another question about child support

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

frustratedwithex

New member
I live in Alberta and have been reading this forum for a few months now. I can't seem to find a forum for Alberta, so hopefully I can find some help here.

I know there are other questions and answers for this same question about child support, and I have also checked out the government web site, and I am still confused.

My STBX has a three figure income which is made up of a base salary and a long list of additional benefits, as well as a yearly bonus. He wants to ignore his NOA, start with his base salary, (this number keeps changing) and add only the benefits he thinks should be relevant. This results in the exclusion of a huge portion of his total income. He also believes that the Federal Child Support Guidelines are just Guidelines and only a starting point, an outrageously unfair starting point. He also wants his bonus left out and treated separately.

After reading the Guidelines myself, I see that there are exceptions. The exception he wants is for the both of us to agree to a number for his income, (his number). This agreed upon number is what he wants used to calculate the table amount of child support.

We both have lawyers. His seems to be encouraging this and my lawyer is increasingly frustrated by this arrogant behavior.

My question is, who decides what parts of his income can be excluded?
 
Unfortunately, this is going to continue going on and both are going to waste money on lawyers going back and forth. The only other option is getting him to court and get the proper income disclosed this way.
 
Yes, my lawyer wants to see him in court and see how he justifies his request for deductions to a judge.

I have already spent about $15k so far, and child support is the last issue. I am trying to sort this out without going to court.
 
logicalvelocity


My lawyers position is that his basis for excluding items is completly unrelated to the Child support Guidelines and reflects his own sesnse of "fairness."
 
frustratedwithex said:
Yes, my lawyer wants to see him in court ....
Click to expand...

lol, of course your lawyer wants to go to court, that's how they make the most money!

frustratedwithex said:
...child support is the last issue. I am trying to sort this out without going to court.
Click to expand...

Child support is supposed to be the easy part! It is simple - his obligation to his child remains until the child is no longer a child of the marriage. His financial obligation is determined by the federal guidelines according to his income, which is his line 150 (aka NOA) income. AND this should be automatically adjusted EVERY year using his previous year's NOA. There is no wiggle room (okay there are exceptions for everything, but not wanting to acknowledge some of his income is NOT one of them).

His lawyer is costing the both of you money (though I blame your ex - he is responsible for this stupidity).

Make it clear to your ex that it is a right of the child that he pays according to his full income and you do not have the power or desire to alter that.

Going to court over this is stupid, so it probably won't get that far.
 
billm

He is also disputing the definition of "child of the marriage". Two of the three children are in university, and he wants to make up an amount he thinks is resonable. At the same time he wants to withdraw money from the RESP for room and board. The children that are in university live at home, one with him and one with me.

He also believes he has the power to alter what ever he wants, and has written me e-mails telling me how wrong I am, my lawyer is, his lawyer is and how wrong the Guidlines are, and that I will lose if this goes to court.

He also wants to increase my income so that the offset is larger.

A correction to my original post, he makes six figures. He wants to reduce his income because he doesn't want to pay the table amount at his income level.
 
I am going to ask other more experienced members to clarify some points I'd like to raise:

Line 150 is the income reported to the CRA, yes? which means he cannot legally change that amount.

Same goes for your income. Unless he knows for a fact that you're hiding substantial income from other sources, what you declare on line 150 cannot be changed either.

The bigger question, for me, is the CS Guidelines. In Family Law, support is a legal right and judges will use those very guidelines to determine amounts - am I correct??

One last question, frustrated: have you tried mediation instead of lawyers?
 
MsD
We started with a company called Fairway Divorce. They mediate with each of us separatley. Then we each had to have independent legal advice. When my lawyer found out how much his actual income was, he almost fell off his chair.

That was six months ago and this debate goes on. This is why my lawyer is frustrated, as am I, and wants to push for court.

I am not hiding income, stbx just wants mine higher so that there is a bigger off set. My lawyer has told me that because of the large gap in our incomes that the courts would not always include an off set.
 
So you switched to lawyers in the middle of the mediation process? Why? The consultation with a lawyer is to determine the fairness of the agreement according to law. Did you go back to the mediator with your proposed amendments to the agreement based on this info?
 
