Department of Justice
www.justice.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Institutional links
The Department of Justice Canada works to reduce family violence in Canada. Learn more...
Report of the Follow-Up Committee on the Quebec Model for the Determination of Child Support Payments
July 2004
- [ Previous Page |
- Table of Contents |
- Next Page ]
CHAPTER 5 (cont): PART 5—CALCULATION OF ANNUAL SUPPORT ACCORDING TO CUSTODY TIME
CONTEXT
In addressing Part5 of the form, it is important to recall a few basic principles established under civil law with respect to parental authority.
Article32 of the Civil Code of Québec stipulates that “Every child has a right to the protection, security and attention that his parents or the persons acting in their stead are able to give to him.
” In addition, article33 states that “Every decision concerning a child shall be taken in light of the child’s interests and the respect of his rights.
” Article599 of the Code later provides that “The father and mother have the rights and duties of custody, supervision and education of their children.
” In other words, parents are responsible for feeding and caring for their children, and article600 provides that “the father and mother exercise parental authority together.
” This responsibility lies with both parents, whether or not they are in fact married. Furthermore, in case of break-up, article605 clearly states that parents maintain their parental authority no matter what the
circumstances: “Whether custody is entrusted to one of the parents or to a third person, and whatever the reasons may be, the father and mother retain the right to supervise the maintenance and education of the children, and are bound to contribute thereto in proportion to their means.
”
It is clear that the Civil Code respects the principle of parental equality and that it promotes, even after a break-up, the maintaining of both parents’ responsibilities with respect to their children.
The Quebec model for the determination of child support payments also respects the aforementioned principles and, especially in Part5 of the form, promotes the children’s right to have access to both their parents.
Percentage of Custody Time
The model establishes that the percentage of custody time may influence the level of support actually awarded: “One of the most important components of the Quebec model for the determination of child support payments is that it takes into account the custody time of both parents in determining child support contributions.
”[41]
Part 5 of the Child Support Determination Formallows for an adjustment of the level of support in proportion to the amount of time that the child spends with each respective parent. It follows that, after custody and access rights have been established, the parents must complete the section of the form corresponding to their own particular situation in order to determine the level of child support payments:
The system for determining support contributions established in the Regulation and the form designed for its application distinguish among three types of situations based on the access time of the non-custodial parent, i.e. whether this time falls below 20%, is between 20% and 40%, or has reached 40%. The longer the non-custodial parent’s access time, the more he or she is considered as having made a contribution that must be factored in when reducing the level of support to be paid using the Table to Determine the Basic Parental Contribution.
Given this regulatory framework, it is crucial that access time be calculated as accurately and realistically as possible. Both judges and practitioners do, however, run the risk of distorting the procedure for determining access time by reducing or increasing access time artificially, in order to change how support payments are calculated. The fundamental principle regarding the child’s interests imposes an obligation to determine access based on a system that will guarantee the child’s optimum development and as far as possible, ensure that both parents have appropriate access so that they might contribute, to their child’s growth and education, while determining, as a next step, the level of child support to be paid.
Assessing custody time often proves to be a very difficult task....[42]
Accordingly, for parents with sole custody of their children, i.e. in cases where a child spends more than 60% of his or her time with the custodial parent, the latter must complete Division 1 of the form concerning sole custody.
LAW, REGULATION AND FORM
Regulation respecting the determination of child support payments
Child Support Determination Form, lines 510 to 552.1
| Division 1 | Sole custody Lines 510 to 512.1 |
|---|---|
| Division 1.1 |
Adjustment for visiting and prolonged outing rights Lines 515 - Percentage of custody time for exercising visiting and prolonged outing rights |
| Division 2 | Split custody Lines 520 to 526.1 |
| Division 3 | Shared custody Lines 530 to 534.1 Lines 530—Distribution factor (%) of custody (father: number of days of custody  ÷ 365 X 100) (mother: number of days of custody ÷ 365 X 100) |
| Division 4 |
Both sole and shared custody Lines 548—Distribution factor (%) of shared custody (father: number of days of custody |
PROBLEM AREAS
One party before the court asked the Committee to explain why the non-custodial parent cannot deduct the first 20% of custody time from the basic support contribution. He argues that the non-custodial parent is penalized twice: first by losing custody of the child and then by being penalized financially.
