View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2017, 12:29 AM
trinton trinton is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past

Thank you for correcting the typo. Not sure how that happened.

Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
It sounds like one of the primary reasons to do it was because it's already done in almost every other province. And it makes sense: a child that cannot support themselves due to disability still needs the support of parents. Both parents. An intact family would continue to pay. So separated parents should both continue to pay, adjusted by where the child lives.
We're not talking about a child anymore however. We are talking about a grown up adult. It seems support is being likened by payment and money in your argument. Is support for a person with disability really all about money?

Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
I don't find it sexist though. If the disabled child resided with a father, the mother would have to pay. It's just reality, still, that mothers do the primary care for disabled children, even into adulthood.
And that's exactly it though. Mother's are given custody the majority of the time so there really wouldn't be cases of mother's having to pay. Even if there were, they would just switch custody and get the father to pay.

Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
I don't know much about ODSP though. Does it only kick in when a child becomes an adult? I'm pretty sure it isn't very much money, and would barely support living expenses, probably not therapies and day programs, etc. When you think about it, ODSP exists in the first place because parents don't always continue to support disabled children into their adulthood, or don't plan for their care after their own deaths.
And they shouldn't have to financially support them at that point. They become adults, and no longer children. It's our governments responsibility to support (pay) them at that point. The parents should however support them emotionally by visiting them and taking them out. Saying that the parents must support (pay) them is no different than saying the government shouldn't be supporting adults on welfare - it's their parents jobs to support them.

Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
And yes, even disabled people, of either gender, who have children are responsible for supporting them out of whatever income they have, even if it is ODSP. Don't have children if you can't afford it.
Not really. Just mainly dads. Mom's do the primary care taking, remember? And if ODSP would barely support living expenses, and no therapies and day programs, then how could such adults support other adults? Telling a parent on disability to pay and you shouldn't have had children if you couldn't afford "it" is a very ignorant thing to say and is really no different than telling the mom in this case to pay her self and that she shouldn't have had children if she couldn't have afforded "it" - not that the child or adult is an "it".

If ODSP is barely enough for an adult to live off, then it is just that. If the parent adult can survive on it, then so can the child adult. It's not like the money goes directly to the child or "it" anyway. Sort of gives mom an incentive to keep "it".

Last edited by trinton; 07-11-2017 at 01:01 AM.
Reply With Quote