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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-05-2007, 06:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo
Pardon me but how are these people on the site POSSIBLY involved in their children's life if they can't be located???? But again I suppose that is labeling them "bad parents" , and the belief here is that you can be a good parent and not see your children and not pay support.
Oh good lord. You fail to see the point. Because the site is called GOOD PARENTS PAY. It implies that people who pay are not "good". Or simply, doing their duty. And the responsibility and work of the government ends at that. Our laws do not care about involvement. Just cash.

"...and the belief here is that you can be a good parent and not see your children and not pay support..."

Huh?

  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-05-2007, 06:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo
Child support is the child's right... BRAVO to FRO. I believe whatever they can do to force parents to pay ( license suspensions, passport denial, garnishing, etc) they should.
To paraphrase Mr. Spock from Wrath of Khan:

There are two possibilities. They are unable to pay; they are unwilling to pay.

The FRO and the courts do not differentiate between the two.
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-05-2007, 11:18 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

here we go around again in circles

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo

Pardon me but how are these people on the site POSSIBLY involved in their children's life if they can't be located???? But again I suppose that is labeling them "bad parents" , and the belief here is that you can be a good parent and not see your children and not pay support.
It is possible that the individuals posted on the FRO site are not even parents as FRO’s mandate is to also collect and enforce court ordered spousal support. The individuals may not even have children or for that matter no children or support of such child may be a factor in a particular posted individual. Is in not discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional to make such an assumption?

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo

But again I suppose that is labeling them "bad parents" , and the belief here is that you can be a good parent and not see your children and not pay support.
Assigning a label of “good parent - bad parent” is unconstitutional when no facts are known about a particular individual. Are you privy to information held by the FRO of the particular individuals posted on the site?

I could not differentiate which individuals are parents and which are not. Furthermore, I could not make a distinction which individuals were posted for arrears of spousal support and which ones are in arrears for child support. Therefore I conclude assigning a label “Good Parents Pay” is unconstitutional as they may not even be a parent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo
Child support is the child's right...
That is absolutely correct unless the same child is sixteen years of age or older and has withdrawn from parental control. As listed in the Family Law Act R.S.O 1990, c. F.3

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/S...f03_e.htm#BK34

See section 31(1) and section 31(2) of same
Obligation of parent to support child

31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.

Idem
(2) The obligation under subsection (1) does not extend to a child who is sixteen years of age or older and has withdrawn from parental control. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (2).
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo
but it seems to me LV believe that it is ok not to pay/see your children ( or unwilling to say it is not ok ...aka they are bad parents)
I never mentioned that. Perhaps you are being judgmental or making an assumption or have a comprehension problem of what I posted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo
Also you better watch where you step these days since we are likely to be falling over bodies everywhere since these "good parents" who aren't paying and "missing" may be dead and rotting somewhere. Haven't stumbled over any yet, but with the spring thaw who knows.
Thank you for the notice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo
And better not put up a missing poster since that may be unconstitutional as well.
That is your choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo

And in terms of mobility no one is not letting them move ... again all they have to do is notify FRO of their whereabouts to get off the site.
I should hope not. The right of mobility is guaranteed by the Charter. Ultimately the choice is of the individuals if they choose to notify the FRO of their whereabouts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo

BRAVO to FRO. I believe whatever they can do to force parents to pay ( license suspensions, passport denial, garnishing, etc) they should.
The FRO have been practicing those initiatives for years. However, they still remain to be incompetent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo

Lv has pointed out that he is unwilling to state that labeling parents good or bad no matter what they do is wrong.
I don’t believe I mentioned that. I believe you missed the point in a comprehending manner of what I mentioned. Labeling parents good or bad is unconstitutional without knowing the facts of the particular individual. They may not even be parents. They may be even deceased.Who knows for sure but the label is now assigned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo

I say that it is a pretty basic statement that good parents support their children and don't end up on these sites by hiding... unless of course that spring thaw turns up a lot of bodies.
I ask you again; Who says they are hiding? I have asked this question a number of times which you have avaoided and failed to answer. Is this an unjustified presumption of yours?

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo

Good parents do pay. Bad parents run out and hide on their obligations.
Are you implying that a custodial parent who pays no child support is a bad parent? Further clarification is required as you have assigned labels.

Are you absolutely sure that the individual people posted on the FRO site are indeed parents and additionally running or hiding?

Can you guarantee that the postings on the FRO are correct and without error?

Moreover, Can you guarantee that the individuals are not deceased?

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo

Child support = good ... supporting children= good seeing your children=good.
I believe that most parents would do anything for their child and additionally support that same child to the best of their ability. Same parents really don’t need to be assigned a label by the government of “good parents pay” They know who they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo

Running and hiding =bad, not seeing your children =bad, letting your children be supported by the state when you are hiding =bad,
Are you absolutely sure that the individuals are running and hiding? If you are, I have to question how did you come to that absolute conclusion?

Are you labeling a parent who made reasonable attempts to have a meaningful relationship with their children, only to have the children’s access denied by the other parent without cause a bad parent?

Are you labeling children and their respective families on social assistance? If so what label are you assigning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo

Child support good- sorry so many of you disagree with that and are bitter about paying it.
You missed the point of the whole thread. I believe that the majority of parents and individuals on this forum will agree that support of children is paramount. I believe you pass unjustifiable judgments on the members of this forum. Members of this forum come here for casual pleasant chat, information, share experiences and help one another. I ask you what you mandate is for participating?

