Paying Full Table CS with 50/50 Shared Parenting

LovingFather32 said:
I'm confused. It's up to her? But there's an order saying it's not up her, that she must seek employment.
Click to expand...

I guess it's the unspoken "or else". I presume the "or else" is imputed income. Nobody can actually be forced to work, just to suffer some consequences as a result of not working. Just like you can't physically force a child to eat broccoli, you can just enforce consequences. (or drown it in cheese sauce:p)
 
Then it's the court's problem if she isn't seeking work, not yours.

I'm not saying it's a good idea for her to stay home and not be employed, I'm saying that if you want to move to offset CS, which seems reasonable to me, imputing an income to her seems more straightforward than getting caught up in whether she is or is not complying with the order.
 
PeacefulMoments said:
I guess it's the unspoken "or else". I presume the "or else" is imputed income. Nobody can actually be forced to work, just to suffer some consequences as a result of not working. Just like you can't physically force a child to eat broccoli, you can just enforce consequences. (or drown it in cheese sauce:p)
Click to expand...
cheese sauce is great .. personally I mince garlic....the kids love my veggies. :-)
 
PeacefulMoments said:
I guess it's the unspoken "or else". I presume the "or else" is imputed income. Nobody can actually be forced to work, just to suffer some consequences as a result of not working. Just like you can't physically force a child to eat broccoli, you can just enforce consequences. (or drown it in cheese sauce:p)
Click to expand...
cheese sauce is great .. personally I mince garlic....the kids love my veggies. :-)
 
A judge can't order someone to work so I doubt the order specifically says she must obtain employment. Seeking (looking) for employment is very different than obtaining employment. No one can be forced to work, regardless of an order. Mom could get a part time job making under $10k a year and you would still be paying full CS. This is why your focus needs to be on imputing income rather than trying to force her to work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I would think also that the longer one waits to impute income then the better her argument that absence from the workforce is a factor that should be considered when contemplating imputing income. Wait 2 years? I wouldn't do that. The kid isn't "on the teat." Also I think you could possibly contemplate a few years of stalling tactics to go along with endless case conferences - the Ontario way.
 
Beachnana said:
If the only work she finds is in PQ Imhope you have a no relocate clause that's iron clad.
Click to expand...
Current order has nothing on mobility. But previous order did.

It would be an uphill battle at this point. D4 has a group of buddies in her school (her teacher even sent me an e-mail listing all of their names and describing how amazing, smart, patient and popular she is. (She was the only one that could name a baby kangaroo a "Joey" .. lol).

Also, if thats her next chess move (moving to PQ for work)..I have Gatineau a hop, skip and jump away from me .. maybe 10-15 mins.
 
"seeking"

"seeking"

Berner_Faith said:
A judge can't order someone to work so I doubt the order specifically says she must obtain employment. Seeking (looking) for employment is very different than obtaining employment.
Click to expand...
If you read the posts then you'll see Stripes said that she doesn't have to "seek" employment if she doesn't want to. I responded with "there's an order to seek employment" ... so seeking employment doesn't sound optional to me. Be sure to read the posts carefully.

--> permalink 20 ; pg. 2
 
I did read the posts. Her seeking employment could be looking at job postings every day. That is seeking employment. You have zero proof she isn't seeking employment. You're focus shouldn't be on proving she isn't seeking employment, your focus should be on imputing an income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Berner_Faith said:
I did read the posts. Her seeking employment could be looking at job postings every day. That is seeking employment. You have zero proof she isn't seeking employment. You're focus shouldn't be on proving she isn't seeking employment, your focus should be on imputing an income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Not sure where I wrote that my focus was on proving she wasn't seeking employment .. although it would be very easy by printing all the available jobs. So your theory that I have zero proof is faulty. If it was my focus I have very good proof she's not seeking.

