adults and 1 child
              30,108

              4 adults and 2 children
              29,070

              3 adults and 3 children
              28,031

              2 adults and 4 children
              26,993

              1 adult and 5 children
              26,993

              Seven persons

              7 adults
              $34,261

              6 adults and 1 child
              33,222

              5 adults and 2 children
              32,184

              4 adults and 3 children
              31,146

              3 adults and 4 children
              30,108

              2 adults and 5 children
              29,070

              1 adult and 6 children
              29,070

              Eight persons

              8 adults
              $38,413

              7 adults and 1 child
              37,375

              6 adults and 2 children
              36,337

              5 adults and 3 children
              35,299

              4 adults and 4 children
              34,261

              3 adults and 5 children
              33,222

              2 adults and 6 children
              32,184

              1 adult and 7 children
              32,184


              STEP 5

              Divide the household income amount (Step 3) by the low-income measures amount (Step 4) to get a household income ratio for each household.

              STEP 6

              Compare the household income ratios. The household that has the higher ratio has the higher standard of living.

              O. Reg. 391/97, Sched. II; O. Reg. 446/01, ss. 8, 9; O. Reg. 102/06, s. 5.

              Your could complete a calculation theres and your own and give it to the Judge during the hearing or attach to your affidavit as a calculation to support your stance.

              lv

              Comment


              • #8
                Calculations Calculated

                Thank you for that information LV.

                Are Child Tax Benefits calculated in that equation as part of our income?

                I've been searching all the case files and have not found anywhere, that a Judge has applied an income to a defendant. Have you had the fortune of seeing this type of order in CanLII??

                Comment


                • #9
                  Never Mind!

                  Moreover, Note 6 to Schedule I of the Guidelines states:

                  6. The formula referred to in note 5 sets support amounts to reflect average expenditures on children by a spouse with a particular number of children and level of income. The calculation is based on the support payer’s income. The formula uses the basic personal amount for non-refundable tax credits to recognize personal expenses, and takes other federal and provincial income taxes and credits into account. Federal Child Tax benefits and Goods and Services Tax credits for children are excluded from the calculation. At lower income levels, the formula sets the amounts to take into account the combined impact of taxes and child support payments on the support payer’s limited disposable income.


                  After an exhaustive rearch I was successful in finding an interesting case...

                  Van Gool v. Van Gool 1998 CanLII 5650 (BC C.A.), (1998), 166 D.L.R. (4th) 528 (B.C.C.A.)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    smadax,

                    After an exhaustive rearch I was successful in finding an interesting case...

                    Van Gool v. Van Gool 1998 CanLII 5650 (BC C.A.), (1998), 166 D.L.R. (4th) 528 (B.C.C.A.)
                    an excellent authority that you came across on the issue

                    http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/1998/1998bcca540.html

                    paragraph 31 in particular,

                    "[31] It is apparent from this case, and others to similar effect, that the intention of the legislators both before and after the enactment of the Guidelines was to ensure that parties liable for child maintenance were not permitted to avoid their responsibilities simply by virtue of being unemployed or under-employed."

                    moreover,

                    In 1999, the same parties went before the British Columbia Court of Appeal on the issueof costs for the earlier appeal

                    Citation: Van Gool v. Van Gool, 1999 BCCA 188 (CanLII)
                    Parallel citations: (1999), 44 R.F.L. (4th) 331

                    http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/1999/1999bcca188.html

                    paragraph 3 of same

                    [3] We have reviewed the submissions of the parties with respect to costs. In our view, this is a case in which costs should follow the event. Mr. Van Gool was successful on the two key issues on appeal and is entitled to his costs. Thus, assuming the court has the jurisdiction to set aside the order with respect to costs in these circumstances, we would decline to do so.

                    and check this out

                    Citation: Messier v. Baines, 1997 CanLII 11210 (SK Q.B.)
                    Parallel citations: (1997), 161 Sask. R. 132

                    http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/19...skqb10400.html

                    The relevant provisions of s. 10 of the Guidelines
                    are as follows:

                    10. (1) On either spouse's application, a court may award an
                    amount of child support that is different from the amount
                    determined under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9 if the court
                    finds that the spouse making the request, or a child in
                    respect of whom the request is made, would otherwise suffer
                    undue hardship.


