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
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2017, 12:51 AM
CoolGuy41's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 21
CoolGuy41 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachnana View Post
Law is made from the decisions of reputable learned judges who make decisions based on the laws our democratic government have put in place.
Yes, it's a democracy but I never voted for any of those jag-off lawyers running our country. The end result is those in power imposing their will on some members of the country's society. In that sense the Canadian legal system is similar to a dictatorship.

Quote:
According to the news today in 95% of households both parents work outside the home. I think they are referring to big cities where housing costs soften dictate the need for both parents to work.
Yes, housing costs are by far a modern family's largest expense. If a man has any overnights at all with his children at his home, he incurs that expense. If you pay for housing, you're basically supporting the household. Is it fair for a man with, say, 30% parenting time to be ordered to support 2 households - his own and the ex's?

Quote:
So I expect things will change. But not for you my friend. You already screwed your life up.
You have no proof of that.
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:49 AM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,961
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Some of you may find this article interesting. However, you have to read the whole article - not just the headlines:

Women Are Bringing Home More Of The Bacon, Census Data Shows
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:25 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachnana View Post
1ati2de: you would have fitted in well In The Victorian era. Workhouses and all that good stuff.

You are bitter I get it. But really who gets married and has children, makes family orientated decision while still planning on separating and screwing each other over.

Honestly the system is in place to try and fix the messes that this society has made of the constutue of marriage and family.

If children were all put into a big " home" until they could work and adults could just propagate and ship the results of to this big home the. Society would be able to cope with high percentages of failed families.

But this is the society we live in and we need to cope as best we can.

Rule of law is as a result of decision made in court by our peers.

Time will change how we view the marriage and family dynamics.

But you need to get our of the .victorian era. That's scary!
WOW! It’s clear to see what side of the fence you are on. Sorry I live in the real world and look, listen, experience, and see what is going on. Might be because I actually work but who’s to say. The system is corrupt and needs work to say the least. Personally I have significantly benefited financially along with finding someone since my divorce and was by far the best thing I have done. So enough with the bitter pill as this system is f___ed to say the least and I’m very, very secure now. Too many horror stories I have read, talked about, or heard about and I’ll tell you one fantastic “family Law” case that has happened to a family member.

Started living together (common-law) at the ages of 28 and 44. Ended 20 years later when the younger partner provided the papers for separation. Huge difference in the yearly income and ended the same way. Obviously the lesser income person benefited tremendously in the relationship.

Outcome was is now “SHE” is paying him over $3000 a month for many years and has to pay life insurance with him as the beneficiary. Over half the estate was paid to him and this poor retired woman had to change her retirement goals.

Pretty sure many more cases can be brought into this from both sides of the fence here and the outcome is the same. Family law is a joke no matter how you cut it. So just like the Victorian era society still accepts, and supports slavery today. Moving forward SS needs to be eliminated period!
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2017, 11:49 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolGuy41 View Post
Yes, it's a democracy but I never voted for any of those jag-off lawyers running our country. The end result is those in power imposing their will on some members of the country's society. In that sense the Canadian legal system is similar to a dictatorship.
Bang on the money!
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2017, 09:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,347
Beachnana is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ati2de View Post
WOW! It’s clear to see what side of the fence you are on. Sorry I live in the real world and look, listen, experience, and see what is going on. Might be because I actually work but who’s to say. The system is corrupt and needs work to say the least. Personally I have significantly benefited financially along with finding someone since my divorce and was by far the best thing I have done. So enough with the bitter pill as this system is f___ed to say the least and I’m very, very secure now. Too many horror stories I have read, talked about, or heard about and I’ll tell you one fantastic “family Law” case that has happened to a family member.

Started living together (common-law) at the ages of 28 and 44. Ended 20 years later when the younger partner provided the papers for separation. Huge difference in the yearly income and ended the same way. Obviously the lesser income person benefited tremendously in the relationship.

Outcome was is now “SHE” is paying him over $3000 a month for many years and has to pay life insurance with him as the beneficiary. Over half the estate was paid to him and this poor retired woman had to change her retirement goals.

