Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce Support

Divorce Support This forum is for discussing the emotional aspects of divorce: stress, anger, betrayal of trust and more.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #101 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 12:27 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I'm not downplaying WD in any way.

I just don't think that it's fair to state that no other father could achieve what he did and in the manner he did it. You state that as if it's fact......I respectfully disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #102 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 12:50 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
I wouldn't put you even in the same category as WD. You settled your matter and never saw the other side of the doors. You haven't been through one trial let alone two (and soon to be three)! You had a lawyer. He did not.
Yep. I prepared so well that I was able to avoid trial and get what I want (aside for minor CS stuff) .. which is usually the primary objective. WD was unable to accomplish this and as you said .. is still headed for another trial.

I'm very proud of that. .

Quote:
I think hundreds of citing on CanLII speak for itself. They are worth more than 10,000 posts on a nameless forum. You changed your situation... Where WD changed the situation for thousands of others. VERY BIG DIFFERENCE.
My brief case was just as big as WD's for my trial. I was organized, ready to self rep and prepared to make waves n canlii as well. I think OP knew that and folded quickly. WD's ex wasn't clever enough to fold.
Reply With Quote
  #103 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 01:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 212
hopefull is on a distinguished road
Default

OK...there is no need to steep this low. You got a result you wanted, and now you are knocking someone else for not???

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Yep. I prepared so well that I was able to avoid trial and get what I want (aside for minor CS stuff) .. which is usually the primary objective. WD was unable to accomplish this and as you said .. is still headed for another trial.

I'm very proud of that. .



My brief case was just as big as WD's for my trial. I was organized, ready to self rep and prepared to make waves n canlii as well. I think OP knew that and folded quickly. WD's ex wasn't clever enough to fold.
Reply With Quote
  #104 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 01:14 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefull View Post
OK...there is no need to steep this low. You got a result you wanted, and now you are knocking someone else for not???
Hopefull .. got me all wrong.

I was told that I was well below WD and not even in the same category.

Just responding.
Reply With Quote
  #105 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 02:14 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Hopefull .. got me all wrong.

I was told that I was well below WD and not even in the same category.

Just responding.
Also Hopefull ... I think you're a newbie. WD actually did get what he set out for..and more. He's a hero and a mogul here in the odf community. It is the other father's such as myself that are being put down and being told that we could never perform as he did. You have to read the threads and be informed before you post.
Reply With Quote
  #106 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 02:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,836
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Reading through these posts, it seems to me to be pretty clear that the order as presented by LF is unenforceable. I read it as saying if/when Mom gets a job, she must inform Dad of her income, which is different from saying Mom must get an income.

Not only does it not provide a time frame (Mom must find employment by this time), it is also unenforceable because the judge can't order an employer to hire Mom. Requiring someone to seek employment is reasonable, requiring someone to be employed is not, because any potential employers are not party to the order.

It sounds like LF is the victim of a badly written order. He doesn't have a case for material change of circumstance (running out of money is not a material change) or undue hardship (living with financial stress is not the same as absolute poverty). Once Kid is in school full time (mandatory school) he might have some luck seeking to have an income imputed to Mom, but right now, it would be quite easy for her to come up with reasons why she can't work. In the meantime, LF may need to seek other remedies for his financial issues.
Reply With Quote
  #107 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 03:19 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
Reading through these posts, it seems to me to be pretty clear that the order as presented by LF is unenforceable. I read it as saying if/when Mom gets a job, she must inform Dad of her income, which is different from saying Mom must get an income.

Not only does it not provide a time frame (Mom must find employment by this time), it is also unenforceable because the judge can't order an employer to hire Mom. Requiring someone to seek employment is reasonable, requiring someone to be employed is not, because any potential employers are not party to the order.

It sounds like LF is the victim of a badly written order. He doesn't have a case for material change of circumstance (running out of money is not a material change) or undue hardship (living with financial stress is not the same as absolute poverty). Once Kid is in school full time (mandatory school) he might have some luck seeking to have an income imputed to Mom, but right now, it would be quite easy for her to come up with reasons why she can't work. In the meantime, LF may need to seek other remedies for his financial issues.
I agree with most.

But what about the 50/50 rule? Doesn't that trump everything? (I think even 40% dads get it).

I seriously just have to pay full table CS having D5 50% of the time...with everything split (including child tax, etc).

If I went to court, had him read the order and explained that everybody anticipated her going back to work ... I have her 50/50 ... she didn't go back to work (intentionally unemployed. Are we all sure a judge would show me the door, have me continue paying full table CS and charge me costs?

Something has to give here.

Thank you Stripes for getting the topic back on the rails though. Appreciated.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 06-22-2016 at 03:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #108 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 03:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,899
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Does the agreement state a number for child support now?

Report her to welfare too if shes working. If her gravy train is cut off she will be forced to get work. Even if she stays home and does the daycare she would have to report the income.
Reply With Quote
  #109 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 03:24 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
Does the agreement state a number for child support now?

Report her to welfare too if shes working. If her gravy train is cut off she will be forced to get work. Even if she stays home and does the daycare she would have to report the income.
Yep .. it does say the amount of CS/month. And also that it be switched to offset when she gets FT employment.

I didn't want to play the reporting to Welfare card. But I guess I have no other choice.
Reply With Quote
  #110 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 03:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,138
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

Well, that is what I thought yesterday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
Can you quote the order exactly LF?

To me it sounds like if/when ex gets a full time job then child support will go to offset, not an actual order to insist she get a job.

Write it out for us.
Is it possible that you simply made up the quote yourself, LF? This is not the first time forum members have questioned the validity of your legal wording. Perhaps take a pic of the order?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:40 PM.