Another party wonders why the adjustment for access rights applies only to the basic parental contribution (Line 401) and not to the annual contribution of both parents (Line 514).
- A number of problem areas related to Part5 have been reviewed in the section on recommendations made during the Committee’s mandate and will not be reconsidered here.
- The entire issue of calculating custody time is an area of concern.
- The problem of how to apply the concept of shared custody has also been raised.
The Basis of the Principle of Custody Time
When the model was initially implemented, a first problem concerned the principle itself. Some observers feared that parents might begin to use their children as bargaining chips:
Another crucial point may very well cause problems: custody time is now considered as a criterion when assessing annual levels of support. According to the new system, the parent with access rights constituting between 20% and 40% of custody time is considered to be a non-custodial parent with prolonged visiting rights. Shared custody is deemed to apply to cases where each parent assumes at least 40% of custody time in respect of all children. Support contributions will vary according to custody time, and it is easy to imagine all the problems that this assessment criterion will create, since custody and access rights now become a fundamental issue, and so much is at stake.
Another problem related to this entire issue arises from the fact that the new system provides for a reduction in levels of support proportionate to the access time awarded to the non-custodial parent. A non-custodial parent whose children spend 30% of all custody time with him or her may reduce support contributions proportionately. And yet it is a well known fact that, notwithstanding the “prolonged” access rights exercised by the non-custodial parent, the custodial parent always pays the lion’s share of child care expenses, in spite of the temporary absence of the children. Here is one example among so many others: the housing costs of the custodial parent remain the same whether the child is at home or not! Food bills are probably the only ones to actually drop.
On the other hand, expenses incurred by the non-custodial parent during periods spent with the children do not warrant a reduction in the level of support equivalent to access time. Serious consideration should be given to removing this automatic reduction based on the exercise of access rights.
The new concept is to be feared because it may very well cause a flood of new court cases. Children could literally be held hostage since custody time will directly influence the levels of support awarded. Furthermore, since it is stipulated in the Child Support Determination Form that the terms and conditions for custody and access rights must also be specified, a serious problem may arise when the form is being completed. Custody and access rights very often become contentious issues when parties first file for support.[43]
HOW THE PRINCIPLE OF CUSTODY TIME IS APPLIED
Problems also arise when the principle is actually applied. The question has thus been debated at length before the courts, especially in order to define a system for calculating custody time.
One party before the court sent a letter to the Ministère which was, in turn, forwarded to the Follow-up Committee. The letter outlines the correspondent’s concerns:
… [According] to current case law, time spent at the day care centre or at school belongs, as it were, to the custodial parent.
Thus, the case law establishes that a parent who has a child every other week may not actually meet the 40% criterion.
In my opinion, there is not difference; a week is a week. I too have to take my little girl to the pediatrician or the dentist and stay home from work when she’s sick in bed.[44]
VARIATION OF THE CASE LAW
The Regulation does not specifically indicate how custody time should be calculated. There are several Superior Court rulings on the issue, some suggesting that the percentage of custody time should be based on the number of nights the child expects to spend with each parent, while others imply that the calculation should take into account the number of days that the child is cared for by each parent, without considering short periods of time or the exact number of hours. The Quebec Court of Appeal finally settled the issue (as can be seen in Droit de la famille—3165, [1998] R.J.Q. 2050) by ruling that all periods of time spent with one or the other parent must be included when calculating custody time and that there is nothing in the Regulation that would exclude periods when a child spends fewer than twelve hours with a given parent.
