Janus
New member
Child support table:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/child-enfant/fcsg-lfpae/2011/pdf/ona.pdf
Where do you see the word guideline?
Cool, could you give us the link to maybe two of these cases? Hell, I'll even take one.
Shared Custody - Child's Choice
- Thread starter WilsonWilsonWilson
- Start date
Child support table:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/child-enfant/fcsg-lfpae/2011/pdf/ona.pdf
Where do you see the word guideline?
Tayken
Well-known member
The thing is... Child support is not forever generally. It ends some time for a large number of parents. There are indeed parents of disabled children that requires support for their entire lives.
Child support has some end to it... Where an order for spousal support can often only terminate when your life does...
Good Luck!
Tayken
Child support has some end to it... Where an order for spousal support can often only terminate when your life does...
Good Luck!
Tayken
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
Thanks for taking the time to break down your explanation so well. Everything you are saying makes a lot of sense, but thankfully it does not remove my right from making a case for my situation. It may very well come out the way you say and trust me, I have read all of this way before I heard it now.
One theme that seems to be coming out over and over again is this belief that I am trying to avoid paying child support. That is so far from the truth, but seems to be the anger a lot of people here feel, because it is being done to them somehow...not getting CS from some deadbeat dad. I am all for supporting my kids in every way, shape or form and I can demonstrate that in court very easily, because that is what I have done so far.
But it is called Child Support for a reason and not Mother Support. The legal system wrote it this way for a reason! Challenging the "system" on these grounds is all I am doing. If the increase she was asking for came in a proposal to make up the difference in taking my kids out to buy them things that they need to grow up health and happy (within reason), I couldn't care less if that came out to actually more than what she is asking for. At least my kids would be empowered to have a relationship with their father, as apposed to disempowered (I know that's not a word) to do anything because the money is being handed to their mother directly. I wouldn't be here if that was the case.
Remember, if you have been following along from the beginning, the only thing that has changed at her house is the kids living there 2 weeks a month more. Also. not to mention the fact that at this time I actually put more away for the kids in RESPs than I give her per month, while she does nothing. I'm not sure exactly how that will pan out in this overall CS calculation?
You may very well be right and no fairness can be had here, but when you spend almost 7 years on a given path, with all the plans that have been made on both sides and followed through on, when nothing has change materially on either side (and I'm excluding the whims of children in that argument), then can you really go back 7 years, as if nothing since has happened and sit down and figure out how support will be given in a complete vacuum of circumstances?
Frig I hope not for my sake...and I'm sure many others here in the same boat!!
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
In the absence of better evidence to not follow the "guidelines"! If they were what you are suggesting, everyone would pay the exact same amount at exactly the same level of income. We all know that is not the case. Just reading a few court cases will show you that.
You keep alluding to these mysterious cases. Every single case I have read on canlii for parents without shared 50/50 or less then $150,000 income are directed to follow the guidelines unless there is an extenuating circumstance like increased access costs for parents who moved with their children.
Keep trying to explain it how you want. Make sure you post what the judge rules on your case because I have a feeling its going to be what we've all said.
Keep trying to explain it how you want. Make sure you post what the judge rules on your case because I have a feeling its going to be what we've all said.
YoungDad23
New member
For a young person you are very wise YoungDad.
As much as I hate to admit it, my mom deserves a lot of credit for keeping my head on straight since I became a dad and all the drama my ex's lies and manipulations have caused over the last three years.
You gotta grow up real fast when someone tries to keep your child from you (for no good reason) and you end up in handcuffs because you won't just go away.
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
I know what you are saying...I've been there. Having someone come between you and your children, regardless of who they are, is heart wrenching. You go to places in you mind that you never thought you ever would and sink to depths of sorrow you could never wish on anyone. My partner is your mother and thankfully you have her.
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
Obviously we are not reading the same cases. There are 100's of cases on file. I tend to pay attention to only the ones that favour my position.