                    (2) Circumstances that may cause a spouse or child to suffer
                    undue hardship include the following:

                    ...

                    (d) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other
                    than a child of the marriage
                    , who is

                    (i) under the age of majority, or

                    (ii) the age of majority or over but is unable, by
                    reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain
                    the necessaries of life; and

                    ...

                    (3) Despite a determination of undue hardship under
                    subsection (1), an application under that subsection must be
                    denied by the court if it is of the opinion that the
                    household of the spouse who claims undue hardship would,
                    after determining the amount of child support under
                    any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9, have a higher standard of
                    living than the household of the other spouse.


                    (4) In comparing standards of living for the purpose of
                    subsection (3), the court may use the comparison of
                    household standards of living test set out in Schedule II.



                    The capacity of the respondent, or any other
                    non-custodial parent, to pay the amount of child support
                    prescribed by the applicable table is presumed. Subsection
                    10(2)(d) recognizes that in certain situations the obligation
                    to support a child of a second family may result in undue
                    hardship to the applicant or that child should the Guidelines
                    be applied without deviation. Accordingly, the court is
                    provided the discretion to award an amount of child
                    support that differs from the prescribed amount where it finds
                    that such undue hardship would otherwise exist. This permits
                    the court to ensure, to the extent possible, that the children
                    of both families are treated equitably.

                    Section 10 contemplates a two-step analysis.
                    First, the court must be satisfied that circumstances exist
                    which would cause the applicant or a child to suffer undue
                    hardship. Subsection 10(2) sets out a non-exhaustive list of
                    circumstances which may cause such undue hardship. Second,
                    even should a determination of undue hardship be made, the
                    court must still deny the application unless it is satisfied
                    that the applicant's household standard of living is
                    lower than that of the other spouse. The onus of establishing
                    circumstances of undue hardship and of a lower household
                    standard of living is on the person applying.


                    In determining whether or not circumstances of
                    undue hardship exist, the objectives of the Federal Child
                    Support Guidelines must be kept in the forefront. Section 1
                    sets out the objectives:


                    1. The objectives of these Guidelines are

                    (a) to establish a fair standard of support for children
                    that ensures that they continue to benefit from the
                    financial means of both spouses after separation;

                    (b) to reduce conflict and tension between spouses by
                    making the calculation of child support orders more
                    objective;

                    (c) to improve the efficiency of the legal process by
                    giving courts and spouses guidance in setting the levels
                    of child support orders and encouraging settlement; and

                    (d) to ensure consistent treatment of spouses and children
                    who are in similar circumstances.



                    These objectives will be defeated if courts too
                    readily deviate from the presumptive rule set out in section
                    3 of the Guidelines absent compelling reasons for doing so.


                    Second families, and the associated legal duty to support a
                    child of that family, are not uncommon. The assumption of
                    such new obligations may by necessity create a certain degree
                    of economic hardship. That hardship is not however
                    necessarily "undue". Similarly, the mere fact that an
                    applicant's household standard of living is lower than
                    that of the other spouse, due in part to the applicant's legal
                    duty to another child, does not automatically create
                    circumstances of undue hardship.


                    I am not persuaded that applying the presumptive
                    rule set out in section 3 of the Guidelines will create
                    circumstances of undue hardship for either the respondent or
                    his daughter. There is no evidence of the additional expenses
                    incurred by the respondent and his wife as a result of their
                    daughter's asthmatic condition.

                    I am also influenced by the fact that the
                    respondent's wife, as well as the respondent, has a legal duty
                    to support their child. Her income is relevant not only for
                    the purpose of comparing household standards of living, but
                    also for the purposes of determining whether or not her
                    daughter will suffer undue hardship should the respondent be
                    required to pay child support for the children of his first
                    marriage in an amount prescribed by the Guidelines.