OBSERVATIONS
A study of the data reveals that the mother is granted sole custody in 71% of cases, while the father has sole custody in 5% of cases. Thus it will be noted that sole exclusive custody is granted in 76% of all cases. However, if all cases of sole custody with access rights and extended visitation for the non-custodial parent are combined with cases of sole exclusive custody, it will be noted that the mother has custody in 79% of all sample cases while the father has custody in only 6% (see Chapter 4, Section 3.2.9). Leaving aside cases of both sole and shared custody, representing only 1% of the sample, other types of custody occur in a very similar percentage of cases: 9% (sole custody with visiting and prolonged outing rights for the non-custodial parent), 7% (shared custody) and 7% (split custody).
Table 13 shows how custody time is allocated on a percentage basis with respect to the exercise of access rights. The father is the non-custodial parent in 93% of all cases. In 59% of cases, the percentage of the non-custodial parent’s prolonged custody time varies from 26% to 34%. In comparing median monthly support payments according to the type of custody (see Appendix 6), it will be noted that the median amount is $303 for cases where the mother has been granted sole custody and $279 for cases of sole custody with access rights and extended visitation. The compensation for this kind of custody is not large. It should be recalled that no compensation whatsoever is received in cases where the non-custodial parent has custody for fewer than 73days per year (under 20%), whereas a certain compensation is provided whenever the non-custodial parent has been granted access rights totalling between 20% and 40% of custody time in order to encourage the child’s access to both parents. It would appear that the fears expressed by certain practitioners when the model was first implemented concerning the new concept of custody time have not in fact been borne out. With respect to shared custody, parents have shown a preference for an equal sharing of custody time in 78% of all cases, while 22% have preferred to allocate custody time in an unequal manner (between 40% and 60%). For this type of arrangement, custody time is compensated once the 40% level is reached. As indicated in the above example, the model is flexible enough to take into account the needs of both parents and their children.
Furthermore, it is interesting to compare these data with statistics concerning the median total income of both parents by type of custody (Table 4 of Chapter 4). On the one hand, incomes are higher across the sample for parents with both sole custody and shared custody, i.e. $60,000 (1%of all cases), $49,400 for cases where the father has sole custody (5% of all cases) and $48,076 for cases of shared custody (7% of cases). On the other hand, income is lowest when the mother has sole custody, i.e. $37,050 (71%).
The model tends to facilitate the children’s access to both of their parents by stipulating the levels of compensation that correspond to different types of custody arrangements (except for cases of sole custody). Nonetheless, having a relatively low income is probably one of the problems preventing parents from choosing an arrangement other than sole custody even if they would prefer to do so.
Lastly, it will be noted that the highest median level of monthly support, as established in the model, is awarded in cases where the mother has been granted sole custody (cf. Appendix 6), on the understanding that the latter’s income is significantly lower than the father’s (see Chapter 4, Tables 3 and 6 and Diagram 9).
Calculating Custody Time
Following several divergent rulings handed down by the Quebec Superior Court, the Quebec Court of Appeal finally settled the question of how to calculate custody time in a unanimous decision, with reasons for the judgment provided by Justice Chamberland (Droit de la famille—3165[45]). This ruling has, moreover, been upheld in another Court of Appeal decision.[46]
Even though jurists are now aware of these rulings, it is still important to ensure that the procedure for calculating custody time is clearly stated in the Regulation and explained in the information brochure pertaining to the model so that parties before the court can use the model more easily. Custody time should include the whole length of time that the child is in the parent’s care; in other words, the entire period during which the parent is responsible for the child must be taken into account, including, for instance, time spent at day care or at school. These clarifications would represent a pro-active approach to problem solving and would help prevent sterile quarrels erupting between parties before the court.