Berner_Faith
New member
Will you please post some of these cases from canlii? They would prove to be useful for others who are going through similar things
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
Sure thing, if I get a chance to. Read them mostly on my iPAD in bed and it's not any easy platform to do that in.
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
BETWEEN:
HELENA MELO,
Applicant,
— AND —
DENIS MELO,
Respondent.
Before Provincial Judge Paddy A. Hardman
Reasons for Judgment released on 3 March 1999
SUPPORT ORDERS — Assessment of quantum — Child support guidelines — Deviation from table amount — General — Potential clash of regulatory and judicial cultures — Table amounts in guidelines are arbitrary computer-generated figures, not particularly applicable to any set of circumstances and productive of unfairness in some cases and even deliberately unfair in few cases — They are attempt by mere regulation to oust “judicial” determination of parent’s capacity to pay and needs of particular child — Court’s obligation to act judicially is perhaps higher responsibility and therefore, it is open to judges to decide to order child support outside guidelines.
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
BETWEEN:
HELENA MELO,
Applicant,
— AND —
DENIS MELO,
Respondent.
Before Provincial Judge Paddy A. Hardman
Reasons for Judgment released on 3 March 1999
SUPPORT ORDERS — Assessment of quantum — Child support guidelines — Deviation from table amount — General — Potential clash of regulatory and judicial cultures — Table amounts in guidelines are arbitrary computer-generated figures, not particularly applicable to any set of circumstances and productive of unfairness in some cases and even deliberately unfair in few cases — They are attempt by mere regulation to oust “judicial” determination of parent’s capacity to pay and needs of particular child — Court’s obligation to act judicially is perhaps higher responsibility and therefore, it is open to judges to decide to order child support outside guidelines.
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
BETWEEN:
HELENA MELO,
Applicant,
— AND —
DENIS MELO,
Respondent.
Before Provincial Judge Paddy A. Hardman
Reasons for Judgment released on 3 March 1999
SUPPORT ORDERS — Assessment of quantum — Child support guidelines — Deviation from table amount — General — Potential clash of regulatory and judicial cultures — Table amounts in guidelines are arbitrary computer-generated figures, not particularly applicable to any set of circumstances and productive of unfairness in some cases and even deliberately unfair in few cases — They are attempt by mere regulation to oust “judicial” determination of parent’s capacity to pay and needs of particular child — Court’s obligation to act judicially is perhaps higher responsibility and therefore, it is open to judges to decide to order child support outside guidelines.
If youre using that case as an example to not pay support youre screwed. You need to read the fullcase record and not just the argument the one party is putting forward. There are ample cases that show that as the ARGUMENT. Please post one that was successfully argued. Im sure that number will be ZERO.
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HELENA MELO,
Applicant,
— AND —
DENIS MELO,
Respondent.
Before Provincial Judge Paddy A. Hardman
Reasons for Judgment released on 3 March 1999
SUPPORT ORDERS — Assessment of quantum — Child support guidelines — Deviation from table amount — General — Potential clash of regulatory and judicial cultures — Table amounts in guidelines are arbitrary computer-generated figures, not particularly applicable to any set of circumstances and productive of unfairness in some cases and even deliberately unfair in few cases — They are attempt by mere regulation to oust “judicial” determination of parent’s capacity to pay and needs of particular child — Court’s obligation to act judicially is perhaps higher responsibility and therefore, it is open to judges to decide to order child support outside guidelines.
The married father of four children had had a “dating relationship” with another woman and a child (now almost three years old) was the result. His gross income for 1997 was $46,111.94 and he seemed to be the only income earner in his household. The child‘s mother was on welfare. The father bore an extraordinary cost for employment transportation and the parties agreed that it should be offset by reducing his gross annual income by $3,000. On the reduced amount of $43,100, the child support guideline would require the father to make a monthly payment of $371 to the mother.
