This has been discussed ad nauseam on various other threads and is NOT what the OP is asking about. You don't need to keep posting and arguing a moot point. This is hijacking the thread which you have been asked not to do.
75/25 arrangement Is there child support?
- Thread starter Newfie76
- Start date
This has been discussed ad nauseam on various other threads and is NOT what the OP is asking about. You don't need to keep posting and arguing a moot point. This is hijacking the thread which you have been asked not to do.
Wow. So you chose to single me out instead of Stillpaying? Are you a moderator Rockscan?
hmmm
It is relevant because it also applies to the dependent credit as well.
It is not just what money is exchanged it is how it is exchanged so it is the dependent credit that is affected too (someone partnered can claim that)
There should be a big sticky post for this as it has burned many people.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
It's been very thoroughly discussed on many, many threads dedicated to this exact topic.
And you may want to go back to the link you posted and read again. You have to answer yes to BOTH parts of the question, if the answer to "Were you single, divorced, separated or widowed " is no, you're not eligible.
OP's question is about CS in the context of family law, not tax law, so maybe we can keep this thread on topic.
And you may want to go back to the link you posted and read again. You have to answer yes to BOTH parts of the question, if the answer to "Were you single, divorced, separated or widowed " is no, you're not eligible.
OP's question is about CS in the context of family law, not tax law, so maybe we can keep this thread on topic.
Please stop.
Simply put one cannot claim the eligible dependent tax credit or dependent credit if you are a payor of support but not a receiver of support.
and actually no it has not been thoroughly discussed. There is more case law for different situations in regards to this that has not been posted.
You may personally think it is not relevant but others do especially others that don't go searching through old posts.
I sure as heck would want someone telling me of this very important aspect of child support that would end up costing me about $4k per year if I didn't know about it. Why I have 3 prolific post dominators trying to squeeze my posts out is curious and frustrating especially when on this very subject at least 2 of them are flat out wrong.
It it was so well known how is StillPaying getting it wrong?
Why are you saying I am wrong with the dependent credit is clearly in play?
Last edited:
blinkandimgone
Moderator
You're hijacking this thread to discuss something unrelated that OP is NOT asking about. Since you've brought this up in multiple threads it seems you really want to talk it to death. Go start your own thread on it and stop hijacking every thread about it. That way, when people do search for it, it will show up with the numerous other threads on the topic.
This will be the last time you're "asked".
This will be the last time you're "asked".
StillPaying
Member
This is different. Talking about gender, or 1 off, whim changes is not this issue. Access is agreed to on a specific permanent schedule every 6 months. It's easy to see the child costs between 100% vs shared 50% times. The purpose of child support is simple and obvious in this scenario. Judges have full control on cs, so place your bets.
I never implied I would mount my case on gender. That would be suicidal. I just stated an obvious fact that every case I’ve read in Canlii is very much waited toward women in respect yo one of the parents dropping below the 40% threshold.
I can’t make this up.Yes they do. And from all the Canlii reports I’ve read on the subject to date… I’m exhausted reading them all omg… I’ve yet to find even one judge :
1) not follow calculations based on 12 months (not 6, not 3, not 8).
2) direct someone with more than 60% custody over the 12 month period (it’s ALWAYS 12 months based on Canlii cases) to pay CS to the parent that falls below the 40% threshold.
3) However, if one parent thinks that they should ethically pay child support outside of the 40% threshold. There is no law stating they can not. I was originally curious if anyone has had knowledge of a case where a judge did NOT follow the 40% threshold and 12 month period for calculating. So far no evidence of this. Stating it is not case law. Reference to a case would be what I am looking for. Or personal experience on your own case. Because every single case I’ve read, the judge provides reference to the “law” that ALL calculations are made on a 12 month basis with 40% threshold being enforced. There is even several cases where the custody dropped to 39%. The 61% parent was told to pay no CS while the other obviously was told to pay CS. If there are any factual cases out there that is in contradiction to this, please let me know. I’d love a read.
Why am I driven to pay CS, when the law states I am not required to, is based on my ethical base that every parent no matter the amount of access should be paying CS. Any parent that does not, is a dead beat parent. That includes the majority of women that receive CS and are working, but yet pay nothing. Gender bias? Ha! Every parent should pay CS!
And as for the other topic going around the thread on CRA child benefits. I and my ex have been paying offset using the subtractive method. CRA has reviewed this. We both receive Child benefits every month. And yes it’s clearly written in the CRA tax law that this is acceptable. I can provide a link if required. It’s not even debatable. It law! Written in black and white. We also have two children and claim a dependent each at tax time. Our agreement clearly states this and CRA tax laws permit it. Again this is also clearly written in tax law.
StillPaying
Member
Your lawyer says no child support is due. Your female case law read says no child support is due. Regardless of that, you want to pay. What's the issue here?
Homework…. I’m making a proposal for support. Lawyers only make money from conflict. If the question of wanting more comes up, education is your best friend. Again I was inquiring with the forum in parallel to my Canlii research. My research says one thing… while some opinions on here say another.