The Impact of Shared Custody on the Division of Shared Expenses
While the mechanism established in the form does not in itself cause any problems, the story is very different with respect to how it is applied by parents once the decision to adopt this type of custody arrangement has been made. In this regard, it is important to mention a few concepts that might better explain the impact of shared custody on the division of shared expenses.
In sole custody cases, support contributions cover all expenses related to child care (housing, food, clothing, education, health, recreation, etc.). It follows that the non-custodial parent is only responsible for expenses that directly result from the exercise of his or her access rights. Furthermore, child care expenses, post-secondary education expenses and special expenses, as recorded at Line 406 of the Child Support Determination Form, are not open to interpretation since they are added to the level of support to be paid based on the disposable income of each parent (Line 407). Thus, in all cases, the parent receiving support must also cover these expenses, regardless of the custody arrangement, unless arranged otherwise in a specific agreement between the parties. For instance, it could be arranged that the non-custodial parent pay certain fees directly to a third party, such as a private school, a day care, etc.
On the other hand, in shared custody cases, the question of who should defray certain expenses is often open to interpretation. At issue here are shared costs linked to the purchase of certain goods and services, i.e. expenses which are incurred on a recurring basis (the purchase of clothing, health-care expenses, registration costs for a sporting activity, etc.) and are shared by the two households. Some contend that these expenses, like special expenses, should be covered by the parent receiving support, whereas others would argue that these costs should be divided according to the income of each parent.
The mechanism for dealing with cases of shared custody, found in Part3 of the form, is based on the principle that support is paid to the lower-income parent. Support payments serve to make up for the gap between custody expenses and the basic parental support contribution so that each parent has the necessary resources to cover expenses related to child care. It follows that, once the level of support is determined at Line 534 (“Annual support payable”), shared expenses, as defined above, should be covered by both parents according to the custody time of each one. These expenses are independent of the parents’ income. Support payments serve to balance out the cost of child care according to custody time so that each parent may then cover his or her share of expenses related to child care.
Thus the Regulation stipulates that each parent must cover these expenditures when they arise in proportion to custody time (40% to 60% as the case may be); one party is then reimbursed by the other for these expenses according to a pre-determined arrangement. In practice, some people find this way of proceeding cumbersome and inappropriate. They are, however, free to establish their own payment system so long as it remains within the framework of the Regulation. For instance, the parents might together estimate the annual cost of clothing, after which one party would give the other a lump sum covering his or her share of these expenses (40% to 60%, as the case may be). The parent having received this payment would subsequently be responsible for all clothing purchases.
Both Sole and Shared Custody Involving Two or More Children
According to the statistics, parents with two or more children having chosen an arrangement whereby at least one parent has sole custody of at least one child and both parents have joint custody of at least another child represent 10% of all sample cases. In 7% of all cases, the parents have opted for sole exclusive custody of at least one child each, while 3% of parents share custody of two or more children.
Now, the table was designed, and quite rightly so, to reflect the assumption that the cost of having two or more children is not twice or three times, etc. the cost of caring for an only child, obviously provided that the children in question live in the same home. The table takes into account economies of scale and the relative weight in terms of expenditures for each member of the family unit.
This reasoning cannot be applied in cases where at least one parent has sole custody of at least one child or both parents have shared custody of two or more children since each child is living in a different place. In all such cases, shouldn’t calculations of support be based on the amount listed in the table corresponding to the real situation of each parent, i.e. the actual number of children living with each one?
Here is an example of what this might mean: if the family income for purposes of calculation is $40,000, and each parent has sole custody of one child, the annual level of support would currently be pegged at $3,855 per child, for a total of $7,710. However, since each party must maintain a residence equipped to receive a child on a full-time basis, it cannot be claimed that either of them is benefiting from economies of scale. Thus it only stands to reason that the amount provided by the table for a first child should be applied in the case of each party, i.e. $5,150 each, for a grand total of $10,300.
