Study shows how child support guidelines punish those who pay support

[karmaseeker]

"(March 26, 2011) For those who still believe that child support payments in Canada are fair and just then the attached file should give those unbelievers something to ponder. In reality, child support in Canada is very punitive and unfair. Every year in Canada, support payers end up taking their own lives out of desperation after being chased by the FRO and other government collection agencies."


Study shows how child support guidelines punish those who pay support | Canada Court Watch

 

[winterwolf7]

I feel ill... literally.

It all makes perfect sense how support recipients are able to double or triple dip in the benefits of having their kids, while the payors are doubly or triply penalized.

No one believes me when I say I make 63k per year but I was only taking home $1400 a month (17k per year)... but the double and triple dipping my ex enjoys allows her to have more take home income than I do BY NOT EVEN GOING TO WORK!

73% of my income is gone, to be exact.

Standard of living? I used to be able to afford to a 4 bedroom house for me and my finally. Now I barely make enough money to afford a single bed room in someone elses house. Bachelor apartments are not an option. I dream of being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment. Just a tiny bit more and I would be completely homeless despite my well above average income.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but how we can get any of this to change?

 

[canadamama]

I don't get this. I didn't read through the whole thing - it's really long and it clearly has an agenda from the start. Forst of all, this is NOT a study, it is a 'report' which is a) very obviously highly subjective, with its big yellow NOT FAIR tags all over the place, and b) very blatant about the fact that is has a clear agenda - "help Canadian individuals and organizations in their efforts to expose and to correct the miscarriage of Justice that has been committed against Canadian children and their families as a result of lack of accountability and due diligence by Canada’s Department of Justice." Pre-assumptions all OVER the place. Start with a conclusion and go from there.

Second of all, I looked through the charts and like I said, while I did not read them all, the big yellow NOT FAIR tags are plastered all over the place completely indiscriminately, and I disagree with their assessment in many cases. If the payor makes $100K, and the recipient (who has the kids) makes $20K, why is it unfair if the final tally leaves the recipient, who is raising the children of the marriage, and paying for their food, their housing, their clothing - everything - to be coming out with a household income of $42,092.59, while the person living alone has a household income of $54,618.85? The SOL of the payor is going to be WAY higher than that of the recipient - and more importantly, of the kids. The kids are living in a household with far less disposable income than that which the payor enjoys. How is this unfair to the payor?
Kids are bloody expensive. This whole CS thing keeps getting tangled up with entitlement issues that are directed at the WRONG party. CS isn't about one adult person giving money to the other adult person. It is about contributing to the HOUSEHOLD where the children reside, so they can be properly provided for to the best ability of both parents, according to their respective financial resources. This whole idea that it is OK for the household without children to have double the income of the household with the children - why would any parent want that??
I read a lot here about how the recipient parent should just 'suck it up' but at the end of the day it's not them that has to suck it up - it's the kids, who, if the author of this report had their way, would be living in a household with a 30K income while the other parent is living single on... what... 70K?
Please.
How much you hate your ex, and how badly you got screwed over in your marriage is IRRELEVANT when calculating CS. It may make you seethe to watch them live in a sweet house and drive a minivan while you have to get by with a 1-bedroom and a compact, but the reality is that that sweet house is your KIDS' house too, and that minivan means a lot more mobility and opportunity to get around and do stuff with their friends.
I noticed that ALL of the charts in this "study" (man that is bugging me) assume that the person who is paying CS makes more. Well Boo Hoo. How about when they make less? Guess what - they still have to pay and contribute to their children's well-being and that is as it should be.
It's not ABOUT who gets more - it's about making sure that children can enjoy the standard of living their parents can provide for them, and yes, kids are expensive.

 

[LostFather]

I feel ill... literally.

It all makes perfect sense how support recipients are able to double or triple dip in the benefits of having their kids, while the payors are doubly or triply penalized.

No one believes me when I say I make 63k per year but I was only taking home $1400 a month (17k per year)... but the double and triple dipping my ex enjoys allows her to have more take home income than I do BY NOT EVEN GOING TO WORK!

73% of my income is gone, to be exact.

