CS post retirement.

[ehbe1036]

I am elligible to retire in 6 years with a 30 year pension, which will be reduced to 22 years once I square up with my ex. She wants to keep me working post retirement and have this as an inclusion in the separation agreement.

She works part time but did work fulltime with the same employer for over 2 years. During this time, her salary was close to mine.

What obligations might I have once I retire and I`m drawing on my pension and she continues to work part time? I'm assuming my CS payments will drop due to "material change in circumstance". The kids are currently 12, 10 and 5, I have them 43% of the time.

Thanks

 

[OrleansLawyer]

Generally speaking, child support is calculated based upon the income of the payor and number of children. If your income is reduced, so too should your support obligation.

Notwithstanding the above, the reasonableness of electing to reduce your income in retirement - and consequently deny your children their support - would depend upon the facts of your case.

Some factors you may wish to consider:
- The children's need;
- Your age;
- Whether your retirement plan was contemplated prior to separation;
- The reasonableness of your retirement plan; and
- Your ability to adequately finance your retirement, while assisting with the support of your children. This may include, for example, post secondary expenses 15-20 years from now.

In the event that your choice to retire was found to be unreasonable, you could have your current income imputed to you; therefore, your support obligation would remain unchanged.

 

[billm]

...
In the event that your choice to retire was found to be unreasonable, you could have your current income imputed to you; therefore, your support obligation would remain unchanged.

Which of course is tantamount to forced labour.

CS should be based on actual income, end of story. If you were imputed income in this situation, it would an immoral abuse of family law.

 

[shellshocked22]

Billm, I totally agree with you !

But of course, divorced males in Canada have no rights....

Like I've stated before, just imagine if the government dictated or imputed earnings on "non-divorced" people. Perhaps under the guise of shirking your duty to pay taxes by being selfish enough to retire and in so doing reducing your income and thus your taxes.

I still can't believe the crap that fringe groups get away with under their "constitutional rights" and yet no one gives a crap that the Family Law Act in Canada basically deems divorced males to be financial slaves.

I hope young guys read this forum and realize what a financial nightmare getting married will likely cause them down the road. I can't think of ANY female that's worth the literally hundreds of thousands of dollars I'm getting screwed over for.

 

[OrleansLawyer]

Which of course is tantamount to forced labour.

CS should be based on actual income, end of story. If you were imputed income in this situation, it would an immoral abuse of family law.

Not at all. He doesn't have to work, so long as he can support himself through his pension and savings. Just like everyone else.

If he cannot do so, then - again, just like everyone else - he would likely want to return to work.

Divorce, almost without exception, results in a significant decrease in assets and financial well-being. For many people, this means delaying retirement. But for the divorce, the children would have received the support from both of their parents. The effect of imputing income in this situation would be to help mitigate the financial disadvantage suffered by the children.

 

[NBDad]

A 30 year pension would indicate he's been with the same company for a long time. If you are in your early 30's your ex may have a case, but I'm guessing you are probably in your mid to late 40s at least, and am guessing that the 6 years would put you close to or over the age of 55.

55 is typically "early retirement" age. Meet with a financial advisor before doing it, and work out the difference in income between retired and not retired.

Chances are the difference in working past retirement age at the job is going to equate to less than minimum wage difference.

Take my father for example...he retired at 55, after 28 years with the federal goverment. If he continued to work, it was essentially going to be for $4/hour. That was the difference in working vs. not working for him. If you are in a similar situation, all you would need to do is show those figures to the judge.

< min wage difference, less stress, less hassle, AND more time to spend with your children. Therefore in their best interests to have a stress free father with a huge amount of spare time to spend with them.

 

[shellshocked22]

To OrleansLawyer comments "for the good of the children". I wish to state I have a lot of respect for your well thought out and useful replies. However, with all due respect, I'm so sick of the "for the good of the children" chant when those recipients who receive ridiculously high CS amounts and quite frankly spend much of it on themselves and/or refuse to work since the payor is getting so squeezed that they don't have to; effectively "stealing" money from the children.

Yes, I know you can try to impute minimum wage but the bleeding heart courts give no guarantee of this and its likely not worth the hassle.

Why is everyone so terrified of being "politically incorrect" and institute some sort of requirement for large CS payments to have at least SOME of the cash mandated for the kids (ie. RESP). I'm not talking about the recipient who gets a few hundred a month, but the CS recipient who gets THOUSANDS of
"CS" per month.

Why should the payors of CS have to pay for the exes "partying" and designer clothes ?

 

[OrleansLawyer]

Why is everyone so terrified of being "politically incorrect" and institute some sort of requirement for large CS payments to have at least SOME of the cash mandated for the kids (ie. RESP).

While the courts will, generally, not meddle in how the recipient parent funds their children's lifestyle, it is not unheard of for RESP contributions from CS to be included in separation agreements.

 

[billm]

Not at all. He doesn't have to work, so long as he can support himself through his pension and savings. Just like everyone else.

