Paying Full Table CS with 50/50 Shared Parenting

yes I just went to the provincial (ontario) and federal tables and came up with this:

681.00 - basic welfare benefit for single mother with child
113.00 - Ontario Child Benefit
362.07 - Canada Child Benefit
375.00 - Child support (estimated)

$ 1,531.07 TAX FREE

So if she only pays 100.00/month rent out of that then she has 1431.07/month for food and entertainment. Not bad for someone who doesn't work.

There is no reason/incentive for her to go to a minimum wage job (TAXABLE).

Am I missing something?

I just found this article and it says that the claw-back ceases in 2017. So your ex gets her raise in February LF32.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/child-support-clawback-1.3659015

It gets better. If you go by this article, LF32's ex will receive 1078.00/month (including the Ontario Child Benefit) + 362.07 for the Canada Child Benefit. Add the 375.00 (estimated) that he pays for child support = 1,815.07/month TAX FREE.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...-of-child-support-for-parents-on-welfare.html

With some careful planning she and child could go on a nice trip in the Fall.
 
Last edited:
There are other costs. Clothing, car, insurance, gas. It isn't just food and entertainment.

And actually, I don't worry about the people on welfare. Interestingly enough I made $58,000 last year and still qualify for $599 in child tax benefit each month. That to me is bizarre. I would've thought I make way too much money but I don't.

So welfare isn't the incentive people think it is. She would still receive this:

1700.00 - $12 x 40 hrs approx
113.00 - Ontario Child Benefit
362.07 - Canada Child Benefit
375.00 - Child support (estimated)

$ 2550.00

Quite a difference if you ask me. She would have approximately the same income as LF does every month.
 
And actually Arabian, LF has said that she gets benefits only every other year. So on an even year she would have to live on $681 a month plus the child support that LF is trying to reduce. There would be no extra benefits. LF would receive next year.

I cannot imagine raising a child on $681 and $150 CS.
 
No - the way I calculate it she is receiving around 1800.00/month.

Yep - she has expenses (100.00 for rent; car? she gets a free bus pass from welfare; free prescriptions.).

All the while she makes money under-the-table babysitting.
 
Regardless of HER choices for income, going to court will only save LF minimal amounts per month. If he loses and gets a cost award against him, it sure doesn't seem worth the fight. I think he has been giving that advice many, many times.

Lamenting over her choices doesn't seem like a good use of his time.

LF, what is your CS payment now and what would it be in shared custody?? Exactly what would you save a month?

I believe LF is still hopeful that with an imputed income/employment, his ex will end up paying him child support.
 
Last edited:
I believe when my son was young I received 20.00 - 25.00/month LOL I recall thinking it was ridiculous that they even sent that amount in and that it should be redirected to people who really need the money.

While it is noble to try to alleviate child poverty, I think the Ontario government is forgetting the burden they are placing on the taxpayer with this change. I think more focus should be on getting people off welfare.

I think the government of Ontario should put money into going after deadbeats.
 
I have often wondered why LF32 wasn't nailed with spousal support. I thought it was mandatory that welfare recipients go that route?
 
SadAndTired said:
Regardless of HER choices for income, going to court will only save LF minimal amounts per month. If he loses and gets a cost award against him, it sure doesn't seem worth the fight. I think he has been giving that advice many, many times.

Lamenting over her choices doesn't seem like a good use of his time.

LF, what is your CS payment now and what would it be in shared custody?? Exactly what would you save a month?

I believe LF is still hopeful that with an imputed income/employment, his ex will end up paying him child support.
Click to expand...



I don't know how that would be possible unless she ended up making more money than him as they have 50/50. Correct me if I'm wrong but if she were to make say 35k and he made 55k they both technically pay each other do they not?
 
I think in her field she could potentially make $50,000+ per year which would be almost even for them both on cs issues which means he saves the $375 per month plus the s7 is split 50:50. Her incentive to not go to work is she would have to pay all the other expenses those of us who do work have to pay--rent, utilities, expenses to get to work. You can see how her staying on welfare and working under the table would be better.

And LF32 agreed because he thought she would follows the judges' direction to get a freaking job. She continues to shirk the system to her own benefit.
 
I wonder what the going rate is for under-the-table child care nowadays?

Yeah there are welfare cheats everywhere. Some have other people move in with them and don't report it and others actually work full-time jobs and don't report it.

In the end it is the taxpayer who pays.
 
Im sure shes pulling in at least $500-700 a month depending on how many kids and how many days. One would expect to pay $25-35 per day for one child. Might be less if shes not providing receipts. But still, $20 a day for one kid five days a week is still a pretty good tax free income.
 
To me it is still a cost/risk analysis.

What will LF truly gain by going to court?

I hate what my ex does too but I am not willing to spend all my time thinking about it and wasting my energy. That is his life now.
 
If he has court papers where she is directed to seek employment then I can't see how he would end up paying costs. I agree that the court process is all-consuming but I'd probably do it on principal and to set things correct going forward (to reflect the reality of the 50/50 order). After that everything gets adjusted annually according to their income. If he waits too long and tries to get things adjusted retroactively he may run a problem because courts generally date things from date action commences, particularly with the over-paid individual is a welfare recipient.
 
