Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 01:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,800
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
if both parents are equally valuable to the child then why isnt the standard 50/50 access
50/50 access is the default actually. In my case, the judge upheld that default for both of us until we had expert testimony to prove it should be changed. We agreed on 50/50 access in our final agreement.

You'll see that this is becoming the standard. Things will change as gender roles continue to change.

As a female, I have worked my entire life in a field that men almost across the board make 15-20% more than I do with the same qualifications and experience.

I guess I could be an annoying gender-biased douche and rant and rave about Nazi Germany and the brave women that gave their lives in the Equal Rights movement...but instead, I simply go to work every weekday and know that things will change as more women take up the working role and become heads of their households...which is becoming the new standard.

But don't let me interrupt you flaming like a lunatic...
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 01:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 304
shellshocked22 is on a distinguished road
Default

In fairness to "Pokeman's" comment about default 50/50 child custody I suspect he was advocating that such a "default" be LEGISLATED, such as I believe there is current PENDING legislation that will do just that. As I understand it, unless there is strong proof that one parent poses a danger to their children (convicted child molestor, for example) it will automatically be 50/50.

Even in your case, you seem to suggest you had to go to court to arrive at 50/50. I'm assuming your ex isn't a violent child abuser so think of the grief and money you could have saved by avoiding court.

There is no doubt that there is often wage gaps between men/women. However, I suspect this is becoming rarer as large companies have fairly formal wage compensation formulas for staff. If a company paid women 20% less than males, I would think that a more progressive employer could "steal" high performing female employees . Of course, people are more litigious these days and few employers want the grief of a lawsuit screaming discrimination....
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 01:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,800
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Even in your case, you seem to suggest you had to go to court to arrive at 50/50. I'm assuming your ex isn't a violent child abuser so think of the grief and money you could have saved by avoiding court.
We did indeed have to go to court because my (male) ex was suing me for sole custody. He wanted me to pay him CS.

Quote:
I'm assuming your ex isn't a violent child abuser so think of the grief and money you could have saved by avoiding court.
I'm EXTREMELY amused and not surprised that you think it was me that drove the court action in my case. I requested a mediated divorce. My ex filed..he is the applicant. In the first filing, he requested exclusive possession, sole custody, and CS. No gender bias in that assumption though...you're fine. (lol).

Quote:
There is no doubt that there is often wage gaps between men/women. However, I suspect this is becoming rarer as large companies have fairly formal wage compensation formulas for staff. If a company paid women 20% less than males, I would think that a more progressive employer could "steal" high performing female employees .
Salary gender gaps are not even close to rare, they are the standard actually in both the U.S. and Canada. I'm a visible minority in more than one regard and always find it highly amusing when the previous "lords" suddenly feel that they're becoming discriminated against and start the whining.

Again, don't let me stop you...please continue to make more unbased claims and nonsensical generalizations. Please feel free to make them about me specifically...that's even funnier.

Flame on!
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 03:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 304
shellshocked22 is on a distinguished road
Default

The thrust of my position is the same - regardless of who was pushing for sole custody - it would've been easier for BOTH of you if 50/50 was simply a given - no point in even taking to court unless one of you is a chain saw killing lunatic.

In fairness, perhaps your exes lawyer suggested sole custody as a bargaining starting point. These are after all "negotiations".

I still suggest that pay based on gender is becoming LESS common than it was - refer to Oink's post - I assume he is in military. I never said its been eradicated, only "more rare" than in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 03:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,800
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
I still suggest that pay based on gender is becoming LESS common than it was - refer to Oink's post -
On my ignore list and his opinions are irrelevant. The data supports what I've already stated.

Quote:
In fairness, perhaps your exes lawyer suggested sole custody as a bargaining starting point. These are after all "negotiations".
So if my male ex is unreasonable and asks for exclusive possession, CS and sole custody...he's just negotiating. Interesting that you find he couldn't do that through a mediated divorce. Also, its amusing to watch the bias in justification when you're confronted with specifics rather than your massive generalizations.

Quote:
The thrust of my position is the same - regardless of who was pushing for sole custody - it would've been easier for BOTH of you if 50/50 was simply a given - no point in even taking to court unless one of you is a chain saw killing lunatic.
It only takes one unreasonable person in divorce litigation to drag both parties into court over and over again. And if you're suggesting that only women do this...forgive me, but I'll just continue laughing.

The problem with the family law system isn't gender bias. Its that you get rewarded for being a deceptive, lying ahole. There is no accountability regardless of gender.

