Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment

[billm]

Originally Posted by billiechic

do the forms ask you for details about WHY CS is current or not?

IMHO a parent who does not make some sort of arrangement to pay does not show much interest in what's best for their kids. Whether you can pay all of it or have to play catch up is a moot point. If you are not adult enough to acknowledge the NEEDS of your kids, then you are not RESPOSIBLE enough to be caring for them.

While support is not directly related to access, one's commitment to their kids is VERY relevant. One way of evaluating this is to make sure they are meeting financial obligations to their children.

Couldn't disagree more. It's simple - access should NOT be related to support in ANY way. Two wrongs don't make a right as they say. Denying access to ones parent for financial reasons is simply wrong.

[HammerDad]

Originally Posted by billm

Couldn't disagree more. It's simple - access should NOT be related to support in ANY way. Two wrongs don't make a right as they say. Denying access to ones parent for financial reasons is simply wrong.

Agreed, and if you did link the two, you would create a vicous cycle that would only harm the children in the long run.

How about this scenario - CP denies access to NCP. NCP says "screw you, if you're not letting me see my kids, I am not paying you". CP turns around and says "hey, you're not paying your support. Now I have reason to deny access!!!" Now you've got two people pointing the finger at the other saying they started it and looking like the children they are supposed to be raising, and ignoring their obligation to support the children's best interests.

And what should happen to the NCP that loses their job and can no longer afford to pay the previous guideline amount or afford a lawyer to have it changed? Should they be deemed time with their kids?

[InterprovincialParents]

Originally Posted by billiechic

do the forms ask you for details about WHY CS is current or not?

IMHO a parent who does not make some sort of arrangement to pay does not show much interest in what's best for their kids. Whether you can pay all of it or have to play catch up is a moot point. If you are not adult enough to acknowledge the NEEDS of your kids, then you are not RESPOSIBLE enough to be caring for them.

While support is not directly related to access, one's commitment to their kids is VERY relevant. One way of evaluating this is to make sure they are meeting financial obligations to their children.

No, the new forms do not ask WHY it is not current. It simply asks the amount owing and the steps to pay. I did not make the observation to discuss the responsibility of the parent(s), but to point out the leanings of the courts lately. You have a better chance on custody and access if your support payments are current. I am the mom, whose child support was never received for over 6 years...and not once did I use that to hinder or halt access...and in fact even transport my child to see his father every time, at my cost...but in so many cases, I have seen the custodial parent, and the courts, use arrears as a reason to limit access...and that is what sickens me

[hummer310]

The gov't put the knife in...she just keeps twisting it! And don't forget to pay or your wages will be garnished!!!(another twist!)

[Lorac]

Good Morning Everyone,

This is my first post and I will give it a go.
Question was "Do you think women get preferential treatment"
I would have to say it depends a lot on the length of the marriage. I'm a 61 year old female. My husband and I are splitting up. I have worked in health care for 25 years and contributed to a pension all those years. My husband also worked during out marriage but didn't contribute.
As it stands right now he's entitled to my pension, my CPP, and I have to keep him on my health plan.
In order for me to not have him claim all he can, I have to sell the house and give him ALL the profits, half of everything in the house and our vehicle, then and only then will he not go after my pension. As it stands I won't even have any money put get an apartment as I will need first and lasts months rent. My lawyer told me he is entitled to all of these things. When women started demanding equal rights for everything...that's what we got...so I would say sometimes be careful what you ask for...this is the result. I can empathize with all the men who are going through this (and women) although I personally don't know of any woman going through this not to say there aren't any. He said if I stay until the house is sold he will pay half of everything, that would of been wonderful had he just offered the equal share of paying when we were a couple. Right now my head is screwed on so backwards I have a hard time remembering my name.

Good luck to everyone
lorac

[dadtotheend]

Lorac, the question was not whether the law is gender biased. It's not.

It was whether the application of the law favours women.

[Kenny]

Absolutely, 100%. Here and in New Brunswick, but I am betting it is everywhere in Canada.

[billiechic]

So naive...if the law 100% favours women, then NO father would get custody!

[billm]

Originally Posted by billiechic

So naive...if the law 100% favours women, then NO father would get custody!

This statement does not make sense

[Kenny]

I am not saying that custody is 100%, just that the favour is toward women. Just look at the ISO forms, deal with FRO or look often at the publicity by the government and their supported agencies.

Naivety is not the case here, but experience is!