Pretty sure many more cases can be brought into this from both sides of the fence here and the outcome is the same. Family law is a joke no matter how you cut it. So just like the Victorian era society still accepts, and supports slavery today. Moving forward SS needs to be eliminated period!
So what side does it seem clear Iam on?

I was pretty sure I was not on any side. Just stating that the law will take a while to adjust to crazy messes of separations that are now the norm not the exception.

Law cannot be changed on a dime.
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2017, 01:35 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachnana View Post
So what side does it seem clear Iam on?

I was pretty sure I was not on any side. Just stating that the law will take a while to adjust to crazy messes of separations that are now the norm not the exception.

Law cannot be changed on a dime.
Fair enough but I still don't understand why SS should be ever looked at with no children that are conceived in the relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2017, 01:50 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,245
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ati2de View Post
Fair enough but I still don't understand why SS should be ever looked at with no children that are conceived in the relationship.
Just because there are no children doesn't mean that one half of the couple didn't make sacrifices or have their earning potential disadvantaged by the career needs of the other half.

Say one spouse is in the military, and their partner had to quit their own job and find a new one every few years to follow the postings.

Even if they had no children, there are still long-term traditional marriages where one spouse was the breadwinner and the other one was expected to be the supportive homemaker. The homemaker then has quite the challenge to find work upon the breakdown of the relationship, with a huge gap in the resume.

SS should be looked at, to make sure situations like that are captured. I don't think it should be so automatic or taken for granted though. There should always be the expectation that the ex works hard to become self-sufficient. If that's too great an expectation because of age, then the division of pension funds should be used instead of SS. And I think it should always be limited to a few years, five at most, say; long enough for the ex to get a degree and find a good job.

This is the sort of thing that changes very slowly as societal expectations change. Once, you could manage a household on one income. No longer.
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2017, 02:33 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
Just because there are no children doesn't mean that one half of the couple didn't make sacrifices or have their earning potential disadvantaged by the career needs of the other half.

Say one spouse is in the military, and their partner had to quit their own job and find a new one every few years to follow the postings.

Even if they had no children, there are still long-term traditional marriages where one spouse was the breadwinner and the other one was expected to be the supportive homemaker. The homemaker then has quite the challenge to find work upon the breakdown of the relationship, with a huge gap in the resume.

SS should be looked at, to make sure situations like that are captured. I don't think it should be so automatic or taken for granted though. There should always be the expectation that the ex works hard to become self-sufficient. If that's too great an expectation because of age, then the division of pension funds should be used instead of SS. And I think it should always be limited to a few years, five at most, say; long enough for the ex to get a degree and find a good job.

This is the sort of thing that changes very slowly as societal expectations change. Once, you could manage a household on one income. No longer.
Well in my opinion a homemaker really is another excuse. When no kids are present I’m pretty sure no one can brainwash another person into not making themselves better with courses, to get a degree as we all know more time is available with either man or woman. The time “IN” the marriage should be used for not after the fact, after the fact in the present system is when one lawyer cries to another about it. Even if you are with someone that is holding you back from advancing your carrier… get out quick and run. When society start worrying about catering to their own needs it will be a better place instead of crying to a lawyer.

For the one off reason such as military or whatever should still not clutter up family law system, you have a choice and it is your choice, live with it either good or bad. Estate should be 50/50 split for the “duration” of the marriage period as both parties have benefited in the relationship.

You are absolutely right change is needed but as you state it’s hard to live on one income, it’s even harder paying someone that does nothing for you.
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2017, 04:46 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,961
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Simple solution:

If people don't want to truly "become one" and share in joint resources/joint risks in marriages/common law then.... stay single.

I find it quite interesting that people who bitch about the system are invariably right back into another live-in relationship which often turns out just as bad as the marriages they left.
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2017, 04:46 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,341
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ati2de View Post
you have a choice and it is your choice, live with it either good or bad.
Your argument works both ways. I don't think it bolsters your position in any meaningful manner. Both sides made a choice. Both sides have to live with the consequences.

I think an argument could be made that there should be more informed consent. Perhaps a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement that specifically lays out expectations, followed by mandatory post-nuptial agreements every 5 years that confirm or change expectations. Currently massively impractical, but if enough people do it perhaps it could be standardized in some way.
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 07:05 PM.