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
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:55 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ange71727 View Post
My situation actually shows the stereotype perfectly. I am an elementary school teacher - a typically female dominated job. My ex is a cop - a typically male oriented job. Why is it that we would have a $40,000 discrepancy between us? I certainly had to pay for more schooling to achieve my position. I also work the same hours in a month (or more). Since we've divorced it's been nothing but problems because he doesn't think his hard earned dollars should go to me. He is even fighting currently to write into the new agreement that his kids will be "cut off" from support at the age of 18, full time school or not (he will lose that one). Everything is about money money money.
If my new husband and I were to separate, there'd be no support to me as we make the same amount. Would probably alleviate a lot of grief.
As for the baseline being 50/50. Sure, this is great and I think it should absolutely be the norm. My problem is with these guys who think they can just come into the picture years later and demand an equal relationship all of a sudden to reduce support. This is exactly what happened in my case. He blows into the scene, demands more time, threatens court and walks away with a 2% increase in time and $5000 less per year to pay in support. Mission accomplished for him!
Is it fair? Not to me.
Perhaps if a guy isn't willing to take on his kids half the time right from the start, the penalty should be full table support. Then he'd be coming for his kids later for the right reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your ex did not just blow into the scene. Hes been there for many years near the 40% mark. What are you talking about?
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:01 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 396
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Your ex did not just blow into the scene. Hes been there for many years near the 40% mark. What are you talking about?


He had 7 overnights per month LF. 7.
Let that soak in.
Now he has 10.
He reduced his support by $5000 per year. Was offered a 50/50 summer but declined and went instead for the 40% because it means he only needs to ask his employer for 6 days off in the summer.
So let's see.... 10 months at around 32% and 2 months at 40%. You do the math.
Let's call a spade a spade here....
I also don't want to hijack the thread to argue with you. I am simply making the point that sometimes dads fight for "more time" but it's just masquerading as "less support". I also don't think that 50/50 is the be all and end all and that my kids are going to turn out to be awful humans because they've had more of mom in their life than dad.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:22 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

The thread is about how awesome shared parenting is for kids. Do you agree or not?
I dont care about your ex or how you said no to 50/50 via his initial proposal.
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:41 AM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,215
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Referring back to a recent post of mine http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...tml#post223286
with the concept of involved and uninvolved parents.

A child with two involved parents is obviously going to have the best situation. A child with one involved parent and one uninvolved parent will do just fine if they have the majority of their time with the involved parent. A child with two uninvolved parents can also do just fine if they have other good caregivers (nanny, grandparents, etc).

This is true in the case of both an intact family and in a divorce situation.

But problems can arise in a divorce situation.

Two involved parents can fight over the child because one wants the other to have less than equal time, usually because they want to punish their ex, or because they are greedy for more CS money, or because they simply can't face being without their child for very long.

An uninvolved parent can also fight to have equal time as the involved parent, because they pay less CS that way, or to punish their ex. If they win, the child often does not spend that increased time with the uninvolved parent, but with third parties who are unnecessary.

Historically, women are more likely to be involved parents and men are more likely to be uninvolved parents. This is slowly being overcome but we aren't there yet. If BOTH men and women are expected to be involved parents right from the start, with equal importance on BOTH their careers as well as their parenting during the relationship, then we have to have childcare and flexible work schedules for both men and women. This is what feminism is fighting for. Not for more rights for women, but for equal rights for both women and men. When women have salaries that average out the same as men's, then we'll have less of that nonsense about women giving up a career to be the stay-at-home parent 90% of the time.

When we have that, then 50-50 will be far more normal and expected upon separation.

One common issue I see here is that sometimes an uninvolved parent will have an epiphany at separation, and want to become an involved parent. This is great, but how do you tell them apart from an uninvolved parent whose motivations for equal time are punitive or monetary?

By the parenting plan. By their willingness to work with the other parent to maximize time spent with the child for both of them, in concepts such as right of first refusal, both parents attending appointments and extracurricular events, flexibility with the schedule, etc.

Last edited by Rioe; 09-07-2017 at 09:59 AM. Reason: saving frequently in a crazy thunderstorm, don't want to lose it all!
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:10 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
One common issue I see here is that sometimes an uninvolved parent will have an epiphany at separation, and want to become an involved parent. This is great, but how do you tell them apart from an uninvolved parent whose motivations for equal time are punitive or monetary?
So very true. We see this all the time. If a parent wants to be more involved after a separation, etc then they should have that opportunity (if circumstances permit). Parents have Crystal balls now-a-days and can tell the future it seems .. as if the child' life will be ruined or something.

There is a feminist movement right now and I back it fully. My whole life is females. But there's a fathers movement also to be more involved. I think both movements need to be taken seriously .. not just one.