The Follow-up Committee did not have enough time to examine this question fully. A variation of the entire issue should be included in any future studies.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT:
- Careful consideration be given to recommendations made during its mandate, especially recommendations 6 and 12. The proposed new form (see Appendix 10) includes a revised version of Part5.
- The Regulation be amended to include a method of calculating custody time that takes into account the entire period during which the child is entrusted to each parent and the whole length of time during which the child is the sole responsibility of the custodial parent.
- The information brochure explaining the model be redesigned to provide more information concerning how to calculate custody time and the impacts of shared custody upon shared expenses.
- The Ministère de la Justice thoroughly examine the cost of looking after one child in relation to the amounts provided in the table and calculations made in cases of shared custody or where each parent has sole custody, when there are two or more children.
PART 6—CAPACITY TO PAY OF DEBTOR
CONTEXT
Section 8 of the Regulation respecting the determination of child support payments stipulates that “Unless the Court decides otherwise considering, in particular, the parent’s assets, the support payable by a parent in respect of his child may not exceed half his disposable income...
”
The provision is applied to Part6 of the Child Support Determination Form, which enables the support payer to verify whether or not prescribed support payments exceed 50% of his or her disposable income.
This rule serves to illustrate one of the basic principles underlying the model, namely that low-income parents should be given incentives to fulfil their support obligations with respect to their children.
LAW, REGULATION AND FORM
Regulation respecting the determination of child support payments
Child Support Determination Form, Part 6
- 600—Disposable income of parent required to pay support (line 305)
- 601—Multiply line 600 by 50%
- 602—Annual support payable according to calculations under a division of Part 5
- 603—Annual support payable
- (enter the lesser amount between lines 601 and 602)
PROBLEM AREAS
One practitioner pointed out to the Committee that the new calculation system does not take debts into account. More specifically, a party before the court asked the Committee why debts incurred for university studies are not factored in when calculating support payments, especially since, in his view, these financial obligations represent a heavy financial burden, particularly given the current, “increasingly precarious,” job market.
Other parties also find the provisions of section 8 of the Regulation to be excessive, insofar as they stipulate that support contributions may not exceed half the parent’s disposable income. More specifically, one party mentioned that in his view child support payments should never exceed one third of disposable income.
Limit of 50% of Disposable Income (Line 601)
Line 601 does not represent any problem in terms of calculation, but some observers wonder whether the assumptions that underlie it are reasonable. At first glance, a limit of 50% of disposable income for child support payments does seem rather high. It should be recalled, however, that before the model came into force, the case law had established a certain “glass ceiling” constituting the limit for all types of support payments (including for the spouse or former spouse and children). The ceiling, as it happened, was pegged at 50% of the gross income earned by the support payer.
This same ceiling was established by the lawmakers in article553, para. 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to an exemption from seizure of property. In essence, the C.C.P. stipulates that certain types of income and benefits may be seized up to a limit of 50%, particularly in cases involving support payments. Furthermore, article15 of An Act to facilitate the payment of support (c. 18, 1995) states that, for cases involving sums paid to the debtor on a periodic basis, the Minister of Revenue is to determine the amount that may be deducted at source up to the percentage of income seizable for support payments as established by applying article553, para.2, C.C.P.
Thus the only difference between disposable income as defined by the model and the gross income used before the model’s coming into force lies in the basic deduction of $9,000, along with the deduction for union or professional dues. It also follows that the difference between these two categories of income decreases as a person’s income increases.
Problems arise at both ends of the income scale, i.e. for high-income parties before the court who have several children, as well as for those with low incomes. Let us look at two such problematic situations.
Low-Income Parties Before the Court
A significant number of observations concerning the support payments established in the table are to the effect that these contributions are too high for low-income earners.
The limit of 50% of disposable income, as stipulated at Line 601 of the form, comes into play automatically and serves to limit the basic parental contribution for those with low incomes.
