You are here

Messed up court system. It's in Canada too

Annoyed1's picture

Holy hell! I just read this article:

It's stuff like this that just makes my blood boil. We live in the 21 century for crying out loud. Women work, men work. We're not in the stone age. How is this in any way what's best for the children? When will people stand up to the court system? It's such a joke. No wonder suicide rates are high for men who can't keep up with their CS payments. This would be absolutely unheard of if the roles were reversed and it was a woman having to pay CS.


notsobad's picture

“I find that the applicant father made the conscious choice to earn so much less that he must bear the consequences,” Magda said.

My exH tried to do this.
He was a mechanic with over 20 years experience. When we split he owned his own company was sub contracted to the garage owner. He promptly dissolved the company and had his boss only pay him a pittance compared to what the company made.

We didn't go to court but in mediation he said he only made $10K a year and that's what CS was going to have to be based on.
The mediator told him he could try to tell the judge that but mechanics with his experience made $70K on average and up to $100K with a good client base.
The mediator said the judge could and probably would base CS on the provincial average and that if he was in a bad mood he'd go with the higher amount. It would be up to DH to prove that he wasn't capable of earning that much.

I think that's what happened here except that it was in court and he was court ordered to pay what the judge determined to be his earning power.

moeilijk's picture

Interesting. My take was that the Dad didn't have the cash flow from his business to meet his support payments, so he ended up selling his interest in the business to try to finance getting support reduced. I guess he got penalized for spending his (and his wife's money) on something other than support?

moeilijk's picture

Hmmm, that's not what the judge said.

But indeed, we don't know the facts, only what is reported here. And that's not very clear.

moeilijk's picture

HRNYC, what are you talking about? You said, "Did he become voluntarily unemployed, as the judge said?"

But the judge didn't say that. I read the same article, and I also read that the reporter wrote this: "“I find that the applicant father made the conscious choice to earn so much less that he must bear the consequences,” Magda said."

But that isn't the judge saying, "The applicant father became voluntarily unemployed."

There are some people who do go into 'hiding' to try to duck their responsibilities. There are some people who make a reasonable effort to meet their responsibilities. And yet others who strive, well beyond reasonable measures, to meet their responsibilities (in particular I'm thinking of CharlotteCB's DH).

IMHO, if you can't pay your support bill but you've got two parents and a new spouse who are pouring their money into your ex and your children's support, you are either a master at inspiring codependent and enabling behaviour OR... your support bill is too high.

Thumper's picture

This Mom is holding all the cards here.

She can at any time agree to a lower amount. Since mom is a part of this action she if fully aware that her ex is selling his stuff in effort to pay the kids back.

Why is it ok for custodial to reduce hours, or not work at all BUT gosh forbid a ncp do it.

LET DAD and sm have custody of the kids for a change. I bet they could raise them on far far less money.

notsobad's picture

No she isn't.
In Canada parents don't sue for CS the province does. It's out of the Moms hands.
They did this because abusers were threatening their exs and forcing them to tell the courts they didn't want or need any CS.

Same thing as victims of abuse dropping charges against the person who beat them up. Now, it's not the victim pressing charges it's the police.

notsobad's picture

Christie Blachford is a notoriously biased writer. She has an agenda here.

Our CS system is a chart, you make $, you have # of kids, you pay $$ it's pretty simple. The custodial parents income doesn't matter except for section 7 activities (swimming, hockey, music lessons, etc).

It doesn't say how many kids they have but CS on $65K, 2 kids in Ontario is $966 a month.
CS on $500K for 2 kids is $6K.

Spousal support is based on different factors. Among them, length of marriage, age of children, if the asking spouse worked during the marriage and is then calculated on both parties INDI, individual net disposable income. CS is factored in, so he would subtract it from his INDI and she would add it. Support is then granted to bring the lower income earners income up to 40% - 46% of the combined INDI of both spouses.

He was a co owner in a flooring company, he's now a commission sales person for that same company.
His CS and spousal support was calculated when he was an owner. They don't say if he got paid for his portion of the company or how he went from owner to commissioned employee in only a year!

Two judges have said this needs to go to trial so that they can discover what his actual income is.
He didn't satisfy the court that his circumstances had changed. Sounds to me like they think he's hiding money.

I'm sorry but to me this seems like a clear case of him appearing to have a much much lower income in order to avoid paying CS and spousal support.