The father argued that, in light of the obligations to his other family, the guideline figure was too harsh. He admitted that he could not qualify under the guidelines’ “undue hardship” exceptions but argued that the court should exercise its discretion under subsection 33(1) of the Family Law Reform Act, which imposed the child support obligation on each parent “to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so.” Unfortunately, later subsections of that Act clearly narrowed and even negated that discretion by confining the court to have regard only to the child support guidelines.
Held:— The father was to make monthly child support payments of $371.
The rigid approach to child support imposed by the guidelines will not always produce a fair and judicial order of child support. It is almost impossible to identify all of the potential arbitrary and unreasonable outcomes because each set of facts and circumstances before the court will be different. By contrast, the table amounts in the guidelines are arbitrary computer-generated sets of figures, not particularly applicable to any set of circumstances — a fact openly admitted in the study papers prepared for the federal government when the guidelines were still in the planning stage. Thus, the combined effect of the Act and the guidelines requires a court to ignore the specific needs and abilities of the parties before the court and instead to follow the “best guess” of the guidelines. The government policy behind the guidelines is the potential reduction in litigation with the presumption that, generally, such a reduction works in the best interests of children. That approach, however, will inevitably result in some unfairness but it seems that, in certain situations, it will deliberately create unfairness.
Essentially, a regulation (in the form of the child support guidelines) establishes the capacity to pay and the needs of a child; a judge does not. Ostensibly, there can be no “judicial” determination of the issue. The only discretion would appear to lie in subsection 33(1) of the Family Law Act — whether to make any child support order at all — but, once a court chooses to award support, subsection 33(11) then seems to compel the court to rely on the arbitrary figures in the guideline tables.
Nevertheless, the obligation to act judicially is perhaps a higher responsibility than that to follow regulations purporting to restrict appropriate discretion. Therefore, it may be open to judges to decide to order child support outside the guidelines.
In this particular case, however, the court evaluated the particular circumstances of the mother and the father, taking into account the circumstances in the father’s home and the ability in that home to have access to other income, if required, and concluded that it would not seem appropriate to exercise its discretion to deviate from the guideline amount.
The part in red is probably what is going to happen to me, but I certainly have a right to try and direct the CS into something that I think is more in the best interest of the children (incentive for them to pursue a healthy relationship with us). Not instead allow the mother to walk away with a fist full of more money to go on giving lip service of how she is "following the children's wishes"!
Apologies can be sent to my INBOX!!
BETWEEN:
HELENA MELO,
Applicant,
— AND —
DENIS MELO,
Respondent.
Before Provincial Judge Paddy A. Hardman
Reasons for Judgment released on 3 March 1999
SUPPORT ORDERS — Assessment of quantum — Child support guidelines — Deviation from table amount — General — Potential clash of regulatory and judicial cultures — Table amounts in guidelines are arbitrary computer-generated figures, not particularly applicable to any set of circumstances and productive of unfairness in some cases and even deliberately unfair in few cases — They are attempt by mere regulation to oust “judicial” determination of parent’s capacity to pay and needs of particular child — Court’s obligation to act judicially is perhaps higher responsibility and therefore, it is open to judges to decide to order child support outside guidelines.
The married father of four children had had a “dating relationship” with another woman and a child (now almost three years old) was the result. His gross income for 1997 was $46,111.94 and he seemed to be the only income earner in his household. The child‘s mother was on welfare. The father bore an extraordinary cost for employment transportation and the parties agreed that it should be offset by reducing his gross annual income by $3,000. On the reduced amount of $43,100, the child support guideline would require the father to make a monthly payment of $371 to the mother.
The father argued that, in light of the obligations to his other family, the guideline figure was too harsh. He admitted that he could not qualify under the guidelines’ “undue hardship” exceptions but argued that the court should exercise its discretion under subsection 33(1) of the Family Law Reform Act, which imposed the child support obligation on each parent “to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so.” Unfortunately, later subsections of that Act clearly narrowed and even negated that discretion by confining the court to have regard only to the child support guidelines.
Held:— The father was to make monthly child support payments of $371.
