FRO...Family Responsibility services of Ontario

[Cassini]

It doesn't matter how much money she makes or he makes. Child support is the right of the child and children should benefit from the income of both parents. It's all percentage based. If the dad had the kids 60% of the time, she'd be paying him. Best method is 50/50. Child support is then based on the offset method and the kids get to spend equal time with both parents.

The issue with a business is that the payment is a percentage of a fictitious number. When things are going well, it is possible to do quite well. When things go badly, ... even Donald Trump has went bankrupt. It's not hard to extrapolate out from Donald Trump's best year, and conclude he must be a deadbeat, and is hiding assets. After all, at different points in his life, all were likely true.

Add in the fact the FRO and family court is exempt from bankruptcy and tax law, and the results are a mess ...

 

[mandrill]

The issue with a business is that the payment is a percentage of a fictitious number. When things are going well, it is possible to do quite well. When things go badly, ... even Donald Trump has went bankrupt. It's not hard to extrapolate out from Donald Trump's best year, and conclude he must be a deadbeat, and is hiding assets. After all, at different points in his life, all were likely true.

Add in the fact the FRO and family court is exempt from bankruptcy and tax law, and the results are a mess ...

But the judges realize that these ups and downs occur. Explain this to the judge and tell him / her what happened - i.e. that a major client dumped you - and you should get a decent hearing.

 

[freedom3]

Child support is the right of the child and children should benefit from the income of both parents. It's all percentage based. If the dad had the kids 60% of the time, she'd be paying him.

That's right. That's why women always insist on being the primary caregiver.

 

[mandrill]

That's right. That's why women always insist on being the primary caregiver.

I've seen a number of guys attempt to insist on being the primary caregiver.

"Your Honour, I want the child 41% of the time. It's my right as a father."

"The child is 6 months old. Have you ever changed a diaper, Mr Father?"

"I can learn, Your Honour."

"You work a 50 hour week as a truck driver. Who will look after the child when you work?"

"He can ride in the truck with me?"

"Can you breast feed this child?"

"I can buy formula. Just give me 41% of the time, judge."

I've sat in court and heard guys say shit like that to try and avoid paying child support.

 

[freedom3]

That's right. The court always rules against the man. We agree. Especially when it comes to the requirement that the man breastfeed. A man can't possibly win.

In the eyes of any judge, your role as a father is strictly to pay the bills. Any man thinking of becoming a father take note. She can kick you out any time and you are supporting her for life.

That guy you saw in court should have told the judge the following:

-Should paternity-leave be unconstitutional because men can't take care of children anyways?
-Should women not be allowed to have jobs because men need those jobs to take care of women since women are needed at home to take care of children?

 

[freedom3]

That is exactly what happened to me. She took over my business by court order and I lost them all. She destroyed the business in less than one yr. I was stuck with the spousal support agreement which I stupidly agreed on against my lawyer's advice. The worst thing was getting caught with 40k cash which is the only thing I have left after they seized all my bank accounts. They let me keep the money but my reputation to the judges was gone and I was screwed since then.

Don't feel bad for a second about the $40k. The judges would have found another way to rule against you if it wasn't for that. All you did was make it easy for them. If you sit long enough in court, you see the pattern. The reasons change, but the result is always that the man gets screwed.

 

[Vixens]

That's right. That's why women always insist on being the primary caregiver.

Oh now that just sounds bitter. I'm sure there are many women who do this. Just as I'm sure that there are many men who resent paying their fair share. Not all men and not all women. To avoid paying "too much" there needs to be a 50/50 access arrangement. That is what's fair however if you're unwilling to adjust your lifestyle to accommodate having the kids equally, then there's a payment for that. Just because you no longer live with your spouse doesn't mean your children are less your responsibility. It's really not that unreasonable. I'm saddened that I'm hearing many of you bitching more about money than not seeing your kids every day.
This is the way I see it. You can't look at it as though you're giving the ex money, mom or dad, whomever has the kids with them more often is inevitably giving something up. Whether it's time at work, or travel for work etc, someone needs to raise them, be home with them, get them to school, feed and clothe them, stay home with them when they're sick, take them to and pay for extra curriculars, daycare, food, clothing etc.. Both will face the financial burden but generally ( notice I didn't say always ), the primary caregiver also faces the hardship of lost earnings, time etc. It's not easy to raise kids on your own "60%" of the time even if you have financial assistance from your ex spouse. It's not always about money.

Steph

 

[freedom3]

There is no point about bitching about not seeing your kids. Read oagre's thread above. The judges laugh at you.

 

[GPIDEAL]

It doesn't matter how much money she makes or he makes. Child support is the right of the child and children should benefit from the income of both parents. It's all percentage based. If the dad had the kids 60% of the time, she'd be paying him. Best method is 50/50. Child support is then based on the offset method and the kids get to spend equal time with both parents.

Steph

Thanks Steph but I have lingering questions which are purely academic (maybe I should ask someone in our office who shares custody of a child).

I understand that the quantum of child support is irrespective of the income of the parents, but is there joint contribution when both parents earn a living? When you say %-based, you mean pro rata?

What if the person with the kids 60% of the time makes more money than their ex?

 

[mandrill]

Thanks Steph but I have lingering questions which are purely academic (maybe I should ask someone in our office who shares custody of a child).

I understand that the quantum of child support is irrespective of the income of the parents, but is there joint contribution when both parents earn a living? When you say %-based, you mean pro rata?

What if the person with the kids 60% of the time makes more money than their ex?

No. it's straight off a chart based on how much the payor makes and how many kids there are.

The only balancing is done when and if the judge calculates extra child support to cover "section 7 special expenses", such as tutoring, hockey camp, daycare, tuition, etc. Then the extra expense is normally split as per the proportion of the respective incomes and the % payable by the payor spouse is added to his / her basic off-the-chart child support.