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo
SO LV if we keep the website but call it something else- like have you seen these deliquent support payors it would be ok? not making a judgement call- just facts - they are deliquent. Would that solve your issue?

Are you sure they are delinquent? Can you absolutely guarantee the accuracy of the FRO? I’m not convinced you can. The FRO has been known to make mistakes in the past. But on that note Why not keep the website and rename it:

Have you seen these individuals?


lv
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2007, 11:54 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 18
KScull is on a distinguished road
Default LV re:Yoyo

LV you made absolute sense!!

We do not know or have information relating to each individual.

Take me for example, we pay support, have in some years been forced through garnishment from FRO to pay over 75% of our GROSS income. Let me say that again, Gross income before taxes, then the taxes etc, which leaves very little

The ex wife went to court and claimed she was not receiving support. The court found us guilty of arrears, as at the time we could not offer concrete documentation of the payments and our lawyer, well, that’s another ball of wax. We had to re-file and submit the documents, for the court to say, oh ok you are not in arrears, and ordered the correction through FRO. Were we bad parents? What if my husband’s picture showed up there? He paid more than he was supposed to, the court though otherwise, we even asked to be reimbursed the over payment and it was basically a case of sucks to be you. We lived by food banks and family help. Would YoYo still feel that the site is fair? Knowing our circumstances you'd say we were not bad parents only victims of the system, but would that change how people thought of us, and how they treated us? Heck no! People like you make innocent people held liable, no mater the consequences, then shrug and say so, oh well, sorry, sucks to be you, we made a mistake. But these kinds of mistakes cannot be erased and can be very, very damaging; therefore they shouldn't have a system in place where they can happen. PERIOD!

Furthermore, we have withdrawn and adjust the amount yearly without request from anyone, and for the last 5+ years we have never missed a payment and always pay under payment amounts at tax time. Do we get to see the kids? Heck no, the ex only need say something is so for it to found to be the gospel truth to a judge. Better err on the side of caution and believe the mother, she lives with the child she must be right. We should have a system in place to enforce access and the like, not payment. I'm sure if they made the mothers accountable then the payments would fall into place. Then there would be no such thing as dead beat dads. The dads that disappear are the dads that have jumped through every preverbal hoop imaginable and some beyond imagination WITHOUT success. The rest are still jumping, and the very very lucky few have regular access with actual human mothers
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2007, 12:50 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1
Lala is on a distinguished road
Default

I agree with logicalvelocity.

During the three years that my husband and I had his children, his ex never paid a red cent in child support, and in fact insisted on claiming the children on her taxes even though we had them for three years because we hadn't legally switched custody. She "allowed" us to have them for that time, and we were supposed to just be grateful that she allowed us to have them for that time, while she "got her life together". When she snatched them back without notice one weekend, she announced that she had lived "long enough without support", as though having them living with us didn't cost anything, and besides...the support was supposed to be for the children...not for her.

Meanwhile, when she had them, my husband was lucky to get them if she wasn't angry about something. I can't tell you how many times she denied him access.
So, in my opinion, that website doesn't tell the whole story, and if they're going to have a website for deadbeat dads, then they need to have one for deadbeat moms, and moms who deny access.
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2007, 01:57 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 18
KScull is on a distinguished road
Default

Here, Here!!

Hold the mothers accountable!!!
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2007, 09:36 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14
Everest369 is on a distinguished road
Default

Logical Velocity is the heart and soul of this group. You are clearly here to create trouble. Why would you come here and create such a negative atmosphere for all of us other group members who rely of the forum for support when we are all going through such a difficult, stressful time? There is nothing wrong with giving opinions but there tone of your posts are very disturbing and unnecessary. It seems to be a common theme in all the posts you've given on this forum.

As a member who is very grateful for the support of the people who are members here, I personally ask that you stop being so negative and stop trying to create trouble in a place that is so helpful to many of us.

That's just my two cents worth. I fully expect you'll attempt to bash me now too. And I knew that when I posted this. But that's ok because someone has to say it like it is.
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2007, 10:17 PM
sufferer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 336
sufferer is on a distinguished road
Default May be a dumb question

Everest369

Whom are you refering too?
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2007, 10:34 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14
Everest369 is on a distinguished road
Default

Sorry, I was referring to YoYo. The last post by him or her is no longer here but it was nasty and uncalled for. Glad to see it gone!
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2007, 11:14 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wellesley, Ontario
Posts: 109
Denisem is on a distinguished road
Default yoyo

Logical Velocity has always been very helpful. I see by your post you have some kind of personal problem with LV. I would hope you keep your nasty comments to yourself. LV tells it how it is and I for one am very grateful for the advise LV gives us all.
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
Co-parenting ----post divorce bearall Parenting Issues 14 05-25-2010 12:14 PM
Good Info on someone experiencing problems accessing child serrona Divorce & Family Law 3 09-12-2009 01:49 PM
Custody Disputed Decent Dad Political Issues 2 06-26-2006 10:05 AM
How credibility is affected in the eyes of Judges. gooddadgoingmad Divorce & Family Law 12 03-12-2006 04:05 PM
Hague Convention and Custody logicalvelocity Parenting Issues 7 01-24-2006 10:54 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:50 AM.