View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2017, 09:20 AM
Rioe's Avatar
Rioe Rioe is online now
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,247
Rioe will become famous soon enough

Originally Posted by trinton View Post
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?
Of course support is not really all about money. That's just the topic of your thread, so it's the one I addressed.

Originally Posted by trinton View Post
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.
That's a whole different issue. The law is gender-neutral; the higher income, lesser caregiving time parent is the one who pays. It's a problem with society that this individual is still the father in the majority of cases. Yes there are exceptions, women who out-earn men and men who do the bulk of caregiving of children or disabled adults, but on the whole, it is still what it is. I doubt we'll ever get to equality, but we can get a lot closer. As long as there are men who still abandon their children and leave the caregiving entirely in the mother's hands, we're going to continue to have this problem.

Originally Posted by trinton View Post
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.
Why shouldn't parents continue to be responsible for their adult children if the child is incapable of becoming responsible for themselves? I'm talking about actual diagnosed disability here, not just lazy failures to launch.

Many parents of disabled children do not want to place them into assisted living homes when they become adults and just visit them. In an intact family, that means the adult child continues living with the parents and both parents provide financial support. In a separated family, that means the adult child lives with one of the parents, the one who cares most (stereotypically the mother, yes), and to have both parents continue to provide financial support, child support is required.

Originally Posted by trinton View Post
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".
How is it ignorant? Absolutely nobody, eminently capable or completely disabled, man or woman, should have a child if they cannot afford the expenses required. People's interpretation of affordable has a lot of variation, of course. A completely different topic though.

The fact that some people spend child support on themselves instead of the child is another completely different topic.

Just because the 'system' has several other flaws that are challenging to fix does not mean that we shouldn't address one that we CAN fix.
Reply With Quote