Standard of living? I used to be able to afford to a 4 bedroom house for me and my finally. Now I barely make enough money to afford a single bed room in someone elses house. Bachelor apartments are not an option. I dream of being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment. Just a tiny bit more and I would be completely homeless despite my well above average income.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but how we can get any of this to change?

we have to stand together we have to get vocal and we need to organize. I have said many times already I am in and will help anyway I can but i need more than just one or three people. Lets set up a meeting.

 

[winterwolf7]

Sorry but no kids cost $46,000 per year in your example, nor should simply having 1 child increase your own income by 110% from 20k to 42k.

The real point is that the tables cause great injustices at both the lower end of income, and lead to unfair enrichment at the higher end of income. If you're in the middle to middle-upper range it works out reasonable well. Your example of 54k and 42k for the two households is still pretty unfair, but does results in a workable situation for both parties to enjoy a good standard of living.

How about my situation? I went from 63k net down to 17k per year gross. What kind of standard of living do I get? I didn't choose this divorce, I was kicked out and now 73% of my income has been stolen from me, not even leaving me enough to have an apartment or a compact car.

Like most guys, I love my kids and want to support them, but their mom chose to quit on our partnership and that means she has an equal responsibility to provide for them financially. The table amounts do not provide a realistic measure of what it costs. Produce your receipts, show us where the money goes, and we'll glady pay half (or proportionally) for that. Anything more is simply punitive and greedy.

 

[canadamama]

Just went back and had another look - one of the determinants that this "study" uses to make its Fair/Unfair assessment is, "Does the child result in a financial profit or loss to the parent?"

I am sorry I cannot take this seriously at ALL.

 

[karmaseeker]

it's about making sure that children can enjoy the standard of living their parents can provide for them, and yes, kids are expensive.

So kids at Payee's house deserve a standard of Living A (big house, lots of activities, lots of holidays, all amenities covered, etc).

and then enjoy a substandard of living B while visiting their father? Because all that money is only supporting standard of Living at the Payee's house?

This isn't equalization it is robbery.

My fiancee is slowly being bled dry to maitain a standard of living that was based on those two individuals sharing that big house, the holidays to Florida etc. Now he has to support that plus second house big enough for the his kids to come 3/4 weekends a month. he is under the magic 40% so he pays twice for everything.

It shouldn't be about upholding one standard of living it should be about equalizing - which it isn't.

 

[HammerDad]

Coming from CanadaCourtWatch it will have an obvious agenda with little factual relevance.

I agree with some of CCW's principles, however, their methodology and "studies" always leave me LOL'ing on the inside.

As for Canadamama's example of $100k vs $20k, the biggest issues I have with your reasonings are:

1. The 100k is grosse, the net would be closer to $65k after taxes and deductions. Then you take the $22k for CS, you have a net of close to $43k.

2. Your logic of "living alone" is fundamentally flawed. The NCP still has to maintain a residence capable of housing the children during their time. So they too will incur similar expenses as the CP.

3. There have been other, more unbiased studies and reports, that have stated that the current guidelines provide for a form of spousal support in them. They were prepared years ago, but no one seemed to have cared.

 

[canadamama]

OK so the problem here is the magic 40% then, because there are LOTS of parents who a)refuse to pay a thing over CS, saying, "Ask your other parent - that's why I send him/her money every month" and b) don't actually spend even CLOSE to 40% with their kids, like my ex, who doesn't even live in this COUNTRY. It's all on me - nobody is paying twice in this scenario, and so yes, in my case, it IS only supporting SOL at my house.

After separation, there isn't enough to go around for everyone to have the SOL they had before - that's reality. If there is going to be hardship, it shouldn't be borne by the kids. Period.

The numbers I saw in that report (I can't call it a study) do not look to me like they are horribly unfair. You are focusing on how the recipient's income is increasing by 132%... but if that is reframed as the household income of the children's primary residence, and it can be achieved by the payor reducing their own income by 23%, how is that so unreasonable??

These are numbers straight off of this chart that is supposed to be so damning... and they don't seem so crazy to me at all.

