Child support during university

[Gilligan]

Should Dad suffer because he got crappy legal advise? This isn't about Dad or Mom, but if CS & S7 are always modified by changes in income, then why isn't post secondary a standard formula?

Seems the consensus is "you hired a crappy lawyer, then it's your fault and you should suffer for the outcome"? The law is supposed to be without emotion and follow strict guidelines, why is it applied with such variability?

My ex has brought me to court several times, a material change in circumstances was never questioned and automatic when income changes, regardless of how minor.

 

[rockscan]

Should Dad suffer because he got crappy legal advise? This isn't about Dad or Mom, but if CS & S7 are always modified by changes in income, then why isn't post secondary a standard formula?

Seems the consensus is "you hired a crappy lawyer, then it's your fault and you should suffer for the outcome"? The law is supposed to be without emotion and follow strict guidelines, why is it applied with such variability?

My ex has brought me to court several times, a material change in circumstances was never questioned and automatic when income changes, regardless of how minor.

The theory behind post secondary is that children of divorce should not have to suffer as a result of their parents decisions. Add in that they should not be crippled by student loans.

Every case is different though and just because you prevailed doesn’t mean everyone does. There are different aspects to every case, every judge, every argument and every litigant.

It is disingenuous to come on here and beat your chest about your wins when others are working their way through the system. No two cases are the same.

 

[Gilligan]

The theory behind post secondary is that children of divorce should not have to suffer as a result of their parents decisions. Add in that they should not be crippled by student loans.

Every case is different though and just because you prevailed doesn’t mean everyone does. There are different aspects to every case, every judge, every argument and every litigant.

It is disingenuous to come on here and beat your chest about your wins when others are working their way through the system. No two cases are the same.

I am not beating my chest here and I am not suggesting the children should suffer, but these cases aren't really different are they? It seems people often like to hide behind "every case is different" and I see judges routinely just apply the tables.

From my perspective and experience, if we simply apply table amounts and and consider this to be a fair and equitable system, then why are people spending their time in court arguing not even considering the extremely expensive lawyers.

 

[rockscan]

From my perspective and experience, if we simply apply table amounts and and consider this to be a fair and equitable system, then why are people spending their time in court arguing not even considering the extremely expensive lawyers.

Because inevitably these cases involve an unreasonable person who does not want to pay. Or an unreasonable person who thinks they are entitled to more than what the precedent is.

When it comes to s7 and school expenses, no two cases are the same. Child support and the tables are completely different. For kids over 18 and away at school, the court expects you to prove why section 3 of the FCSG is unreasonable to determine cs amounts. For school expenses, its either agreed upon or a judge decides.

 

[Gilligan]

Because inevitably these cases involve an unreasonable person who does not want to pay. Or an unreasonable person who thinks they are entitled to more than what the precedent is.

When it comes to s7 and school expenses, no two cases are the same. Child support and the tables are completely different. For kids over 18 and away at school, the court expects you to prove why section 3 of the FCSG is unreasonable to determine cs amounts. For school expenses, its either agreed upon or a judge decides.

I see a contradiction here. Child Support is almost always based on the table amount. How are they completely different?

Also, I just looked at my own order and I'm worried... seems my lawyer wasn't very good and has me listed as providing support (although it's 50/50) while the child is away at school. However my ex has taken me to court several times. Does the original agreement stand, or are they null and void because of the 3 judgement after the fact? The new orders are just updates to CS & S7.

 

[Gilligan]

I see a contradiction here. Child Support is almost always based on the table amount. How are they completely different?

Also, I just looked at my own order and I'm worried... seems my lawyer wasn't very good and has me listed as providing support (although it's 50/50) while the child is away at school. However my ex has taken me to court several times. Does the original agreement stand, or are they null and void because of the 3 judgement after the fact? The new orders are just updates to CS & S7.

I should also ask, does it make me un-reasonable if I think this should be revisited knowing that the child will be 18 and couldn't foresee changes in support (e.g. mother now on disability therefore increasing my support obligations significantly and I still have to support child 50% at my home plus provide 80% for S.7.)

 

[rockscan]

Read up on section 3 of the FCSG specifically the item on “Child the age of majority or over”.

Bottom line is, if a judge has to decide, they will decide what the appropriate cs amount is “having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances if the child and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the child.”

 

[rockscan]

I should also ask, does it make me un-reasonable if I think this should be revisited knowing that the child will be 18 and couldn't foresee changes in support (e.g. mother now on disability therefore increasing my support obligations significantly and I still have to support child 50% at my home plus provide 80% for S.7.)

Is her disability legitimate or are you saying she has done it to stop working? You would need to prove purpose underemployment.

If you child goes away to school then child support would change. That is the part that may be battled. Your ex would obviously not want to lose support. If the child stays home and goes to school then the costs are significantly less. They would be tuition, books, supplies and transportation (if applicable). When you consider the grants taken off tuition and the child’s contribution, the amount left is not as high as you may think.

 

[Gilligan]

Is her disability legitimate or are you saying she has done it to stop working? You would need to prove purpose underemployment.

That's a loaded question... there is a long history of my ex doing this type of thing before (i have witnessed it while in our relationship), however she's got a medical note and on LTD so there is very little argument to be made (the irony is she has more take home now than if she was working).

I would expect my ex to want full offset while the child is away, so this is what is concerning to me. I'm paying a large % for S7 and paying close to full table support even though it's 50/50.

 

[rockscan]

But if she is making more take home why is it such an issue? You are paying off set based on either the same or more income?

80% seems staggering but there are a number of other factors at play in the amounts. They include:

1. Grants that reduce the amount
2. Kid sharing the cost which you could argue should be 1/3
3. Tax benefits coming off depending on who claims them

While it may seem like you are paying 80% of say $10,000. In reality that amount would be lowered by grants, kid and tax. Meaning that 10 could be reduced to 4 and then split accordingly.

Its up to you though. If it is worth spending thousands on a lawyer do it but if it is reasonable and you would win, it may be worth it.

 

[Gilligan]

But if she is making more take home why is it such an issue? You are paying off set based on either the same or more income?

80% seems staggering but there are a number of other factors at play in the amounts. They include:

1. Grants that reduce the amount
2. Kid sharing the cost which you could argue should be 1/3
3. Tax benefits coming off depending on who claims them

While it may seem like you are paying 80% of say $10,000. In reality that amount would be lowered by grants, kid and tax. Meaning that 10 could be reduced to 4 and then split accordingly.

Its up to you though. If it is worth spending thousands on a lawyer do it but if it is reasonable and you would win, it may be worth it.

More take home means she is earning less income and I'm paying more support to make up the difference. She is also claiming extra tax deductions so her net income hasn't changed, but mine has been reduced. As well, because of her lower income, my % for S.7. naturally increases.

So, it will be difficult to pay 80%, offset to close to Table... and I would hate to argue it only for the judge to default to the original agreement, state there is no change in circumstances and stick me with costs as an added bonus.

 

[rockscan]

If your child goes away to school then there is an argument about reducing cs when they are away. Plus you may also indicate that the child is responsible for a higher portion of costs.

For instance, if kid decides they want to go away to school to learn away from home but there is a comparable program and school close to home, you could argue kid has a higher share of the cost as a result or they are responsible for their living expenses.

In the end though, the direct benefit is to your child and you have shared custody meaning you are in their life. I would chalk it up as a win even if it means more money. Hopefully you have taught your child to be smart about money and education decisions.