Say I was to have a 50/50 arrangement, and I was to earn $100,000.00 a year, my child support to my child would be $880 a month.
If my x was to have just taken a job earning $30,000.00 a year, her child support to the child would be $245/month.
So the net outcome is that I would owe $635 to my child/month in support. I believe that’s fair. I further think that any decision should vary based on how much time a parent gets to spent with their child beyond the 60/40 limit. I also think that lets say 5 years later, my x, although capable has decided that she just wants to live off the money I pay in support to MY CHILD a month, that considerations should be made. The biggest thing I can suggest is that child support should not be paid to the other parent, but rather possibly in trust to the child, and subject to review if required to make sure the money is being spend appropriately

Contino v. Leonelli‑Contino, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217,

2.2.3 Section 9(c) — Conditions, Means, Needs and Other Circumstances



54 It is clear then that not every dollar spent by a parent in exercising access over the 40 percent threshold results in a dollar saved by the recipient parent: Green v. Green, at para. 27. Professor Rogerson refers to this at pp. 20-21:



On the other hand, allowing such an adjustment raises many concerns. Increased time spent with a child does not necessarily entail increased spending on the child. Furthermore, dollars spent by an access or secondary custodial parent do not necessarily translate into a dollar for dollar reduction in expenditures by the primary custodial parent, many of whose major child‑related costs are fixed — such as housing and transportation; any savings will typically be only with respect to a small category of expenditures for food and entertainment. Particularly in cases where there is a significant disparity in income between the parents, reductions in the basic amount of child support may undermine a lower‑income custodial parent’s ability to make adequate provision for the child or children, and will certainly exacerbate the differences in standard of living between the two parental homes.



Indeed, irrespective of the residential arrangement, it is possible to presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the recipient parent’s fixed costs have remained unchanged and that his or her variable costs have been reduced only modestly by the increased access. Thus, when no evidence is adduced, the court should recognize the status quo regarding the recipient parent.

I also think that any considerations on support should be directly influenced by the parents current situation and income status. If my x was not working, but was married to a multi millionaire, I should not be expected to pay the $880 a month, the fact that her lifestyle and access to funds should factor in.

also take issue with your kindness in respect to the mother not working. The law is already very well established in respect to deliberately under-employing one self to avoid cs obligations. if the father chooses to not work or deliberately under employ himself to avoid paying then the courts simply establish past earning history and based on work history and education determine a cs amount and that is the judgement. A mother or primary custodial parent who decides to not work or one having a child in a second relationship should have this same standard applied to her. You impute the income based on her work history and education and impute an income to determine cs obligations and find the legal application of the new rules under offsetting incomes.

After a woman has dropped out of her career for one year or more, it is difficult to get a job at a high income, and certainly not comparable to a man who maintains his career uninterupted, especially if she is solely responsible if her kid gets sick and she has to leave on a moments notice. If I had not stayed home to care for children (his and then mine), my income would be four times greater than it is now.

I want child support paying dads to understand that child support payments is money well spent!

I appreciate the efforts of all part-time dads. However, I often feel under appreciated for doing it alone

Well researched! If I needed a family laywer... I agree that most expenses relating to child custody are fixed. As I see it, often, the dad spends fun money and mom spends invisible money in the eyes of the child.

However, upon a divorce, woman's social status always declines and many end up in poverty. The man will not suffer from the same decline in income, and may fair better with fewer people to support on his income, even with the transfer. (My ex told me that he can't afford to give me all of the child support today, but I am sure that I can not afford to go without it... How can he say that he can't afford $200 with his 100+ income, while we subsist below 15K. Will he claim undue hardship now?

I might not understand your point in this paragraph, as I have a hard time establishing that a mother could be painted with the same brush to be under-employed on purpose like a man may for the purposes of evading/gaining child support. It doesn't matter how much I work, my child is still legally entitled to child support based on his father's income. In my case I work part-time to increase family income. Even though I am legally entitled to a maternity leave, taking it would result living deeper in poverty.

A common comment is that a mother should be able to make a proper living while the kids are in school for six hours a day. Children are not in school until they are 6 years old. After a woman has dropped out of her career for one year or more, it is difficult to get a job at a high income, and certainly not comparable to a man who maintains his career uninterupted, especially if she is solely responsible if her kid gets sick and she has to leave on a moments notice. If I had not stayed home to care for children (his and then mine), my income would be four times greater than it is now. Child support is the equalizer to give children a better life.

