Difference between revisions of "Child Support Guidelines"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 35: Line 35:
==Special and/or extraordinary expenses==
==Special and/or extraordinary expenses==


The basic amount of child support a parent pays is presumed to cover a very wide scope of common day-to-day expenses associated with raising children: the child's share of lodging, utilities, shoes, groceries, diapers, clothes, toothpaste, school field trip fees, entertainment, haircuts, and so forth. The basic amount of support is not always presumed to include certain other kinds of expenses that are infrequent but expensive, such as the cost of daycare or orthodontic work. In addition to the basic amount of support payable, a payor may also be required to cover a portion of these other expenses, so long as they qualify as ''special and/or extraordinary expenses'' under the Guidelines.
The basic amount of child support a parent pays is presumed to cover a very wide scope of common day-to-day expenses associated with raising children: the child's share of lodging, utilities, shoes, groceries, diapers, clothes, toothpaste, school field trip fees, entertainment, haircuts, and so forth. The basic amount of support is not always presumed to include certain other kinds of expenses that are infrequent but expensive, such as the cost of daycare or orthodontic work. In addition to the basic amount of support payable, the parents may also be required to cover their respective portions of these other expenses, so long as they qualify as ''special and/or extraordinary expenses'' under the Guidelines.


Special and/or extraordinary expenses are defined in s. 7(1) of the Guidelines:
Special and/or extraordinary expenses are defined in s. 7(1) of the Guidelines:
Line 58: Line 58:
Special expenses are shared between the payor and recipient. These provisions of the Guidelines are intended to ensure that, if either parent incurs significant additional expenses for the child's needs or activities, ''both'' parents will share the cost on the principle that it is in children's best interests to have such needs met or to participate in such activities.
Special expenses are shared between the payor and recipient. These provisions of the Guidelines are intended to ensure that, if either parent incurs significant additional expenses for the child's needs or activities, ''both'' parents will share the cost on the principle that it is in children's best interests to have such needs met or to participate in such activities.


If an expense if found to qualify as a special and/or extraordinary expense under the s. 7(1) and (1.1) definitions, the court may make an order that both parties pay additional amounts, on top of the usual Guidelines basic amount of support, to cover all or a portion of the cost of the expense.
If an expense is found to qualify as a special and/or extraordinary expense under the s. 7(1) and (1.1) definitions, the court may make an order that both parties pay additional amounts, in addition to the usual Guidelines basic amount of support, to cover all or a portion of the cost of the expense.


===Qualifying expenses as "special and/or extraordinary"===
===Qualifying expenses as "special and/or extraordinary"===


Just because an expense appears to fall into one of the categories listed in s. 7 of the Guidelines doesn't necessarily make it a shareable special and/or extraordinary expense. As well, just because an expense has been incurred doesn't mean it will automatically be shared; if you're not sure whether a planned expense will qualify as a shareable special expense, get some legal advice or talk to the other parent first.
Just because an expense appears to fall into one of the categories listed in s. 7 of the Guidelines doesn't necessarily make it a shareable special and/or extraordinary expense. As well, just because an expense has been incurred doesn't mean it will automatically be shared; if you're not sure whether a planned expense will qualify as a shareable special expense, get some legal advice or talk to the other parent first.
An expense that may not qualify as a special expense for higher earning families may qualify as such for low income families.  For example, if guideline child support of $2,000.00 for one child is being paid, the $200.00 cost of soccer registration will probably not be considered a special expense to get shared but that same $200.00 expense may be a special expense if only $100.00 per month Guideline support is being paid.


According to s. 7(1) of the Guidelines, the court must not only find that an expense fits into one of the categories listed above, but also consider:
According to s. 7(1) of the Guidelines, the court must not only find that an expense fits into one of the categories listed above, but also consider:
Line 75: Line 77:
====Reasonableness====
====Reasonableness====


When the court is asked to consider a particular expense, it should first decide whether the expense is reasonable according to the parties' means. For lower income parents not many things are going to be considered reasonable:
When the court is asked to consider a particular expense, it should first decide whether the expense is necessary and reasonable according to the parties' means. For lower income parents fewer expenses will be considered reasonable.


*Orthodontics, providing they are medically necessary.
*Daycare will almost always be considered necessary and reasonable, provided that daycare is incurred as a result of the parent’s employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment. Daycare subsidies will be taken into account when apportioning daycare expenses between the parents as will tax-deductibility.
*Daycare, providing the daycare is required to enable a parent to work outside the home.


