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
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 12:42 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,342
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default Mothers never die!

From http://canlii.ca/t/gvvpw

Quote:
[117] The respondent should have life insurance to secure his obligation to pay table child support. This is not a case of shared custody and consequently I will not order the applicant to obtain life insurance.
Luckily, being a divorced mom makes you immortal.

Also, the definition of S7 includes "activities that were happening before separation".

Quote:
[116] ... Secondly, I find that since the boys were partaking in hockey during the marriage, I find that that expense should be maintained.
Not sure if that is special or extraordinary, but whatever. Logic and the law are minor considerations in family law.

BTW, some weird numbering of paragraphs, the above two are not right after each other.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 12:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 142
ifonlyihadknown is on a distinguished road
Default

So if there couple were still together and decided that finances were tight, they could pull the boys out of hockey to save money. But if the couple splits the judge takes away that choice.

I'm speechless but not surprised.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 03:02 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,248
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
From http://canlii.ca/t/gvvpw
Quote:
[117] The respondent should have life insurance to secure his obligation to pay table child support. This is not a case of shared custody and consequently I will not order the applicant to obtain life insurance.
Luckily, being a divorced mom makes you immortal.
That's not right. Every parent should have life insurance, married, single, etc, whatever the custody arrangement, to provide for the child in the event of their death. What if the mom dies and the dad ends up a full time parent? He's not going to have the financial help he should be entitled to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
Quote:
[116] ... Secondly, I find that since the boys were partaking in hockey during the marriage, I find that that expense should be maintained.
So if there couple were still together and decided that finances were tight, they could pull the boys out of hockey to save money. But if the couple splits the judge takes away that choice.

I'm speechless but not surprised.
This is much like how separated parents have to pay for post-secondary education while an intact family can choose to pay or not.

I agree with this one though. Children of separated families have stresses and pressures against them that children from intact families generally don't feel. Giving them some advantages, like tuition being covered, or a guarantee of staying in beloved hockey, makes sure that the children's well-being and future success is helped along, when there are often antagonistic parents using the children to hurt their ex. The decision of the parents to separate and make the children live in two homes is bad enough, piling loss of hockey on top just feels like a punishment to the child.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 03:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Read carefully. The judge ordered the respondent to carry life insurance to secure his obligation to pay table child support. The applicant doesn't have such an obligation because she has primary residence with the child. The judge did not say that the applicant should not carry life insurance, he said that he would not order it (presumably because the applicant's life insurance is not germane to the respondent's financial obligations to the child, which is what this paragraph was about).

If you see some kind of pro-mom/anti-dad bias here, you're really reaching ...
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 04:04 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,342
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
The applicant doesn't have such an obligation because she has primary residence with the child.
Assuming the applicant is immortal, I completely agree.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 04:12 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,229
blinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura about
Default

But ...if she dies custody reverts to dad. How is her support obligation covered without insurance, dad is not the only one financially supporting them.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 04:39 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,010
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

When you read through the case you see that the mother has been blasted by the judge. Shes been ordered to get a job and had income imputed and her other s7 expenses were denied due to the fact that the father would have little money if ordered to pay all s7.

Its really cheap to pick and choose parts of an order to blast. The father won pretty solid points in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 07:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Given that Dad's income is four times higher than Mom's (Dad's income was $103K, Mom was imputed at $24K), Dad's death would be a much bigger financial hit to Mom than Mom's death would be to Dad (assuming he then took over the responsibility for the kids). So it makes sense to require Dad to carry life insurance in order to ensure continuity of his financial support for the kids, which is what the case is all about.

Of course everyone should have life insurance, but everyone should also wear their seatbelts, watch their consumption of fats and alcohol, and get their cholesterol checked regularly. The judge didn't order any of that for either Mom or Dad because that's not germane to the matter before the court.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-06-2016, 12:47 AM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,146
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

It's very interesting to consider the case where the dad is forced to get the insurance but the mom isn't. It's exactly true that if the mom were to die the father would get custody and be deprived of child support. I hope somebody is brave enough one day to oppose the decision and appeal it on this basis. .

In Quebec, they don't order people to take out insurance.

Only one problem in Quebec family law....
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-06-2016, 03:17 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,342
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
Given that Dad's income is four times higher than Mom's (Dad's income was $103K, Mom was imputed at $24K), Dad's death would be a much bigger financial hit to Mom than Mom's death would be to Dad (assuming he then took over the responsibility for the kids). So it makes sense to require Dad to carry life insurance in order to ensure continuity of his financial support for the kids, which is what the case is all about.
So, if the custodial parent makes 4 times as much money as the NCP, your position is that the NCP should not have to pay child support?

I'll spell it out for you. If the mom dies, she immediately becomes the NCP. As such, she is obligated to pay CS. The way that dead parents pay CS is through life insurance. Regardless of the custodial situation, any adult who could be on the hook for CS has an obligation to carry life insurance, because said adult could die.

Hence my side comments about the mother being immortal, because that is the only reason she should be exempt from the life insurance requirements.

I guess there is another argument here. If you think that relative incomes should come into play when determining CS obligations, then perhaps the mom might not require life insurance. What would your cutoff be stripes? triple income for CP? Double? Quadruple? Since the judge in this case (or you) is just making up law, any figure would be fine.
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
Nearly 40 percent of mothers are now the family breadwinners, report says Tayken General Chat 12 05-30-2013 05:00 PM
Stepfather hits son- can we withhold Mothers access if he is present? MsJessimica Domestic Violence 10 07-03-2012 11:20 AM
Happy Mothers Day Nadia General Chat 3 05-12-2012 10:22 PM
living separated under same roof, can she "force" her mother's living in the house ? dadx3 Divorce & Family Law 4 01-26-2011 04:34 PM
Happy Mother's Day Grace General Chat 2 05-14-2006 09:06 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:55 AM.