Fingers Crossed :D

Wow TAyken - I did something I seldom do... I read your post LOL. You conveniently quoted posts I made about the time when you were going off the wall and accusing me of a distortion campaign against you. Wow.

Anyhow, that was then, and now is now. You took a break for a few months and now you're back fresh and revitalized. I hope you are feeling better now.

Kindest regards Tayken. Many are so happy you are back to your old self now.
 
Note to all:

Not the number of posts from the poster in question. How random they are and odd. It doesn't take anyone with a business card to realize what they are dealing with when responding to the poster in question. The flow of postings to this thread from this poster is prime evidence in support of what Happydays and others (Mess, Blink, FaithAndMorals, myself and others) have all pointed out with regards to this poster in question.

Other than "conflict" not sure what the poster in question has actually "contributed" in this thread?

I'll let NBDad be the judge of that as he is an actually respected poster and his thread has been vandalized, as often happens when this poster in question offers "advice".

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
Arabian, 4 posts in a ten minute span is spamming the message board. Please re-read the board rules.

Please do not instruct other members how and what to post. The moderators are fully capable of addressing anything inappropriate.

I have yet to see you use the quote function, so it is doubly inappropriate for you to be instructing others to do so.
 
Mess said:
Arabian, 4 posts in a ten minute span is spamming the message board. Please re-read the board rules.

Please do not instruct other members how and what to post. The moderators are fully capable of addressing anything inappropriate.

I have yet to see you use the quote function, so it is doubly inappropriate for you to be instructing others to do so.
Click to expand...

I use the quote function frequently.

Thank you for information regarding spamming. In the future I will limit my responses in a more time-sensitive manner which adheres to the forum rules.

Insofar as instructing members how and what to post. That certainly wan't my intention. I guess I should merely use the alert button in the future if something is offensive. Again, thank you for pointing this rule out to me and others.
 
Thanks to everyone that offered good vibes....to clarify some of the points that were made:

I'm sure when she was 'popping' out those children of yours, you were fully involved in the decision to have children and endorsed her staying at home to care for them at the time
Click to expand...

I did not endorse her staying home. She always returned to work shortly after the birth of any of our shared children. She was working up until October 2010, the final divorce order was signed November 2010. It had a clause in there that in hindsight should not have been worded the way it was. (She gave birth in Dec. 2010 to her oldest children with her new husband, she had JUST come off of a round of being homeless,and was back on social assistance while she "waited for her mat leave to kick in".)

The clause states that "no cs would be paid until she becomes employed". The understanding was that she would be on assistance until her mat leave began, and would be seeking to return to work after her mat leave ran out. That never happened.

She has not worked since, breaking the past pattern that was established with the other children.

You might also want to be careful about referring to "mat leave" as welfare
Click to expand...

Her words, not mine. I know how the system works, there are a total of 10 children full time in my household. She claimed she was on assistance until her mat leave kicked in...however she owes EI a significant sum of money and is disqualified from those programs until it's paid back.
 
WOOT....income imputed at 18000/year. The judge was very fair, and obviously put a lot of thought into his ruling.

He accepted the sequential pay stubs of hers that I submitted as evidence, despite her denials of them. (Mind you I have HER affidavits from 2 years ago that match the employer and the hours).

He basically gave her 30 days to offer proof to refute the paystubs and prove them incorrect. (Which she won't be able to do, hence why she has resisted releasing the info from that employer).

It was further indicated once she was employed, that we would use her current income (if it is lower, she has to prove that it's reasonable under the circumstances, and if she can offer sufficient evidence of this we are to adjust it. On the other hand, if it's higher than 18000/year we use the new income) Again, it gives her a BIT of an out, but in order to get it she has to provide proof that it's "reasonable". Since the lack of proof and support documentation is like 99% of the issue anyway, I can live with this requirement.

He stated he was forced to conclude that the information she had provided re: her NOA's were done to "deliberately mislead the court".

I did not get costs, despite being successful, nor did he order retro. As he put it, he is cognizant of the fact she is not currently employed, and this at least doesn't place her at an undue disadvantage. Fair enough, I can live with that. Something is better than nothing.

He also iterated that a parent's choice to stay home, while it may be what's best for the parent, does not trump the best interests of the children, who deserve their support. As she provided no evidence that either of her new children had an established "need" that precluded her from seeking employment, that argument was out the window.

A couple of points I take away, and offer as advice for any other seeking to impute an income:

1. Make sure you show evidence of available jobs in the area that your ex would qualify for. Neither I, nor she did so, and it was noted that this evidence was lacking in the judge's decision.

2. I included a couple of email chains where she indicated things like she would "not pay me a dime". If I had to do it over again, I would NOT have included these, as the judge noted they were not relevant.

3. I DID have an email chain where she offered support in exchange for more time with the kids. Emails like this ARE relevant as they show an ability to pay, on at least an implied level.

4. Her past ability to find jobs, even if they were at the low end of the pay scale, were noted. Basically she changed jobs a lot, but she WAS able to find work, even in the current economy.
 
Sounds like a fair and reasonable decision. Heartening to hear the judge focused on relevant facts (pay stubs) rather than conjecture. I think it was a good move for the judge to give her time to defend her position denying income (30 days). All in all a good day for you.
 
Yeah, overall I am happy with the decision. Though I'm now waiting for Hiroshima to hit. :D Seems like anytime something bad happens to her, we get some off the wall accusation occur.

