CS question/recalc

H

honestdad

New member
Hi all, quick question here for all your brilliant minds on this board.

My ex receives child support from me, we agreed on an amount close to table, but not doing the offset even though we've had 50/50 shared custody/access to our little one for over two years(screwed me over now come tax time but that's to late oh well, my lawyer was an idiot).

She has since had another child who is now a few months old, but the father is not in the picture or ever has been. I believe she listed the father on the birth certificate as "unknown" so he does not have any obligations for child support of any kind she tells me, or even wants it. She is now expecting me to start paying more because she is struggling on mat leave and expecting me to pick up the slack.

Our agreement states that child support can be reviewed each June after income tax so I know she is going to request more now, she's already tried to "threaten" me. I've read that I can have her income imputed as she is on mat leave now and has been since July/14 so her income tax assessment will be substantially lower. She was maybe only making $30,000 a year with her two jobs so I'm afraid that I'll be paying out the a@! for the whole year coming up to make up for this. How would I go about defending my side of things or have someone look at her assessments or imputing her wage if she decides to try to use the table amounts solely to determine the new CS payments?

I understand and I'll always support my child no problems with that, but because she is on mat leave and didn't want the other father around, I should not be penalized because of that. Any advice or opinions would be helpful. Our agreement was done with a lawyer and the ex agreed to the terms, so the courts were never involved or registered with anyone like that. I've never come across a situation where the ex already has another child and ex and father is not in the picture, so I thought someone may have some insight on this.

Thanks!
 
I've read cases where ex-wives get pregnant go on mat leave and the ex-husbands have to pay extra child support because for some reason the ex-husband is still responsible to pick up the slack of the ex-wife deciding to have more babies with other men. One of the only "decisions" a person can make to reduce their income which the other spouse has to compensate for - kind of sick.....

You can argue that she is entitled to CS from the other father (do you really know she isn't getting it?) but I am not sure that changes anything. You are probably better off claiming to be the father of the second child anf pursuing that dad for CS, it will be cheaper than 2 dads paying CS for 1 child each LOL :)
 
I have no experience with CS but would like to comment that if the mother decided to take a leave of absence to be a pole dancer in Siberia would you be okay with that? Her getting pregnant/taking maternity leave to have someone else's kid should not impact what you are supposed to pay for your own child. I'd definitely challenge this one. Let her go after the father of the new child.
 
If it were only that simple Links17 lol, he makes triple of what I do so that would be nice. My ex apparently has a peace bond against him, the whole situation is very intertwined now as she already has a new boyfriend but he is not obligated to support this new child or mine.

I agree with you arabian, it's not my fault she decided to get pregnant with a deadbeat and decided not to peruse on getting cs from him because it was to "hard on her emotions". He owes for her new child, I owe for mine, end of story, or so you'd think..
 
Again I have to say I have no specific knowledge of child support. I do think your lawyer should have income imputed. I'd focus on your situation and if she wants to be a "breeder" and have children with multiple men it is of no concern to you financially. Your obligation begins and ends with your child - no one else's. I'd get after this asap. Others with knowledge of the legal process relating to child support will have advice.
 
honestdad said:
...My ex receives child support from me, we agreed on an amount close to table, but not doing the offset even though we've had 50/50 shared custody/access to our little one for over two...

...She has since had another child who is now a few months old, but the father is not in the picture or ever has been. I believe she listed the father on the birth certificate as "unknown" so he does not have any obligations for child support of any kind she tells me, or even wants it...
Click to expand...

You are not responsible for new children, that your ex chooses to have with other men. They are.

How "off" from table amounts are you paying now?
Does your current agreement state that you have 50/50 access, or is the agreement outdated, from before this was the case?
 
Even if biodad2 was in the picture, she'd likely be taking maternity leave. And having a kid is not an unreasonable life choice ... unlike being intentionally unemployed for no good reason. So I'm thinking you might be liable for the CS increase while due to her reduced income while she is on mat leave.

But otherwise, no liability for you. Her additional kid-costs are hers to bear (and whether she pursues biodad2 or not is her choice).
 
dad2bandm said:
You are not responsible for new children, that your ex chooses to have with other men. They are.

How "off" from table amounts are you paying now?
Does your current agreement state that you have 50/50 access, or is the agreement outdated, from before this was the case?
Click to expand...

