CS offset amount

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PursuitOfHappyness

New member
I had an informal chat with a lawyer today and he mentioned that even if I get 50/50 custody - the amount of CS I will pay will be higher than the offset amount because I make close to 3 times what the ex makes.

I took a peak at S7 guidelines put could not find anything that translates to his comment. Has anyone actually had such a ruling? If so how do you counter it?

thanks!
 
I have never heard of that and I don't believe it.

Also, with the offset method, the greater the difference between the incomes used to determine CS, the less fair it is to the higher income earner.

The reason for this is that offset method mathematically means that it costs TWICE as much to raise the child in two homes as compared to one.

This is of course is untrue, because the cost of things such as clothing, CS covered activities, school supplies and trips, food, entertainment, utilities, etc are not doubled.

The larger the difference between incomes, the larger this unfair method is put upon the greater income earner.

Judges, lawyers, and the government are not very good at math and reasoning, and tend to always default to the greater income earner paying more and that would be the ONLY reason one would be ordered to pay more than offset CS. However the CS guidelines do not state that you should pay more than offset.
 
PursuitOfHappyness said:
I had an informal chat with a lawyer today and he mentioned that even if I get 50/50 custody - the amount of CS I will pay will be higher than the offset amount because I make close to 3 times what the ex makes.

I took a peak at S7 guidelines put could not find anything that translates to his comment. Has anyone actually had such a ruling? If so how do you counter it?

thanks!
Click to expand...

You need to look at section 9 of the guidelines on shared custody. The offset amount is just a starting point. After that they consider 9b) increased cost of shared parenting, and 9c) means, needs, and circumstances of the ex and children.

9c) means that they can look at any new partner's income. The point of 9c is to balance the standard of living at both homes so that the children aren't going without at one home.

I have been paying offset since my separation 3 years ago but we're about to go to trial (end of Jan) so I will let you know how things shake out for me wrt 9c). I don't make 3 times his income but I do have a new partner.
 
CSAngel said:
...
9c) means that they can look at any new partner's income. The point of 9c is to balance the standard of living at both homes so that the children aren't going without at one home.
...
Click to expand...

and if that results in the lower income household buying a bigger/nicer house to maintain that standard of living, the CS payer should get that portion of the CS back, with interest, when the kids are no longer children of the marriage! CS is partially a transfer of wealth (ie SS), which is not fair to the payor.
 
Well the idea (or principal) behind CS seems to be to equalze the standard of living between both households.

This would seem (to me at least) to be particularily important to do if the child spends equal time in both households.

The almost full time status of both parents would lead me to think the child should have an almost full time standard of living at both homes too. If that makes any sense.

So I won't comment on the exact proportion vs tables that your lawyer commented on - but in principal - I can kind of see what he's saying.
 
PursuitOfHappyness said:
I had an informal chat with a lawyer today and he mentioned that even if I get 50/50 custody - the amount of CS I will pay will be higher than the offset amount because I make close to 3 times what the ex makes.
Click to expand...

Everything depends on the circumstances. Lawyers tell clients this to cover themselves because at the time he doesn't have all the facts about your case.

Most likely what he said is not true and won't happen, but in certain cases depending on circumstances and the mood the judge was in that day the outcome was to pay more then table.

My lawyer took the same approach...but what he should have done was instead taught me how to prepare my case to avoid these pit falls and make sure my circumstances would lead my case to a judge favoring shared custody, not SS, and table CS.
 
FB_ said:
My ex is claiming that set-off would not be appropriate even with 50/50 citing Contino v. Leonelli‑Contino, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217

CanLII - 2005 SCC 63 (CanLII)

This case has been cited in over 300 other cases on CanLII.

After reading is several times I'm still not sure how it will play out for me.

Here are some comments regarding such cases

http://www.divorcemate.com/library/ContinoCaseComment.pdf
Case Comment* Contino v Leonelli-Contino, Caron & Partners Barristers and Solicitors -
Click to expand...

I find the ruling mathematically nonsensical. however part of the child support award to the mother, according to a paragraph numbered 17 included the idea that the mother spends more money on the childs expenses such as clothing. Also the mothers resp contribution was considered. So this means the CS award includes that the mother shall continue to spend more on the child, for things like clothing and that the resp contributions by the mother should be considered to be contributed by the mother and the father.

this means that the CS award was not as high is it appears. Though it is slightly higher then the simple offset method
 
billm said:
I find the ruling mathematically nonsensical. however part of the child support award to the mother, according to a paragraph numbered 17 included the idea that the mother spends more money on the childs expenses such as clothing. Also the mothers resp contribution was considered. So this means the CS award includes that the mother shall continue to spend more on the child, for things like clothing and that the resp contributions by the mother should be considered to be contributed by the mother and the father.

this means that the CS award was not as high is it appears. Though it is slightly higher then the simple offset method
Click to expand...

So the father is paying part of the RESP contribution for the the mother....He will then end up paying this as s7. therefore paying for the kids education twice.
 
FB_ said:
So the father is paying part of the RESP contribution for the the mother....He will then end up paying this as s7. therefore paying for the kids education twice.
Click to expand...

Not if he uses the judges order to prove that he contributed to the RESP via CS and the mother's resp contributions should be shared equally between them when determining section 7 school contributions.
 
PursuitOfHappyness said:
I had an informal chat with a lawyer today and he mentioned that even if I get 50/50 custody - the amount of CS I will pay will be higher than the offset amount because I make close to 3 times what the ex makes.

I took a peak at S7 guidelines put could not find anything that translates to his comment. Has anyone actually had such a ruling? If so how do you counter it?

thanks!
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah a lawyer told you... Time for a second opinion and to check for yourself:

MySupportCalculator.ca

If you make 3 times your ex then you need to retain competent counsel that knows what they are doing and has actual experience in Family Law.

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top