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
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 12-06-2016, 03:30 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,342
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
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]
It is quite telling that you consider the fact that the mother was imputed income at minimum wage to be a situation where she was "blasted" by the judge.

The most useless parasitic slug should be imputed at minimum wage. Father are almost always imputed at something higher than minimum wage. This is not the mom getting blasted. This is the absolute minimum that should ever be imputed for normal people without physical or mental disabilities.

As a feminist, I am outraged that women are generally considered in family law to be a class of people with physical and mental deficiencies who are unable to provide for themselves and hold down a job. The sexist views from the bench are often hard to stomach. If only they respected women as much as I do.


Quote:
Its really cheap to pick and choose parts of an order to blast. The father won pretty solid points in this case.
No, the father didn't win much at all. He still plays 81% of S7, which still includes activities that are clearly not S7.

It is like people telling me that I "won" by getting the kids 50% of the time. Just because the regular outcome is horrifically unfair doesn't suddenly render a partially fair outcome a victory.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 12-06-2016, 04:03 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,567
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

I agree with Janus that the sauce that is good for the goose is good for the gander. Or you can't blow hot and cold at the same time.

But the order explicitly states:

Quote:
(h) the respondent is to apply for life insurance in the amounts of $300,000, $400,000 and $500,000 by February 28, 2017 and to provide proof of his insurability, the cost of the policy in the amount of the policy to the mother by April 30, 2017. Upon receipt of this information, the parties may review the issue of the life insurance based on the information received at that time.
The male parent in this matter was not ordered to get life insurance. The male parent was ordered to get the information about a policy and that they are to review it at that time.

I hate the whole life insurance scam. Parents who are separated should not have to do anything that parents who are still living together don't have to do under the law. If every parent had to get life insurance when a child is born regardless of their relationship status then ok... But, that is not the case so it should not be the case when parents separate. Double standards in family law like the whole pay for your kids education is a double standard that "intact families" are not obligated to do.

Doesn't our human rights codes prevent looking at a family situation in this manner?
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 12-06-2016, 04:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,006
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

My partners agreement says they both have to have life insurance of a specific amount with a third party as the beneficiary and the policies will be reviewed every five years to determine their need. My partners current obligations total $35,000 if he were to die. Hes is not renewing one of the policies as a result.

I wonder if the respondent in this case could argue the daycare costs he is ordered since his ex isnt working...
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 12-07-2016, 01:58 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,567
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

I missed the opportunity to reference Highlander in this thread. So I am doing it now.

Family Law Quickening: There can only be one!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 12-08-2016, 12:17 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,342
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
The male parent in this matter was not ordered to get life insurance. The male parent was ordered to get the information about a policy and that they are to review it at that time.
Whatever will they do with that information?

Good catch though, I did miss that nuance.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 12-08-2016, 06:28 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,146
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

We should reach out to the dad and tell him to counter motion that the mother get life insurance in case she dies based on our arguments here.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 12-08-2016, 08:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
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.
Read. My. Words. I never said that Mom shouldn't have life insurance. In fact said explicitly that everyone ought to carry life insurance. The difference between Mom and Dad in this scenario is that if Mom dies, the financial loss to the kids is less than if Dad dies, because her earnings are so low. If Mom died uninsured, Dad would not lose any CS payments. If Dad died uninsured, Mom would lose a lot. So while I think everyone ought to be insured, I can see why the judge was more concerned with Dad than with Mom.

(And I don't think a dead person can be a non-custodial parent, unless they return as a spectre).
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 12-08-2016, 10:44 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,961
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

This case nauseates me.

Mother should have had better legal representation. The "family business" ... a fricking carpet company (wink wink) that makes 9 bills a year (on a bad year)??? Son is so broke that his daddy has to buy him a home right next door to the mother.... poor woman. I don't buy the "tax planning" explanation for the many years of father and his bros receiving 250k income.

Mother agrees to waive her right to SS for the house (hope it is a spectacular home). Hope the mother has the sense to move... perhaps somewhere closer to the stable her daughter goes to for riding lessons that the father doesn't have to pay for. (boys can have hockey but daughter can't have her riding).... that's really fair. Judge talked like the family couldn't afford it. I didn't see any mention of mortgages but I did notice the father's 11,000.00/annum vehicle expense.

You guys are griping about life insurance???

4 kids. Mother intends to go back to work but hasn't gotten to it yet. I get that. That is not unreasonable, particularly for a mother who has 4 ACTIVE children.

There are just sooo many things in this case that don't make much sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 12-09-2016, 10:32 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,567
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
Whatever will they do with that information?

Good catch though, I did miss that nuance.
They will create more unnecessary conflict over a morbid topic that has no place in family law.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 12-09-2016, 10:33 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,567
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
(And I don't think a dead person can be a non-custodial parent, unless they return as a spectre).
Actually you can will custody for 6 months. So a dead person can delegate their responsibility over the children.
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 08:50 PM.