LOA and child support payments

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

momoftwo2

New member
Hi. Is it legal for my ex to take a 3 week LOA (he is on a contract so doesn't have vacation time) for a trip and then not pay one child support payment becuase he claims he hasn't had an income and therefore does not have to pay support? He did pay alimony.

If not legal how do I prove this to him without a lawyer? I cannot afford one.

Thanks.
 
He cant just stop paying child support because he decides to take a LOA. If he can afford the trip then he can afford to pay the child support. He may have an income for the three weeks but he should have saved up some money to pay for the CS.
 
No, he can't do that. CS is determined by his line 150 on his taxes. If he's taking LOA and it affects his overall income it will show up on his taxes and can be adjusted at that time to accomodate. But in the meantime, he can't just book off work without pay and inform you that he won't be paying.

YOU don't have to prove anything to him. If he thinks he is right then HE can find the legal proof that this is common acceptable practice and provide the proof to you.

If it continues I'd be tempted to file with FRO. Then he can try to argue his ridiculousness with them and see how far he gets.
 
He is still employed. His 3 week LOA wouldn't even be considered by a judge for many reasons, a big one is that is was willful. Meaning, he is choosing to under-employ himself for those three weeks. Therefore, that income should be imputed to him.
 
Agreed... He can't just decide not to pay because he took a LOA... I would inform him that you expect that money, and unless he has a court order stating he does not have to pay he is now in arrears... I agree that maybe getting in contact with FRO because who knows if he will attempt this again.
 
Sorry standing, duct, masking, painting, shipping, electrical, wrapping etc tapes just dont cut it and not to mention crazy gule doesn't work either lol
 
HammerDad said:
He is still employed. His 3 week LOA wouldn't even be considered by a judge for many reasons, a big one is that is was willful. Meaning, he is choosing to under-employ himself for those three weeks. Therefore, that income should be imputed to him.
Click to expand...

Huh? He is taking vacation time - this is NOT underemployment. It is reasonable for someone to take time of work - he suffers more than anyone financially when not working.

The end result is that he should pay child support according to his actual income. One way (the best way in my opinion) is to adjust every year based on the previous year tax return. This would handle his situation.

Another way is to adjust on the fly and then balance it perhaps at the end of the year retroactively if it was not accurate. He is attempting to do this, but generally this is not how things are done.

Is there a separation agreement that states how CS is adjusted? He should follow that if so. This may explain to some extent why he decided to pay spousal and not child while he was not working - if spousal is not dependent on his current income and child support is.

If you don't have an agreement that says how to adjust CS, you need to come up with a method that in the end results in his paying CS according to what he actually makes, adjusting when his income changes, preferably on a yearly basis, and not the way he is doing it weekly.
 
billm said:
Huh? He is taking vacation time - this is NOT underemployment. It is reasonable for someone to take time of work - he suffers more than anyone financially when not working.
Click to expand...

His LOA is:

1. vacation at best; or
2. under-employment at worst (because he is not being paid for the duration by choice.

Either way, a judge isn't even going to consider such a such duration as being unemployed, especially when the "unemploymen" was for a vacation.
 
bill has it bang on as usual. It was a prick move for him to pull on the fly, but unless you have a legal order stating how the CS payments are calculated, there isn't much you can do.

(Albeit after this move, you should definitely have the method used go forward clarified).

What he is claiming is akin to him saying he shouldn't pay CS over the summer if he has the child. It's not how it works. CS is for the child, and is used for the upkeep/etc of the child's residence. Just because the child isn't there for a few weeks, doesn't mean the residence and upkeep costs go away.

Either use line 150 and calculate yearly (most common method) or calculate on the fly every pay day. The first is more common, mainly because the second, while the most legally applicable method...is a HUGE pain in the ass.
 
HammerDad said:
His LOA is:

1. vacation at best; or
2. under-employment at worst (because he is not being paid for the duration by choice.

Either way, a judge isn't even going to consider such a such duration as being unemployed, especially when the "unemploymen" was for a vacation.
Click to expand...

I don't agree.

Everyone takes time off work. No one gets paid for it. CS should be based on actual income, not extrapolated income if you work 8x5x52.

Holy crap - can't we all decide for ourselves when to take time of work? He wasn't paid - he suffers more than anyone else. He has a right to not work all the time and chose his lifestyle, which effects his kids, as it was before divorce (or for single parents).
 
I do agree with Hammerhead...just because he chose to take vacation doesn't mean he gets to stop CS payments because he isn't getting paid. He is entitled to vacation, no one is disputing that, but he is not entitled to suspend CS payments because he is not getting paid.
 
Berner_Faith said:
I do agree with Hammerhead...just because he chose to take vacation doesn't mean he gets to stop CS payments because he isn't getting paid. He is entitled to vacation, no one is disputing that, but he is not entitled to suspend CS payments because he is not getting paid.
Click to expand...

It's unorthodox but not necessarily incorrect. In the end, all that matters is how much did he make that year and how much CS did he pay.

He probably has it wrong though.

What is his CS based on anyway? Some random number, or income based CS table value?? I
 
How do you figure its not incorrect? He can't just decide to not pay support because he decided not to work. Does that mean when she takes vacation then he is responsible for paying all the children's bills without her help? I highly doubt he will go for that. Bring it in front of a Judge and allow him to argue that he took vacation time so he shouldn't have to pay...the Judge won't fall for that.
 
I can take time off work as I have 4 weeks vacation a year. If I choose to take anything above and beyond those 4 weeks, I don't get paid.

Because I am willfully not working, a court would determine that I could've been working and thus impute my income to an amount equal to what I should have earned.

Yeah, this guy can take a vacation all he wants. But he doesn't get to unilaterally reduce his c/s because he chooses not to be employed for 3 weeks.

Also, look at how bad this appears anyway. This guy is trying to reduce c/s just so that he can go on a vacation (likely a trip). So he spends probably $1-2k out of his pocket, then tries to claw some of it back from c/s because he chooses not to earn an income?

This is a LOA, not unemployment and it is a short duration. He would be entitled to a reduction had he really been unemployed, and receiving EI or something. But he isn't unemployed, he still has a job. What he is trying to do is really distasteful.
 
Look, according to the numbers and the fact that he has no "income" he can argue not to pay CS, technically he has a case.

HOWEVER, no judge is going to let him get away with that for 2 reasons:
1. it is unfair to the child and creates huge problems with CS calculations. It should be a simple thing to calculate, so there are no arguments

2. it would set a presedence for every deadbeat parent and a loophole that would back the court up for the next century!
 
Except he does have source of income...but he is choosing not to act upon that. It is the exact same as being willingly unemployed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top