SHOP PRODUCTS
Houzz Logo Print
verenap_gw

Supreme Court of Canada - Child Support Ruling - Thoughts?

verenap
17 years ago

Today (or rather yesterday now) the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled that payors are now required to disclose full income information whenever their income increases, and that their child support (CS) is to automatically increase to match, even if an increase is not requested. Failure to do so can result in orders for retroactive support and 'penalties' for being in arrears.

My thoughts on this:

1. Many CS payors are already at a point where they cannot afford to survive, as a direct result of seemingly ever increasing CS amounts (as a result of changes to the guidelines, not necessarily an increase in income.)

2. CS guidelines are not based on the cost of raising a child, they are an inflated ammount, based solely on the income of the payor.

3. CS guidelines were intended to act as a equalizer between the payor and the recipient, in order to ensure that the children were adequetly provided for, however the CSG do NOT take into account the recipients household income in relation to the payors income, when tabulating these ammounts.

4. A CS recipient can take a payor to court, if the payor is not in full compliance, and claim all related legal fees as a tax write off. The payor cannot.

5. While the recipient gains the funds, tax free, allowing her to enjoy greater benefit from both it, and government provided funds (such as the child tax benefits), the payor must claim that money as income and pay tax on it as such, while that money often pushes him over the limits to benefit from government innitiatives, should he have a new family.

6. While the CS ammount is now set to automatically be recalculated when the payor has an increase of income, it is not automatically recalculated when the payor has a decrease of income, and in fact it is very difficult to attain an order for decreased support, even when there is a significant loss of income to the payor.

The personal application of this:

DH works F/T (often putting in the hours of two F/T jobs) He pays roughly $350 per child, per month in CS. His ex has roughly the same household income (from her new spouse) as us (both single income households), however she recieves an additional $8400 (roughly) annually, that she is not taxed on, while we 'lose' that money, but still pay taxes on it. That puts us roughly 16.8K behind her for income. DH has never missed a payment, has provided his income statements every year, and even increase his payments last year, in good faith, without a new order, and she declined asking for two years for an increase (as she doesn't want to go to court because then the access denial issues would have to be addressed). However, in spite of this, she can now go after and get a 10K payout for retroactive CS, that she never asked for, doesn't need, and we cannot afford to pay. DH and I have already spoken this year of the possible need to file for bankruptsy, as a result of the current CS...what's next? Lose the house and move with our son into my beatup car that has 350,000 plus kilometers on it, and barely runs??

I think there's a serious problem here.

Do you agree? Do you think I'm way off base??

I'm sure there are others out there who think that the CS guidelines are to easy on payors (probably CS recipients who think they're entitiled to more...) but I'd like to hear everyones thoughts.

I am expecting this topic may bring some heated discussion...which I'm all for...lets just remember to keep it clean.

Verena

Comments (2)

Sponsored
Re-Bath
Average rating: 4.9 out of 5 stars12 Reviews
Pittsburgh's Custom Kitchen & Bath Designs for Everyday Living