 

[mandrill]

That's right. The court always rules against the man. We agree. Especially when it comes to the requirement that the man breastfeed. A man can't possibly win.

In the eyes of any judge, your role as a father is strictly to pay the bills. Any man thinking of becoming a father take note. She can kick you out any time and you are supporting her for life.

That guy you saw in court should have told the judge the following:

-Should paternity-leave be unconstitutional because men can't take care of children anyways?
-Should women not be allowed to have jobs because men need those jobs to take care of women since women are needed at home to take care of children?

I wrote the most exaggerated dialogue that came to mind to illustrate how petty, miserly and mean-minded some men are and to what extreme ends they attempt to go to avoid paying child support. And you read it and the only comment you came out with was that the outcome was biased because the guy could not breast feed. Do you not see that EVERYTHING the guy said in that dialogue was ludicrous and unworkable??!! There is no way that guy would have more than 3 or 4 hours access per week because his lifesyle and limited child care abilities would render it a danger to the child for him to be granted any more.

This was all totally lost on you, wasn't it?!

 

[GPIDEAL]

No. it's straight off a chart based on how much the payor makes and how many kids there are.

The only balancing is done when and if the judge calculates extra child support to cover "section 7 special expenses", such as tutoring, hockey camp, daycare, tuition, etc. Then the extra expense is normally split as per the proportion of the respective incomes and the % payable by the payor spouse is added to his / her basic off-the-chart child support.

Ok thanks again (I set up garnishments be they for CRA or the FRO or MOF, so was curious).


So bottom line, the primary caregiver does not contribute towards basic child support as established by the court or Family Law Act.

 

[freedom3]

I wrote the most exaggerated dialogue that came to mind to illustrate how petty, miserly and mean-minded some men are and to what extreme ends they attempt to go to avoid paying child support. And you read it and the only comment you came out with was that the outcome was biased because the guy could not breast feed. Do you not see that EVERYTHING the guy said in that dialogue was ludicrous and unworkable??!! There is no way that guy would have more than 3 or 4 hours access per week because his lifesyle and limited child care abilities would render it a danger to the child for him to be granted any more.

This was all totally lost on you, wasn't it?!

It wasn't lost on me. Men exist to pay support. We aren't disagreeing.

 

[mandrill]

It wasn't lost on me. Men exist to pay support. We aren't disagreeing.

:frusty:

 

[mandrill]

Ok thanks again (I set up garnishments be they for CRA or the FRO or MOF, so was curious).


So bottom line, the primary caregiver does not contribute towards basic child support as established by the court or Family Law Act.

Err, no. I mean, how could he / she do so anyway in a formal, quantified sense? The kids already live with him / her and he / she covers the day to day expenses already.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Err, no. I mean, how could he / she do so anyway in a formal, quantified sense? The kids already live with him / her and he / she covers the day to day expenses already.

I meant 'financially'.

So it's the same answer, even if that primary caregiver maintains a job (hires a nanny or mum helps) and earns a living too? (Primary caregivers can hold jobs too do they not?)

 

[Vixens]

What if the person with the kids 60% of the time makes more money than their ex?

So let's say mom earns 100K and dad earns 40K. Kids are with mom 60% of the time. You could argue that mom doesn't "need" the money and that might be true however child support is the right of the child. It has nothing to do with mom. Kids benefit and parents are responsible for financially supporting their children.
Now if they have shared access and she makes more there's a payment that she would make to him ( I don't know the percentage ).

Steph

 

[Vixens]

Ok thanks again


So bottom line, the primary caregiver does not contribute towards basic child support as established by the court or Family Law Act.

I see what you're getting at but yes of course the primary caregiver contributes. It's just not a court ordered dollar amount. It isn't mom is primary and makes 50k so she puts in 600/mo and dad has every other weekend, makes 100k so he puts in 1200/mo. It's dad puts in 1200/mo so that the kids live an equal lifestyle with both parents.

Steph

 

[mandrill]

So let's say mom earns 100K and dad earns 40K. Kids are with mom 60% of the time. You could argue that mom doesn't "need" the money and that might be true however child support is the right of the child. It has nothing to do with mom. Kids benefit and parents are responsible for financially supporting their children.
Now if they have shared access and she makes more there's a payment that she would make to him ( I don't know the percentage ).

Steph

No one does!!! (Lawyer joke.)

There's a Supreme Court case - Leonelli-Contino (?) which is supposed to explain how you calculate the difference; but the case is impossible to understand....

 

[freedom3]

Here is a real world example. Nothing exaggerated, unlike other people on here. I was in court and saw this. It wasn't my case.

Mom and dad had separated and had a written custody arrangement. Mom books a two week trip to see her parents in another country with the child during the father's two week period with the child. (The dates for those two weeks were set out in the custody agreement as being the father's time.) She said she assumed he would take his two weeks some other time. He said he couldn't take his two weeks some other time because he had already booked those two weeks off with his employer and his employer was refusing to allow him to switch them. The woman said she had bought non-refundable tickets.

The issue for the court, as always, is how does it rule in favour of the woman. It was a bit difficult because the woman clearly violated the custody agreement but it was nothing that the court couldn't handle:

Judge (screaming at the man as always): Don't you realize it is in the best interests of the child to have a relationship with her grandparents? Of course, the child can go on the trip.

You could see how appalled the judge was that a man would dare not do whatever the mother wanted.

Does this affect child support? Of course not. And when that man becomes completely numb to all this, he will be called a deadbeat dad.

A man who doesn't pay support = deadbeat dad.
A woman who doesn't pay support = mom.

For those thinking of having kids (or dating single mothers): Don't think it won't happen to you.