Ss?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

barriedad

New member
Hi Everyone, This is my 1st post here after doing lots of reading and seeing all your helpful posts.

I've been married to my husband for almost 10 years (same-sex marriage) and we have a 5 year old son that we adopted. My husband has not worked a whole lot in the past 8 years with only a few very part-time jobs. . I feel that things arent going to work at this point and seperation has come up several times.

He claims that he doesnt want SS from me as he wants to move, with my son to his family in Montreal (I'm in Barrie). He also said that he would not stop me from ever seeing my son and we'd continue to have joint custody.

He basically has $0.00 income and I make $55 and would absorb all of the joint debt since he has no ability to pay it. Of course I'd pay CS without a question however once reality sets in I'm affraid he will go after me for SS as well. According to the online calculator I can be paying up to 900/mth for SS + CS of 500 which would leave me with 800/mth (out of my original 2200/mth net income) to live on. Do courts look at my ability to pay or is it more or less set in stone? If I have to pay SS I wont be able to afford much including my car and the ability to travel to Montreal to go see / get my son; which i see as effectivly cutting my access off. Part of me thinks that a judge wouldnt do that to me because after CS there will be barely enough to live on but I've read lots where they dont really seem to care.

I could see this all being different if I was making 100K + but I dont :( Any one have any experience with something like this?

Thanks
 
The short answer is that the courts "don't really care" if various support payments imposed on you destroy your standard of living. The only exception is "hardship" but don't get too excited, "hardship" means REALLY bad to the point that you won't have any food to eat and they can't steal money from a dead person lol. Yes, they want you to stay alive so they can continue to rip what little money you make out of your wallet.

Also, even if you made more money it simply means higher payments - there really is no light at the end of the tunnel my friend.

Child support is pretty well set in stone and is not deductible to the payor. The only small hope you have is spousal support. First it is tax deductible to the payor so that helps a little. Secondly SS is not set in stone so you can try to negotiate. Aim for the min. payment with a firm termination date. Good luck and welcome to the corrupt and unfair world of Family Law in Canada.
 
That's what I was affraid of.

Even if by paying SS I wont have enough money to travel to see my Son that he wants to move out of province with?
 
Your ex can't move your son to Montreal without your permission. This is where you should be focusing your energy, not on SS. It is in the best interests of the child to stay where his friends, his school, his home are, etc. Your ex can move if he wants, but the child stays put. Then let him worry about getting access from wherever he ends up. Then CS flows according to the access arrangement.

As for SS itself, is your ex educated? Still fairly young? Capable of finding a good job? Did he make sacrifices for your career along the way? These are things that will affect his entitlement to support. But assume zero entitlement to start, and it will be up to him to convince a judge (or you) that it should be otherwise.

Also, your ex can't really go around claiming a $0 income. At the very least, for support purposes, you can impute an income to him for what he is capable of earning, or full time minimum wage at the very least. Then use that income in calculations for CS and SS instead of zero as his share.

Lastly, spousal support and child support are pretty disconnected. Excessive travel costs to see a child can lead to reduction in child support, but won't affect spousal support. But again, don't let the child be moved and that problem is solved.

Oh, really truly lastly, don't take on all the joint debt because your ex has no ability to pay it. Divide it fairly and how he pays his share becomes his problem. If you are going to absorb all the debt, say to protect your credit from the chance of his defaulting, make sure you also get an equivalently higher share of your joint assets.

There are four issues that should be looked at during separation, and not intertwining them makes things much simpler.

Equalization: both should end up with about the same amount of debt/assets that were accumulated during the relationship. Don't forget that matrimonial home is always divided no matter whose name it's in, or who brought it into the marriage. Don't forget increase in pension value over the course of the marriage.

Spousal Support: not automatic. The lower earning spouse may be entitled to support if there are valid reasons why they are unable to earn to their full potential, that developed during the marriage. Spouses are expected to be self-supporting if possible, as separation is a change of circumstances that needs to be adapted to.

Child Access: focus on the child's best interests, but ideally should be 50-50, with both parents residing in the same school zone. Figure out what is best for the child, and negotiate to make it happen. One parent taking the child out of province is not in the child's best interests.

Child Support: not negotiated. The number flows from the access arrangements and the incomes of the parents. If one parent is underemployed or concealing income, a fair/reasonable income can be imputed to them to be used in calculations. Section 7 extraordinary expenses, those above and beyond typical child needs, are divided proportional to parent income.

Lastly (I promise!) you can expect Tayken to take a great interest in your case. A case without possibility of gender bias could go a long way to establishing good precedents in family law.
 
Please, please, please, please listen to Rioe - do NOT take on all the debt and do NOT let your child be moved away from you.

Is it possible for you to move to Monteal as well? If not, then insist the child stays put. Your son deserves to have equal access to both his parents.

Good luck to you.
 
Thank you everyone for your feedback. Ideally I'd like him to stay in town where we can each see our son as often as we like. I see his point for wanting to go to Montreal where his family is; however, he doesnt speak french so his ability to get a job is greatly limited. I'm wondering also if the courts would look at that?

I guess I'm scared if we start fighting in court that it gets nasty and a judge has to decide vs mutual decision. I just want it to be resolved quikly with the least pain / damage to me (and of course my son)
 
From everything I've read I don't think the courts would allow him to move. He'd have to show that the move would be of greater benefit to your son than staying put. Moving means less access to you so it would be very difficult to show that moving would be of any benefit. Especially if he will have difficulty finding work.

I would discuss the pros and cons with him. Hopefully he is reasonable and will see that moving is not in your son's best interest. The only person who would benefit from this move is him (being closer to his own family).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top