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.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-06-2009, 12:43 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16
Jupitor is on a distinguished road
Default Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment

Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment in separation and divorce issues, in Ontario.
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 885
#1StepMom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jupitor View Post
Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment in separation and divorce issues, in Ontario.
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT

(Based on personal experience, experiences of relatives/friends, and experiences of acquaintances who have had dealings with the Ontario family court system... and - not surprisingly - any family court system. Some have called it the "golden uterus syndrome" where women/mothers get preferential treatment because they are just that... women/mothers. We still live in a society that associates femininity with mothering/parenting and masculinity with being the $$$ provider.)
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default Yes

Women get preferential treatment. They get physical custody over 90% of the time automatically. If the father wants "shared" custody, he has to "prove" himself. The most likely result of a divorce is the mom having custody and the dad being reduced to a visitor in his children's lives every 2nd weekend, and one weeknight. And he gets to pay the mother for the "priviledge" of having custody of their kids. The money, taxes and benefits are COMPLETELY lop-sided to the custodial parent (90% of time a woman).

See NEXT POST for how the money "really" works in divorce cases. Even though CS is quoted as a % of gross income, having custody means ALOT more cash to custodial parents than just CS.
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-06-2009, 05:39 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default How much $$$ do custodial parents REALLY get for the "kids"

When the government made taxes on CS payable to the payor, and not the recipient, the intent was to lower the amounts by about 30%. Unfortunately, they never did do that, even though they "claim" to. When you look at the numbers, they did not. Then in 2006 they increased the table amounts again, by another 30%. This is why so many payors are in severe financial distress these days and why the Guidelines do need to be modified. The current guidelines are not at all fair.

If you make $50,000 and have 2 kids, you pay $719, which at first glance doesn't seem like too large an amount, which is only what alot of CP's see.

But if you reverse the situation for them, and assume they also make $50K and are now PAYING child support at $719 (assume to the ex-husband for ease of example), they start to see it differently when they are faced with the actual math and details. Assume your at 35% tax bracket, your net pay is now $32,500. You also have additional items taken off your pay stub (as we all do) usually around $200/month (for EI, CPP etc). You would be left with $1789/month. Now, that is before "extra-ordinary" things are added on. Assume another $100/month for this, so now the NCP mom has $1689/month. Because the kids come and visit you alot you keep a home with a room for them, and have a bigger car to transport them around. You don't get to claim the child as a dependent (worth $9K in reducing your taxes) and you cannot collect the CCTB or other credits in relation to the support you provide to your child.

You look at the ex-husband, who now KEEPS the $719/month he WOULD have been paying you (if you had custody) and gets another $719 from you. He gets to claim the child as a dependent, worth 9K, which probably gives him a tax break of 3,000 - 4,000/K per year. He also gets the CCTB (assume $150/month) and maybe other credits etc. So the true "value" of the children for his household is around $1838/month (719 + 719 + (3000/12) + 150) MORE money that STAYS or COMES into his household because the children are there most of the time. And the biggest BONUS, he gets to have his children with him.

You, on the other hand, will be struggling to support yourself and your kids when they visit, based on a seemingly good income of $50k/year.

It is hugely un-balanced and unfair for all CS payors, no matter how small the original CS number "looks" on paper.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 10-06-2009, 11:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Oakville, Ontario
Posts: 219
Stargate is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jupitor View Post
Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment in separation and divorce issues, in Ontario.
Yes, they do.
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2009, 07:26 AM
HCA HCA is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13
HCA is on a distinguished road
Default

yes women do....
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2009, 08:09 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4
B00kWorm is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb The government KNEW what they were doing ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid View Post
When the government made taxes on CS payable to the payor, and not the recipient, the intent was to lower the amounts by about 30%. Unfortunately, they never did do that, even though they "claim" to.
Don't kid yourself. The gov't knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they changed the CS laws in 96/97.

Think about it. With the "old" system, payors (usually fathers), were allowed to claim CS as a deduction. While the recipient (usually mothers) were required to claim it as income.

Q: Who's income is usually higher, the father or the mother?
A: fathers.

Pre-guidelines and tax changes, Revenue Canada allowed the deduction by the payor. The deduction esentially returned the taxes paid on the CS to the payor at the tax-rate (tax-bracket) based on his employment income.