If he cannot do so, then - again, just like everyone else - he would likely want to return to work.

This is obvious and is not against my point.

Divorce, almost without exception, results in a significant decrease in assets and financial well-being. For many people, this means delaying retirement. But for the divorce, the children would have received the support from both of their parents. The effect of imputing income in this situation would be to help mitigate the financial disadvantage suffered by the children.

Your statement does not make any sense.

If your point were valid, it would mean the courts would force people to earn more money and work more after separation, even if they remained at their pre-split income level.

It should not be the courts place in divorce, any more than it is in marriage, to impose work on a person by imputing them with a fictitious income.

Imputing should only be done to set the ACTUAL income some is making that is not forthright with their income, or other similar situations. As with any rule, there are always exceptions, however this is definitely not one of them.

To order someone to make more money, for the sake of the kids (or the ex), is WAY outside the powers that the court should have - for divorce and non divorced parents alike.

 

[OrleansLawyer]

If your point were valid, it would mean the courts would force people to earn more money and work more after separation, even if they remained at their pre-split income level.

The courts cannot force people to work. They can, however, impute an income to them if they are found to be underemployed.

An example of people keeping their pre-separation income and having an income imputed to them would be a recipient spouse being imputed an income despite not having worked during the marriage and electing not to work after.

It should not be the courts place in divorce, any more than it is in marriage, to impose work on a person by imputing them with a fictitious income.

It does not impose work on anyone. It imposes a cost. If they cannot finance not working (or retirement) at an acceptable level and therefore elect to work, that is their choice.

Imputing should only be done to set the ACTUAL income some is making that is not forthright with their income, or other similar situations. As with any rule, there are always exceptions, however this is definitely not one of them.

So if someone quits their job to avoid paying support, too bad for the support recipients?
How about for the support payor who wants the recipient to put their degree to work and subsequently reduce their obligation to pay?

 

[billm]

So if someone quits their job to avoid paying support, too bad for the support recipients?

Too bad for everyone I suppose. No one would quit their job for that purpose alone - it does not make financial sense.

But yes, I firmly believe that parents, whether together or not have a right to decide how much they work.

How about for the support payor who wants the recipient to put their degree to work and subsequently reduce their obligation to pay?

Again, who the hell is the support payor to tell the ex what to do with their life?

I work hard, I make more than my ex, but what I do, how hard I work or if I work is none of her business any more than it is the goverment's if I was a single parent.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think income is just what comes from a job - which it is in most cases. Income for CS purposes is the money I spend to support my life. This amount should be adjusted if necessary to be the equivalent of a T4 income, so the CS tables can be used. This is when imputing makes sense - to determine the actual income (aka amount of money a person spends to live).

That is why I agree that imputing an income to someone who is not working and wants to claim $0 income make sense - because you can't live on $0.

I also agree that for SS, what the RECIPIENT can reasonably make is very important and should be considered and an income imputed to the RECIPIENT in that case.

But for CS, income should be the T4 equivalent to what the person is spending to live and it should NOT be what they are capable of earning.

What they do should be up to them as it is for single and married people with or without kids.

Stating that you are not forcing them to work by imputing an income is intentionally sidestepping the issue and playing with words.

 

[sahibjee]

I am elligible to retire in 6 years with a 30 year pension, which will be reduced to 22 years once I square up with my ex. She wants to keep me working post retirement and have this as an inclusion in the separation agreement.

She works part time but did work fulltime with the same employer for over 2 years. During this time, her salary was close to mine.

What obligations might I have once I retire and I`m drawing on my pension and she continues to work part time? I'm assuming my CS payments will drop due to "material change in circumstance". The kids are currently 12, 10 and 5, I have them 43% of the time.

Thanks

you retire, you are free, you already have them 43% of the time, take them over 60% by claiming "best interests of the child" since you are free and its in their best interest to be with a parent who can take more care of them. once you have sorted that out, get full table CS from her.
turn the gun around!
also she wont be able to get away with "part time" since now you will have them over 60% of time and she no longer has to be at home to take care of them, therefore enabling her to work full time, wage increase = increase in CS. elder kid should be in university by then, get her to also pay the bigger chunk of the tuition live a happy retired life

 

[mr.mom]

you retire, you are free, you already have them 43% of the time, take them over 60% by claiming "best interests of the child" since you are free and its in their best interest to be with a parent who can take more care of them. once you have sorted that out, get full table CS from her.
turn the gun around!
also she wont be able to get away with "part time" since now you will have them over 60% of time and she no longer has to be at home to take care of them, therefore enabling her to work full time, wage increase = increase in CS. elder kid should be in university by then, get her to also pay the bigger chunk of the tuition live a happy retired life

I love it!!
What is the likelyhood of that happening? Especially for a male?

 

[sahibjee]

I love it!!
What is the likelyhood of that happening? Especially for a male?

Depends on how much of a feminist the judge is. lesser the feminism, higher the chances of success.