                    While the respondent deposes to his wife having
                    minimal income and limited ability to contribute to the
                    financial operation of their household, her T1 General Return
                    discloses gross business income from babysitting of $30,811.00
                    in 1995 and $21,357.00 in 1996.
                    In each of those years her
                    net income from this business was less than $1,000.00. This
                    was due in large part to her ability to deduct from income
                    certain "business-use-of-home" expenses which in 1995 amounted
                    to approximately $15,000.00 and in 1996 approximately
                    $7,000.00. These deductions have included a significant
                    portion of the families' heat, electricity, maintenance,
                    mortgage interest and property tax expenses. These are
                    legitimate deductions for income tax purposes. The result of
                    these deductions however is that her Total Income shown in her
                    T1 General Returns does not reflect her actual ability to
                    contribute to the family finances. I am satisfied that her
                    actual economic contribution to household finances and her
                    ability to contribute to daughter's expenses is greater than
                    that deposed to by the respondent.


                    lv

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      smadax,

                      re: first point writing

                      I am currently reading a book on the subject

                      The Effective Writing Series - Powerful Paragraphs - Bruce Ross-Larson
                      ISBN-0-393-31794-3

                      A copy of same can be obtained through www.amazon.com

                      http://www.amazon.com/Powerful-Parag...e=UTF8&s=books

                      From the book, Chapter 2

                      lead with the point and support it

                      "The most common way to develop a paragraph is to state the point in the first sentence and support it, in subsequent sentences, with evidence: details, examples, and comments. When you lead with the point, your reader can identify it immediately, and a skimmer can pick up your line of argument by reading the first sentence of each paragraph. This form of development is what most of us use for two-thirds of our writing.

                      Example given

                      Motorists can be a lonely lot. They may get periodic traffic updates along with the news, chat and music from their car radios. With cell phones, they can even talk back to the outside world - asking for directions and apologizing for being late. But, by and large, drivers are cut off more than most people from the torrent of information that pervades modern life. And it's a good thing, too, some might say.


                      From the above example paragraph, what is retained? This is first point writing. In your outstanding issues, you may want to emphasize some of the key subjects in a "first point" method utilizing separate paragraphs with supporting details subsequently in same.

                      Your key points

                      Inputting an income, underemployed, their abilities and education, previous work experience or training, the individual is providing a service as caretaker and housekeeper and as such should be receiving monetary enumeration for same, available jobs in the marketplace (copy of help wanted advertisements to support same IE: housekeeping and child care(babysitting), child support guidelines (law), legal obligation to support the first child (which you can support by law and jurisprudence), your current family situation IE: 4 children and current income (which could be supported by your financial statement), your standard of living is significantly less than their household standard which would basically squash their pending hardship claim if applicable by them.

                      Leave out the CAS involvement with the individual, it is irrelevant on your issue of child support and will obscure your main points.

                      If your successful, you may want to "first point" the costs issue - presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, offers to settle if any, Family Law Rules on the subject, jurisprudence to support same.


                      lv
                      Last edited by logicalvelocity; 11-18-2006, 09:12 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        That is some great advice, again I must thank you for the abundance of valuable information you've shared with me. I feel much better about walking into that courtroom on Tuesday!

                        Originally posted by logicalvelocity
                        Inputting an income, underemployed, their abilities and education, previous work experience or training, the individual is providing a service as caretaker and housekeeper and as such should be receiving monetary enumeration for same, available jobs in the marketplace (copy of help wanted advertisements to support same IE: housekeeping and child care(babysitting), child support guidelines (law), legal obligation to support the first child (which you can support by law and jurisprudence), your current family situation IE: 4 children and current income (which could be supported by your financial statement), your standard of living is significantly less than their household standard which would basically squash their pending hardship claim if applicable by them.

                        Leave out the CAS involvement with the individual, it is irrelevant on your issue of child support and will obscure your main points.
                        I agree... because this is the first visit since we've gained custody of the children we are willing to leave this subject alone, for now. I agree with the point most people have made about this "Bonnie & Clyde" couple - "Give them enough rope, they'll hang themselves"

                        Because she's recently completed an Alcohol & Drug Treatment Program, it would be hard to dispute the matter without evidence that she's fallen off the wagon.

                        I don't know how to attach the link, but I thought this information was very interesting as well.... Donavon vs Donavon 2000 MBCA 80 (CanLII)

                        [13] Section 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines provides that the court may impute such amount of income to a spouse "as it considers appropriate in the circumstances," which circumstances include nine defined situations. The defined situations are not an exhaustive list and the section gives the court a significant amount of descretion in imputing income. See Annotation, J.G McLeod, A. (D.L.) v. A. (J.T.) (1999), 45 R.F.L (4th) 2 at 5 (Alta. Q.B.)