But again...flame on!
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 06:14 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,486
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 shellshocked22 View Post
Observation: while well written, your postings overwhelmingly give the impression of "supporting" the current Family Law regime. Simply out of curiosity, would you consider answering the following questions....
Yes I do support the current system of Family Law and I do work towards reforming that system as well. Jurisprudence has been set and recorded in CanLII that I have offer people support on and assisted in the shaping of their arguments before the Superior Court of Justice to establish this jurisprudence. You can guess as to what jurisprudence that is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
-are YOU divorced (or going through the fun of separation) ?
I am too insignificant to care about. My concern is assisting others with their problems and leveraging the knowledge I have to try and assist others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
- if so, do you recieve OR pay CS or SS ?
Again, insignificant and of no relevance to the advice I provide here. I am here to assist others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
- I think most realize that "on paper" the system is gender neutral. However, I've spoken to several Family Law lawyers (both male and female) who were quite adamant that there is little doubt that the system has a serious bias against males.
Please provide their full name and contact information. Until such time you produce this list, your allegation has no supporting evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
Do you honestly believe the system has ZERO gender bias against males ?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
-if you had the power of making say three changes to Family Law guidelines, very briefly, what would they be ?
Well, the Family Law Rules in particular is of very little concern to me. So I will re-shape your question as my concern is primarily the best interests of children. So, in particular the three (3) changes to the laws in Ontario would be:

1. Setting forward a requirement for "evidence" for "domestic violence" and "child abuse" to meet the same requirements of a criminal conviction and any judicial decision relying upon Rule 24.(2) of the CLRA meet the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt".

2. That the Attorney General of Ontario follow the advice of the Ontario Ombudsman and remove the privileged for which legal aid clients and solicitors are protected under with that organization.

3. That client solicitor privileged be revoked upon any Application before the courts where custody and access is being contested. If the CLRA and Rule 24 of the CLRA is about the "best interests of the child" then the communications between a parent and their solicitor should not be governed by privileged as it is the child's rights that are being determined - not the parents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
-the parent with less than 40% access to children gets ZERO offset of CS - basically assuming that a parent who spends 39% fo time with children has the SAME cost (ie. zero) as a parent who NEVER sees the children.
You are concerned about 1%? This is a rare situation and really not worth the time to focus on in my opinion. One does have to question why the parent with 39% access did not press forward with a 2-2-3-3 or 2-2-5-5 based access schedule in the first place... To get to 39% you have to have a really odd access schedule and it is easy to make a solid argument that it isn't in the children's best interests possibly. But, every situation is unique so without having the details of the particular access schedule that bring forward a 39% on the over nights with that parent it is really hard to comment further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
-short of gross abuse/neglect, there is no accountability as to how CS is spent by the recipient. I would submit most payors of CS (who lets face it are usually male) are only too happy to help pay for their children. However, is it really out of line for them to have some say as to how their hard earned dollars are spent ? Or to be upset if the CS money is squandered. Do you really believe that CS money is NEVER abused by the recipient to the detriment of the children ? I'm not talking about tracking CS when its only a few hundred per month but a few THOUSAND is a different issue.
Generally, I find that the parents who struggle with this concept are the "controlling" type of personality. Proportionally to be paying in the "THOUSANDS" of CS one is making generally a significant income. Generally, this is the 1-2% of the population situation. Suffice to say, CS is not bankrupting the high income earners. Well, unless they were unreasonable, spent too much on legals, and were "penny wise and pound foolish".

You won't find too many 150,000+ income earners lamenting about their child support on a public message form.

Now, I do think that the tables to anyone making 55,000 or less need serious consideration. In fact, I am of the opinion that the guidelines should be adjusted to account for the immediate cost of living expenses for the first three (3) characters of their postal address.

P5N vs M5C.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
-if one spouse basically refused to work during the marriage (and after) why is the "working" parent punished financially. Yes, I know you can in theory "impute" but for someone like that you're likely to impute min wage at best and at what legal cost ?.
Make an offer to settle that is complete and very reasonable. Then bring a motion if not accepted and seek costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
-why does the government "micro manage" divorced CS PAYORS but has very little care (short of criminal action) against those that are married. For example, how often is a married couple sued by a child due to the parent not being able (willing) to pay university. However, once divorced a paying parent has no authority on this issue - you only have that right if you're married.
Actually, if you look hard enough in my postings you will find jurisprudence of a child bringing litigation forward for child support against both parents and successfully winning.