My focus is on imputing income. I'm not forcing anyone to work..(geez ).. just to follow the judges orders and get offset going via imputed income or whatever else I need to do to to achieve that.
 
putting myself in your ex's shoes ( don't hate me) but I would not be rushing to work. She knows you would have to go through a motion to input income and if you do then she can get a job but until then a quick look on the Internet, maybe even a few lame interviews and she has "seeked" employment.

I think you need to budget for full CS for a while - that sucks for sure but the cost of having D4 50% of the time --- priceless.
 
Beachnana said:
putting myself in your ex's shoes ( don't hate me) but I would not be rushing to work. She knows you would have to go through a motion to input income and if you do then she can get a job but until then a quick look on the Internet, maybe even a few lame interviews and she has "seeked" employment.

I think you need to budget for full CS for a while - that sucks for sure but the cost of having D4 50% of the time --- priceless.
Click to expand...
Yep. Having 50/50 is priceless.

I was just curious if anyone else paid full CS in a shared custody. 50/50 position.

Too bad welfare just pours money around to anyone who doesn't feel like working. Ahhhhhh well....I'll pay for a few years ... then impute.
 
The welfare system does not reward recipients for working. If the job is lower pay and just meets the cutoff line the. They cutoff, so in most cases the person is worse off. Not here is no graduating scale. Work a year and we will allow you to wein yourself off by gradually reducing our support. Nope cut done your on your own. So unless a person can secure a job which nets more than welfare covering daycare, transportation, clothes, etc which are costs of going to work why bother!

I worked for quite a few years with people trying to get off welfare. They would get a job and loose every support already in place. Not a great incentive.

You will need to input income and wein her off yourself. Do not wait for the system to do it.
 
I was puzzled by the idea of a an order requiring a party to "seek employment" when it's so vague and unenforceable (what on earth does "seek employment" mean? Looking at kijiji every now and then? Sending out CVs?). Then it occurred to me that this might be in the order as a way of establishing that (in the opinion of the court) the party is employable and there are no barriers to his/her employment. An order to seek employment seems to be a way of saying "this person can be employed". That would be useful in an effort to impute income, whether or not the party actually does go out and look for work.
 
stripes said:
I was puzzled by the idea of a an order requiring a party to "seek employment" when it's so vague and unenforceable (what on earth does "seek employment" mean? Looking at kijiji every now and then? Sending out CVs?).
Click to expand...
It's my fault. I could have fought all that in the last SC ... but that's what OP wanted. They wanted me to say "No .. school in my area".."No .. CS is offset I cant pay it", etc. I'm so damn low conflict and was to the moon that I achieved the 50/50 joint custody stuff that I didn't feel it warranted a trial.

stripes said:
Then it occurred to me that this might be in the order as a way of establishing that (in the opinion of the court) the party is employable and there are no barriers to his/her employment. An order to seek employment seems to be a way of saying "this person can be employed". That would be useful in an effort to impute income, whether or not the party actually does go out and look for work.
Click to expand...
Very true. I agree it's super vague but the wording will work in my favor when I go to impute. She can be employed .. but Beachnana explained it well .. she would lose the food shelters, free medical, low income housing, free bus fare, free, free ,free ... why even look for work?

Tayken posted a blurb from one of WD's case transcripts not long ago and I remember the judges wording .. something along the lines of "I find that Ms ____ has not made any efforts to find employment and has stayed on social assistance for too long", etc. Not sure the exact wording. So I'm sure it must be frowned upon sooner or later by the courts.

I just started the thread because I'm doing a ton of stuff with D4, paying her pizza, milk, etc at school .... I have her in an amazing dance class (which is expensive .. AND WORTH IT). I buy her new shoes, clothes, book bag (when her zipper ripped), etc.
Her extra curriculars I do also
- class = $60/month
- recitals = $25.00/ticket
- Costume = $70.00
---no help from ex.

I'm just feeling it financially when that full table CS gets deducted every month. Plus some left over arrears that Im paying off slowly for abducting our child and hiding her. (Kind of sucks that I have to pay for that).

I'll simply wait it out and impute her income. Or wait until NOA's come in and have a discussion about offset when they arrive and see what she says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top