                        [14] One of the defined situations includes intentional under-employment or unemployment. Section 19(1)(a) states as follows:
                        19. (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it
                        considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include
                        the following:
                        (a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than
                        where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of
                        the child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by
                        reasonable educational needs of the spouse.

                        [19] The question is what is reasonable in circumstances"

                        In determining whether to impute income on the basis of intentional under-
                        employment or unemployment, the court ought to have regard to what is
                        reasonable under the circumstances. The age, education, experience,
                        skills and health of the payor are factors to be considered in addition to
                        such matters as the availability of work, the freedom to relocate and the
                        other obligations.

                        [21] The following Guidelines may be considered when determining whether ti impute income. (See Dr. Julien D. Payne, Imputing Income, "Determination of Income, Disclosure of Icome," Child Support in Canada, Danrab Inc., August 3, 1999)

                        1. There is a duty to seek employment in a case where a parent is healthy
                        and there is no reason why the parent cannot work. It is "no answer for a
                        person liable to support a child to say he is unemployed and does not
                        intend to seek work or that his potential to earn income is an irrelevant
                        factor" (Van Gool v. Van Gool 1998 CanLII 5650 (BC C.A.), 1998, 166 D.L.R
                        (4th) 528 (B.C.C.A)

                        2. When imputing income on the basis of intentional under-employment, a
                        court must consider what is reasonable under the circumstances. The age,
                        education, experience, skills and health of the parent are factors to be
                        considered in addition to such matters as availability to work, freedom to
                        relocate and other obligations.

                        3. A parents limited work experience and job skills do not justify a failure
                        to pusue employment that does not require significant skills, or
                        employment in which the necessary skills can be learned on the job. While
                        this may mean the job availability will the lower end of the wage scale,
                        courts have never sanctioned the refusal of a parent to take reasonable
                        steps to support his or her children simply because the parent cannot
                        obtain interesting or high paid employment.

                        4. Persistence in unrenumerative employment may entitle the court to
                        impute income.

                        5. A parent cannot be excused from his or her child support obligations in
                        furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations.

                        6. As a general rule, a parent cannot avoid child support obligations by a
                        self-induced reduction of income.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Smadex,

                          that is another good case. To past a link, copy same from the applicable browser window address bar and paste into your open thread.

                          I think you will do alright, as support of a child is paramount. I can't see a court discharging an individual indefinitely for such an obligation. Just remain calm and focused on your key points. They may throw a curve ball or two at you along the way to side track you. Watch out for these and remain focused on your primary goal that being to input an income to the individual due to being underemployed for child support purposes.

                          lv

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Court for Child Support is Done!

                            Well, we attended the hearing this AM.

                            Defense Counsel spoke to us before we were called before a Judge to let us know that no Financial Statement was submitted by his client.

                            We made a request to have income imputed according to Federal Child Support Guidelines Section 19 (1)(f) The spouse has failed to provide income information when under legal obligation to do so.

                            The Judge was willing to grant us imputed income according to her last known wage, which was $18/hour ... but we were not prepared with an annual net income amount according to that wage!!

                            Thankfully we were prepared for the applicable wage of $8/hour in accordance with the net income of a full time Nanny.

                            Although I'm really kicking myself for not being 100% prepared, because it would have meant twice the amount of child support .... I am thankful that we were prepared enough to know our legal boundaries and presented ourselves well enough to recieve something, rather than nothing - which is what Defense Legal Cousel was requesting.

                            Again, thank you LV for all your help you've certainly helped guide us in a good direction. I know we would have gotten this far without your help.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              smadex,

                              thanks, but congratulations to you! You are the one to educate and take the steps to successfully represent yourself. Now that you have successfully inputted income to the individual and a subsequent child support order, you may find the individual may actually take steps now and secure employment. As such any increase above their inputted income would construe to be a material change of circumstances and would warrant an increase in the amount of child support. Under the child support guidelines, you have options available to seek new financial information and If it was me I would follow through with same. I am suspicious that they failed to serve and file original financial information.

                              lv

                              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