Child support calculations over $150,000?

Wow, that escalated quickly. I'd like to clarify a few points as things seem to have been misinterpreted. The reason I came here was that according to the support calculators (and this blog) for individuals making over $150,000 the table may not be appropriate.

1) I have made my peace with the fact that it is very hard to change custody and I get a lot of time with her so I'm not interested in dragging everyone in to court for that. I have told her that if she wants to spend more time with me I'd be happy to speak with her mother but it's her choice. This isn't about getting custody/more time. Her mother doesn't make nearly what I do so sharing custody or 50/50 time wouldn't make a huge difference.

2) I feel sorry for the fathers that live on couches or get otherwise screwed by the system or bad advice but I didn't cause that and I can't fix it, so saying I should be lucky because I make money doesn't really help anyone.

3) I took a lot of risks and worked very hard 10-12 hours/day 7 days a week for years to get where I am. I'm not looking for sympathy, I know I make a lot of money, I'm just looking to keep as much as I can. I spend a LOT of money on my daughter, pay 100% of the section 7 expenses and have set up an RESP for her future etc.

4) The amount I pay is the table amount and has been from day 1. There has been no court order and I have voluntarily given my tax returns over every year. I simply use the justice department calculator and adjust it each year.

As I understood it, the purpose of child support is to either maintain the child's standard of living after divorce and/or maintain a minimum standard of living. Everyone is entitled to maximize their utility within all legal bounds which is simply what I am asking about. There are obviously some very bitter people who have been maligned by others but if anyone has interpretation or experience with the "over $150,000 the table may not be suitable" line I would like to hear about it.
 
Thank you for your clarification.

I'm sure there are people reading here who fall into the over 150k slot who can offer some suggestions.
 
Yes, you are correct. After 150k the tables don't apply. This is mainly for say a father who earns 5 million a year and would have to pay say $30,000 a month in child support. That child support amount obviously wouldn't make sense and so the judge would not use the table based amount calculation.

400,000k as you earn... well... approx $3000 is the child support payable... you'll need good reasoning to lower this....you are paying 100% of. childs section 7 expenses already... how much is this total child support you pay every month?

if it's not in a court order, you'll have to decide what is fair and pay that... but you've already decided on an amount 3000 and are paying that. as I indicated...all of a sudden lowering this amount is going to piss her off and land you in court... and a judge will want to hear from you why you all of a sudden changed it....warning...selfish unilateral decisions are hugely frowned upon in court.

if you have no interest in increasing your time with your child and not motivated because it wouldn't change child support much then you probably you should keep your custody agreement and keep paying what you're paying and not ever again ask about child support because it just makes you look like a fool who's just trying to get more rich. selfish, and cheap - otherwise you would be paying a lawyer than to come on a site for low income citizens who can't afford legal services... all of that defending for another cheapass deadbeat millionaire who'strying to save 5 bux.. seriously man?

but who am I to speak... rich people know all the good lawyers and pay money to get shit done !
 
tunnelight said:
If you... are claiming that child support is to equalize life in both homes, then why does it have tendency to leave fathers to have to live on a couch?
Click to expand...

Child support is only meant to equalize in shared custody. There are some issues with CS in a shared custody situation, but that's an argument for a different thread. For non-custodial parents, child support does what it sets out to do.

In this case, the father is a non-custodial parent. As such, child support is not meant to equalize life in both homes, it is meant to enrich the home of the custodial parent for the presumed benefit of the child.


I voluntarily gave up my kids too back in 2012 due to duty counsel negligence. close to 7 years later, I got 50.50.
Click to expand...

You are a massive outlier with an incompetent ex. Your advice is generally not applicable to 98% of the people on this forum. Almost nobody gets their kids back after giving them up.

I laughed in the face of status quo.
Click to expand...

That's not why you won. Status quo is a serious argument, and should not be dismissed lightly.

start with small increments and work your way up. If she refuses to cooperate, take her to court without hesitation.
Click to expand...

For people who are not what you claim to be, that will almost certainly not work. When you don't have the kids the courts are not going to suddenly rule in your favour. OP has almost no clout here. He needs to be incredibly nice for the next two years. Even threatening court would probably end any hope of obtaining a reasonable amount of time with his kids.
 
A material change in circumstances can still take place following a consent order.

Foot note:

You are right, OP should just continue being nice. Being nice to his ex will give him what he wants in 2 years. I certainly had to be nice with my ex to get what I wanted, real fucking nice.

Disclaimer, the more nice I was to my ex, the more nice she was in saying no and playing games and the less I got what I wanted. One day, by the advice of a family law lawyer, I decided to be an asshole and take her back to court. Best decision I ever made.
 
Last edited:
tunnelight said:
A material change in circumstances can still take place following a consent order.
Click to expand...

Of course it can, but the bar is high.

Disclaimer, the more nice I was to my ex, the more nice she was in saying no and playing games and the less I got what I wanted. One day, by the advice of a family law lawyer, I decided to be an asshole and take her back to court. Best decision I ever made.
Click to expand...