I've actually been overpaying about $50 more each month, I won't go back to re-claim money but I just want this all sorted out. Our agreement states which days we have her per week, which are 50/50, down to a two hour difference, but it states shared custody as well. The agreement was done up this summer, while she was on leave, so it is updated, but we agreed to revisit it this upcoming fall, plus it states child support can be adjusted each July.
 
dinkyface said:
Even if biodad2 was in the picture, she'd likely be taking maternity leave. And having a kid is not an unreasonable life choice ... unlike being intentionally unemployed for no good reason. So I'm thinking you might be liable for the CS increase while due to her reduced income while she is on mat leave.

But otherwise, no liability for you. Her additional kid-costs are hers to bear (and whether she pursues biodad2 or not is her choice).
Click to expand...

That's where it gets tricky. I've read multiple cases that when the ex goes on mat leave the payer can still pay more based off of their updated income tax. I just hate to have to pay more when she could be clearly getting more from biodad2 but instead thinks I need to make up for the difference and pay full table amount based on her new income which is a result of a baby from biodad2.

I think though she is technically being under payed in a sense as she should be getting CS from biodad2 as well and not only I should be paying her based on her income, but that's her choice to not have him involved, very complex and who knows how a court would look at it.
 
CS is based on HER income. BIODad2's/partner's income irrelevant. So the fact that he is absent is irrelevant to you paying increased CS during her mat-leave. Don't muddle up the CS rules.

But I agree, it is a crapshoot in court. You might get lucky. Search here for similar cases CanLII.
 
There have been very recent cases (like within the past 1-2 years) which have said that while mat-leave is under-employment, it is not unreasonable due to the circumstances. That the mothers income should be what she would receive on EI, and will be updated once they return to work.

It sounds as if you already pay near guideline C/S for a child you have 50/50. If this is the case, I would focus on updating c/s to be offset, with the ex's income imputed to at least EI, and then pay accordingly.

The ex cannot unreasonably extend her mat-leave. The court case I recall provided that 12-15 month leave wasn't unreasonable. But the mothers intention to take an extra year off on top was unreasonable, and their full income should be imputed to them.

I think you are going to have to see if you can mitigate some of the extra amount payable by moving to the offset regime. You likely can't mitigate all of it, possibly not any of it during the mat-leave period. But if you can move to offset now, and continue it once the ex returns to work, you may have endured some short term pain for long term gain.
 
Thanks for the great info/opinions everyone. My emotions on this obviously think that I shouldn't be held responsible for paying extra for her having a child with someone else, and then not seeking C/S from him, but continues to think I owe her more.

I know I could potentially owe her from July 2014 when she started her leave, but she agreed on the amount I pay now(and have been paying for the past two years), after she already left work. So you think that would say something, I would hope anyways.

I'm hoping I could have her income imputed from her last years income tax or have a 3 year average and then go to the offset method. If she wants back pay from July/14 of nearly double each month, I could say I want the $50 or so back each month for the past two years I have overpaid, no?

Either way this is going to be a battle I'm sure as she is very greedy and tries to get every penny from me but yet lets biodad2 off scott free, that's the frustrating part.
 
honestdad said:
... think that I shouldn't be held responsible for paying extra for her having a child with someone else, and then not seeking C/S from him, but continues to think I owe her more.
Click to expand...

Again ... according to CS rules, even if she was getting CS from him, it would not affect what you owe during the mat leave period.
 
You can't have her income imputed just because she is on childbirth/parental leave. She is perfectly entitled to take this leave - it is not a voluntary reduction of income. You may not like the fact that she has chosen to have more kids, but her reproductive choices are none of your business any more.

My ex (50/50 offset) took a partial leave from work because his new wife had some health problems, and his income dropped. Is it wrong and unfair that I should have to "pay extra" because he decided to marry someone with medical issues? No - his life choices are not my business, and what he is doing by temporarily reducing his hours is reasonable.

Similarly, you may not like the fact that the father of your ex's new baby is not paying CS (how do you know this to be true, by the way?) but this is also none of your business. You are not "paying extra" because she had a child with someone else, you are paying the appropriate amount given your incomes and life situations.

