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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 01:48 PM
karmaseeker's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here :)
Posts: 470
karmaseeker is on a distinguished road
Default

You asked for more factual information as the original study/ report was flawed so I posted more information I have gathered.

I am only trying to show people that the system is fatally flawed.

I believe Australia has the best system based on Shared parenting.

I am aware it goes both ways - and in a system of generalizations there are always going to be extreme examples on both sides. I have never said that dad's shouldn't pay. I have only ever argued that they are in a large part getting royally screwed over by a system that doesn't take into account the time they spend with their children (thus providing for them). I am not talking about situations like Canadamama or even yours TLCRN. Clearly you both are like myself - primarily doing it on your own.

My ex pays me what he can - no court - no separation agreement - no need - we have a workable scenario - even if that makes me less well off.

I am talking about women that blatently try to screw over their ex by using the full heavy of the law to flatten their exes and if you read these forums you will see many a man in this situation.

The laws were set up to protect women like you both - 1/ with an absent father and 2/ one that is grossly under paying. Unfortunately the other extreme is the women that are so padded with their CS, SS, matrimonial home, tax benefits, tax breaks, and personal income that their exes are left to struggle and get hounded from FRO til they are ruined.

Neither extreme is FAIR. It should be about finding a middle ground. finding a place where all can have a decent standard of living. Where hostility is not promoted and that children can get on living a happy life with two parents who are financially and emotionally stable. It should be a system that promotes access instead of using at a weapon. It should be a system wherein NO one is so devastated that suicide is an option. Children need BOTH parents.

I have suggested alternatives - which relates to consideration of access time to be considered. But I am not a law maker just one person with a cause.

Why tell people here on this forum? Well because many men here are confused and wondering how in hell this can be happening to them in CANADA - true north strong and free. These men aren't free - they are slaves to a corrupt system. I support them and I support the women that aren't being treated fairly. I am not anti women - I am anti greedy women.

I find it interesting that the 2 women are neither the type of women I am talking about are they ones supporting a court system that they didn't use. TLCRN I think it admorable that you have made the choices you have. You are a better person for it. Canadamama, I don't know what the law does in your situation with him being overseas. My ex lives overseas - and as I said he pays me what he can and my son visits in the summer and he comes here throughout the year. After meeting my fiancee's ex - I love my ex even more.

I would love to hear someone come on and justify their position of why they deserve to live in luxury while their ex lives in poverty.

Maybe if more people of both genders see the unfairness and inequalities then we can work together for the best interest of this country, it's families, and therefore the children in creating something better.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 04:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 639
LostFather is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadamama View Post
$42,000 is the TOTAL household income in that example! In the example I quoted, the TOTAL household income of the custodial parent is $42,000, and the TOTAL household income of the payor was $54,600. If that payor is broke and struggling living ALONE on $54,600, how do you think it is for the kids?

And again, you are getting hung up on looking at this as money for your ex, as opposed to money flowing into the household that supports your kids.



I do not see how that is unfair to the payor at all. I really don't. The CP and the kids have a FAR, FAR LOWER SOL than the non-CP.



Obviously I can't speak to your situation, as I have no information about it, but even in this 'study' there is no scenario in which any payor is paying out 73% of their income - and by the information you do provide is would actually be more, since 17 is 27% of 63 and 63 was your net income before, while 17 is your gross now, which honestly seems even more odd.



Again, the issues in your marriage and the reasons for its breakdown are IRRELEVANT, as they should be, and it is unreasonable to force the CP into a role of having to justify every expense, especially in cases where there was abuse. Different people have different earning potential, and kids should always be able to benefit from the financial resources of BOTH parents.
I have my children eow, Fri to Mon. one overnight through the week. we rotate march break, summers are split as well as Christmas. What it works out to be is one overnight a week more. For that one week i pay full table amounts which works out to be roughly 800.00. So based on her 4-5 days a month more...she have 800.00 worth of expenses more than me....some 200.00/day...I am not buying that argument.

I am not broke! Mom is rich! oh and she makes 15k a year more than me. Money is not for the kids its to buy mom a new 50k suv...trips to Cuba and what not...oh...kids don't go to Cuba lol. She puts them with sitters then sticks her hand out for half the costs. Meanwhile I am more than me capable of having the children....but then if I have them with when she goes away for work or lockout vacations then i would have the children more that 40% if not 50%...then she loses almost 10k tax free money.....cant have that now could we?

Luxury vs poverty...if you were a kid...and not knowing any different where would you want to be?

I know eventually that its not about the money...but for now trips to theme parks...xbox, playstation, bikes and all the other goodies are a huge influence...I
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 05:23 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
canadamama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LostFather View Post
I have my children eow, Fri to Mon. one overnight through the week. we rotate march break, summers are split as well as Christmas. What it works out to be is one overnight a week more. For that one week i pay full table amounts which works out to be roughly 800.00. So based on her 4-5 days a month more...she have 800.00 worth of expenses more than me....some 200.00/day...I am not buying that argument.

I am not broke! Mom is rich! oh and she makes 15k a year more than me. Money is not for the kids its to buy mom a new 50k suv...trips to Cuba and what not...oh...kids don't go to Cuba lol. She puts them with sitters then sticks her hand out for half the costs. Meanwhile I am more than me capable of having the children....but then if I have them with when she goes away for work or lockout vacations then i would have the children more that 40% if not 50%...then she loses almost 10k tax free money.....cant have that now could we?