For instance, in cases where there is only one child, the automatic 50% ceiling ceases to apply only when income exceeds $3,000, whereas in cases where six (6) children are involved, it no longer applies once the annual disposable income of both parents exceeds $14,000.
Even in light of this automatic limit, the levels of support listed in the table for these income brackets are often seen as being too high.
Given that for low-income parties before the court, each dollar has a high marginal importance (both for parents and their children), the model does not seem in this instance to strengthen the desire to keep a job or even return to work. This is a situation that cries out for a solution.
Parties with Other Financial Obligations
Some parties find themselves in situations involving unavoidable economic constraints that others do not face; this is the case, for instance, for those who must make mandatory contributions to a pension fund due to the terms and conditions of their employment and not to their own professional status.
The rationale for only allowing deductions for union or professional dues is that these costs cannot be avoided when earning an income, and this is in fact the case for all professionals or unionized workers: such dues are part and parcel of the right to work. On the other hand, it is contended that mandatory pension fund contributions deducted by a company or organization are among the salary conditions of the company or organization and are not an inherent element of the employment or work status of the party before the court.
The calculations that have yielded the amounts listed in the table take into account a percentage of savings and the capitalization of income for the future (i.e. pension funds, RRSP contributions and other tools for establishing a deferred retirement income).
It is likely that, in certain cases, the support payer’s net residual income (after income tax, various types of social security and other tax payments, child support payments, and in some cases support payments to a spouse or former spouse) is insufficient to cover his or her needs, assuming that the $9,000 figure to cover personal needs is maintained.
This sort of situation arises in particular for workers with several children making certain types of mandatory contributions, for instance, for government employees who must pay into the RREGOP [Quebec’s government and public employees retirement plan] pension fund or workers making mandatory payments into their company’s pension fund.
In order to carry out an accurate analysis of the situation, the Committee undertook to determine the net income of a person who is alone (the usual income tax situation of a support payer after a separation or divorce). For more information, please see the table in Appendix 12 of the report.
Parties Before the Court With Several Children
An unusual economic situation is faced by parties with a large family.
The analysis of figures provided by the table for each income bracket and number of children yields some rather interesting results. Indeed, it should be noted that the amounts listed in the table under the “Number of children” column almost always correspond to the same percentage of net income for cases where one parent alone is earning employment income. For instance, a gross income of $20,000 yields a net income of $15,795, an amount that, in turn, corresponds to a disposable income of $11,000. The level of support established in the table for one child is $2,520, i.e. 16% of net income (see Appendix12).
| no. of children | percentage |
|---|---|
| 1 child | 16% - 17% |
| 2 children | 23% - 26% |
| 3 children | 29% - 32% |
| 4 children | 34% - 38% |
| 5 children | 38% - 45% |
| 6 children | 38% - 51% |
As Appendix 12 reveals, in cases involving six children, the percentage of the basic parental support contribution is, in the majority of cases, approximately 50% of net income.
A comparison of the total income of both parents in all situations with the total income of parents with between one and four children yields the following results:
Total income of both parents:
| Average | Median | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| All cases | 1,890 | $44,208 | $39,690 |
| 1 child | 917 | $41,060 | $36,130 |
| 2 children | 733 | $47,153 | $43,169 |
| 3 children | 189 | $48,390 | $40,684 |
| 4 children | 43 | $45,112 | $41,587 |
These data tend to demonstrate that combined parental income increases with the number of children. The slight drop in combined income for couples with four children does not, in our view, seem significant enough (given the small number of such cases included in the sample) to support the argument that this rule no longer applies to cases of couples with four or more children. The Committee considers that there is a proven link between income level and the number of children. It could happen, however, that after a couple has had a certain number of children, one of the partners might leave the job market in order to remove an important set of expenditures, i.e. those directly or indirectly related to a second job. The family income will, of course, drop in such circumstances, but so will child care expenses, such as day care costs. Additional transportation expenditures and the cost of restaurant meals will also decrease, to name only a few other types of expenses.
