Time Sharing Calculation

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Beaudoin

New member
Hi. I tried to search this forum for this question. I wasn't able to find it.

I'm wondering how is time sharing calculated. For example, in my situation, I'm having a dispute with my ex-wife about how much time that I have with my boy. I'm arguing that I have him almost 50% of the time, and she argues that I have him much less, because she argues that while he's in daycare or in school, he's still considered in "her care".

Is this true? Does this count as time with her? ... in her care? If that is true, then, I'd be hard pressed to argue against her.

We have join custody of my son.
 
I would guess that if she drops the child off at school or daycare, and then she picks him up, then that would be considered her time, but I have to ask..... what is your child schedual? 1 week on, 1 week off? or a Fri, Sat, Sun on?
 
Actually... I never see my ex, because when I have him over night, I drop him off or pick him up from daycare.

For example, I have him every other weekend starting from Friday at 4pm to Monday morning... I pick him up from daycare on Friday, and drop him off on Monday morning.

I have him every Tuesday over night, and I pick him up from daycare that day at 4pm, and drop him off the next morning on Wednesday.

I have him every Thursday night from 4pm to 7:30pm (and this is our dispute because I want him overnight that night). I believe that she's holding out on my on this night merely to keep the balance in her favour.

Anyway, when you calculate the number of hours, excluding daycare or school, I have him about 46% of the time. Add daycare in her favour, it flops my time to 34%.

Is this right? I'm taking care of him almost as much as she is.
 
I did read on the Gov't website that for the purposes of Child Support, A parent can not limit or restrict visitation for the purposes of gaining Child Support.

WHat I don't understand is that you say you have "Joint Custody".... Child resides with one parent, both make decissions.

It sounds like you want to spend more time with your child, so "Shared Custody" may be more what you are looking for. Sharing the child approx 50% of the time. It may be a better option. Do you have a separation agreement?
 
ps, although it would make a more complicated system, I think that Parents should be rewarded for taking a role as you have. It would appear that you are very close to the 40% minimum.....
 
Thank you so much for your replies!! Can you point me to a link to that government web site?

Yes. We do have a separation agreement, but the specifics on child care is very limited. The agreement is 5 years old now, and the time sharing has changed significantly since that time, yet the agreement has yet to be updated.

What is important is that the agreement states that we will work toward an equal time sharing arrangement at a future date. Naturally, no date or timeframe was provided.

Yes. I certainly want to play an equal role in my child's development. I would hate to have our relationship compromised because of money. She has told me that I should give up my small apartment and get a single room so that I can pay the support. That would compromise the current status quo because I would not be permitted to have him overnights in a single room and shared accommodations.
 
Oh... before I forget, does anyone know whether time at daycare and school is counted in favour of one parent or the other?
 
If your child were sick or injured at the daycare, which parent would they call first? If you woke up Wednesday morning and your child was too ill to go to daycare, would you return him/her to mom or would you take the day off work? Just because a child is in daycare doesn't mean neither parent is responsible for the child during that time. I think if you can answer these questions, you can see who is actually "parenting" during the daycare time.

If you reached the necessary 40% of the time, would you reduce your child support? Maybe if it's about money you could just assure her that you'll continue to contribute that you just want more time.
 
Money is always an issue. Let's not kid ourselves here. I have two other children to support; she makes more money than I do, and she has a much better standard of living; Why on Earth should I jeopardize our current arrangement just because she wants more money? Considering that I am doing my share of the parenting, who's to say that she shouldn't pay me?

Regardless, these are all besides the fact. I need to know how the courts see this. That is what matters.
 
Ok... sorry..

If I have him overnight, and he is sick the next day, I stay home from work. I don't call her and tell her to stay home. I would call her merely to inform her of his condition and that he won't be attending school or daycare. It has yet to happen that we receive a call from school or daycare due to illness. They both have our numbers.
 
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2007/2007abqb486/2007abqb486.html

40% threshhold and child support calculations link above.

This case referances another case, and this is the link,
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc63/2005scc63.html

This is another link to a case where there is a dispute in how much time each parent has, and it references several other cases.
These should help you understand how the courts analyse and make their decisions




http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2006/2006skqb451/2006skqb451.html
 
Thank you FL!