If a parent can't pay the court won't order them to pay. Show me jurisprudence where this happened and then I will change my position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
-Why doesn't the govt, if they truly believe Family Law is "fair"; insist upon mandatory education BEFORE marriage. Right now they only mandate it before the divorce actions. You yourself defended this subtle "hiding" of Family Law since (I paraphrase your reply)....if people were made truly aware of the potential cost of divorce and CS then some people would likely choose NOT to have kids which would aggravate the current labour shortage in Canada. The rationale would be that a financially astute person would realize the enormous financial risk they are undertaking should they marry in Canada - something that can be triggered by the other spouse literally "on a whim". Whether its a reasonable response is irrelevent. One could be the ideal partner and its no protection if the other spouse gets "bored" and wants to play the field but have the working spouse fund it - perhaps for decades. Is that truly FAIR ?
Could you reference the quote you are paraphrasing. I am not sure where I 'defended myself' and what you are referencing. So, I am unable to respond to this assertion as it is built on hearsay. If I stated something on this forum then, please do provide a link directly to the statement you are referencing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
I could go on but I suspect you understand the thrust of my argument.
Really, I don't understand the "thrust of your argument".

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
Due to the monetary incentive to retain the current regime, I very much doubt anything will change. My hope is that a forum such as this does two things...

a) Helps those already embroiled in the nightmare of divorce minimize the damage.
Both parties can save themselves from the "nightmare" of a divorce proceeding by being reasonable. If someone is not being reasonable then costs and other methods are there for a reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
b) For younger people thinking about marriage - the smart ones will do some homework "on line" and research what they are getting into BEFORE they make the leap. Sadly the online resources weren't available to me in the "stone age" lol when I got married - I truly wish it was so I could have protected myself.
Then, be a champion of education and provide this information to those in need?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
You seem to be overly "positive" about the system for someone who was on the "wrong end" of it as many of us are (ie. the spouse who worked hard, earned a decent income, was good to our spouses, yet are being strangled financially by the system).
Most people embroiled in family law situations are under tremendous stress. They rarely hear anything positive. I am sorry that I am "overly positive" with my responses. I think people have enough to deal with other than horrible stories pulled from thin air about things that only happen to the highly conflicted in family law situations.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 06:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: calgary
Posts: 190
pokeman has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

I think what tayken said is :

"50/50 access for fathers out of the gate is much simpler"

to pay my lawyer to even read above post would have been about 200$ and somewhat worthless if I cant see my kids

Last edited by pokeman; 06-25-2013 at 06:27 PM. Reason: changed above post to even read above post
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 09:14 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,486
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 pokeman View Post
I think what tayken said is :

"50/50 access for fathers out of the gate is much simpler"
What you think and what the reality is very different. I think I was rather clear on my position regarding parental responsibilities (not "father's" or "mother's" responsibilities) should be.

I do not support either gender argument as there are a number of gay, lesbian and transgendered parents who's "rights" are not respected when we engage in the "gender war" that is non existent.

My position on the subject matter is that Rule 24 of the CLRA does not bias gender and whom acts as a parent. Anyone who brings a nonsense argument trying to hurl allegations at the court that it is gender biased only, in my opinion, demonstrates why them acting as a parent may not be in the children's "best interests".

No gender is the better parent and I challenge anyone to produce case law whereby any justice published after 1990 whereby a justice explicitly states that females are always the better parent. This would be news to me...

The "tender years" doctrine was put to rest. The fact that people still try, in the year 2013 to state that the courts are biased towards one sexual orientation is not going to get a good response in court.

Equal parenting arrived in Canada. I think it is held back today mostly by the extreme "gender bias" movements by both "mother's rights" and "father's rights" movements. Both extreme positions have no value and are only fueling nonsense and causing more harm than good in the year 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokeman View Post
to pay my lawyer to even read above post would have been about 200$ and somewhat worthless if I cant see my kids
Why would you have a lawyer read anything from a public message forum at all is the real question? It is not really the most appropriate use of your funds if you "can't see your kids".

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 10:01 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,486
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 Pursuinghappiness View Post
So if my male ex is unreasonable and asks for exclusive possession, CS and sole custody...he's just negotiating. Interesting that you find he couldn't do that through a mediated divorce. Also, its amusing to watch the bias in justification when you're confronted with specifics rather than your massive generalizations.
Litigious negotiation... Someone coined it as "litogation" which basically describes the pattern of behaviour. It is nothing more than a "shock and awe" campaign of the worst kind. It is also "legal abuse" at the most pure definition of this concept. For anyone to litigate to negotiate is not acting in "good faith". It is like starting a war to find peace.

Well know "truism" that justices do not find funny at all. I would not recommend anyone to do this.