For parents with more money, more expenses will qualify as special expenses:
For parents with more money, more expenses may qualify as reasonable:


*Cosmetic orthodontic work.
*Cosmetic orthodontic work.
*Dance, music and art classes, and summer day camps.
*Dance, music and art classes, swimming, and summer day camps.
*Less expensive team sports, like soccer, baseball and basketball.
*Less expensive team sports, like soccer, baseball and basketball.
*Basic high-school graduation <span class="noglossary">costs</span>, such as tickets and gown or tuxedo rentals.
*Basic high-school graduation <span class="noglossary">costs</span>, such as tickets and gown or tuxedo rentals.
Line 91: Line 92:


*Multiple week summer camps and trips abroad.
*Multiple week summer camps and trips abroad.
*Private school fees.
*Expensive team sports, like hockey and horseback polo, and expensive solo sports like skiing and scuba diving.
*Expensive team sports, like hockey and horseback polo, and expensive solo sports like skiing and scuba diving.
*Post-secondary education <span class="noglossary">costs</span>, including meal plans and residence costs.
*Post-secondary education <span class="noglossary">costs</span>, including meal plans and residence costs.
To add a little confusion, however, remember what s. 7(1.1) says about what the requesting spouse can "reasonably cover". Where the parents have lots of money, and the resulting basic monthly child support is high, it’s unlikely that many extracurricular activities and educational expenses (those set out in s. 7(1)(d) and (e) of the Guidelines), would be considered ''extraordinary'' since a high basic child support amount would likely "reasonably cover" these costs.


====Necessity====
====Necessity====
Line 105: Line 105:
*Lessons or coaching in arts and sports, where the child has a special talent that should be nurtured.
*Lessons or coaching in arts and sports, where the child has a special talent that should be nurtured.


A driver training course, for example, is unlikely to qualify as a special expense under the heading of necessity, since you can learn to drive and obtain a driver's licence without it, as was decided in a 2011 Supreme Court case, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/2fzs4 M.S.J. v. J.M.J.]'', 2011 BCSC 245. On the other hand, if a semester with Sylvan Learning Centre will mean the difference between passing or failing a grade, the tutoring would be considered a necessity.
A driver training course, for example, is unlikely to qualify as a special expense under the heading of necessity, since you can learn to drive and obtain a driver's license without it, as was decided in a 2011 Supreme Court case, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/2fzs4 M.S.J. v. J.M.J.]'', 2011 BCSC 245. On the other hand, if a semester with Sylvan Learning Centre will mean the difference between passing or failing a grade, the tutoring would probably be considered a necessity.


===Sharing qualifying expenses===
===Sharing qualifying expenses===


Under s. 7(2) of the Guidelines, expenses that qualify as special and/or extraordinary expenses are shared by the parties in proportion to their incomes, after deducting any contribution to those costs made by the child or the government, through things like grants or tax deductions. The idea here is to look at the total pot of money available to the child — the income of the payor plus the income of the recipient — and to figure how much each party's share of that pot is, and then pay the child's special expenses according to each parent's share.
Under s. 7(2) of the Guidelines, expenses that qualify as special and/or extraordinary expenses are generally shared by the parties in proportion to their incomes, after deducting any contribution to those costs made by the child or the government, through things like grants or tax deductions. The idea here is to look at the total pot of money available to the child — the income of the payor plus the income of the recipient — and to figure how much each party's share of that pot is, and then pay the child's special expenses according to each parent's share.


The easiest way to calculate a parent's ''proportionate share'' is to add the incomes of both parents together and then figure out what percentage each income is of the total. Here are two examples.
The easiest way to calculate a parent's ''proportionate share'' is to add the incomes of both parents together and then figure out what percentage each income is of the total. Here are two examples.
Line 122: Line 122:
<blockquote>If one parent earns $48,000 per year and the other $62,000, the total of their incomes is $110,000. The first parent's income is 43.6% of the total, and the other parent's income is 56.4% of the total. The first parent would have to pay 43.6% of all qualifying special expenses, and the second would have to pay 54.6% of those expenses.</blockquote>
<blockquote>If one parent earns $48,000 per year and the other $62,000, the total of their incomes is $110,000. The first parent's income is 43.6% of the total, and the other parent's income is 56.4% of the total. The first parent would have to pay 43.6% of all qualifying special expenses, and the second would have to pay 54.6% of those expenses.</blockquote>


The cost that is being shared is the ''net cost'' of an expense, in other words, the amount that is actually being paid after any third-party contributions have been applied to reduce the expense. Daycare costs, for example, are usually partly subsidized by the government with certain tax deductions. If $1,000 is spent on daycare, but the government chips in a $200 tax benefit, the amount of the expense shared between the parents would be $800, not the full $1,000.
The cost that is being shared is the ''net cost'' of an expense, in other words, the amount that is actually being paid after any third-party contributions have been applied to reduce the expense. Daycare costs, for example, are sometimes subsidized for lower income earners and the amount paid by a parent is deductible from their income. It is the net expense after deducting any subsidy and any tax saving that is to be shared.  


Note that the income of a parent's new spouse or partner can be taken into consideration in determining a parent's "means" in sharing a special expense. In the 2000 Supreme Court case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1fm6b Baum v. Baum]'', 2000 BCSC 1835 the court held that the s. 7(1) consideration of the "means of the spouses" should be interpreted broadly as including all sources of income available to the paying parent, including the income of a parent's new partner.
Note that the income of a parent's new spouse or partner may sometimes be taken into consideration in determining a parent's "means" in sharing a special expense. In the 2000 Supreme Court case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1fm6b Baum v. Baum]'', 2000 BCSC 1835 the court held that the s. 7(1) consideration of the "means of the spouses" should be interpreted broadly as including all sources of income available to the paying parent, including the contribution of a parent's new partner. Also see a case of ''Scott v. Scott'', 2000 BCSC 844.


==The calculation of income==
==The calculation of income==

Navigation menu