Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2017, 12:30 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
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
NaÔve? You cannot possibly be serious or you have actually brainwashed yourself into thinking that he actually owes you? He owes you nothing and from what I have read he has not been charged with anything correct? It was a business that went bad and you were left holding the torch, both should have had the same debt and he defiantly should have been charged with fraud by steeling the money…if it was proven.

Do you honestly think you would get one cent if you had the same identical business outcome with a family member, close friend, investor? They would be on the hook to pay you support indefinitely? I would love to see that however one partner can go to dysfunctional family court system and have the other partner pay? Yes the system works very well I tell you!

Need to really think who is naÔve here?? Im not disrespecting you by and means but in any other circumstances in any other courtroom except family law this would be tossed out.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2017, 12:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,965
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Arabian, dont even get into it here. There are problems with the system yes but bitter people are the internets problem.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2017, 01:19 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
Arabian, dont even get into it here. There are problems with the system yes but bitter people are the internets problem.
But, are the same people that gum up court rooms with all sorts of crappy arguments like this too.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2017, 01:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,965
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
But, are the same people that gum up court rooms with all sorts of crappy arguments like this too.


Ive always said that unreasonable people (who could also be bitter) are the biggest problem in family court.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:01 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
Ive always said that unreasonable people (who could also be bitter) are the biggest problem in family court.
I disagree, when family court can dictate to you what you are liable short and long term because you decided to live, or marry is the problem. I donít think bitter is the word to use as itís not logical for any human to support any human under any circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2017, 03:51 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ati2de View Post
I disagree, when family court can dictate to you what you are liable short and long term because you decided to live, or marry is the problem. I donít think bitter is the word to use as itís not logical for any human to support any human under any circumstances.
It certainly should not be the taxpayer's responsibility....
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 10:02 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
It certainly should not be the taxpayer's responsibility....
So then please explain how this is either partnerís responsibility to ďpayĒ 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 peopleís lives as majority of the cases its hatred and greed. I personally have settled and donít pay, Iím not bitter about it but the system needs to be looked at as it is a joke.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 11:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,040
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ati2de View Post
So then please explain how this is either partnerís responsibility to ďpayĒ 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 peopleís lives as majority of the cases its hatred and greed. I personally have settled and donít pay, Iím 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
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 01:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
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
No I do not think that taxpayerís money should go to anyone who doesnít want to work period, especially ones that were married and separated and refuse to work.

You are absolutely right that with the birth of a child both parents need to 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 to sustain equality in the marriage period! Then nothing can be said about one person took care of the family and one went to work or anything about welfare OR support. This I would support and will have abundance of cash saved with little Family Court.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 01:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,040
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ati2de View Post
No I do not think that taxpayerís money should go to anyone who doesnít want to work period, especially ones that were married and separated and refuse to work.



You are absolutely right that with the birth of a child both parents need to 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 to sustain equality in the marriage period! Then nothing can be said about one person took care of the family and one went to work or anything about welfare OR support. This I would support and will have abundance of cash saved with little Family Court.


Why should tax payers have to pay for parents to put their children in daycare? What about the mass of people who don't have kids? Their tax dollars go towards other peoples kids because parents don't want to be responsible for their own offspring?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Section 7/extraordinary expenses when a spouse chooses not to work Serene Divorce & Family Law 4 06-09-2015 01:39 PM
Ex won't work and simply wants to live off me John_Ottawa Divorce & Family Law 57 01-05-2013 09:22 AM
Custody, Work, Travel, Court and Extortion minefield Divorce & Family Law 1 11-16-2012 10:24 AM
sick kids & time off work... mcr Parenting Issues 1 12-15-2008 02:48 PM
Kicked out - no money, no work permit, no help phaidros52 Financial Issues 8 12-07-2005 07:09 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:08 PM.