Historically, females looked after kids more .. true. But historically, The Jewish community was brutalized. Times change. There are many stay at home fathers .. we're now allowed to cry .. we wear pink .. we play dolls. We're good parents also and should have every opportunity to be in our kids lives as much as possible. I feel like it goes without saying.
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Alberta
Posts: 153
Soiled is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ange71727 View Post
My situation actually shows the stereotype perfectly. I am an elementary school teacher - a typically female dominated job. My ex is a cop - a typically male oriented job. Why is it that we would have a $40,000 discrepancy between us? I certainly had to pay for more schooling to achieve my position. I also work the same hours in a month (or more).
If you were complaining about a male teacher, with the same experience and education as you, making more than you, that would show the stereotype perfectly. This on the other hand just shows willful ignorance of the factors at play in determining how much is paid.

- There is generally more teachers than there are positions available for them. Supply and demand, too many teachers, equals less pay required to get them to work for you.
- Most police forces have to actively recruit to get new employees, also playing into supply and demand. Not enough police means you have to pay more to attract them
- If you don't pay police enough, you increase the chances of corruption.
- Police have a far more dangerous job, and on a daily basis deal with the worst our society has to offer

All that aside, its astounding how quickly a thread about equality in parenting time devolved into disputes about money. That in itself is pretty telling in showing that the root cause of denying equal parenting time is primarily a financial concern.

I'd be extremely interested in seeing a 5 - 10 year experiment in which child support was eliminated, and how that affected parenting plans, and the conflict between parties.

Last edited by Soiled; 09-07-2017 at 10:13 AM.
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:32 AM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,845
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Soiled you raise some good points. I'd like to see a study done in that area as well. Remove the money factors (including all the government hand-outs and tax incentives as well). However, it would be a challenge to get people to participate.

Family Court is currently all about the money IMO.

I'm yet to read about one parent who wants more time with their child and waives spousal support a/or government benefits. I realize "support is the right of the child" in all instances - wonder who put that in legislation - parents or lawyers? I think the latter.
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 396
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soiled View Post
If you were complaining about a male teacher, with the same experience and education as you, making more than you, that would show the stereotype perfectly. This on the other hand just shows willful ignorance of the factors at play in determining how much is paid.

- There is generally more teachers than there are positions available for them. Supply and demand, too many teachers, equals less pay required to get them to work for you.
- Most police forces have to actively recruit to get new employees, also playing into supply and demand. Not enough police means you have to pay more to attract them
- If you don't pay police enough, you increase the chances of corruption.
- Police have a far more dangerous job, and on a daily basis deal with the worst our society has to offer

All that aside, its astounding how quickly a thread about equality in parenting time devolved into disputes about money. That in itself is pretty telling in showing that the root cause of denying equal parenting time is primarily a financial concern.

I'd be extremely interested in seeing a 5 - 10 year experiment in which child support was eliminated, and how that affected parenting plans, and the conflict between parties.


I will respectfully disagree with you. Everyone thinks they're the expert on everyone else's job. I am willing to bet you are neither teacher nor police officer and therefore don't really know the ins and outs of either job. think it's actually willful ignorance on your part to assume that a cop has more of a difficult job and therefore deserves more money.
I don't believe that at all.
I do however believe your statement that money can sometimes be the cause of denying equal parenting time. I also believe it to absolutely be true that sometimes it is the motivator in requesting more time.
The 5-10 year study I would find more valuable and interesting is one where they compare divorces that involve equal wage earners and therefore no child support as compared to unequal wage earners with large child support being paid to one party. Then compare the conflict level between the parties and the effect on the kids.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Alberta
Posts: 153
Soiled is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ange71727 View Post
I will respectfully disagree with you. Everyone thinks they're the expert on everyone else's job. I am willing to bet you are neither teacher nor police officer and therefore don't really know the ins and outs of either job. think it's actually willful ignorance on your part to assume that a cop has more of a difficult job and therefore deserves more money.
Nothing was stated about the difficulty of the job. I was speaking to the danger of the job. None of the points I raised would require a person to do the job first hand... As for willful ignorance, your displaying it wonderfully by trying to compare the two completely unrelated jobs as a matter of gender equality.
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:51 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Alberta
Posts: 153
Soiled is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Soiled you raise some good points. I'd like to see a study done in that area as well. Remove the money factors (including all the government hand-outs and tax incentives as well). However, it would be a challenge to get people to participate.

Family Court is currently all about the money IMO.

I'm yet to read about one parent who wants more time with their child and waives spousal support a/or government benefits. I realize "support is the right of the child" in all instances - wonder who put that in legislation - parents or lawyers? I think the latter.
Haha, yes the challenge to get voluntary participation would be extreme, as the only willing volunteers would likely be those who wouldn't be paying child support anyways. Dangle money in front of people, and greed kicks in, blinding them to what is happening behind the money. It would likely require an entire province to take it on to minimize games, and as such it wouldn't ever happen.
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
Shared Custody/ Payor Parent Aghast Political Issues 1 01-01-2017 06:28 PM
Shared Custody miragesailor Divorce & Family Law 19 01-26-2012 04:31 PM
Shared Custody? J_Kitchener2010 Divorce & Family Law 9 09-13-2011 08:40 AM
Online divorce? ExWife2Many General Chat 10 08-12-2010 08:15 AM
Child Support Guildelines Aren't Fair Decent Dad Political Issues 10 01-31-2006 11:57 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 PM.