2,443
edits
Difference between revisions of "The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 22:31, 18 April 2013
, 22:31, 18 April 2013→The author's view
Gayla Reid (talk | contribs) m |
Gayla Reid (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
The Advisory Guidelines has melded seamlessly into family law practice in this province and is routinely used to determine spousal support, whether in the course of litigation, arbitration, mediation, or negotiation. Professor Thompson was exactly correct when he predicted that lawyers and the courts would come to rely on the Advisory Guidelines by custom. Frankly, the Advisory Guidelines offers a seductively easy solution to a difficult problem. | The Advisory Guidelines has melded seamlessly into family law practice in this province and is routinely used to determine spousal support, whether in the course of litigation, arbitration, mediation, or negotiation. Professor Thompson was exactly correct when he predicted that lawyers and the courts would come to rely on the Advisory Guidelines by custom. Frankly, the Advisory Guidelines offers a seductively easy solution to a difficult problem. | ||
My views on the Advisory Guidelines have mellowed with time, and while many of my basic concerns remain, they have assumed a lesser significance. Arbitrariness is good, I have concluded. After all, the Child Support Guidelines are essentially arbitrary and so are many other principles of family law. Take the shared custody exception for the calculation of child support. Why 40%? Why not 38.5 or 41.3%? The answer to that question is, I think, "why not?" There has to be a tipping point somewhere, and exactly where on the scale that tipping point lies is immaterial as long as it has is some rational, defensible foundation. | My views on the Advisory Guidelines have mellowed with time, and while many of my basic concerns remain, they have assumed a lesser significance. Arbitrariness is good, I have concluded. After all, the Child Support Guidelines are essentially arbitrary and so are many other principles of family law. Take the shared custody exception for the calculation of child support. Why 40%? Why not 38.5 or 41.3%? The <span class="noglossary">answer</span> to that question is, I think, "why not?" There has to be a tipping point somewhere, and exactly where on the scale that tipping point lies is immaterial as long as it has is some rational, defensible foundation. | ||
The point of the arbitrariness of the Child Support Guidelines is to reduce conflict by setting out a fixed sum that must be paid depending on nothing more than the payor's income and the number of children. The same principle applies to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, although the formulas are a lot more complicated. If an arbitrary set of numbers reduces conflict and saves money, I'm all for it, as long as those arbitrary numbers have a certain fundamental reasonableness to them. | The point of the arbitrariness of the Child Support Guidelines is to reduce conflict by setting out a fixed sum that must be paid depending on nothing more than the payor's income and the number of children. The same principle applies to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, although the formulas are a lot more complicated. If an arbitrary set of numbers reduces conflict and saves money, I'm all for it, as long as those arbitrary numbers have a certain fundamental reasonableness to them. | ||