to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation;
to reduce conflict and tension between spouses by making the calculation of child support orders more objective;
to improve the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts and spouses guidance in setting the levels of child support orders and encouraging settlement; and
to ensure consistent treatment of spouses and children who are in similar circumstances.
Stated Purpose
The role of the system is to ensure that support payments flow properly from payors (people who make support payments) to recipients (people who receive them) and has the legal authority to collect support payments and arrears and to take the following enforcement actions against those who do not meet their responsibilities:
collecting funds from federal sources (such as income tax refunds and employment insurance benefits)
reporting the payor to the credit bureau
seizing the payor's bank account or assets
suspending the payor's passport
seizing lottery winnings
suspending the payor's driver's licence
taking the payor to court.
Perceived Role
The system strong-arm tactics and harassment to enforce repayment of arrears with no regard to the NCPs financial situation or the impact of their actions on his relationship with his child(ren).
Appropriate Role
The system's responsibility, when involved, should be to determine the level of support required based upon guidelines and investigate, where necessary, what sources of income are available to the payor. Where possible access should be taken into account and where possible access should be offered equally to both parents. When this is possible only extraordinary expenses (such as daycare and medical coverage) will be divided based upon income. Processes should be in place to accomodate mediation as a dispute resolution avenue. The system should allow for quick and effective management of a change in circumstances without the absolute need for laywers/courts.
Pay your CS obligation and avoid a fight or enforcement actions by "the system". If your situation changes, for the better or worse, handle it immediately within the system. If you're making more than you did when the amount was set, place the difference into a seperate account and earn interest on it until the amount has changed. If the CP never requests the change then you have savings, but plan for it as if the CP will. If the system is threatening enforcement take the day off and get it straightened out, even if it takes going to an accountant or lawyer to figure out the income reporting forms. Expect to review earnings on a yearly basis.
Don't hide your income. The fact is many NCPs do this and while your intention to avoid any increase in your CS and (of course) taxes, the result can be an enormous on the reputation of NCPs if you're caught. Where do you think all these judges came by their opinion that fathers are cheap bastards that don't want to pay?
Non-Financial advice...
When you go to court to alter custody arrangements because the child has been handed to you by the local children's aid group, do NOT immediately or primarily ask for a support reduction, let the judge bring that up and/or bite the bullet until the new arrangements are settled in. It may be expensive for you but a father regaining access is rweard enough for that moment. The judge may percieve your request for financial adjustment as foundation for the change rather than vice versa.
Never do anything that can be percieved as punishing the children because the actions of your ex. It looks bad and the judge will not be on your side. Case-in-Point: Father booked a vacation (motorhome, 2 weeks, etc.) for his three kids. The mother refuses to let the youngest go along. The father cancels the trip because if the little one can't go the trip is ruined. WRONG. The trip may have been a success, the access battle brought to the court would be supported by a two-week session of quality time and the mother would be questioned for her non-co-operation. Instead the judge saw this guy as punishing the kids for the mother's actions. The fathers case was tossed.
Administration Fees are an interesting means of penalizing the payors of Child Support that equates to nothing more than extortion. I would suspect the bulk of the payors - those folk who are in arrears due to hardship - feel threatened and under complete duress when the enforcement actions are commenced. On top of feeling threatened by the growing mound of threats and pressures, the understanding that there's a $400 punch-line in every action the FRO takes is enough to make someone physically sick.
The FRO (Ontario, Canada's CS agency) is so bold as to penalize the payor for checking up on their accounting. To receive a statement of account (just as your bank would issue) it will cost you $25! If you're silly enough to post-date a cheque (gasp!) you're set-back another $10. If you happen to pay the recipient any cash directly, kiss $100 away. It seems endless. Oh... there's another one; If you need to prove you're not in arrears (that you don't have a case open) with the FRO, that'll cost you $150.
This is ludacris. I acknowledge that there are costs to the fight agaist true deadbeats. I also acknowledge that the court systems need reformation in their treatment of the NCPs when they are not deadbeats by choice. This sort of extortion is unacceptable. If the FRO can establish true costs these can be handled by the courts. If the actions of the FRO are deemed harassitive or instigative the judge may waive the costs or reduce them. Those people that are willing to pay what they can in spite of hardship need to be removed from the gun-scope of the FRO.
Spend the $25 to ensure that you're not being over-billed. I'm looking at my recent statement and while there are a number of adjustments there's no logic to the statement's numbers or adjustements. It's not only confusing, their numbers are simply wrong, as if pulled from the air.