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
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 12:48 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
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
? Do people not already pay tax for education that they may not use as they donít have kids, a healthcare system they may never need, roads as they may not have a car to drive, our military that we donít really require and on and on. The costs of the family court system across Canada are in the millions if not billions that should managed better than it is, this cost is probably staggering and would definitely help to achieve a better workforce across the country.

We are not talking about children here, itís about spouses, man or women that cry about what the other owes me and looks for every out available to get more money. If people were accountable for their own actions life could be different and government should look at means to achieve this instead of insisting to pay for others.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 06:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,035
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ati2de View Post
? Do people not already pay tax for education that they may not use as they donít have kids, a healthcare system they may never need, roads as they may not have a car to drive, our military that we donít really require and on and on. The costs of the family court system across Canada are in the millions if not billions that should managed better than it is, this cost is probably staggering and would definitely help to achieve a better workforce across the country.



We are not talking about children here, itís about spouses, man or women that cry about what the other owes me and looks for every out available to get more money. If people were accountable for their own actions life could be different and government should look at means to achieve this instead of insisting to pay for others.


Exactly... people need to be responsible for their own actions so if you consent to a spouse staying home and raising your children then you need to pay for said actions. If you decide to have children and return to work then you need to be responsible for your own actions and pay your own daycare, not expect the government to. If you decide to work instead of taking your share of the parental leave then you need to be responsible for your own action and concede to the fact that you have allowed your spouse to take your share. If you decide to support your spouse throughout their marriage then you need to be responsible for your own actions and continue supporting them after marriage, after all it was your actions that created this situation.

Maybe a better alternative if that if one spouse is going to stay home the other pays them a wage as a home maker, that way they have an opportunity to save their own money and have their own investments? Stay at home spouses basically work for their spouse but get no compensation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 06:31 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,854
arabian 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.
Unfounded, unproven assumptions.
You don't get it. That's ok. You settled. You certainly do sound bitter though.

You should enlighten yourself if you want to continue this sort of discussion though. Read cases from CanLii for a start. You do not understand the basic law w.r.t. and difference and combination of SS and CS. In order to get a grasp of thing you should really read precedent cases upon which judges have based their decisions and how the current laws have evolved.

Read the part about how one person (not always female) gives up career to stay home and raise family. After you understand that part you might be able to grasp things a little better.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 08-29-2017, 06:33 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,854
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
Exactly... people need to be responsible for their own actions so if you consent to a spouse staying home and raising your children then you need to pay for said actions. If you decide to have children and return to work then you need to be responsible for your own actions and pay your own daycare, not expect the government to. If you decide to work instead of taking your share of the parental leave then you need to be responsible for your own action and concede to the fact that you have allowed your spouse to take your share. If you decide to support your spouse throughout their marriage then you need to be responsible for your own actions and continue supporting them after marriage, after all it was your actions that created this situation.

Maybe a better alternative if that if one spouse is going to stay home the other pays them a wage as a home maker, that way they have an opportunity to save their own money and have their own investments? Stay at home spouses basically work for their spouse but get no compensation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have always maintained that a wage paid to the stay-at-home parent would solve most of the problems.

Also people should look at the contractual obligation a bit more.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 08-30-2017, 04:28 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,558
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

System does need work and the government is aware. So are the judges, lawyers, social workers, and everyone else who has touched Family Law with a 40-foot pole.

Biggest problem is that it is biased. Take all Spousal support cases denied, and you will find that 80% of the were denied to men. Now take those 80% of the cases, and reverse the situation so the man and women are now on opposite sitdes, and you will find that women in the reversed situation were granted spousal support.

As our judges retire and we hire new judges, the biases of the family courts , specifically the biases of stuck in the past old skool judges, will start to go away.

Last edited by trinton; 08-30-2017 at 04:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:27 PM
CoolGuy41's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 20
CoolGuy41 is on a distinguished road
Default

Although the judicial branch is a major part of the problem, I have an issue with the statute laws too. The law has largely lost the concept of personal responsibility. I do not see more men receiving spousal support as the solution; in fact, I am quite repulsed by that concept. What is needed is less state interference and less litigation.

The law as is, particularly the Child Support Guidelines, incentivize litigation and parental alienation.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2017, 11:14 AM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,558
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolGuy41 View Post
Although the judicial branch is a major part of the problem, I have an issue with the statute laws too. The law has largely lost the concept of personal responsibility. I do not see more men receiving spousal support as the solution; in fact, I am quite repulsed by that concept. What is needed is less state interference and less litigation.

The law as is, particularly the Child Support Guidelines, incentivize litigation and parental alienation.
It's not about more men receiving more about SS. It's the mere fact that the judges are biased and discriminating against men.

The law says both parents are equally entitled to custody, and that maximum contact with both parents is generally in the best interests of the children, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Evidence to suggest otherwise should be real danger of harm, not the mother doesn't like dad.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2017, 07:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 134
ifonlyihadknown is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
... if you consent to a spouse staying home ...
... you have allowed your spouse ...
... you decide to support your spouse throughout their marriage ...

... then you need to be responsible for your own actions and continue supporting them after marriage, after all it was your actions that created this situation.
I've heard these sentiments several times as I went through my separation and divorce and this manner of thinking really bothers me.

It's as if the spouse is some minor child who is unable to think or decide for themselves. It seem to me with this line of thought the responsibility only applies to one party in the marriage, while the other has none whatsoever.

And if the spouse decides to quit work and stay at home after the marriage? If the spouse decides to stay at home once children are older and in school? If the spouse simply decides not to work? What then?
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2017, 07:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,035
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
I've heard these sentiments several times as I went through my separation and divorce and this manner of thinking really bothers me.



It's as if the spouse is some minor child who is unable to think or decide for themselves. It seem to me with this line of thought the responsibility only applies to one party in the marriage, while the other has none whatsoever.



And if the spouse decides to quit work and stay at home after the marriage? If the spouse decides to stay at home once children are older and in school? If the spouse simply decides not to work? What then?


You cannot control another person but you can control you and what you do/consent to. If your spouse decides not to work and you don't agree you do not have to stay in the marriage. You have the option to leave. By deciding to stay you are consenting to the behaviour. It's like being a bystander... no one forced you to stay in an relationship with an unemployed ex... that was your decision and If that means you owe spousal support that's on your shoulders. You can't consent to supporting her and then all the sudden argue you didn't agree it was her decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2017, 08:01 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 134
ifonlyihadknown is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
Y... and you don't agree you do not have to stay in the marriage. You have the option to leave.
Sad, but true.

If you are married to someone who decides not to work, or not to go back to work, the financially prudent thing to do is to end the marriage and cut your losses, ASAP.

As others have mentioned in these forums, for each day you support your spouse, you are on the hook for an extra half day of support. No good deed goes unpunished.

This is our Family Law system at the present time.
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 12:39 PM
Ex won't work and simply wants to live off me John_Ottawa Divorce & Family Law 57 01-05-2013 08:22 AM
Custody, Work, Travel, Court and Extortion minefield Divorce & Family Law 1 11-16-2012 09:24 AM
sick kids & time off work... mcr Parenting Issues 1 12-15-2008 01:48 PM
Kicked out - no money, no work permit, no help phaidros52 Financial Issues 8 12-07-2005 06:09 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:43 PM.