In short - your ex has the right to have children without being financially penalized by you. Parental leave is short-term, she'll be expected to be back at work pretty quickly. Just let this one alone, it will resolve itself.
 
Well and that's fair. I agree that it's my obligation to support my child when her mother's income drops for any reason, as it would be for her if I were making less between the two of us. I guess I was just looking for any situations that has a biodad2 who is out of the picture if that would effect anything for me or help me build a case.

I understand that if she has the C/S re-calculated come July 2015, based off of her mat leave and 2014 income tax I would then be paying double for the whole next year until re-evaluated in July 2016. If she want's any sort of back pay though I would fight it as she agreed to the amount after she was already off work, and has been living just fine with what I've been providing.

Thanks again
 
I am confused by this thread. Perhaps I missed something in reading, but I thought OP was paying "near table support", but then later he mentions he is paying $50 more a month, table support? OP, which is it, right now?

Right now, he says they do not do offset support (as they should be, given the 50/50 access).

So if ex says "I want more support money, because I'm on mat leave", isn't OP already covered, if he is indeed paying "$50 more a month" of table support? He's already paying table support. Ex-wife's income has nothing to do with this, whether she is on mat-leave or not. That would only come into play, if they switch to offset support. Or is that the issue, being asked now?

OP, wouldn't you be paying considerably less on offset support, even if wife is on mat-leave, than you are now? That must be, if you are anywhere near close to table amounts. I doubt she's up to accepting offset support (you will likely need to get this via court). So I guess, what is the issue then?

Is the issue, related to "why should my offset support be temporarily higher, while she's on materity leave" - if we ever go that route?
 
CS question/recalc

Reading all this makes it a bit confusing. Lets go back to the first post. You pay just under table amount because you agreed to it and you have kid about 50/50. Now ex is asking for more. Two questions: how much more is it to bring to full table for one child on her EI income? Is she asking for table amount for two kids?

Judging by what has been posted you have a couple of options. You could tell her you will pay full table amount for your child while she is on mat leave but nothing more or you could tell her to get bent on costs for kids that arent your own and/or her extended mat leave.

Regardless of her mat leave income, it is her income which would be used for off set calculations. To have her inputted to a non mat leave income will require court. To have the access schedule changed (if it isnt in the order) to create an off set situation will require court. Ask yourself what is cheaper: going to court to set off set and imputted income or agreeing to full table support for a specific period of time? From what youve posted, full table for the remainder of a reasonable mat leave would be cheaper.

Just my observatory two cents.

ETA: agree with dad2bandm. Give us the info on what the access agreement is (the one in writing from the court) to help understand. If the agreement is 50/50 access for off set then yes her income impacts. If its not and youre paying full support, her income has no bearing. Just the table amounts for your child is pertinent.
 
Last edited:
OP,

If you aren't currently following a shared custody offset child support payment situation right now, then use this:

Child Support Table Look-up

Is what you're paying now, equal to this? If not, the difference, is all you "owe" your ex, for *your* child; no other children. If you already pay this to your ex, then she can get bent.

As already suggested, you really need to work on moving to an offset payment situation, since you say you share 50/50 access.
 
Sorry for any confusion!
We don't have a court order, just an agreement we came up with talking to a lawyer and both signed. (Were never married)

Right now I pay $50 more a month than what the offset amount would be if she were working full time. The lawyer stated that I was way underpaying as the calculations are based off of current net income which hers was so low at the time because she was already on leave(which later I found out is not always true and usually the income tax return is used to calculate). All it states is *I will pay monthly child support to ex in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines in the amount of $XXX.*
Nothing stating offset or anything, even though we have 50/50 shared custody with 50/50 equal access, my lawyer was an idiot. That's why I'm just trying to sort this all out.

I get that sooner or later I will probably end up having to pay her more for a full year as her income dropped while away from work, but I wanted to know if I could argue that I've been overpaying her already for the past two years,(and 6 months since our legal agreement started) if that could be taken into account when CS is recalculated in the summer and if I owe her any sort of back-pay.

She is not asking me for any money for her second child, but I just thought her not claiming CS from the other father would benefit me when she tries to claim more from me seeing as she has been doing fine without his money and my current payment. I understand that part now though so that's covered and I can't win anything from that perspective, which is why I thought I could maybe have her income imputed for next years payment calculation since it's done every July.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top