I've been reading Contino vs Leonelli-Contino and I have yet to find a reference to a case where there was a dispute about what constitutes as time sharing. In that particular case, there wasn't any dispute because the mother admitted that they had a Time Sharing arrangement, so it was not disputed. It only states that secion 9 applies when the parent with access rights spends has the child for 40% or more of the time throughout the year.

If I were to calculate how much I have my son in terms of time per year, it would only be 35.4%, and her it would be 40.6% of the time, because all other times, he's in daycare or school.

Does this mean that because there is a 5.2% difference in our time that I should pay the full table amount? This is my question. There are other factors here... I have two other children to support, she makes more money than I do, and she enjoys a much better standard of living.

I'm going to see a lawyer tomorrow. It's just frustrating that it usually has to come down to fighting about this. It angers me that she refuses mediation or any other form of dispute resolution methods, even though that is what is written in our agreement. Naturally, this puts stress on everyone.
 
There is always the option of undue hardship, and this is usually hard to prove.
The onus would be on you to prove that she had the higher standard of living and that a CS payment at the full table amount would cause financial hardship for you or your responsibility to your other children.

I mean, if she earns more and obviously has more luxuries, then a reduced CS amount would be easily requested, specifically if you could provide proof. I would trust that no court would order that you take away from the two children you are supporting to support one if he is enjoying a primary residence with a parent that earns more and can provide more.

I would think that the advice of a fellow member about who would be responsible for the child in the case of illness would prevail in determining the % split.

Good luck to you, Family Law is anything but an easy go, but it is do-able.
 
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1999/1999canlii5092/1999canlii5092.html

This is a case were the parents could not decide on the amount of time.

I think the optimum words that you need to apply are "Where a spouse exercises a right of access to".

http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2003/2003skqb91/2003skqb91.html

in the above, the judge had to pick appart the dad's schedule to determine both how much time he physically had and how much time he would have "a right of access".

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/1998/1998abqb981/1998abqb981.html

In this case, the judge concluded that the parent who would be responsible for the child if sick would be deemed the right of access parent. And who the school or child care provider would call, is considered the parent with the right of access, so you may be able to claim that you meet the 40% threshold.

In all these cases the non-custodial parent had the higher income. You have this on your side as this is not the case for you, so you have two things on your side.
 
That's the thing... I make about $4000/mo, and if I were to pay her what she is asking, I would be paying almost $2000/mo in child support. My other two children live 90Km away from me, and the only way I can ever see them is if they come to stay with me on weekends. I can't live in Ottawa, and have a bedroom for my boys for under $1000/mo, plus I need a car for my access rights, I have to pay for my own diapers, wipes, extra food, laundry, etc.

This is a complete nightmare for me.
 
Oh.. btw, that 1000/mo that I'm paying in rent includes everything. I got a good deal on this place considering the heating costs.
 
These are the issues that can be represented in an undue hardship claim as well, I have read cases where an individual had a higher cost of living to facilitate the access, and the courts saw this as valid to ensure the quality of the assess. You can’t expect a parent to have a one room apt. when they have three kids coming to visit.
You have to have adequate accommodations and with that comes the increased costs, like hydro, heating etc.

A judge wouldn’t order you to pay beyond your means, nor will they order you to pay beyond her needs, specifically since “she” earns a greater income. In any case the judge will take into account your first family but you MUST clearly explain that situation and all costs associated to that including the distance and travel costs. Take this away from your income less what she wants, and it would certainly cause undue hardship.
Note: In family Law I have noticed that no one makes assumptions and no one will say, logically this makes sense. If you want them to see your perspective, you MUST clearly define all variables, they will not assume anything. For example, they will not rationally understand that increased housing means increased utilities, that’s an assumption. Nor will they interject the associated travel and accommodation costs with your access to your other children; you need to point this out. Explain every variable concisely and completely.
 
Wow... that is really good advice. Thank you. I would not have seen that the courts would not assume certain things...

...like, if I didn't have three children, I could get a smaller apartment; wouldn't need as much for fuel; less for food; diapers, etc.

Ok. That's great. Thank you. I'm going to work on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top