Warned the lawyer and he said...and I quote "I hate stuff like that. They don't want to fuck with me. Pardon my language".

LMAO. Anyway, perfectly fair and reasonable to offer her an opportunity to provide some actual evidence to refute the paystubs. Fair to not hit her with retro or costs (she ISN'T working, maybe she'll start now).

I'm not expecting to see a dime of it, but at least now it's going to go through maintenance enforcement, so she'll be there headache to deal with.
 
NBDad said:
Yeah, overall I am happy with the decision. Though I'm now waiting for Hiroshima to hit. :D Seems like anytime something bad happens to her, we get some off the wall accusation occur.

Warned the lawyer and he said...and I quote "I hate stuff like that. They don't want to fuck with me. Pardon my language".

LMAO. Anyway, perfectly fair and reasonable to offer her an opportunity to provide some actual evidence to refute the paystubs. Fair to not hit her with retro or costs (she ISN'T working, maybe she'll start now).

I'm not expecting to see a dime of it, but at least now it's going to go through maintenance enforcement, so she'll be there headache to deal with.
Click to expand...

Considering the amount of times you have already had to deal with child services... It is highly probably you will have to deal with them again as a result. Or, get a call from them telling you that they got another complaint they are not going to bother investigating because well, their database is full of nonsense and they need to add a few more terabytes just to capture the most recent complaint properly.

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
The challenge you face is that the parent in question is receiving welfare. There is little motivation for any parent collecting government services and support like this to seek employment. The Family Court won't enforce the "best interests" test against the government services being provided and transfer any of the money being paid to you directly generally. I hate to be the bearer of bad news on that one possibly.
Probably to put it all even into more concern is that the other parent in your matter is probably receiving Legal Aid on top of the government support payments effectively doubling-down on the public coffers for their "support".

Welfare + Legal Aid - "It gives you wings..."

I wish I could figure out the quote function... If my XCL is currently on OW AND has Legal Aid should I have an expectation that she will NOT be expected to pay child support or in fact to be imputed an income as incentive to get OFF of OW? Does this also increase the chance of her getting SS because she IS on OW? She is claiming to have depression that is preventing her from seeking employment and is basis for a need for SS. I do not understand how this is a reasonable situation. Isn't the goal of Ontario Works to get people working again? If I am going to be obligated to support two households again I may well end up on Ontario Works myself because I cannot see how I would reasonably support both households especially when there is little real impediment for her to acquire full time employment even at minimum wage.
 
Sounds like you should find a woman who is employed.

On another thread you were advised that your XCL having a legal aid lawyer will have limitations as the certificate for legal aid is limited to a certain amount of hours. You say you have broken up with XCL 8 months ago and had her removed from one of your houses. You are now back with your ex-wife. You have 4 children - 3 adult children from your exwife and 1 15 yr old with the XCL. The 15 yr old lives with you and your exwife. Is this a correct summation of your situation?

If your XCL does get a judgement for SS then Ontario Works would be reimbursed in part by what you would pay to FRO.

SS is not automatic. Your XCL has to prove entitlement. I thought you mentioned on one of your posts that your XCL worked part time (or am I confusing another poster with you?).

Other posters will advise you on what, if any, your ex would be expected to pay while she collects Ontario Works. If it is determined she is entitled to SS it could very well equal the amount of CS. The net amount may be (zero).

If your XCL has medical certification that she is unable to work due to a medical condition, then it would be doubtful that a court would impute income to her.

I believe the court will be most concerned about the 15 yr old's needs.

If you are concerned about supporting 2 households (which I can understand) then perhaps the current spouse should be working and contributing or is she also unable to work?
 
Arabian, my wife works. I don't know why you would jump to the conclusion that she doesn't? I was concerned about something that was posted by Tayken. I had assumed that eventually (as in relatively soon) that OW will be expecting XCL to start working on getting back into the workforce. I was making reference to the fact that Tayken has posted that there is little incentive for someone on OW to actually move off the system. I understand why OW would be expecting her to try to get income from SS. I wanted clarification on the statement he made about recipients having little incentive to move off the system. If XCL is on OW then she has no income in the eyes of the court so what he seems to be saying is that they are not likely to impute her one as it will be the taxpayers who foot the bill for CS. If they do not impute her an income she does not have an obligation for CS, is this a status quo thing? If she does become employed will I have to then re-initiate court proceedings. I am not overly concerned about receiving child support from her. To get no order of CS but a SS order seems out of balance. It's obviously all conjecture right now anyways.
 
auroradiem said:
TIf I am going to be obligated to support two households again I may well end up on Ontario Works myself because I cannot see how I would reasonably support both households especially when there is little real impediment for her to acquire full time employment even at minimum wage.
Click to expand...


I was merely asking a question, and making an observation, based on your previous comment that you support two households.:eek:
 
I hope that my response answered your question then. Right now I do not support two households, I was for a little while when I moved out of my house.
 
So you currently pay no SS or CS to anyone? Or is your ex-wife (current spouse) receiving SS from you? Very confusing.

I guess you will have to wait for your XCL to prove entitlement. I'd make sure you examine the medical evidence carefully.
 
I am currently not paying SS or CS to anyone. There was never any SS requested or ordered when my wife and I separated. We never divorced, we had an interim custody agreement and then just worked out between ourselves any changes in the kids' residences etc. as they grew up. I can understand the confusion. My wife and I never divorced. We separated and each had another relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top