 

[karmaseeker]

we have to stand together we have to get vocal and we need to organize. I have said many times already I am in and will help anyway I can but i need more than just one or three people. Lets set up a meeting.

I'd be in. Might be the only woman there but hey!

Most of the Dads organizations seem to be lacking some oomph.

I wonder how many men have commited suicide because of this. That would be a statistic that might convince people.

What kind of standard of living is there when the dad is DEAD? Oh that's right my fiancee is actually worth more dead (that would be if he signed life insurance policy # 3 that she was insisting on in exchange for an access agreement - nothing like a little extortion) which I didn't let him sign. Or does suicide negate that 300,000 would be policy?

 

[canadamama]

Coming from CanadaCourtWatch it will have an obvious agenda with little factual relevance.

I agree with some of CCW's principles, however, their methodology and "studies" always leave me LOL'ing on the inside.

As for Canadamama's example of $100k vs $20k, the biggest issues I have with your reasonings are:

1. The 100k is grosse, the net would be closer to $65k after taxes and deductions. Then you take the $22k for CS, you have a net of close to $43k.

2. Your logic of "living alone" is fundamentally flawed. The NCP still has to maintain a residence capable of housing the children during their time. So they too will incur similar expenses as the CP.

3. There have been other, more unbiased studies and reports, that have stated that the current guidelines provide for a form of spousal support in them. They were prepared years ago, but no one seemed to have cared.

I think that the assumption is that if the kids are there on Wednesdays and EOW, that the sleeping arrangements do not need to be as established as they are at the primary residence. For instance, when I was a kid, my stepfather's kids came every other weekend. Sometimes we'd all sleep in the basement (6 kids!) and then when we got older I'd share my room with my stepsisters and my brother would share his room with our stepbrother, and the oldest of his daughters would sleep on the couch. Maintaining a house that could accommodate 6 kids, each with their own rooms, was unrealistic, but they had much more standard sleeping arrangements at home with their mom, so it wasn't a big deal. The expectation that two homes can be maintained which are equivalent to the one home the family shared pre-split on the same combined income is crazy, but like I said before, if someone has to suck it up, it should not be the kids. They already have enough to deal with, and they didn't ask for ANY of this malarkey.

Regarding the net income vs. gross income, I think those ARE net - the chart says 'after tax'. I am not going to redo all of their math - this was presented as it stands as an argument for why it is all so unfair. I am using the data presented.

I am all for unbiased studies - if you have links I would be glad to read what is out there.

 

[winterwolf7]

Suicide seems pointless since yes I'm pretty sure I'm worth more dead than alive Although I think you're right, a lot of policies won't pay out if the death was a suicide.

Canadamama, the tables were actually designed more with your situation in mind, they are designed with the apparent assumption that the NCP has zero access to his kids, no involvement and no assosiated costs for the kids other than his CS payments. I can see why in your situation you'd consider the tables more fair because they do apply well to your situation.

But my ex can afford a 2 bedroom apartment and a car, and I can't even afford a 1 bedroom or a car. Not fair. When my son is with me approx 25% of the time, I have to borrow cars from friends/family for pickup/drop off and to do anything. We share my bed and he plays in my one room because that's all the space I can afford. I'm not getting 25% of this UCB or CTCB to help me afford enough food, clothes or heaven forbid a big enough place to let him have a room when he's with me. I'm not asking for a 2 bedroom single family home here... just a minimal standard of living so he doesn't hate coming to see me living destitute.

"Daddy, I wanna buy that car, please don't take it away from me."
"I'm sorry honey, Mommy took all the money."

 

[HammerDad]

The numbers I saw in that report (I can't call it a study) do not look to me like they are horribly unfair. You are focusing on how the recipient's income is increasing by 132%... but if that is reframed as the household income of the children's primary residence, and it can be achieved by the payor reducing their own income by 23%, how is that so unreasonable??

Again you are looking at grosse numbers vs net numbers. After taxes a $100k income drops to about $65k. So a payment of $22k is over 33% of the payors net income. And it is an addition of over 110% of untaxable income in the hands of the payee.

Look at me and my ex:

I make a little over $55k a year. I net 40872.
My ex makes $65k a year (before overtime). So approx $49400 net.

