Vancouver BC Shared Custody Child Support Lawyers help parents reach child focused support decisions when the parties share custody of their children. What rules do Vancouver BC Shared Custody Child Support Lawyers use to help parties promptly settle their cases to save legal fees that can be better spent on their children? One approach is called the set off where the amount notionally paid by the lower income parent assuming the other parent gets full guideline support is deducted from the notional amount owed by the higher earning parent assuming the lower income parent would get full guideline support.
BUT– The best Vancouver BC Shared Custody Child Support Lawyers warn shared child custody is routinely more costly as there are often two sets of expenses for the child for two homes big enough to house the children on a shared basis, more food costs, more transport costs etc. A multiplier of often 50% can be applied by some courts to increase the set off amount to reflect the fact shared parenting doesn’t automatically reduce the costs.
Vancouver BC Shared Custody Child Support Lawyers 1-877-602-9900
The new 2018 case of J.N.C. v. B.B.C. provides key guidance on four key points that will guide Vancouver family clients and their Vancouver BC Shared Custody Child Support Lawyers as follows:
- Not every dollar spent by a parent who cares for the children over 40% of the time directly saves costs of the other parent because costs such as housing and transportation are fixed;
- Evidence related to the costs for caring for the child in each home needs to be produced by both parents AND thoroughly;
- new partners of each spouse and their income and how it saves costs to each shared custody parent is a factor to be considered.
- A multiplier often 50% to reflect increased costs of shared parenting often applies!
New Cases Explained By Vancouver BC Shared Custody Child Support Lawyers
Here are the good parts extracted by one of Canada’s leading family lawyers, Lorne N. MacLean, QC
[3] I have again reviewed that decision and in particular paras. 54-60 of the decision as follows:
[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.
[55] The analysis should be contextual and remain focussed on the particular facts of each case. For example, an application that represents a variation of a prior support arrangement, will usually raise different considerations from a s. 9 application where no prior order or agreement exists. In the former case, the recipient parent, when he or she first got custody, may have validly incurred expenses based on legitimate expectations about how much child support would be provided. These expenses should be taken into consideration and a court should have proper regard to the fixed costs of the recipient parent.
[56] Moreover, as asserted by Prowse J.A. in Green v. Green, at para. 35, it is important that the parties lead evidence relating to s. 9(b) and (c). This evidence has often been lacking, with the result that the courts have been forced either to make assumptions about increased costs (as was done by the Court of Appeal in the present case), or to dismiss the application under s. 9 for lack of an evidentiary foundation.
[57] In my opinion, courts should demand information from the parties when it is deficient. Three main options have been discussed and applied by appellate courts:
(1) Rely on the parties’ financial statements and child expense budgets which provide a fairly reliable source of information;
(2) Adjourn the motion to provide additional evidence (see, e.g., Cabot v. Mikkelson, at para. 43);
(3) Make “common sense” assumptions about costs incurred by the payor parent and apply a multiplier to account for the fixed costs of the recipient parent. ………..
[59] The Court of Appeal also resorted to the multiplier. The assumption behind the multiplier is that 50 percent of the recipient parent’s costs are fixed and, therefore, unaffected by the time the children spend with the payor parent. The multiplier operates to obviate the necessity of the parties calling evidence of the increased costs associated with children living for substantial periods of time in two households. While this formula takes into consideration the increased costs of shared custody, it does so in a somewhat inflexible fashion: Green v. Green, at para. 33.
[60] In the opinion of the appellate court, the use of such a method recognizes the concerns raised by the commentators and the courts that dollars spent on increased access or shared custody do not necessarily lead to a reduction in expenditures for the recipient parent. The use of a multiplier also furthers two of the objectives of the Guidelines, predictability and consistency, in calculating support. According to the Court of Appeal, used with discretion, a multiplier can provide a mechanism for recognizing the relative inflexibility of some of the recipient parent’s costs. In the absence of evidence concerning fixed costs of the recipient parent, the most common multiplier is 50 percent, which is applied to the set-off amount. The amount of the multiplier ought, however, according to the Court of Appeal, to be adjusted depending on the circumstances.
[32] In R.A.V. v. J.M.M., 2016 BCSC 1377, Madam Justice Arnold-Bailey performed a Contino analysis while considering the claimant’s position that the respondent in that case pay the full table amount of child support, or, in the alternative, the set-off amount.
[33] In para. 77, she writes:
[77] In Contino, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with s. 9 of the Guidelines. A number of principles arise from the Contino decision. Section 9 does not provide for an automatic deviation from the Guidelines amount of child support; it is only a different method to determine the amount of child support: Contino at para. 30. There is no presumption in favour of awarding at least the Guidelines amount or in favour of reducing it: Contino at para. 31. Section 9 emphasizes flexibility and fairness and requires acknowledgement of the overall situation of the parents and the needs of the child. The weight to be attributed to each factor listed in s. 9 will vary according to the particular facts of each case: Contino at para. 39.
[34] It is apparent that there is broad discretion for conducting an analysis of the resources and needs of both the parents and the children.
[35] Similar to this case, in R.A.V., Arnold-Bailey J. considered adding to the claimant’s income an additional sum to represent the benefit of her partner living with her “rent free”. She considered and rejected the claim of the respondent that the respective standards of living for the child in that case could not be fairly compared without full financial disclosure of the claimant’s new spouse.
In the end result a payment of $400 was ordered.
To get some free general information on sole custody, split custody and shared custody child support calculations check out this free Government Website.
Don’t Get Confused and Sell Your Children Short Financially
Call our 4 time winning Vancouver BC Shared Custody Child Support Lawyers toll free across BC at 1-877-602-9900 to meet with us in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Fort St John or Richmond BC. Our top rated* Vancouver BC Shared Custody Child Support Lawyers also work out of offices in downtown Calgary.
*Top Choice Award (2014, 2016, 2017 2018, 2019), Top rated reviews on Google, Yelp, threebestrated, lawerratingz.com. Read more about our awards.
