Apparently, Charlie Sheen can no longer afford to make his monthly child
support payment of $55,000 for his twin sons.
According to People.com, the actor used to make approximately $613,000 per month
in while working on the show “Two and a Half Men” back in 2011.
It was around that time that he and the mother of the twins made the current
support agreement. Since Sheen has recently sold his rights to royalties
stemming from the sitcom, he is no longer bringing in the same level of
income. Sheen claims that his average monthly income is now around $87,000.
He further claims that his significant debt load, health care and others
expenses make it impossible for him to keep up the level of support these days.
In Ontario, a court has the power to make change (or “vary”)
child support under the
Divorce Act (DA) and the
Family Law Act. However, any such change must be made in accordance with the
Federal Child Support Guidelines (FCSG) if under the
Divorce Act and the
Ontario Child Support Guidelines (OCSG) if under the
Family Law Act. The
OCSG is the same as the
FCSG to ensure the same treatment of child support orders for married/divorce
parents and unmarried parents are the same. Since Sheen and the twin’s
mother, Brooke Mueller, were married, the
DA and the
FCSG would govern if the matter were heard in Ontario.
Before an Ontario court may vary Sheen’s child support order, section
17(4) of the
DA requires that Sheen demonstrate that there has been a material change
in circumstances in within the meaning with section 14 of the
FCSG. According to
FSCG section 14, a change of circumstances that give rise to a variation of
a child support order include:
-
Situations where the support payor’s income has either increased or
decreased such that the amount they are currently paying is no longer
in accordance with the basic
FCSG table amount of support originally determined under their previous level
of income; or - Where the child support amount was not determined in accordance with a
table amount, any change in the means, needs, any change in the condition,
means, needs or other circumstances of either spouse or of any child who
is entitled to support.
If Sheen’s child support obligations were set out in a Separation Agreement
and not a court order, the material change in circumstances changes threshold
would likely still apply. In Ontario, it is standard practice for family
lawyers to include a clause in Separation Agreements that the child support
provisions of the agreement may be reviewed when there is material change
in circumstances. The definition of “material change” in such
clauses reference the applicable child support guidelines to ensure compatibility
with the law. Regardless, in Ontario, child support provisions in separation
agreements are always reviewable by a court as child support must be in
the children’s best interests.
The difference between Sheen’s income today and five years ago when
the child support agreement was made likely constitutes a material change
in circumstances. Going from $613,000 per month ($7,356,000 per year)
to an average of $87,000 per month ($1,044,000 per year) is a drastic
change in income in relatively brief period of time. With an average income
of $87,000 a month and a monthly child support payment of $55,000, his
child support obligation to the twins is already more than half of what he earns.
If Sheen were an Ontario resident, his monthly child support amount in
2011 under the Charlie Sheen based on an annual income of $7,356,000 per
year would be approximately $85,582. Based on his current estimated income
of $1,044,000 per year, his table amount of support would be approximately
$12,204 per month. As such, it is highly likely that a court would find
a sufficient material change in circumstances arising from Sheen’s
decreased income. If Sheen were paying table support under the 2011 child
support agreement or order, the $55,000 amount is no longer the appropriate
amount of table support.
If the Sheen’s current amount of child support was not determined using
the tables due to his status as a high income payor, there still has been
a significant change in his means to pay support under the 2011 agreement.