As always PH, excellent observations...

lad I am not the only one that noticed this pattern of behaviour from this poster when the generalizations are challenged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
It only takes one unreasonable person in divorce litigation to drag both parties into court over and over again. And if you're suggesting that only women do this...forgive me, but I'll just continue laughing.
I have said it before... saying it again...

There are only three situations in which something cannot be settled by negotiation:

1. One or both parties are suffering from a mental disturbance (illness).
2. One or both parties are suffering from substance abuse issues.
3. One or both parties are suffering from substance abuse and mental disturbance issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
The problem with the family law system isn't gender bias. Its that you get rewarded for being a deceptive, lying ahole. There is no accountability regardless of gender.
This stems from the leniency justices have been applying on the balance of probabilities. Too many "white lies" are let slip through the cracks in many files. What justices need to become is more attuned to the "relevance of the irrelevant" in the arguments being made by both parties. Some times, white washing nonsense as "irrelevant" is too simplistic and done to move a case along...

I am working on a posting which I am attempting to link the "relevance" to the "irrelevant" evidence many highly conflicted litigants rely upon and why there is "relevance" to the "irrelevant" arguments these litigants make. Of course, it relates to the conflict patterns of a HCP...

There is relevance to "emotional reasoning" that is often over-looked by justices in the arguments that HCP's make in their affidavits and on the stand.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2013, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Some where, out there.
Posts: 699
involveddad75 will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
A question for the eloquent speaker Tayken...

Please don't take this as an insult and trying to "stir the pot" - it's merely one of curiousity.

-are YOU divorced (or going through the fun of separation) ?

- if so, do you recieve OR pay CS or SS ?

- I think most realize that "on paper" the system is gender neutral. However, I've spoken to several Family Law lawyers (both male and female) who were quite adament that there is little doubt that the system has a serious bias against males. Do you honestly believe the system has ZERO gender bias against males ?

-if you had the power of making say three changes to Family Law guidelines, very briefly, what would they be ?

I hope you don't find my questions intrusive - but given how well you express your feedback to others questions I was simply curious of what your personal perspective/experience with Family Law is.
I have to stand up for Tayken and anyone else who are being asked personal questions.
Everyone has different levels of privacy that they are comfortable with, Tayken my not wish to discuss their personal matter for a number of reasons.
They could be in witness protection.
They could be on the run. (joking)
They could heaven forbid just be a private person.

Anything anyone states here is just that their own opinion and is simply that, their own opinion, and worth literary the cost of sending the characters through the internet.
As such everyone's statements must be taken with perspective.

I think it is completely inappropriate for anyone to ask such personal questions, if the person hasn't volunteered that information on their own.

I don't support Tayken in all their beliefs, as I'm an individual. But I appreciate their input and their research which is all that Tayken has stated they are doing.

I have been through "the system" and have been told the same thing that the system is bias. And yes to some extent it is.
Examples:
Status of woman, no status of men
Ontario Women's Directorate, no Ontario Men's Directorate
Brochures put out by government advising tip for woman traveling, no brochures for men.
CRA automatically assumes mother is to claim benefits.
etc etc etc.
But the secret to the family system is to play the game as it was written. "Best interests of the child"

You have to look at what you, yourself are doing, inside and outside of court. Every moment, ask yourself from a child only perspective "is this whats best" or could I do more. Can I be more reasonable, can I be more flexible.
Can I look at in our children's eye 20 years from now and be proud of my behaviour and explain to them that I did everything I could for them.

Yes CS is completely wrong with the 40% access threshold. And yes across Canada it should be more like Quebec.

Yes there should be a presumption of equal shared parenting, even with very young children, even when they are being breast feed.
Yes this should extend to families where there was an only breadwinner.

The best advice I was ever given was this:
If your in court step back from the system and focus on the children, until you get thought the system.
Be the better parent, the parent who is most reasonable, most flexible.
The most likely to encourage relationship between both parents.
Get through the system, before you try and change it.

The reason a lot of parents lose be it father or mother is because they take their interests and place them on their children's.
This is not a child focused perspective. Maintain a child focused perspective and Judges will take notice.
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
Child Support and Spousal Support BobbyShaftoe Introductions 14 04-26-2012 01:52 AM
Reinstating Child Support maggie99 Financial Issues 14 09-01-2010 12:47 PM
Joint Effort to Change Table Amounts of CS 350_dad Political Issues 43 12-18-2009 01:01 AM
Offer to Settle Child Support - Is This Fair? #1StepMom Divorce & Family Law 4 10-27-2009 07:50 AM
Will I be Paying Spousal Support? North of You Financial Issues 5 10-21-2009 03:05 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 PM.