God I thought my ex was an ass

God I thought my ex was an ass

You know whats really funny about all this....I'm the woman which seems to assume that I get treated better than men in some peoples opinions but in regards to child support he can wiggle and squirm all he likes...as soon as he goes to court the judge will nail him to the wall...Child support Guidelines are law......I made 21000 last year and have to pay 300 in child support for a 19 year old and a 16 year old....go figure and I wasn't allowed hardship...this year I'll make 17000 if he keeps supporting me....$600 a month....I've been layed off for a year and can't find work....
I have to claim on income tax what he pays me and he gets to deduct it....and not claim child support and he makes 90,000 a year in a bad year.....lol

I'd say you have a better chance than me....
 
MsD

We were finished with the mediation. Stbx took agreement to his lawyer and had the seperation agreement drawn up. From there I went to a lawyer, he had to review the agreement to make sure I understood what was in it. My lawyer was shocked at how unfair the agreement was, and he had reviewed agreements from this company before.

My ex negotiates for a living and at the time I was led to believe that this was how child support could be calculated. The mediator was very creative in how they presented information to me, and I was much too trusting of them and my stbx's insistence that he was treating me fairly. I had not found this forum yet.

I am not trying to say I am a victum here, just trying to be more informed.
 
MsD said:
I am going to ask other more experienced members to clarify some points I'd like to raise:

Line 150 is the income reported to the CRA, yes? which means he cannot legally change that amount.

Same goes for your income. Unless he knows for a fact that you're hiding substantial income from other sources, what you declare on line 150 cannot be changed either.

The bigger question, for me, is the CS Guidelines. In Family Law, support is a legal right and judges will use those very guidelines to determine amounts - am I correct??

One last question, frustrated: have you tried mediation instead of lawyers?
Click to expand...
Line 150 is from the income tax return, yes. There is no law that states you absolutely must use line 150, it is just the most common number for most situations.

Line 150 should be taken from the Notice of Assessment after the return is filed, because CRA may insist on changes, for example disallowing an expense deduction. Line 150 can be changed after an audit. It can be changed months or years later by filing for a change to the original return, for example finding out that a particular expense could have been claimed, or finding lost receipts.

For people who are self-employed or who receive irregular bonuses, you may not want to just go with line 150. Certain expenses could be challenged like a home office or a car used for both business and personal use. Depending on the type of employment and the amount of expense, it may be worth going over it carefully with both an accountant and experienced lawyer and challenging some expenses.

For bonuses, if they are irregular, then possibly they may not be counted as income. This has to be shown and argued, not just claimed. It would be helpful for you to go through these Child Support Worksheets and see some of the options for excluding bonuses or deducting expenses.

As far as benefits go, if it is a taxable benefit it should be included as income. If not, then you have a difficult argument. Pick your battles and don't waste thousands in legal fees arguing over a non-taxable benefit.
 
His bonus occurs every year, the amount is determined in Feb. I think. His bonus is usually 2-3x what I currently make in year,and about what I will make in a year when I finsh school and have a full time job. The benefits are taxable and I don't have enough information to use the worksheets. He has no employment expenses to claim.

My lawyer has just asked for confirmation from stbx from his employer listing his base salary and detailing all benefits and bonus. Up to this point the ex has provided his NOA and his own self generated excel tables with his list of items.

I have just finished reading an angry e-mail from stbx and he is threatening yet again that if this goes to court I will loose and he will vigorously defend himself and that I risk having support terminated or reduced. It's two pages of him telling me how disappointed he is, as well as a whole lot of other crap.
 
Is there some way I can tell if he has blind cc this latest e-mail to his lawyer? Although, if his lawyer were to read this, he should be advising him to stop sending me these e-mails.

This is the first time he has used the words "without prejudice" in the subject line, or used these words at anytime. This feels like he is up to something, but probably just trying to cover his butt.
 
You can't send a NASTY email and have yourself protected becasue you put "without prejudice" at the top. The wording refers to negotiations and offers to settle. Just becasue he puts that in there doesn't mean you can't bring it up in court for the tone of the email.

Move towards trial. You stand a good chance of getting some of your costs back because of the runaround you are getting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top