I pay $511 per month, so $6132 year.

Therefor, after everything is said and done, I am left with $34740 to live of off, or 63% of my grosse income.

My ex would have approximately $55,532 per year. So what was less then a $10k a year difference in incomes, has jumped to over $20k a year. Our expenses, were similar as I was expected to provide clothing during my parenting time and I require a 2 bedroom residence (food being the only real difference).

Another flaw is that the CP is able to claim 100% of the child(ren) as dependants on their tax returns, when the reality is the NCP (so long as they pay) has paid their proportional share. Effectively, the CP gets to claim what the NCP paid in relation to the costs of child. Thus creating another windfall. In your scenario of the $100k vs $20k incomes, the NCP's contribution would equal 83.3333% of the proportional costs of raising the child. But they NCP gets to claim 0% of that, and the CP claims 100% of child while only having to effectively pay less than 17%. To me, that is the biggest flaw with the guidelines.

 

[karmaseeker]

Comments on the Child Support Guidelines

What Design Principles are Necessary to Support Fairness​

There are, in our opinion, a number of basic design flaws in the current Child Support Guidelines that have resulted in the unfair and economically inappropriate levels contained therein.
First, the principle of equality must be considered. If two separated parents are making identical net incomes, and the children spend identical amounts of time at each house, and all expenses are equally shared, then the child will have the same standard of living at each house and no support payments should be made. Only when income levels are not identical, or where for some reason non-equal access to each parent is agreed upon without duress that some variation from $0 is required. It is inappropriate to ignore the salary of the support-receiving parent's family unit, the presence of other parental support for step-children, and the family situation in the home of the payer.

1. The Guidelines should use a cost-sharing approach based on the parents' relative ability to pay.
2. The Guidelines should be based on the marginal cost of children to single parents on a net after-tax basis.
3. The Guidelines should distinguish between the fixed costs of the children (e.g. shelter) and the costs that change as a function of the time of care with each child. "Time" should be clearly defined to ensure that the costs are properly allocated. Fixed costs and time-related expenses paid by the support-paying parent shall be considered as part of the total cost of the children and credited against the support-paying parent's share of the total costs of the child.
4. The Guidelines should handle the cost of work-related child care as a fixed cost to the parent paying for such child care and incorporate it on a net cost basis, after accounting for the appropriate offset of some of the "time of care" expenses for each parent utilising child care.
5. All tax implications, including the ability of a support-paying parent to the claim child deductions, "equivalent to spouse" deductions, child care expense deductions, education deductions, and all tax credits and refunds should be considered to allow calculation of amounts on an after-tax basis.

 

[canadamama]

Again you are looking at grosse numbers vs net numbers. After taxes a $100k income drops to about $65k. So a payment of $22k is over 33% of the payors net income. And it is an addition of over 110% of untaxable income in the hands of the payee.

Look at me and my ex:

I make a little over $55k a year. I net 40872.
My ex makes $65k a year (before overtime). So approx $49400 net.

I pay $511 per month, so $6132 year.

Therefor, after everything is said and done, I am left with $34740 to live of off, or 63% of my grosse income.

My ex would have approximately $55,532 per year. So what was less then a $10k a year difference in incomes, has jumped to over $20k a year. Our expenses, were similar as I was expected to provide clothing during my parenting time and I require a 2 bedroom residence (food being the only real difference).

Another flaw is that the CP is able to claim 100% of the child(ren) as dependants on their tax returns, when the reality is the NCP (so long as they pay) has paid their proportional share. Effectively, the CP gets to claim what the NCP paid in relation to the costs of child. Thus creating another windfall. In your scenario of the $100k vs $20k incomes, the NCP's contribution would equal 83.3333% of the proportional costs of raising the child. But they NCP gets to claim 0% of that, and the CP claims 100% of child while only having to effectively pay less than 17%. To me, that is the biggest flaw with the guidelines.

That is a much more thoughtful and reasonable approach than, "Does the child result in a financial profit or loss to the parent?" It sounds to me like the 40% rule, and the way that taxation is imposed, is a much bigger issue than the numbers themselves.