While sumultaniously, the recipient had to claim the amount she received as income. The tax-rate on that amount was determined by her emplooyment income, which generally is lower than his.

Sometimes both payor and recipient are in the same tax bracket, in those cases, no loss - no gain from the Govt's perspective.

However what if her employment income is substantially lower? Then her CS is taxed at the rate as determined by her employment income. If she's considered "low income", than the tax she will pay will be substantially lower than the amount he will receive as a refund.

So, by adopting the new guidelines and accompanying income tax legislation and not allowing the payor to claim a deduction. The Gov't now "keeps" the tax paid on the CS by the payor, while the recipient is "exempt" from paying the tax on that amount.

By making this move ... The Gov't generated millions in revenue!



... and you thought they were doing it for the CHILDREN?

My 2cents
B00kW0rm
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2009, 05:32 PM
wretchedotis's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ON
Posts: 2,317
wretchedotis is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jupitor View Post
Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment in separation and divorce issues, in Ontario.
I had a Legal-Aid lawyer in the Court House tell me on the VERY FIRST DAY that I started getting my ducks in a row over my seperation that "If you don't believe there is a bias in the system towards women, you are sadly mistaken".

How do you like them apples?
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 10-11-2009, 12:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Oakville, Ontario
Posts: 219
Stargate is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B00kWorm View Post
Don't kid yourself. The gov't knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they changed the CS laws in 96/97.

Think about it. With the "old" system, payors (usually fathers), were allowed to claim CS as a deduction. While the recipient (usually mothers) were required to claim it as income.

Q: Who's income is usually higher, the father or the mother?
A: fathers.

Pre-guidelines and tax changes, Revenue Canada allowed the deduction by the payor. The deduction esentially returned the taxes paid on the CS to the payor at the tax-rate (tax-bracket) based on his employment income.

While sumultaniously, the recipient had to claim the amount she received as income. The tax-rate on that amount was determined by her emplooyment income, which generally is lower than his.

Sometimes both payor and recipient are in the same tax bracket, in those cases, no loss - no gain from the Govt's perspective.

However what if her employment income is substantially lower? Then her CS is taxed at the rate as determined by her employment income. If she's considered "low income", than the tax she will pay will be substantially lower than the amount he will receive as a refund.

So, by adopting the new guidelines and accompanying income tax legislation and not allowing the payor to claim a deduction. The Gov't now "keeps" the tax paid on the CS by the payor, while the recipient is "exempt" from paying the tax on that amount.

By making this move ... The Gov't generated millions in revenue!



... and you thought they were doing it for the CHILDREN?

My 2cents
B00kW0rm
Precisely!
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2009, 11:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 992
representingself is on a distinguished road
Default

Yes... women most definitely get preferrential treatment in the family court system. Especially if the children involved are very young.
And that preference is based on historical and statistical information.

The gap is closing, but in some situations, men not only make more money, they also get more promotions then women.

In business, women are still seen as a liability. There is always the chance that a female employee with get pregnant, which costs the company $$$$....time off for morning sickness, pregnancy complications, maternity leave, parental leave and medical benefits.

In addition, women with children are unable to work flexible shifts, often have to take time off work to care for sick children, deal with "family issues"... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Women are viewed as 'unreliable', so therefore, they are often passed over for the big promotions.

In a lot of families, when the decision to have children is made, SOMEONE has to step back from their career paths to be there for the kids, that's just the way it is, we can't all afford live-in nannies and daycares aren't open 24/7.

And while in some cases it is the father who takes the role... in most, it is still the mother.

So when you take into account the inequity in employment, plus the care taking role that most mothers assume, it is only reasonable to presume that in most families, when a divorce happens...the mother keeps the children, while the man becomes a weekend parent.

As such, he must pay spousal and child support, while the woman continues in her caretaking role, hopefully working in a field which allows her to be home in the mornings to get the kids off to school, and home in time to make dinner.

Historically speaking, since the dawn of mankind, men were the protectors, hunters and gatherers, they provide for their families.....whereas women are child bearers, nurturers, home makers, who birth and take care of the children and the home.

That is still today... the picture of the nuclear family.

It is going to take a LONG time to change this general perception... if ever.
Closed Thread


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
Mental Health Diversion Program + Refusal of Treatment ... NewOutlook Political Issues 1 10-16-2008 06:15 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:49 PM.