You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Full Support wording question
- Thread starter cpartener
- Start date
We're battling the understanding of custody agreement with the ex.
~ We understood it to be shared custody/parenting with offset support commencing this month.
~ She believes she has "primary custody" and is entitled to full support.
We agreed to the first year of full support to get her to sign the agreement, but starting this month it was supposed to be offset.
"The parties will adjust Table support paid each year and the proportions for s.7 expenses based on their income for the prior calendar year. ...the parties will exchange tax returns for the prior calendar year. The revised Table amount/pro-rata shares shall take effect as of ..."
We are within the 40/60 split, but she has more time.
~ We understood it to be shared custody/parenting with offset support commencing this month.
~ She believes she has "primary custody" and is entitled to full support.
We agreed to the first year of full support to get her to sign the agreement, but starting this month it was supposed to be offset.
"The parties will adjust Table support paid each year and the proportions for s.7 expenses based on their income for the prior calendar year. ...the parties will exchange tax returns for the prior calendar year. The revised Table amount/pro-rata shares shall take effect as of ..."
We are within the 40/60 split, but she has more time.
She did submit her taxes and we've calculated the offset amount, but she says we owe full support, not offset.
Someone else had said the wording said offset to them.
I just wondered if it would even ask her for her taxes if it wasn't offset.
nfc4ever, I hadn't thought about the fact that the clause included s.7.
Someone else had said the wording said offset to them.
I just wondered if it would even ask her for her taxes if it wasn't offset.
nfc4ever, I hadn't thought about the fact that the clause included s.7.
How long have you been paying full table support? Depending on your situation, both incomes and the duration of full support automatically going to offset table amounts may not be in the best interest of the child.
Read the CS guidelines, it says that if you reach 40, offset MAY be applied, but doesn't necessarily mean it MUST. She would have to present her case and reasoning on why offset would not apply in your situation even if you reach 40% threshold.
Read the CS guidelines, it says that if you reach 40, offset MAY be applied, but doesn't necessarily mean it MUST. She would have to present her case and reasoning on why offset would not apply in your situation even if you reach 40% threshold.
I want to say about 2 years, but not "officially" the first year. We'll call my spouse "George", the ex "Jane" and the children "Judy" 5 and "Elroy" 10.
Jane was earning more than George when they separated. Just before the proceedings started she "left" her job and took a position earning 30k less. Knowing that Jane has a hard time keeping a job, we had her salary imputed. George agreed to pay full support at the outset of the process before realizing how long Jane would drag it out and because he was on the 40% bubble at the time. Jane wouldn't sign the final agreement unless George agreed to 1 year of full support, even though he was within 40/60.
We knew that this last year would be hard to make ends meet with paying the full support amount, but there was no other way to get an agreement done. This June was the light at the end of the tunnel.
(side note, I own/pay mortgage/bills on a separate home where I support my elderly mother. I contribute nothing to George's mortgage/bills.)
George provides an equal amount of parental care and financial support for the children when they're with him. Jane took all of the children's belongings when the household was divided leaving George to rebuild their home from scratch (clothing, toys, furniture, necessities, etc). Jane does not provide any items for the care of the children outside of their daily backpack/lunch bag.
We don't want to claim undue hardship, but without itemizing George vs Jane's lifestyle, our household’s standard of living is lower than Jane's standard of living. George has unusually high debts incurred to support the family before the separation (George took on all of the shared marital debt to remove it from the equation). Jane received a large payout on George's pension and a greater portion of the proceeds from the sale of their home as funds from her previous home had been used (and although not a factor per se, Jane's family is very wealthy). The amount of full support make it difficult to pay the required amount, let alone even conceive of planning for Judy/Elroy's future by starting an RESP.
We know that a reduction in CS to the offset should not affect the children in our situation and we can’t fathom what argument Jane could possibly have except plain greed.
Jane was earning more than George when they separated. Just before the proceedings started she "left" her job and took a position earning 30k less. Knowing that Jane has a hard time keeping a job, we had her salary imputed. George agreed to pay full support at the outset of the process before realizing how long Jane would drag it out and because he was on the 40% bubble at the time. Jane wouldn't sign the final agreement unless George agreed to 1 year of full support, even though he was within 40/60.
We knew that this last year would be hard to make ends meet with paying the full support amount, but there was no other way to get an agreement done. This June was the light at the end of the tunnel.
(side note, I own/pay mortgage/bills on a separate home where I support my elderly mother. I contribute nothing to George's mortgage/bills.)
George provides an equal amount of parental care and financial support for the children when they're with him. Jane took all of the children's belongings when the household was divided leaving George to rebuild their home from scratch (clothing, toys, furniture, necessities, etc). Jane does not provide any items for the care of the children outside of their daily backpack/lunch bag.
We don't want to claim undue hardship, but without itemizing George vs Jane's lifestyle, our household’s standard of living is lower than Jane's standard of living. George has unusually high debts incurred to support the family before the separation (George took on all of the shared marital debt to remove it from the equation). Jane received a large payout on George's pension and a greater portion of the proceeds from the sale of their home as funds from her previous home had been used (and although not a factor per se, Jane's family is very wealthy). The amount of full support make it difficult to pay the required amount, let alone even conceive of planning for Judy/Elroy's future by starting an RESP.
We know that a reduction in CS to the offset should not affect the children in our situation and we can’t fathom what argument Jane could possibly have except plain greed.
So she's hanging on the word 'primary' as the justification for full-table CS. That's ALL she has to argue with. I've never seen that rule ANYWHERE - it's bogus: offset vs full table CS depends on TIME only (and judge's discretion of child's best interest i.e. financial abilities in both households)
So she's hanging on the word 'primary' as the justification for full-table CS. That's ALL she has to argue with. I've never seen that rule ANYWHERE - it's bogus: offset vs full table CS depends on TIME only (and judge's discretion of child's best interest i.e. financial abilities in both households)
Correct - and it doesn't even say she's the primary parent, just that "The children shall have primary residence with [Jane]."
The OCL report listed "primary residency for the the purpose of determining the school that the children will attend".