 

[karmaseeker]

[SIZE=-1]Wednesday, September 6, 1995[/SIZE]​

'True deadbeat dads' are few, Ottawa says

By David Vienneau,
Toronto Star OTTAWA - Only a small percentage of dads who do not make their child support payments are deadbeats, a top justice department official says.

The reality, according to Carolina Giliberti, chief of the department's family law research unit, is that many dads are broke or only unintentionally in arrears.

"The true deadbeat dads are few and far between," Giliberti, co-author of a federal-provincial task force report on child support that was released in January, said in an interview.

"There are some, definitely. I've seen estimates that about 10 per cent are wilful defaulters. The rest just don't have the resources to go back and get their court order varied."

This would appear to defy the oft-repeated public perception that 70 per cent of non-custodial fathers in Canada deliberately refuse to make court-ordered payments to their ex-spouses.

Justice Minister Allan Rock is expected to acknowledge the misperception in the fall when he unveils Ottawa's long-awaited overhaul of Canada's child-support payment system.

The package will include national child-support guidelines for judges to use in determining how much a non-custodial parent should pay for each child.

Draft guidelines released earlier this year were criticized for being too low. Sources say they will be adjusted upwards but only for those parents earning less than $30,000 annually. The government's dilemma is boosting amounts without impoverishing the payer. Rock will also unveil a new strategy to assist the provinces in collecting payments from delinquent non-custodial parents.

A third component will deal with taxation. Currently, parents receiving child-support payments pay income tax on that money, while the payers claim a 100 per cent tax deduction.

Custodial parents say this is unfair but the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the system and now the government is being challenged to resolve the simmering dispute.

Rock will also announce the government is planning a major study aimed at determining why some men default on making their payments.

If a man is a seasonal worker or is temporarily laid off he often cannot afford to go back to court to seek a variance to the court-ordered support, Giliberti said. Many continue to pay a small amount and eventually resume full payments when they are back to work.

The problem is that in Ontario, for example, the system sees them as being in arrears and therefore labels them "a deadbeat dad." There is no administrative mechanism to vary the award to reflect their fluctuating income.

"There is a real problem with a number of non-custodial parents who go in and out of employment, seasonal workers or self-employed workers," she explained. "It means they don't have a regular cash flow which means they can't systematically pay their child support either in full or on time."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Copyright © 1995 Toronto Star.[/FONT]​

 

[canadamama]

[SIZE=-1]Wednesday, September 6, 1995[/SIZE]​

'True deadbeat dads' are few, Ottawa says

By David Vienneau,
Toronto Star OTTAWA - Only a small percentage of dads who do not make their child support payments are deadbeats, a top justice department official says.

The reality, according to Carolina Giliberti, chief of the department's family law research unit, is that many dads are broke or only unintentionally in arrears.

"The true deadbeat dads are few and far between," Giliberti, co-author of a federal-provincial task force report on child support that was released in January, said in an interview.

"There are some, definitely. I've seen estimates that about 10 per cent are wilful defaulters. The rest just don't have the resources to go back and get their court order varied."

This would appear to defy the oft-repeated public perception that 70 per cent of non-custodial fathers in Canada deliberately refuse to make court-ordered payments to their ex-spouses.

Justice Minister Allan Rock is expected to acknowledge the misperception in the fall when he unveils Ottawa's long-awaited overhaul of Canada's child-support payment system.

The package will include national child-support guidelines for judges to use in determining how much a non-custodial parent should pay for each child.

Draft guidelines released earlier this year were criticized for being too low. Sources say they will be adjusted upwards but only for those parents earning less than $30,000 annually. The government's dilemma is boosting amounts without impoverishing the payer. Rock will also unveil a new strategy to assist the provinces in collecting payments from delinquent non-custodial parents.

A third component will deal with taxation. Currently, parents receiving child-support payments pay income tax on that money, while the payers claim a 100 per cent tax deduction.

Custodial parents say this is unfair but the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the system and now the government is being challenged to resolve the simmering dispute.

Rock will also announce the government is planning a major study aimed at determining why some men default on making their payments.