Luxury vs poverty...if you were a kid...and not knowing any different where would you want to be?

I know eventually that its not about the money...but for now trips to theme parks...xbox, playstation, bikes and all the other goodies are a huge influence...I
LostFather I was not addressing YOUR situation - I was addressing the scenarios laid out in that document, which claims to show how unfair the child support tables are, and which, in my opinion, fails in the attempt.

I don't know how it is that you ended up in the situation you are in, and I think I have said already that I can see how that magical 40% does seem to be a significant opportunity for abuse for many.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 05:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

The guidelines are built around the concept that the custodial parent either doesn't work and stays at home to care for young children or has a lessor job and earns much less than the NCP. If the CP is earning $20k and the NCP is earning $80k then the Guidelines work fairly well.

For NCP that has the kids 35-39% paying full support is an unfair burden.

They work fairly well for shared 60/40 custody with the off-set.

They don't work well at all when the NCP is the lessor earner. The NCP would have at least some expense to maintain a decent home for overnights but would be paying full support. When the CP is earning $80k and the NCP is earning $20k it is ridiculous to have the NCP paying support, better to allow them to keep the money and use it to provide a decent environment for overnights.

I don't fully understand the Australian system but it seems to be a formula based on total income of the two parents and then support responsibility is split according to % the children are in each home. It seems to be more flexible.

The current Canadian guidelines don't take many variations into account and haven't kept up with changes in society where both parents may work, the CP may have a professional career and be the primary earner, different levels of access besides EOW, etc. However I don't think that loaded language like "fatally flawed" and the level of bias and hyperbole I see on Canada Court Watch will get the issue taken seriously.

A simple proposal of a child-centered formula that attends to the children's actual needs in both households without opinionated editorial slant will be far more likely to receive positive reception. Extremist language just shuts down discussion and drives people into opposing camps.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 05:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karmaseeker View Post
You asked for more factual information as the original study/ report was flawed so I posted more information I have gathered.
Posting a news article that is over 15 years old and that refers to an era before the Guidelines were even made law is hardly providing factual information.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 05:41 PM
karmaseeker's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here :)
Posts: 470
karmaseeker is on a distinguished road
Default

If people are committing suicide because of a system that can take everything from them leaving them destitute, in jail, without health cards, with out a drivers license, homeless - I call that fatally flawed. And yes those might be extreme cases but if this happened in another country Canadians would be outraged by the human rights violations.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 08:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 639
LostFather is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadamama View Post
LostFather I was not addressing YOUR situation - I was addressing the scenarios laid out in that document, which claims to show how unfair the child support tables are, and which, in my opinion, fails in the attempt.

I don't know how it is that you ended up in the situation you are in, and I think I have said already that I can see how that magical 40% does seem to be a significant opportunity for abuse for many.
criminal judge and an evil greedy vindictive ex. My situation a lot of dads are in the same situation....or even worse. Paying huge cs payments while also raising their children with expenses. The system only works with those guideline if...and i say if...the payor doesn't see their children and pays no expenses...then maybe it works, but in a lot of other senerios it fails miserably.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 09:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 560
AtALoss is on a distinguished road
Default

I posted this some time ago."Stats Can Report" We had alot more to say in the thread if your interested I also provided a link that may still work.
My spouse spoke with the gentleman who prepared it and Frankly the man had little to defend his position with......

.....The one that I found most disturbing is that they reported for 2009 they had 186,000 cases on file. Of that they reported that 65,100 are in arrears. 35% Arrears are defined as being $1.00 to any amount behind. What I objected to is that there was no breakdown what so ever in this thing as to the status of cases. Such as the person is in court, why they might be behind, are they behind at all.
A case I would like to comment is one person I have come to know had an order for support but FRO had him on record as owing several several thousands. Another my spouse they were working on an order that expired in 2002, he was not taken off thier books until this spring. Over a year after the court told FRO they had no jurisdiction. There also are so many cases were FRO has just lost payments. How about those who are homeless and can't report, I have met many. The stats just dont show any of those cases.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2011, 01:15 AM
wretchedotis's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ON
Posts: 2,317
wretchedotis is on a distinguished road
Default

Canada Court Watch.

I've heard some non-favourable comments.

How legitimate is that organization?
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2011, 09:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 560
AtALoss is on a distinguished road
Default

What I can say about CCW is they are a forum much like this but the have a focus more on CAS amoung its users. They have many resourses posted and among thier users. Much like us here. One thing is they are very vocal outside of the forum.

In defense of forums they can be a good thing in that they are like a meeting place for those of like interest and are accessible to anyone in the country and outside of. Some rights groups may be limited in the people they reach. having said that now it is up to a group to do something with the knowledge they are given.
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
Who is responsible for Child Support momof3 Divorce & Family Law 16 05-12-2011 12:20 PM
cs and s7 obligations 06nomad Divorce & Family Law 5 05-11-2011 05:46 PM
Please allow me to introduce myself... with the usual questions on Custody, CS, SS... samej Introductions 14 04-20-2011 02:43 PM
Spousal Equivalent for CRA Cobourg Divorce & Family Law 21 01-14-2010 08:43 AM
child support guidelines Mikesgal Divorce & Family Law 3 05-18-2006 12:42 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 AM.