Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/)
-   Divorce & Family Law (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f3/)
-   -   Ontario plans to change child support laws (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f3/ontario-plans-change-child-support-laws-21183/)

trinton 07-10-2017 07:56 PM

Ontario plans to change child support laws
 
..not to lower them and base them on real monies, but instead to allow parents ( specifically a mom in this case) to seek child support for adults with disability.

I wouldn't be surprised if the anxieties are a direct result of "Family" Law. Afterall, the mother has been seeking child support ever since this child was 4 years old, and continues to seek it now that he's an adult.

https://www.thestarcom/news/gta/2017...ntal-cash.html

Shouldn't an adult child with disability be sufficient on Ontario Disability? Afterall , an adult parent (more likely than not, a father on disability) is apparantly sufficient enough to also pay child support. Love the double standard and mother biased manipulation here.

Rioe 07-10-2017 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinton (Post 222163)
..not to lower them and base them on real monies, but instead to allow parents ( specifically a mom in this case) to seek child support for adults with disability.

I wouldn't be surprised if the anxieties are a direct result of "Family" Law. Afterall, the mother has been seeking child support ever since this child was 4 years old, and continues to seek it now that he's an adult.

https://www.thestarcom/news/gta/2017...ntal-cash.html

Shouldn't an adult child with disability be sufficient on Ontario Disability? Afterall , an adult parent (more likely than not, a father on disability) is apparantly sufficient enough to also pay child support. Love the double standard and mother biased manipulation here.

I had to google the article because your link has a typo in it.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ntal-cash.html

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.

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.

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 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.

trinton 07-10-2017 11:29 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rioe (Post 222167)
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rioe (Post 222167)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rioe (Post 222167)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rioe (Post 222167)
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".

involveddad75 07-11-2017 12:27 AM

Why does one automatically assume that intact families would continue to support an adult child with disabilities? Where is the stats on that statement?

I foresee a day when children from intact families will ask for support from their parents, from the time they decide to move out.

It's only a matter of time until the government of the day realizes that ODSP, welfare and every other social benefit shouldn't be paid by tax payers anymore they should be paid by the person's parents.

Whether they are intact or not, whether they are retired or not.

The statement, you created it, you deal with it until they pass on comes to mind.

Rioe 07-11-2017 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinton (Post 222168)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinton (Post 222168)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinton (Post 222168)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinton (Post 222168)
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.

Rioe 07-11-2017 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by involveddad75 (Post 222169)
Why does one automatically assume that intact families would continue to support an adult child with disabilities? Where is the stats on that statement?

I foresee a day when children from intact families will ask for support from their parents, from the time they decide to move out.

It's only a matter of time until the government of the day realizes that ODSP, welfare and every other social benefit shouldn't be paid by tax payers anymore they should be paid by the person's parents.

Whether they are intact or not, whether they are retired or not.

The statement, you created it, you deal with it until they pass on comes to mind.

No, I do not have stats on it, but there are plenty of anecdotes about adults, often parents, who continue to care for disabled relatives long after they become adults. The situation exists, therefore the system should account for it.

Just as there are parents of disabled adults who worry greatly about who will care for the disabled person after the parents pass on, and do their best to make provisions for care in their wills.

A separated parent who refuses to do this and leaves the financial and caring responsibility entirely up to the other parent SHOULD be made to pay child support.

Of course, I think Basic Income should replace a lot of social benefit systems like ODSP and welfare. Perhaps I'm a socialist.

rockscan 07-11-2017 08:36 AM

Single parents on OW have to go after child support so it makes sense that parents with children with disabilities are eligible for support. I have a family member with an adult child on odsp diagnosed with epilepsy following a stroke. The intact family uses his odsp for his medical and travel expenses and some is put away for tuition for a vocational school. If they werent around he would barely survive. Think about it, there are so many programs and supports for children under the age of 18 with disabilities and almost all of them stop when they reach 18. Now parents have an adult who is incapable of taking care of themselves and limited supports available. These "kids" are also physically bigger and stronger and single parents require care assistance. ODSP barely covers transportation for programs.

The only part that scares me is what is the disability threshold? My partners ex is currently trying to argue his kids should still be children of the marriage because they have lingering issues from the divorce. Parents who just want continued child support will ruin this for parents truly struggling with a disabled child.

Tayken 07-11-2017 12:44 PM

It is a tax shift. In a country with medical coverage adults with a disability should be the responsibility of society. What happens when an adult gets in an accident and becomes disabled? Are the parents now responsible?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0