If a man is a seasonal worker or is temporarily laid off he often cannot afford to go back to court to seek a variance to the court-ordered support, Giliberti said. Many continue to pay a small amount and eventually resume full payments when they are back to work.

The problem is that in Ontario, for example, the system sees them as being in arrears and therefore labels them "a deadbeat dad." There is no administrative mechanism to vary the award to reflect their fluctuating income.

"There is a real problem with a number of non-custodial parents who go in and out of employment, seasonal workers or self-employed workers," she explained. "It means they don't have a regular cash flow which means they can't systematically pay their child support either in full or on time."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Copyright © 1995 Toronto Star.[/FONT]​

What is the point you are trying to make with this article?

 

[TLCRN]

"Actions speak louder than words". why hasn't anyone of you come up with a better calculation for CS? and voice your opinion to the ones in power and not on a forum where what exactly will be done? nothing! There are so many forums, bloggs, complaints and not one has come up with a better solution? I wonder why? I can think of millions of reasonse why, but it won't change the facts now will it? Has anyone looked at other Provinces, Country to see how it works for them?
Karmaseeker: have you ever wondered how many "women" have commited suicide because of this as you say? I personally think the rate of women commiting suicide may be higher.
Every situation is different. In my case, I never asked for SS, or a life insurance in my name,or many other things. DO you know why? to avoid the fight and additional court costs; as how many non cutodial parents will actually VOLUNTARILY agree to pay and do this? knowing if something was to happen to them, the non cutodial parent is left raising the children on their own. This goes both ways!

 

[HammerDad]

There have been challenges to this. However, they get little to no press or support from the public as it is not a politically correct subject.

As soon as a person opens their mouth on the subject feminists jump out of the woodwork claiming your a misogynist, and that you are trying to take food out of some poor child mouth by punishing a single mom......

And I have insurance through work....guess who the beneficiary of 50% of my policy is....my daughter....and I did it voluntarily.

There is a huge misconception that there are more deadbeats then payors. The reality is quite the reverse. The only thing is, you only hear about the deadbeats because it is "sensationalist" and politically correct, and you never get to hear about the vast majority of NCP's who are doing their share because, well......that is what they are supposed to be doing.

 

[canadamama]

Sorry but no kids cost $46,000 per year in your example, nor should simply having 1 child increase your own income by 110% from 20k to 42k.

$42,000 is the TOTAL household income in that example! In the example I quoted, the TOTAL household income of the custodial parent is $42,000, and the TOTAL household income of the payor was $54,600. If that payor is broke and struggling living ALONE on $54,600, how do you think it is for the kids?

And again, you are getting hung up on looking at this as money for your ex, as opposed to money flowing into the household that supports your kids.

The real point is that the tables cause great injustices at both the lower end of income, and lead to unfair enrichment at the higher end of income. If you're in the middle to middle-upper range it works out reasonable well. Your example of 54k and 42k for the two households is still pretty unfair, but does results in a workable situation for both parties to enjoy a good standard of living.

I do not see how that is unfair to the payor at all. I really don't. The CP and the kids have a FAR, FAR LOWER SOL than the non-CP.

How about my situation? I went from 63k net down to 17k per year gross. What kind of standard of living do I get? I didn't choose this divorce, I was kicked out and now 73% of my income has been stolen from me, not even leaving me enough to have an apartment or a compact car.

Obviously I can't speak to your situation, as I have no information about it, but even in this 'study' there is no scenario in which any payor is paying out 73% of their income - and by the information you do provide is would actually be more, since 17 is 27% of 63 and 63 was your net income before, while 17 is your gross now, which honestly seems even more odd.

Like most guys, I love my kids and want to support them, but their mom chose to quit on our partnership and that means she has an equal responsibility to provide for them financially. The table amounts do not provide a realistic measure of what it costs. Produce your receipts, show us where the money goes, and we'll glady pay half (or proportionally) for that. Anything more is simply punitive and greedy.

Again, the issues in your marriage and the reasons for its breakdown are IRRELEVANT, as they should be, and it is unreasonable to force the CP into a role of having to justify every expense, especially in cases where there was abuse. Different people have different earning potential, and kids should always be able to benefit from the financial resources of BOTH parents.