The rigid approach to child support imposed by the guidelines will not always produce a fair and judicial order of child support. It is almost impossible to identify all of the potential arbitrary and unreasonable outcomes because each set of facts and circumstances before the court will be different. By contrast, the table amounts in the guidelines are arbitrary computer-generated sets of figures, not particularly applicable to any set of circumstances — a fact openly admitted in the study papers prepared for the federal government when the guidelines were still in the planning stage. Thus, the combined effect of the Act and the guidelines requires a court to ignore the specific needs and abilities of the parties before the court and instead to follow the “best guess” of the guidelines. The government policy behind the guidelines is the potential reduction in litigation with the presumption that, generally, such a reduction works in the best interests of children. That approach, however, will inevitably result in some unfairness but it seems that, in certain situations, it will deliberately create unfairness.
Essentially, a regulation (in the form of the child support guidelines) establishes the capacity to pay and the needs of a child; a judge does not. Ostensibly, there can be no “judicial” determination of the issue. The only discretion would appear to lie in subsection 33(1) of the Family Law Act — whether to make any child support order at all — but, once a court chooses to award support, subsection 33(11) then seems to compel the court to rely on the arbitrary figures in the guideline tables.
Nevertheless, the obligation to act judicially is perhaps a higher responsibility than that to follow regulations purporting to restrict appropriate discretion. Therefore, it may be open to judges to decide to order child support outside the guidelines.
In this particular case, however, the court evaluated the particular circumstances of the mother and the father, taking into account the circumstances in the father’s home and the ability in that home to have access to other income, if required, and concluded that it would not seem appropriate to exercise its discretion to deviate from the guideline amount.
The part in red is probably what is going to happen to me, but I certainly have a right to try and direct the CS into something that I think is more in the best interest of the children (incentive for them to pursue a healthy relationship with us). Not instead allow the mother to walk away with a fist full of more money to go on giving lip service of how she is "following the children's wishes"!
Apologies can be sent to my INBOX!!
Youre still not getting it. That case was a father attempting to claim a responsibility to his new family as a reason to not pay support outside of claiming hardship which he wouldnt win. The argument was that the judge shouldnt use the guidelines but rather exercise their ability as a judge to set an amount different from the guidelines.
You are claiming your ex shouldnt be rewarded for having the kids full time.
No wonder your ex is self repped. She knows its an easy win.
You are claiming your ex shouldnt be rewarded for having the kids full time.
No wonder your ex is self repped. She knows its an easy win.
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
Please find another thread to follow!
WilsonWilsonWilson
New member
Bates v. Bates
[Indexed as: Bates v. Bates]
49 O.R. (3d) 1
[2000] O.J. No. 2269
Docket No. C31685
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Austin, Laskin and Borins JJ.A.
June 19, 2000
.
.
.
(6.4) Notwithstanding subsection (6.1), a court may award an amount that is different from the amount that would be determined in accordance with the applicable guidelines on the consent of both spouses if it is satisfied that reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of the child to whom the order relates.
(6.5) For the purposes of subsection (6.4), in determining whether reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of a child, the court shall have regard to the applicable guidelines. However, the court shall not consider the arrangements to be unreasonable solely because the amount of support agreed to is not the same as the amount that would otherwise have been determined in accordance with the applicable guidelines.
[Indexed as: Bates v. Bates]
49 O.R. (3d) 1
[2000] O.J. No. 2269
Docket No. C31685
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Austin, Laskin and Borins JJ.A.
June 19, 2000
.
.
.
(6.4) Notwithstanding subsection (6.1), a court may award an amount that is different from the amount that would be determined in accordance with the applicable guidelines on the consent of both spouses if it is satisfied that reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of the child to whom the order relates.
(6.5) For the purposes of subsection (6.4), in determining whether reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of a child, the court shall have regard to the applicable guidelines. However, the court shall not consider the arrangements to be unreasonable solely because the amount of support agreed to is not the same as the amount that would otherwise have been determined in accordance with the applicable guidelines.
