View Single Post
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 10:59 AM
Berner_Faith Berner_Faith is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,035
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough

Originally Posted by 1ati2de View Post
So then please explain how this is either partner’s responsibility to “pay” for the person to live? In most cases both parties individually have made more money in the duration, financially they have grown with investments and other means together. So why would the one partner who usually started with a higher income on the hook to pay the other partner? I guarantee when most people meet no one is pulling someone off the street, taking them off welfare in order to live together. Both parties were living separate lives before without help now one person has to subsidise ones income?

Only in family law can this take place, the one with the higher income is always on the hook to pay for the other person for whatever reason and to boot with a timeframe with or without children. I would like to hear this and the government needs to stay out of people’s lives as majority of the cases its hatred and greed. I personally have settled and don’t pay, I’m not bitter about it but the system needs to be looked at as it is a joke.

So I assume you would be okay with your tax dollars going towards welfare for separated parents who have no income?

You fail to understand that both partners have a fault in the scenarios they create... it wasn't just one spouse who decides to stay home, that is ALWAYS a family decision. If as a partner you don't agree then you leave the relationship... by staying you are accepting this behaviour and thus are also at fault. No matter what you think, it takes two in order to make these decisions.

Stay at home parents are always great until separation happens and then all the sudden the other parent cries wolf and states they never agreed to it!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote