Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/)
-   General Chat (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f7/)
-   -   This system needs work!! (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f7/system-needs-work-21282/)

1ati2de 08-22-2017 02:15 PM

This system needs work!!
 
Iíve been reading lots on this forum and have pretty much come to one conclusion; family law is a complete joke and the government needs to stay out of couples lives. I have now finished my divorce and the only people making money obviously is the lawyers and thatís it. Iím going to go on a bit of a rant as we move forward and like it or not I think itís something that drastically needs change.

1. Married or common-law should be the same, NO laws should be brought in unless children are involved.

2. Spousal support should NEVER be awarded to either parties, man or woman. After marriage/common-law, the law states that if one individual makes one hundred thousand a year and the other twenty thousand the total between both parties are roughly split? This is a complete joke because that is what you are worth going into a relationship, and what you are worth coming out, thatís all youíre worth! No matter what circumstance going on in the relationship period that the monies should be split between a couple. You can better yourself with education OR change or carrier even if children are involved, period! Too many people are crying foul and need to pull the head out thinking your spouse owes you! They owe you nothing, you owe yourself as we have ample resources to start or improve yourself weather kids or other circumstances are involved. As a ďcoupleĒ you need to work together to better each other without crying your spouse owes you! If you decide to stay home after marriage and do nothing then thatís what you are worth, nothing! With children or not as this is your decision as unfortunately options are available!

3. Child support should be fixed at a reasonable rate per child to assist with necessities, NO support shall be paid in 50/50 custody, these are children and we only want whatís best for them. Children should not come with a price tag pending what the parentís income for support. Every child that have a dead beat parent who will not pay, the government needs to step in and pay and have the government use what is required to get the money back from the payer. Child support shall be paid pending on your income to keep consistency when required.

4. Pension, retirement investment, individual investments stays with the individual, NOT split.

5. NO joint financial endeavors shall be permitted without mutual documentation (No joint bank accounts either IMO). A house will start at 50/50 and be altered accordingly to oneís income, might be a 60-40 split or what works. If one individual purchases a property to reside then that party owns 100%, no splitting or payments shall be made to the other party. Other arrangements can be made at a later date but needs to be documented and signed.

6. With the birth of a child BOTH parents split the maternity time 50/50 for a minimum of 2 years. Government should supply daycare for children over the age of 2 to allow both parents to work. Children need equality with both parents regardless!

Sorry for the rant as society needs to worry about supporting themselves and not looking for handouts. Children need equality also.

CoolGuy41 08-22-2017 04:55 PM

What you wrote makes sense and I would support it. Unfortunately Canadian politicians are "working" on other things; e.g., deciding whether marijuana should be fully-legal or continue to be semi-legal, and other left-wing nonsense.

The courts in Canada consider it a normal thing to sentence one person (typically a man) to work largely for the benefit of another person (typically a woman) for decades. However, this is a non-issue in the recent federal and provincial election platforms that I've had a chance to skim.

ifonlyihadknown 08-23-2017 11:27 AM

Given that approximately 41% of marriages end in divorce, the disaster that is known as family law should have a much higher priority in this country. However, trying to reform it would be a hot potato, politically, and I doubt any of our politicians will take this on. Nothing to gain, and plenty to loose.

If everyone who wanted to get married had to hear what happens in the 41% of marriages that don't work out, you'd have almost no marriages. It's like playing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets in the revolver.

What scares me are the rules around Common Law marriages. They apply without your knowledge and can have dire consequences.

Soiled 08-23-2017 12:27 PM

While I won't disagree that there's changes that should happen, your points are easily picked apart with a quick glance, and if you were to want to move forward in any sort of way with the hope of making changes, you would need to work on them, a lot.


Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de (Post 222984)
Iíve been reading lots on this forum and have pretty much come to one conclusion; family law is a complete joke and the government needs to stay out of couples lives. I have now finished my divorce and the only people making money obviously is the lawyers and thatís it. Iím going to go on a bit of a rant as we move forward and like it or not I think itís something that drastically needs change.

1. Married or common-law should be the same, NO laws should be brought in unless children are involved.

What then determines who gets the house? Joint savings account? The couch a couple split the costs on? The list goes on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de (Post 222984)
2. Spousal support should NEVER be awarded to either parties, man or woman. After marriage/common-law, the law states that if one individual makes one hundred thousand a year and the other twenty thousand the total between both parties are roughly split? This is a complete joke because that is what you are worth going into a relationship, and what you are worth coming out, thatís all youíre worth! No matter what circumstance going on in the relationship period that the monies should be split between a couple. You can better yourself with education OR change or carrier even if children are involved, period! Too many people are crying foul and need to pull the head out thinking your spouse owes you! They owe you nothing, you owe yourself as we have ample resources to start or improve yourself weather kids or other circumstances are involved. As a ďcoupleĒ you need to work together to better each other without crying your spouse owes you! If you decide to stay home after marriage and do nothing then thatís what you are worth, nothing! With children or not as this is your decision as unfortunately options are available!

I won't even bother, as spousal support is way too complex of an issue, generally with a ton of emotion on both sides of the fight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de (Post 222984)
3. Child support should be fixed at a reasonable rate per child to assist with necessities, NO support shall be paid in 50/50 custody, these are children and we only want whatís best for them. Children should not come with a price tag pending what the parentís income for support. Every child that have a dead beat parent who will not pay, the government needs to step in and pay and have the government use what is required to get the money back from the payer. Child support shall be paid pending on your income to keep consistency when required.

What defines a reasonable rate? What's reasonable for a person on social assistance is different from that of a person making minimum wage, which is in turn different from a person on Salary making $50k/yr, or $100k/yr, and so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de (Post 222984)
4. Pension, retirement investment, individual investments stays with the individual, NOT split.

From a selfish standpoint, I'm inclined to agree. However for an example of why this isn't cut and dry either, I'm military, we get a lovely defined benefits pension from the federal government if we put enough time in. If I have a civilian wife who chooses to marry me, she's going in with the understanding that she's moving across the country every 3-5 years, and will not be able to establish herself well in a career. If we split later on, would she not have sacrificed and enabled me to get that pension? Why wouldn't she?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de (Post 222984)
5. NO joint financial endeavors shall be permitted without mutual documentation (No joint bank accounts either IMO). A house will start at 50/50 and be altered accordingly to oneís income, might be a 60-40 split or what works. If one individual purchases a property to reside then that party owns 100%, no splitting or payments shall be made to the other party. Other arrangements can be made at a later date but needs to be documented and signed.

Seems fairly reasonable and nothing comes to mind immediately.


Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de (Post 222984)

6. With the birth of a child BOTH parents split the maternity time 50/50 for a minimum of 2 years. Government should supply daycare for children over the age of 2 to allow both parents to work. Children need equality with both parents regardless!

Sounds like a well intentioned plan, but incredibly expensive from the taxpayer point of view. Statscan shows 5.8million kids in Canada 14 and under. Some of that is over daycare age, so very unscientifically we will reduce that to 4million. I've never seen a daycare that charges less than $30 a day. I would roughly guess your plan would cost in excess of $31 billion per year (4mill kids x $30 x 52weeks x 5 days per week) And that's assuming the government could run daycare as efficiently and as well as the private sector..

1ati2de 08-25-2017 01:48 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soiled (Post 223019)
While I won't disagree that there's changes that should happen, your points are easily picked apart with a quick glance, and if you were to want to move forward in any sort of way with the hope of making changes, you would need to work on them, a lot.



Quote:

What then determines who gets the house? Joint savings account? The couch a couple split the costs on? The list goes on.
5. NO joint financial endeavours shall be permitted without mutual documentation (No joint bank accounts either IMO). A house will start at 50/50 and be altered accordingly to oneís income, might be a 60-40 split or what works. If one individual purchases a property to reside then that party owns 100%, no splitting or payments shall be made to the other party. Other arrangements can be made at a later date but needs to be documented and signed.



Quote:

What defines a reasonable rate? What's reasonable for a person on social assistance is different from that of a person making minimum wage, which is in turn different from a person on Salary making $50k/yr, or $100k/yr, and so on.
Exactly, it would have to be evaluated on what a child needs to survive and live a comfortable life. A salary at 30k/y might be $300/M and $150/y might be $1500/M and all children would receive an equal amount. This is if 50/50 custody is unrealistic.


Quote:

From a selfish standpoint, I'm inclined to agree. However for an example of why this isn't cut and dry either, I'm military, we get a lovely defined benefits pension from the federal government if we put enough time in. If I have a civilian wife who chooses to marry me, she's going in with the understanding that she's moving across the country every 3-5 years, and will not be able to establish herself well in a career. If we split later on, would she not have sacrificed and enabled me to get that pension? Why wouldn't she?
I understand this point however the system almost makes it out to be that the breadwinner is at a disadvantage period. If she makes a sacrifice and she decides to be with you and it don't work out why do you need to pay anything? This is a choice people make and that's it. Same idea if two people are late going to an event and the driver gets stopped for speeding, is the passenger going to pay half the ticket and the difference in insurance costs till its over?



Quote:

Sounds like a well intentioned plan, but incredibly expensive from the taxpayer point of view. Statscan shows 5.8million kids in Canada 14 and under. Some of that is over daycare age, so very unscientifically we will reduce that to 4million. I've never seen a daycare that charges less than $30 a day. I would roughly guess your plan would cost in excess of $31 billion per year (4mill kids x $30 x 52weeks x 5 days per week) And that's assuming the government could run daycare as efficiently and as well as the private sector..

True but this would help in equality in a relationship and the billions wasted in family court systems across the country would be brought to a minimum if government stayed out of peoples personal lives. Pretty much everything we do is at our discretion, choices, freedom of speech, day to day interaction. Laws govern us to set standards yet they make people pay for other people to live their lives after marriage???

CoolGuy41 08-25-2017 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ifonlyihadknown (Post 223014)
Given that approximately 41% of marriages end in divorce, the disaster that is known as family law should have a much higher priority in this country. However, trying to reform it would be a hot potato, politically, and I doubt any of our politicians will take this on. Nothing to gain, and plenty to loose.

If everyone who wanted to get married had to hear what happens in the 41% of marriages that don't work out, you'd have almost no marriages. It's like playing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets in the revolver.

What scares me are the rules around Common Law marriages. They apply without your knowledge and can have dire consequences.

I agree with you, ifonlyihadknown. But I think it's weird that I cannot even find a fringe party (one with less to lose) that would take a stab at reforming family law. There is no debate PERIOD.

Maybe it's because the group discriminated against is more of a minority than we think. Yes, about 41% of marriages end in divorce, but almost only the men get screwed so half the population is cool with it, some men don't get married, reduces the percentage of people affected further, some women do not exploit their exes to the max extent of the law, some men are bums with no money to take. The discriminated minority is (1) men, (2) with money, (3) divorcing, whose exes are (5) greedy, and (6) have the money/means to take them to court.

I think there's a lack of awareness around these issues. People do not know that after a certain income level, child support basically becomes spousal support by another, intentionally-deceptive name.

I remember a long time ago in grade 8 a guy in a wheelchair came in to my guidance class and talked about how he got drunk and explored a construction site, then he wound up in a wheelchair. It's almost as if today's guidance class should have a separate session for boys where a divorced guy comes in and talks about how badly he got screwed by the courts.

arabian 08-25-2017 06:35 PM

Totally naive, in particular regarding Spousal Support:

I financed my ex/our business for many years... decades. (A full partnership in an incorporated business). Upon separation he took off with all the money and left me holding the bag for corporate debt. You had better believe he pays me SS - indefinitely.

The only "improvement" required is in my ex's department. I'm self-sufficient (always have been). SS is the only way I can recoup a small percentage of my losses.

-------

easy answer - don't get married... don't procreate...

be sure to be prepared to look after yourself when you are a old man, all alone, surrounded by your "wealth"

Sheesh

rockscan 08-25-2017 08:54 PM

I always laugh at the arguments for ss. Its not a given like cs is. In many cases people have to fight for it. If your ex has been awarded ss (or you have been awarded it) there could be a very good reason. In some cases the ss ex did sit on their ass and do nothing. However there are many spouses who allowed that to happen. Marriage is never equal for everyone and its not always the system that is broken.

Now if you want to talk about the court process and how long it takes and how unreasonable people reap the benefits...theres an argument I can get behind.

Newfie76 08-25-2017 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan (Post 223081)
However there are many spouses who allowed that to happen. Marriage is never equal for everyone and its not always the system that is broken.

....many spouses allowed that to happen.... excuse me? really?

What are you exactly saying? That one spouse should threaten the other into working? Lock them in the basement? strap them with a wip until they agree to work? What are you saying is the option? Violence?

There are no options. Once you're married....the contract says your DONE!!!!. Leave them because they won't work? Well that will just lead to SS anyway.

There is only one way to avoid the threat of SS....never marry while at the same time maintaining a relationship with a person who makes more than you. Stay as far away from Canadian Family Law as possible!! There is zero reason for anyone to marry in this hostile environment.

Newfie76 08-26-2017 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian (Post 223079)
Totally naive, in particular regarding Spousal Support:

I financed my ex/our business for many years... decades. (A full partnership in an incorporated business). Upon separation he took off with all the money and left me holding the bag for corporate debt. You had better believe he pays me SS - indefinitely.

Only two reasons you got SS in this case: 1) your a women 2) Your judge is corrupt and requires a good one.

You and your ex were married. The income you both earned was shared within your relationship. period. One partner can burn the entire bank account, if both spouses have access, and both are on the hook for it. SS is not designed as a means to repay funds. If so, its possible for one spouse to then tell the other to empty the account and later say they knew nothing of it during divorce. Great way to set yourself up for life.

You and your ex were business partners. And as business partners were required to have agreements in place on the management of you company's finances and day to day activities. More important your individual roles. And as with any business where one partner steals from the company....there is a procedure to handle such activity....Criminal Law. Not family law.

Shameful to force a man into slavery, without a trial reviewing the crimes. Typical of a judge thinking they know all. Family court is no place for criminal justice. If your ex was truly at fault and skimmed all your money from the company....he should be doing time. Not working as a slave for you.

Ethically...what you're doing is a crime. You may tell yourself your getting repaid...but the judge must likely just said, " man must pay woman...period".

There is NO reason for the existence of SS.

Your case should have gone to another court. Did your judge happen to go to Harvard?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:47 PM.

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