A
situation that comes up quite regularly and is misunderstood by many clients is
the child support obligations where there is shared parenting regime in effect. Shared parenting occurs when each parent’s care
of the children falls within the range of between 60% and 40%. In other words, each parent has the children
for at least 40% of the time.
The
analysis of when the parents are in a shared parenting arrangement, assuming
they do not agree, is complicated in itself.
Do you factor in school time?
Sleeping time? What time do you factor in? That analysis can be difficult unless the
parties agree. We will assume for the
purpose of this article that the parents have agreed that they are in a shared
parenting arrangement or the Court has made that finding.
The
misunderstanding of clients on the child support arrangements in a shared
parenting regime has reached the proportion of urban myth. What I mean by that is clients assume that
once they are in a shared parenting arrangement then there will be an automatic
set off of child support obligations.
For example, parents will look at what their child support obligations
would be to the other parent and then figure out what the other parent would
pay them if the children were with that person full time and set off the two
amounts. For example, they figure out
that if the kids were living with Mom full time then Dad would have to pay her
$1,000.00 per month. Then they figure
out that Mom would have to pay Dad $500.00 per month if the kids were living
with Dad full time. They take the two
amounts and set them off and determine that Dad should pay Mom $500.00 for the
support of the children in the shared parenting arrangement.
Some
clients believe this to be the case no matter what and want it to be the case
so badly that they have a hard time accepting that this is not necessarily the situation. The decision of Contino v. Contino 2005
SCC 63 clarified the law in this regard.
Although the decision is more than five years old and it is from the
Supreme Court of Canada, many people understand that the set off is the only
way to deal with child support.
Section
9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines states as follows:
“9 Where
a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of
a child for not less
than 40% of the time over the course of a year, the amount
of the child support
Order must be determined by taking into account:
(a) the amount set out in the
applicable tables for each of the spouses;
(b) the increase cost of
shared parenting arrangements; and
(c)
the conditions, means,
needs and other circumstances of each
spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.
In the Supreme Court of
Canada’s analysis of this section it stated that section 9 does not include a
conclusive formula to determine how the table amounts are to be considered or
accounted for. It stated that a simple
set off amount is only a starting point for the section 9
analysis, that it must be followed by an examination of the continuing ability
of the recipient parent to meet the needs of the child, especially in light of
the fact that many costs are fixed.
Section 9(c) gives the
Court a great deal of discretion to modify the set off amount where,
considering the financial realities of the parents, it would lead to a
significant variation in the standard of living experienced by the children as
they move from one household to the other.
It further stated that the Court should, in so far as possible, ensure
that the child of the parties enjoys a standard of living that is reasonably
comparable to the standard of living before the divorce and does not vary
markedly in material respects moving from one household to the other. The method for achieving this outcome should
be evidence based.
What the Court is stating
is that there is not a simple formula.
Setting off each parent’s child support obligations is only the first
step. After that the Court can tinker
with the child support to meet the objectives set out by the Court and the
Federal Child Support Guidelines. In the
experience of the writer, it is common for the Courts to engage in this
analysis. Nevertheless, the myth exists
amongst not only clients but some lawyers that all one does is do a set off.
What the Court has to do
is engage in an analysis of the standard of living of each household. If one household is heavily burdened by debt
or the affect of the set off would have a negative impact on the children, then
the Court can and will vary the set off amount to minimize any negative impacts
on the children. In fact, the Court can
have one parent pay the full amount of his or her child support without any set
off at all.
From a practitioner point
of view, it is important to note the Court’s comment that it is evidence
based. The parties must lead evidence
for the Court to do the analysis. In other
words, one cannot simply submit to the Judge the parties’ income and the set
off amounts using a simple formula or table provided by one of the child
support software programs. The parties
must lead evidence of each party’s standard of living, expenses, revenue,
income, debt and assets. Basically,
comprehensive budgets and sworn statements of assets, debts and income must be
submitted. Income must be broken down
and not simply providing the line 150 amount for the Court.
Darryl Aarbo, Barrister and Solicitor
Darryl's bio: http://www.courtneyaarbo.ca/aarbo.php
Darryl's email: darrylaarbo@courtneyaarbo.ca
Darryl's bio: http://www.courtneyaarbo.ca/aarbo.php
Darryl's email: darrylaarbo@courtneyaarbo.ca
The information contained in this blog is not legal
advice. It should not be construed as
legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. If you require legal advice, please contact a
lawyer.
No comments:
Post a Comment