1. Going to court is not being an asshole. Sometimes you have to go to court.

2. In the case of the OP here, he has a massive status quo against him, if he goes to court right now he will almost certainly lose.

3. Therefore, since court is not an option, he must play nice. No, he won't get exactly what he wants, but hopefully he can chip away at the status quo enough to get a reasonable shot at court. I agree that he will eventually have to go to court, but he is not ready to go just yet.
 
Wow. Tunnelight bitter much?

FYI: men are assholes too. After 3.5 years, 2 lawyers and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, my asshole lawyer-Wasband has never been forthright providing his financials. He’s in the $150,000+ income. He’s been too busy (cause he’s a “super-lawyer” you know). The information he has provided through the years was only done so on at the 11th hour after being served with motions to disclose. I’ve had to hire a forensic accountant to analyze his income and assets. All the while, I can barely make ends meet with my minimum wage job, while he’s buying new Audi’s, travelling to Ireland and soon Australia, buying all the latest technical gadgets and I can’t even afford to fix the breaks on my car or have the family pet vaccinated. We were married 23 years and had 3 kids. I have to borrow money from my kids to pay my internet bill and transfer money into their account when I receive my SS. Wasband is dragging this out hoping for me to surrender and agree to whatever low-ball offer he might finally make. The equalization payment will be substantial, and I expect my SS will increase.

That said, never would I generalize that all ex-husbands who are imposed support obligations are assholes like he is, nor should you assume all wives are out to make them destitute.

To the OP, just pay your CS and talk to your accountant about how to lower your income tax obligations.
 
Janus said:
Of course it can, but the bar is high.







1. Going to court is not being an asshole. Sometimes you have to go to court.



2. In the case of the OP here, he has a massive status quo against him, if he goes to court right now he will almost certainly lose.



3. Therefore, since court is not an option, he must play nice. No, he won't get exactly what he wants, but hopefully he can chip away at the status quo enough to get a reasonable shot at court. I agree that he will eventually have to go to court, but he is not ready to go just yet.
Click to expand...



That’s right Janus. Status quo’s are huge!! Took a year for me to hear it from a judge.. my ex didn’t hear the same as I though.. as he is still insisting on joint with waaaaaay more time than he has now. Judge almost laughed at him... said 6 year status quo and our OCL report... then told the ex to stop with the games as income will get inputed too... as he is squarely on track this year to make even less then he did last year and confines to not give the judge any explanation as to why... and judge asked him point blank.. what is the material change... no answer was given.. yet we are still in court. :-/.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1. If there is no material change, then yes, status quo is huge and takes priority.

2. Once a material change in circumstances has taken place, status quo is history.
 
Last edited:
tunnelight said:
2. Once a material change in circumstances has taken place, status quo is history.
Click to expand...

"Well, the father has never spent any time with the kids, but he just got fired from his job, so I think I'm going to give him shared custody"

...said no judge ever.
 
Janus said:
"Well, the father has never spent any time with the kids, but he just got fired from his job, so I think I'm going to give him shared custody"

...said no judge ever.
Click to expand...

Getting fired from his job is not a material change in circumstances effecting access. It's a material change in circumstances effecting child support - imputed income to be precise.

For those who don't know there are 3 different types of material change in circumstances in family law.

1. Material change in circumstances re: custody.
2. Material change in circumstances re: access.
3. Material change in circumstances re: child support.

Once a material change in circumstances has taken place regarding access, it can be changed and status quo is meaningless. IF the access is increased to at least 40% then a material change in circumstances has taken place regarding child support and it can be altered based on offset amount (difference of your incomes).

With respect to my heavily contested arguments that status quo is history once a material change in circumstances has taken place, I believe it is time to bring in some case law.

Without further adue...

If the threshold is met, the judge on the application must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child’s needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.

This inquiry is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and evidence of the new circumstances.

The inquiry does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent, although the custodial parent’s views are entitled to great respect.

Each case turns on its own unique circumstances. The only issue is the best interest of the child in the particular circumstances of the case.

The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests and rights of the parents.
Click to expand...

You can rant and rave status quo all you want once a material change in circumstances has taken place. It will simply fall on deaf ears.
 
Last edited:
tunnelight said:
Getting fired from his job is not a material change in circumstances effecting access. It's a material change in circumstances effecting child support - imputed income to be precise.
Click to expand...



Janus was being facetious. Many people try stunts like losing their job as a material change.
 
rockscan said:
Janus was being facetious. Many people try stunts like losing their job as a material change.
Click to expand...

I find that assumption/stereotype way out of place and rather hilarious and completely uncalled for because the father in question here did not get fired from his job. He quadrupled his salary to $400,000 - more than a judges salary - and has voluntarily paid the increase in child support.

He is an excellent dad - and I take back my comments about him trying to save 5 bux - he just wanted to make sure he was paying the correct amount based on orthodox calculations used for incomes over 150,000k. Very reasonable question from a very reasonable man.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top