How come Family Law makers won't...

T

thefunone

New member
I'm just wondering why Family Law is reluctant to change CS...and where I am going with this relates to Table amounts.
I currently pay Table amount of CS because I am unable to reach the 40% threshold to have shared parenting. My work prevents this - and until I can later that - I am currently at about 32%.
Is it so difficult to set up a graduated scale of CS payment based on the some formula taking into account the number of hours or days the OP has with the children?
I could turn my back on my kids (which I would never do) and still only pay what is the Table amount.
Yet when I have the kids - I buy food - have beds for them to sleep in - they use utilities - I buy clothes - gifts - meals out - spend gas to take them to their activities - car wear etc...
Has any lawyer or action group ever lobbied to try to get the rules concerning CS altered? If not....why not?

I'm not disputing the need for CS - but an all or nothing based on a threshold of 40% access time seems very one-sided.

Maybe I'm just living in a fantasy land

cheers
 
You have a good idea, it just the logistics that would be a nightmare.

How to figure out the hours especially with holidays etc would be very hard. Does the CS amount get changed every month due to maybe having more hours or less hours?

Easy to say that things should be changed, harder to do. What are your ideas on this?
 
How do they determine 40%??
Is it nights you have the kids?
is it 'days' you are deemed to be in care/charge of the kids? If the kids come to my house after school and I am home all day and I am the person of contact for that day- does that count?
is it hours?
As for vacations - I would suspect they would cancel themselves out.
I agree - it can me a logistical nightmare...but maybe there should be levels then..0-10% of the time...10-20%...20-30%...then 30-40%.

I currently pay 1610.00/mth - 2 kids - Table amount
If I get to 39%...I still pay that.
If I get to 40%...it drops by 650.00

If they can drop CS then...why can't they drop it gradually as you move away from the 40% threshold?

Just think this is a very unfair position for the payor ...man or woman...
 
Actually, regardless of the time the children are with each parent they should look at the logistics. We provide each child with their own room. They have their own laptops, bikes, clothing here. From winter wear to rain boots. Fishing rods, etc. Our costs are the same but we fund everything twice - at their mothers and again here. In fact, many times we fund it multiple times since some stuff goes there and falls into a black hole if you know what I mean.
 
Serene said:
Actually, regardless of the time the children are with each parent they should look at the logistics. We provide each child with their own room. They have their own laptops, bikes, clothing here. From winter wear to rain boots. Fishing rods, etc. Our costs are the same but we fund everything twice - at their mothers and again here. In fact, many times we fund it multiple times since some stuff goes there and falls into a black hole if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

I got some stuff back from the black hole unexpectedly the other day. It was weird! But lucky for me, my ex's black hole stems from forgetfulness and disorganization, not malice.
 
Serene said:
Actually, regardless of the time the children are with each parent they should look at the logistics. We provide each child with their own room. They have their own laptops, bikes, clothing here. From winter wear to rain boots. Fishing rods, etc. Our costs are the same but we fund everything twice - at their mothers and again here. In fact, many times we fund it multiple times since some stuff goes there and falls into a black hole if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

Honestly the material stuff isn't as important. You buy clothes and it is assumed mom buy clothes, same with bikes, etc. I think the biggest think is housing. We bought a three bedroom house and just built a forth. Our housing costs are the same whether we have the kids 20%, 30%, 40% or 80%. The only thing that really changes is our food costs and maybe utility costs slightly. If it is working for Quebec why can't it work in other provinces?
 
We pay full guideline amount and then some. And we get emails for us to buy shoes for the kids. Why? Why does she even think this is appropriate?
 
I beg to differ about the material stuff. It costs a fortune to clothe kids and put them in winter wear because they don't come with anyone. And then times that by 5 kids... we have a six bedroom home and we designed it ourselves to ensure every kid got relatively the same size room.

Then outfit every kid in their chosen sports. And then add gas. I'm sure we spend 200$ a month now that we aren't idling in her drive way for 20-30 min 3 times a week and not carting them back and forth every night just for them to sleep there and come back here in the morning.

...school uniforms. Field trips. School fees....
 
Well I guess we will disagree on that. I went into my relationship knowing he had two kids, knowing he paid child support. I fully accepted this and have also accepted the fact that we buy our own clothes because what she chooses to dress them in is not what we dress them in, we have accepted the fact we will have to put them in activities with no contribution from her. That is just par for the course when you get into a relationship with someone who has kids.

The original question regarding CS isn't about what extras we decide the buy the kids, it's about the calculation and it doesn't matter how it is calculated, our costs towards the children would remain the same. Sure it would be nice to have a little more money every month, but that's where I come in and make more money, instead of relying on my partner to do so. I would rather work harder and get further ahead than have him miss out on time with his children just so she can receive more money.
 