This is drifting into the child support debate.

I want child support paying dads to understand that child support payments is money well spent! I challenge dads who try to nickle and dime away the child support to consider that the child support only covers a share of the "expense" of the child (like the roof, clothing and food) and doesn't "pay" anyone to parent. We do that out of love.

In my situation, I paid 40% of my wages for support, after taxes. So my social status declined.

While I am working 70+ hours a week to afford a home, food, clothing, ect, ect... Ya know, the same thing you have to provide for the children... She is working 20 hours a week,

Hello I am the father of the most wonderful 10 month old boy and I have him exactly 50% of the time. The 50% that he isn't with me i worry about him. I think this more than qualifies me as a single parent and I think that there are alot of fathers out there that don't get to see their kids because a vindictive woman wants to hold a kid over some man's head because of a past deed. This is not the kids' or the father's issue.

Scenario: Man keeps his 9 to 5 job. Woman takes a lower paid job with fewer hours on the evening and weekends to make the 50% custody arrangement work. So he makes $50 000 and she makes $25 000. The man and woman have 50% custody and no money is exchanged. So Dad takes kids to theme parks and movies and eat take-out but with mom they eat weiners and beans and no school field trips. This so called "equal" arrangement can't work and is selfish on the high income earners part.

I say the Joyce arrangement fairly and evenly distributes the "quality time" by giving one parent every second weekend and one evening a week with support payment made to the primary custodial parent. S/he who does "the dirty work" of child rearing is the single parent who hopefully has the support of a part-time parent or daycare or family to avoid burn out.

However this schedule of some dads, every second weekend, may make a relationship work for the kids but is not the same as the harder work of day-to-day parenting... ( I can only assume, as my baby's dad is absent.. comments anyone?) Imagine getting two weeks off every time you worked two days at a income producing job... that would be part-time! How could that parent feel the pinch of single parenting with a bi-monthly visit?

^^^It's pretty basic there David. The initial bond a baby forms is with mom after birth generally. Even with deadbeat moms they form somewhat of a bond. Hell, the mother of my kids was hardly active in raising them but because she pushed them out of her vagina and coddled them here and there, and even though I was the one feeding and changing and bathing and staying up all f'n hours of the night with them while I had to work and she stayed home and had coffee and went to school for a couple of those years they still have more of a bond with her. Children just automatically psychologically attach to their mother's from birth. It's basic Freudian psychology. There is no definitive study on the matter. How many kids cry for daddy moreso than mommy when they hurt themselves or are sick? Maybe when the kids get older and can think for themselves at say 8 and up but before that I'd say mom rules the roost, regardless of whether she's absent or not. I never said they wouldn't hurt if the dad left. I just think it'd be easier to take and they'd get over it sooner.

However, upon a divorce, woman's social status always declines and many end up in poverty. The man will not suffer from the same decline in income, and may fair better with fewer people to support on his income, even with the transfer.

I might not understand your point in this paragraph, as I have a hard time establishing that a mother could be painted with the same brush to be under-employed on purpose like a man may for the purposes of evading/gaining child support. It doesn't matter how much I work, my child is still legally entitled to child support based on his father's income.

You pay that because you avoided paying child support, you are in arrears and now your wages are being garnished. Otherwise you would not have to pay 40%. You won't get sympathy from any single mother that you forced your children to live without for so long.

I can only speculate, but keeping your children in poverty was incredibly stressful on mom and the kids so they act out and she needed a vacation and the clubing. So you pick up the kids and spoil them and come back to us looking for some kind of pat on the back. Your actions are a sign that you exert financial control to make your wife suffer and you abusing those kids with your mind games.

You are the single dad that makes us single moms mad. While she had custody, did you spend every visit purposely teaching your kids to resent mom. You might feel pretty good for being "Hero DAD" but in time they will realize that it was you that put them into poverty in the first place and they will hate you for it.

The child's support is supposed to be based on both parents combined income (at least here in the U.S. - Canada may be different). So if either parent purposefully seeks to be under employed, then their support obligation should based on what they can be making, not what they are making. Why does a mother have to take a full year off from work after a child is born. Medically she is capable of returning to work within 6 weeks (usually). Why can't she return to her normal 9-5 job and have the kid stay with a sitter or at a day care.

Why can't she return to her normal 9-5 job and have the kid stay with a sitter or at a day care.