Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment

[Storm]

still no, have some friends (fathers) , who did got SOLE and mom was fine...

[Tuckeroo]

I agree - but that doesn't mean it is right!

Why is it that every business, institution, government office, every man and every woman is prohibited by law from inequality of any kind - except Family Courts?

Doesn't seem like equality to me, may the law should uphold the law.

[Kenny]

Tuckeroo:

It is not right, but it will not change until the way we think as a people change. As a culture, we still see mothers as the primary caregivers where that vision impedes our ability to see the whole picture in some cases.

My personal examples are:

In 2000, upon separation, the court order for child support was raised within three weeks of separation and enforced within a month. It was OK because I started voluntary payments immediately anyway.

In 2005, it took the legal system over a year to stop child support when I got custody of my daughter, resulting in a huge non-refundable child support overpayment to my Ex-spouse.

In March 2011, I was granted a temporary child support order. The FRO received a support order against ME and started the garnishment within three weeks of getting the order. After I brought there attention to the fact that the FRO garnished the wrong person, it took them over a month and a half to stop it.

Today, almost November 2011, the FRO/FSOS have still not garnished my Ex-spouse for a child support order from March 2011. She earns an impressive government salary, by the way!

I can go on with many other examples, but I think we get it.

Some think the system is not biased. To be honest, in many cases, in many departments with many "system" representatives, it is not biased! But the few areas that have an active bias have a dramatic effect on all of us!

Ken

[rcmann]

Women are treated differently in Family Court even when there are no children involved. My fiance' is asking for a reduction in spousal support as his ex is living with her "husband to be". She has a higher standard of living and has purchased a home with him that is mortgage free. Her name is on title and as she just sold her condo that she purchased from her mother for $2.00 and cleared $227K, she now has far more money than my fiance'. However, he must fight her high priced lawyer to prove her support is about greed, not need. We believe this makes a mockery of family law and is unfair to people who really do need support.

[first timer]

My personal experience is no; my ex got blasted by the judge at the case conference which helped me; the day after the case conference she told her lawyer that she did not want to go to court again and the negotiations began; within 2.5 months our Separation Agreement was completed and signed; she still feels that the system was bias against her; she believed everyone involved was on my side and that she was the victim because she was a woman and everybody else were men; I know this is not the norm.....

[rcmann]

That is great that you were listened to and treated well! Our experience has been different. My fiance's ex-wife never worked, she was awarded a large settlement (which fair enough, she was entitled to) but the spousal support is very high. Her standard of living is higher than his and now she is living with a very well off man in a mortgage free home. Her name is on title and she sold her condo for $227k free and clear. We believe she could possibly be married but it is up to my fiance' to prove it in order to have the support order lifted. I think if a person is living with or married to another person the support should be null and void. It shows she has moved on with her life and it should be her new man's responsibility (along with her) to meet their financial needs. We had one lawyer tell us that she could not possibly retire on half a million dollars! We were shocked as most people will never have half a million dollars in the bank and she has been retired her whole life! We have been told he will likely have the support reduced, but not eliminated. I cannot understand this because she has more money than my guy, has a higher standard of living and the potential for even more if she marries or if she is already married. This forces the working guy into indentured servitude. I am really baffled by the logic here.

[momforever1956]

What are you baffled about? Seperating property and Spousal Support are 2 completely different issues.
Whatever her settlement was , as you suggested 500k, has aboslutely nothing to do with ongoing SS. She stayed at home, and will now be compensated for being a full time mom. I understand as the gf or financee of the man obligated to pay must be annoying but such are the laws of the land. If you partner would have spoken up early in the marriage and insist that she work, the issues would be different.
My lawyer suggests that he is very busy with 2nd marriage divorces when the spouce( usually 2nd wife )is upset about the amount of support her husband has to pay the first wife, as she considers this monies she is entitled to....... Oh well, I guess my x's sig other must have no nails left.

[BefairFolks]

I think the courts try to do the fastest job, and not necessarily the most fair if they divide everything 50-50. I realize putting a price on a stay at home mom is very difficult. But for those couples who have no kids, calculate what each entered the relationship with, how much each contributed during the marriage and subtract any accumulated debt. I feel it is dishonest for those who want a bigger piece of the pie and didn't earn it. My ex has her own business and we are discussing dividing up our assets. I told her straight out that I do not want a cent from her business as I never worked for her, marketed for her, did accounting for her, and for my own conscience I will not accept a cent from the work that she did. She worked for it, she deserves it. Some people who did little to no contributions to the marriage financially all of a sudden have their paws open for half just bug me. If you worked for it, you earn it. If you didn't, best of luck to you on your own.

[rcmann]

My ex and I put our kids first. I did not take spousal support or child support because I worked. He made more money than me, but provided for the kids willingly and easily because he was not afraid of being eviscerated financially. The kids never went without and had the benefit of two parents treating each other with respect and consideration.
My fiance's ex did not work and contributed nothing to the marriage. Yes, he stayed in the marriage longer than he should have, but should he be punished for that? He believed it was forever. He has integrity and honor. When he left he paid all the bills and the taxes. He gave her money to live on and told her that he would be fair and asked the same of her.
Unfortunately, she does not adhere to the same moral standard. She has a high priced lawyer who is trying to reopen the whole thing simply because my fiance filed for a material change in circumstance. The blatant manipulation of the law by her lawyer is nothing short of extortion. The once noble profession of law has turned into a form of the mafia. This woman has more money than her ex-husband, has a higher standard of living and is living with a man in a jointly owned, mortgage free home in one of the most exclusive areas of London. But because she can, she has come out swinging and if her demands are met, my fiance will be left broken and broke. The divorce act clearly states that "the standard of living should be equal if not nearly equal". Time and again I have heard stories of men that have been ruined emotionally and destroyed financially. I thank God we don't have to go through this mess with children involved. I am so sorry for the men who are treated so badly that they feel like criminals where their kids are concerned. What is wrong with people that they want to ruin the person they married, shared a life with and had children with. How can any person think that is okay? The lawyers are corrupt and the whole thing needs a major overhaul. Men need to form an alliance like the women did in the 70's and march collectively on Ottawa to ask for change. No one person, male or female should be left in emotional and financial poverty simply because the other party has a better lawyer.

[staysingle]

good post rcmann!

Pleae check out Karmaseekers posts they cut to the bone/centre of this unbeleivable and tragic farce called 'family court'.

The lawyers/judges/radical feminists ( this group is not seeking equality but rather power and individual careers).

Predominately men and an increasing number of women simply cannot take the modern risks associated with marriage/cohabitation/raising a family in this country.

The divorce industry is a multi billion dollar false economy that transfers hasrd earned family wealth back into the putred hands of lawyers and judges.

I agree with you completly that men and women that value marriage and raising offspring with a chance of realising their potential, must organize and shut down family courts. In its place a tribunal model composed of child pyschologist/accountantant/and paralegal should replace this legal mafia that we all have allowed to spread like a virus.

I maintain it will take a devoted group of women, that see and experiance this social pathology called family law, too overtake the power the Canadian Bar Association currently has.

Good luck