Following many discussions, Jack and Jill have finally agreed for Jill to have the children in her primary care (equal to 70% of the time) and Jack, because of his work obligations and difficult schedule, will have them in his care every second weekend including one or two evenings in between (or 30% of the time). As a result of this arrangement and because he earns a substantially higher income than Jill, Jack’s monthly child support payment will increase. Jack is concerned about Jill’s love for shopping. While he financially supported it during the marriage, Jack is convinced that a good chunk of the child support he will pay will not be spent on the children. Jack spoke to colleagues at work who used all sorts of strategies to reduce their child support payments. He wonders whether he should have insisted to have the children 50% of the time and whether it was a good idea to accept the long-awaited promotion handed out to him at work, resulting in a higher income… and higher child support payments.
Both of these options are not advisable. Firstly, a parent should never make parenting decisions based on financial considerations (i.e. with a view of reducing child support). The court would readily see such a decision for what it is and the parent would lose credibility before the court (or a mediator). Decision-making authorities assess parenting arrangements based on what is in the best interest of the children, and nothing else. Rights and obligations regarding children are the same whether you are married or living in a common law relationship.
In the same way, it is a terrible idea for a parent to take steps to quit a well-paying job or to voluntarily reduce his/her annual income to avoid paying child support. If a court finds that the payer parent has voluntarily reduced his/her income, it may impute an annual income that is greater than the one shown on the income tax return. The amount of the imputed income will be based on what the court believes the payer parent has the capability to earn. Following the court decision, that parent will be obligated to pay the higher basic child support amount imputed.
Many payer parents are concerned with the way basic child support is being used by the recipient parent. While this may be frustrating in some circumstances, the payer parent has no control over the money once it has been paid to the recipient parent. What payers need to understand is that basic child support is not meant to cover strictly expenses that directly benefit the children themselves (such as food and clothing). It also serves to cover expenses which benefit the children indirectly (although it also has the effect of benefitting the parent as well), such as the mortgage and utilities (for the home in which the children live), the car (which is used to travel them around) and, yes, even the brand new porch…
The payer parent should also keep in mind that in the Federal Child Support Guidelines, basic child support amounts vary for each Canadian provinces and territories and are set based on the amount that an individual parent, with a specific income, is expected to spend to provide for his/her children. It is simple, the higher the income, the higher the child support amount will be. Although a payer parent may feel that it would be « cheaper » not to pay child support and to have the children half the time instead, let’s remember that raising children is extremely expensive (many little things, which you may not think about, result in considerable costs when pulled together; haircuts, school lunches and activities, birthday parties, toys, personal care items and, yes, those LuLu Lemon pants…). In the vast majority of cases, the basic child support amount will not be sufficient to cover that parent’s share of the children’s expenses (both direct and indirect) and the recipient parent will often have to modify his/her current standard of living to support the children financially.
For more helpful information about basic child support and or extraordinary (special) expenses, subscribe to our full library of recorded programs (Study Box) at
No comments:
Post a Comment