I'm curious what the great case for material change in circumstance is...

I think he's referring to the OW clawback where he's guessing she makes an extra $200+/month. However, he already agreed she could make up to full time employment income before they would switch to offset. The list of ex's income/expenses, and whatever "judge's direction" means, were already known at the time of their agreement. Seems like a perfect case for a cost award to me if LF were to bring a motion now.
 
OntarioDaddy said:
I'm curious what the great case for material change in circumstance is...

I think he's referring to the OW clawback where he's guessing she makes an extra $200+/month. However, he already agreed she could make up to full time employment income before they would switch to offset. The list of ex's income/expenses, and whatever "judge's direction" means, were already known at the time of their agreement. Seems like a perfect case for a cost award to me if LF were to bring a motion now.
Click to expand...
There are more than one material changes in circumstance. For one, I have felt the impact of the increased costs of the shared custody arrangements, which will satisfy Section 9(b) of the CSG. I will be able to easily prove these increases. Another, I anticipated her seeking and obtaining full time employment and adopting the offset approach as per our signed agreement.

Imputing her income to what she is capable of making (paralegal/CSR, etc) OR in the very least to minimum wage until she finds work would be suitable

Like Bentien Vs Bentien.

Upon the wife obtaining employment the parties shall re-assess the support obligation pursuant to s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines. If the wife has not obtained employment by May 31, 2015, income shall be imputed to her of $22,000, being the rough equivalent of a full-time position at minimum wage. This would be based of her being intentionally unemployed or underemployed (Guideline s. 19(1)(a)).http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...W9uYWwgdW5lbXBsb3ltZW50AAAAAAE&resultIndex=48
Click to expand...
As I read more caselaw I see that judges delve out "reviewable" orders for situations like these, which I also wouldn't mind.

Remember, cases like Mysior Vs. Mysior
para. # 57:
The CSG imposes on every parent the obligation to earn what s/he is capable of earning. There is intentional unemployment when a party chooses not to work when capable of earning an income. Section 19 of the CSG does not apply to situations in which the payor, through no fault of his own, cannot work (lay off, termination, or employer reduced hours)http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...Y3VzdG9keSA0MCUgcnVsZSAAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=36
Click to expand...
She's choosing not to work. She's capable of earning an income. I saw an ad for D5's school looking for before/after care at the school, lunch monitors, etc. She simply chooses to avoid being employed.

I won't go over my case in detail but I can say it's strong and I can prove material changes in circumstance, it will be more focused on that than my ex's lack of motivation to leave Welfare.
 
LovingFather32 said:
For one, I have felt the impact of the increased costs of the shared custody arrangements
Click to expand...

Could you not reasonably forsee extra costs with increased access?

Another, I anticipated her seeking and obtaining full time employment and adopting the offset approach as per our signed agreement.
Click to expand...

I can understand this, but it's still not what you agreed to. Any somewhat reasonable excuse ex gives for not having full time employment would be enough to go against any anticipations you had.
 
OntarioDaddy said:
Could you not reasonably forsee extra costs with increased access?
Click to expand...
Of course I expected some, albeit I may have underestimated. There are other financial factors here also.

The judge will agree that it's about the child. For instance I may have a tough time affording swimming lessons, or for her to continue her ballet class. I receive no help for any extraordinary expenses. D5 should be able to continue activities in the community as she always has.

Any somewhat reasonable excuse ex gives for not having full time employment would be enough to go against any anticipations you had.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion. Although I do look forward to her "reasonable" excuse. Besides...wouldn't her "excuse" be the very change in circumstance since the order?

No matter how you look at it I have 50/50, financial issues, increased costs of shared custody, a partner who is a student and another child in the home.

After our standard's of living are examined it will be easily shown that she is living a richer lifestyle .. simply by having zero utilities to pay and only $110 rent.
 
LovingFather32 said:
Of course I expected some, albeit I may have underestimated. There are other financial factors here also.

The judge will agree that it's about the child. For instance I may have a tough time affording swimming lessons, or for her to continue her ballet class. I receive no help for any extraordinary expenses. D5 should be able to continue activities in the community as she always has.

That's your opinion. Although I do look forward to her "reasonable" excuse. Besides...wouldn't her "excuse" be the very change in circumstance since the order?

No matter how you look at it I have 50/50, financial issues, increased costs of shared custody, a partner who is a student and another child in the home.

After our standard's of living are examined it will be easily shown that she is living a richer lifestyle .. simply by having zero utilities to pay and only $110 rent.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use that as excuse for you financial issues. Your partner could be working and the child isn't yours. While I agree with your reasoning that your ex should be working. I have a feeling you take it back to court a judge may not impute an income right away. He may set a deadline for her to find work. In the end you will get you want I think but maybe not as quick as you think it should be. I wish the judge would of set a time frame right away instead of leaving it open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top