If anyone actually has info or experience on falling below the 40% threshold. I’d be interested to hear or read on it. Sometimes it’s just one case that the system begins to use as caselaw.
Otherwise, I’m moving forward on what I think is ethical and the true best interest of the children (without using them as human shields like our legal system does).
I wouldn't get a soapbox too high there. There are not as many men interested in being full time parents. Things are changing yes but overall the mother is the one doing the full time parent work. Not to mention, canlii is only a sample of cases not all of them so you are already starting with a skewed set of data. Finally, there are a lot of mother's who fight for full custody for whatever reason that I will not debate. All of this together does weigh things in one gender's favour but it isn't enough to start harping about.
There is a reason why so many people on this forum tell men to not settle for less than 50%. It is to change the way courts see things. And to make sure that 50/50 is a given.
A friend was considering divorce and met with at least six lawyers to determine how her case would shake out. Not one of them said she would get full physical custody. They all told her it would be 50/50 and if she wanted to avoid a lengthy battle she would lose, she should agree to 50/50 so lawyers also understand the change that is coming.
There is a reason why so many people on this forum tell men to not settle for less than 50%. It is to change the way courts see things. And to make sure that 50/50 is a given.
A friend was considering divorce and met with at least six lawyers to determine how her case would shake out. Not one of them said she would get full physical custody. They all told her it would be 50/50 and if she wanted to avoid a lengthy battle she would lose, she should agree to 50/50 so lawyers also understand the change that is coming.
Challenger
New member
The issue is men get these 50/50 only if they fight, have enough money to fight and have enough patience.
I’ve seen way too many cases when case judge allows mom to be primary care giver while the case is unfolding. If Ontario family courts were few months from application to trial, it wouldn’t be an issue, but presently with waits for 3-5 or even more years, many kids grow up before their father gets a chance for a trial, and even when trial is won (or often time case settled 5 minutes before trial), the poor child grew without a father for years.
So it isn’t really 50/50 equality - it is an uphill battle, with child being a looser from day one. If the default rule was 50/50 until one of the parties proves otherwise or the courts were faster, then indeed we could’ve talk about equality.
Oh it’s worth harping about it… just ran out of soapboxes to stack high enough. I know the facts well. The statistics are well known and are fully accessible. The only reason(s) we are even debating this still today… is: 1) The political clout of specific feminist groups are very well connected and have enormous political pull 2) The legal system in the western world has leaned on the marriage system for years as a cash cow, and now more recently have begun utilizing our own children as human shields… they’ve become pawns under the “Best interest of the children”…..
Honestly I can really keep going on this. I’ve tonnes of data on the subject… enough to keep you reading for sometime. I’d had off the record conversations with judges where I had them stammering. Lol The arrogance of these people. They think they are gods! Yawn.. not worth my time to try and convince you otherwise. I won’t change the system by spending my time on a web forum setup by lawyers and that crawls with those unwilling to see the bigger picture. Waste of my time… I’d rather shoot hoops with my son. It is what it is. Men lose… women win.
I’ve accepted it. Too much energy to burn and life is too short. Thanks everyone who took the time to read my original inquiry. I’m moving on.
thanks!
StillPaying
Member
The problem with these strong, negatively viewed posters is that they can find the info, and really keep going on about it, but don't understand what it really means. It's like complaining you can't find gender specific case law regarding access/support.
My comment was more about the lack of cases in Canlii and the comments that lawyers only like conflict. For Canlii, I couldn't find more than two cases on it for post secondary and kid's share, my husband's lawyer found at least 12 cases he used in court on I believe Lexpert which is a paid case service. As for lawyers, my friend met with those lawyers in the GTA and she has a lot of money at stake. They all told her keep dreaming about full physical custody as it wouldn't happen—her husband would get 50/50. None of them said they would take the case and win. All of them told her what I had said which was work together on a settlement and save your money.
StillPaying
Member
My comment was to the 3, court hate men, posters.
Challenger
New member
All my friends who did fight got 50/50 (of course it isn’t representative for overall statistics).
They all started with mother either moving out with kids or kicking out the father (false criminal claims etc). Then the case judge few months down the road was ordering 2-3 hours a week visitation, which lasted between 1.5 to 5 years, until case finally came to trial, and suddenly giving 50/50 was no longer concern.
So you can say that system isn’t gender biased, but tell it to the eyes of those children who had to wait for years before they could see their dads equally
Technically they set a false status quo. Regardless of their gender, they took the first step. It would have worked if it was a man who did it.
StillPaying
Member
... you know it means nothing, but you'll use it anyways.
All my friends got 50/50 from the beginning. Weird...
Imagine all those kids who's parent left the house, delayed, or agreed to less than 50%.
Challenger
New member
Maybe, it is just hard to imagine father running to a shelter or police with made up drama story that wife was beating him, but yes, with enough creativity it would probably sucked the other way too. I just don’t see how it would help children- they would be without mother in that case for years, which is also bad.