The original question regarding CS isn't about what extras we decide the buy the kids, it's about the calculation and it doesn't matter how it is calculated, our costs towards the children would remain the same. Sure it would be nice to have a little more money every month, but that's where I come in and make more money, instead of relying on my partner to do so. I would rather work harder and get further ahead than have him miss out on time with his children just so she can receive more money.[/QUOTE]

Berner - I think that that is admirable on your part - but some posters don't have the luxury (as it were) of having a new partner who is able to do what you do

....that 'little' extra can go a long way for us single parents...

As stated previously...if it can be done in Quebec what is holding Ontario back?
 
Berner - I think that that is admirable on your part - but some posters don't have the luxury (as it were) of having a new partner who is able to do what you do

....that 'little' extra can go a long way for us single parents...

As stated previously...if it can be done in Quebec what is holding Ontario back?
Click to expand...

This is not "little extras" especially when you are paying over $1500 a month for two children in child support. We have ALREADY paid for all these items and therefore are paying twice. That in itself is not fair.

Furthermore, these aren't choices to be made. If the kids don't come with snowpants - you have to buy them to be able to play outside. And don't forget we even get emails "go buy them shoes" or boots or whatever.

And here is the thing: Single parent or two parents in the household - our CS is based on the payors income. It is also equalized with SS so that the payor is "income sharing". However, the mom works and lives with her husband who has a respectful income. All that to say, the payor (my husband) actually takes home much less. And so be it, we are not complaining about the arrangement of SS or CS per say. However, he already is starting out with less and then is expected to contribute to another home to provide all the "day to day" necessities for the children and he does without argument. And then he gets to do it all again since the CS doesn't cover all those "day to day" necessities. And that isn't fair.

Of course, the mom in our situation is less than helpful. I also wish that the education for the children was prorated NOW. Parents should be told up front that they should be putting money away for their kids after divorce. We have been diligently putting money away and yet as stated above, dad actually has less to go around. Seems very backward.

Does anyone have a link for the Quebec model (in layman's terms)?
 
Amen...
I simply went to CanLii - went to Quebec - and simply searched child support determination - the first hit was the paper indicating how CS should be apportioned.

Regulation respecting the determination of child support payments


Item 4
It simply refers to different form to be filled out if the payor has the children between 20%-40% of the time

Sorry for the large font - it was the way it copied over
 
I buy clothes and other items for my kids because I don't want my kids feeling like they are 'visiting' daddy...that they have to bring clothes over to use...etc - having stuff for them at my place only re-inforces (I hope) that they have a home with me...that it is their home as well.
 
thefunone said:
I buy clothes and other items for my kids because I don't want my kids feeling like they are 'visiting' daddy...that they have to bring clothes over to use...etc - having stuff for them at my place only re-inforces (I hope) that they have a home with me...that it is their home as well.
Click to expand...

That is exactly it. Yes CS is supposed to go towards clothes, but if the kids have to pack a bag every time they go to the other parents house, it isn't really their home, it is no different then spending a weekend with a relative. Snow pants are probably replaced by most families 2-3 time a winter because they get destroyed or lost. My point was, as a new partner, I knew my partners obligations and those obligations will continue for many years to come. I can't just walk into the picture and complain about it. Whether he pays $1000, $1500 or $500, it wouldn't change the fact that we provide just has much at our house as Mom does.

Do I think the tables are fair? Not really, but there isn't much to be done about it at this time. And my point was, if one chooses to buy a house to accommodate all children having their own bedrooms, those housing costs do not change whether you have the children 25%, 50% or 100% of the time. Your mortgage is the same, your gas/oil is most likely the same. Hydro may differ with more bodies in the house. Food costs will go up with extra mouths to feed. The basic housing costs do not change.
 
So....going back to my original post in this - how or why is it that Ontario can't provide a graduated system?
Do we have to seek or start a movement to address this issue?
If it is lawyers/judges/legal beagles who create the SSAGs and set the tables...can they not also see the impact this has on those that pay yet have a period of access where a reduction in costs would facilitate the kids having equal amenities at both homes?
 
I suspect the reason for having two divide points only (at 40% and at 60%) is probably logistics and inertia.

Logistics
If the system had a sliding scale with, say, divide points every 10%, then there would be nine of them instead of two, and there could be 4.5 times as many opportunities to fight about how much one has the kids.

Inertia
Lawmakers currently see a system in place that seems fair at first glance. It's not until you really get into it that you see where it falls down, due to its roots in the whole kids go with the mom while dad earns the money idea. Any lawmaker who does have personal experience with the system is probably either a payor who has no time to fight, or a recipient who has no desire to change anything.

Personally, I'd love to see 50-50 access with half-offset CS just be the standard. Deviating from it would have to be done by mutual agreement or by a judge with a valid reason, and situation specific access and CS recalculations could be done at that time.
 
I don't know if there would end up being 9...once the 40% is reached it would result in the CS offset and then if it continued it would just reverse the other way...
Still frustrated.....arrrrgh...

LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top