Aziliz, I'm not currently paying (by mutual agreement), at the moment my ex is being fairly reasonable.

What I do have is a C$A letter claiming that I have an obligation to pay and a difficult path is I want to protect my self against a change of mind by the ex.

The obligation is there because of the "formula". Theoretically my ex will have my son 2 nights a fortnight plus some of the holidays, at the moment she is choosing less. That level of care plus a significant difference in gross income leaves me as a potential payer. From what I've been told by C$A there is no way for us to get a binding agreement for less than the assessed amount (other than the process of a reassessment).

That kind of stuff is part of why C$A is a customer relations nightmare.

If I care to expose all my finacial detail to C$A and my ex again (and spend hours preparing paperwork) I might be able to get a reassessment based on what I'm spending on out of hours care and the like but that put's my ex and I back in an adverserial position again.

R0bert

What has happened to you is wrong Robert but as the primary caregiver you are in the same boat as most women not most men. Its wrong to treat the two days per fortnight of a non-custodial exactly as the rest of the fortnight for the custodial in assessments.

Weekends are different to weekdays in regards to work and school. There are only a minority of custodials who can arrange work every second weekend so they can take the opportunity of free childminding, while the non-custodian has the ability to carry on a normal career and usually manages to avoid all school expenses, medical expenses, and other extra expenses not related to a fun weekend with the children. The lack of childminding can either kill or greatly limit the custodial parents career or mean they have childminding expenses as well as having the stress of juggling career and children in many cases alone.

Alby Schultz positioning himself as a lantern of mens rights surely raises suspicion and can only bring discredit to mens rights organisations.

A thug. Someone wbose media attention is drawn to disrespectful and abusive behaviour of anyone who disagrees with his theories.

I think possibly the media might begin linking the type of personalities that are involved in the '10%' of men who contest custody scenarios.