Thus the rule holds true for each disposable income bracket: a larger number of children means a higher basic parental support contribution and less room for child care expenses. Although the Committee does not have statistical evidence to support the following hypothesis, it only stands to reason that as a couple has more children in the course of a relationship, there is less income available for such expenditures.
As discussed earlier, the model stipulates that the support payable by a parent in respect of his or her child may not exceed half the parent’s disposable income. On the other hand, as we have also seen, the basic parental support contribution can currently exceed 50% of net income in cases where there are several children and only one income. If one applies the percentage to disposable income as proposed in the table, this works out to approximately 40% of disposable income.
In other words, support payments representing 50% of disposable income (as recorded at Line601 of the form) exceed, in certain cases, 50% of the net income of the party before the court.
After having reviewed some borderline cases (an average income, six children, RREGOP and other contributions), we have concluded that parents before the court whose parental contribution has reached 50% of net income are in a situation whereby any contribution exceeding this percentage of net income may lead to “undue hardship.”
For couples with a single income (50% of all cases), the 50% ceiling for disposable income represents 63% of net income, thus resulting in obvious undue hardship for the debtor of support.
The Committee contends that the lawmakers did not intend to introduce measures that put parties before the court in a situation which seems, a priori, to be extremely difficult. The current ceiling causes such hardship, in the Committee’s view, in cases where there are five or six children and the support payer is the only income provider.
VARIATION OF THE CASE LAW
The debtor’s ability to pay is examined by the court in cases where it must decide whether or not to include certain expenses related to child care, in cases involving children at or above the age of majority and in the aforementioned cases where the concept of undue hardship might be applied. The case law concerning these subjects may be found in the various sections concerning the problem areas studied by the Committee during its mandate.
OBSERVATIONS
Limit of 50% of Disposable Income (Line 601)
While searching for possible answers to the problems raised, the Committee discovered a very simple solution: reduce the limit appearing at Line 601 to 40% of disposable income.
In the first place, the automatic application of a maximum of 40% of disposable income to the various income brackets listed in the table serves to reduce the parental contributions of low-income parties before the court.
This automatic reduction represents a response to the many observations in the Committee’s surveys, namely that the amounts listed in the table are too high for low-income parties.
The table in Appendix13 compares the results of applying this measure with the amounts provided in the current table (January 2000).
The scale produced by the new rate includes a lower basic parental support contribution for the income brackets targeted by the current 50% limit. The new rate also leads to a decrease in basic parental support for certain higher income brackets, raising the maximum income for an automatic application of the ceiling to $4,000 in cases where there is only one child and $30,000 in cases where there are six.
For parties before the court with large families and high incomes, a reduction in the 50% ceiling would serve to increase the amount of money available to the support payer for meeting his or her other support obligations.
Appendices 14A, B, and C demonstrate the differences resulting from a reduction in the 50% limit. The table below contains only the most extreme cases of divergence.
| Period | Limit | One Child |
Two Children | Three Children | Four Children | Five Children |
Six Children |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly | Minimum | $1.92 | $1.92 | $1.92 | $1.92 | $1.92 | $1.92 |
| Maximum | $6.54 | $10.77 | $15.38 | $19.23 | $23.08 | $28.65 | |
| Monthly | Minimum | $8.33 | $8.33 | $8.33 | $8.33 | $8.33 | $8.33 |
| Maximum | $28.33 | $46.66 | $66.66 | $83.33 | $100.00 | $124.16 | |
| Yearly | Minimum | $100.00 | $100.00 | $100.00 | $100.00 | $100.00 | $100.00 |
| Maximum | $340.00 | $560.00 | $800.00 | $1,000.00 | $1,200.00 | $1,490.00 |
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT:
- The Regulation be amended in order to replace the current limit of 50% of disposable income with a rate of 40%.
- [ Previous Page |
- Table of Contents |
- Next Page ]
