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 04-09-2014, 01:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,702
DowntroddenDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concerned View Post
So here's another article with a link which demonstrates how the incentive payments are distributed:

State incentive to collect child support : Bigger piece of Federal funds pie | Leon Koziol.Com

And besides the point, how do we really know what's going on behind closed doors... Are you a judge, are you a lawyer, are you part of the court house financial management team, and even if you were, would someone holding these occupations really tell the truth. I could be wrong, but something tells me otherwise. There is too many complaints, too many lob sided and unexplained divorce law judgments which simply point to these articles holding the motive for their malicious intentions against men.
First off, that link demonstrates performance payouts for states, not payoffs for judges.

Secondly, that is a US link, and there isn't any proof of anything like that for Canada. As a poli sci student I did much research on Federal Provincial transfers, and never saw any kind of "incentive based payment" let alone one like you suggest may exist.

Am I a lawyer? No. Do I know lawyers, sure I do. I know the Dean of a law school, as well as many other lawyers in many fields. My ex worked at the second largest law firm in the country. I was heavily involved in politics and you couldn't swing a cat at a political meeting without hitting a lawyer.

I'm going to point out that lawyers are on opposing sides during divorce court, and losing lawyers would very quickly complain if there was a kickback scheme that made them lose on a consistent basis.

Finally I will leave you this: Extraordinary claims (as this is) require extraordinary proofs, which you have not provided. All I see is wild eyed speculation.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2014, 02:29 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 90
Concerned is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
I am in that field. There is no such thing. Judges do not, in any way shape or form, receive ANY benefit from ordering child support. In fact, they have a lot to lose should they ever receive a kick-back for issuing an order, like their job and criminal charges.

A kick-back by definition, is a bribe. Bribing a public official is illegal.

The government requires c/s to be paid as it is in the child's best interests, and the interests of society as a whole. It puts the responsibility on those it rightly should be, the parents, and not the general public who would likely otherwise have to bear the costs through subsidies, welfare and increased taxes.
First and foremost in the next paragraph, I would like to point out that I am NOT talking about those custodial parents that don't receive any child support from their exe's. I sympathize if you should be in such a situation! However, I am talking about greed here... I am talking about the non-custodial parent that invested a lot of personal energy to get to a stage where they have a good living going for them but when in divorce, the courts pull it right out under their feet.

Having said this, then can you explain to me why is it that a child support payment is based on the non-custodial parent's salary without a maximum cap? You hear judgments like a custodial parent receiving 3,4 even 5K a month in child support. Why the abusive payments?

Judges are intelligent individuals and they know that a whole family can be supported with 10K/year or less!!! Why would a single mom/dad want an EXTRA 36 to 60K$ (tax free) to live and support a child ?

There has to be some sort of incentive for a judge to prescribe such a brutal payment. And don't get back to me an tell me that its because the custodial parent's life style needs to be preserved !!! That is total BS put forwards by judges again!!

Quote:
The government requires c/s to be paid as it is in the child's best interests, and the interests of society as a whole. ....
Naaaaaaa that's too easy, there's more to it than that....

You know what hammerdad, I run two corps, I know what accounting books are supposed to look like, I know what in and out entries look like in financial book keeping. I know how advances to shareholder and dividends entries look like and more.

And if you are in this field, let me ask you a question, have you seen all the checks that go out from the federal government... have you seen all the checks that come into the state's bank accounts? All the judge's salaries may be made public alright, but frankly, I would love to sit down with a government accountant and look over federal government's bank account's general ledger and see all the entries that depict to whom, why and where alllllllll checks are going ---one by one.

Then I would like the expense report from all the states receiving any money from the federal government and see exactly where this money goes.

Lots can happen in the dark!

I am sorry hammerdad, I just don't buy it.

Something beneath you and I and everyone else is going on here.

Everything is backed up by the same excuses:

- Best interest of the child... its like as if we want to feed all our children with Champaign and caviar !!!! Anyone man or women can bring up a healthy child while going to work plus getting a reasonable child support payment! There are plenty of day cares around and collaborative help towards day to day life chores involving the child form the non-custodial parent should always be available.

-The same lifestyle needs to be maintained.... sorry, that's what a divorce is.... break up, torn apart, broken, split-up, division, separation are all words that mean divorce.... why would judges increase the child support so much that it would contribute to maintain the other "divorced" half to the same life style.... It makes no sense!!! The only sense I see in this intent is kickbacks! If you don't agree, show me the books!

-A man is stronger than a woman and therefore if a man hits a women he should be jailed, but if a women hits a man we let it go because a man is much stronger than a women... I say BS. This too points to kickbacks, the more the law punishes men (but not women) for violence, the more the marriage takes a tendency towards divorce... the more divorces the more kickbacks. Don't believe it? Prove me wrong!

Everything in this divorce field has an excuse to elude the probable dark kickback system that may have, may be and may always be in place !
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2014, 02:45 PM
paco's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 273
paco is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concerned View Post
First and foremost in the next paragraph, I would like to point out that I am NOT talking about those custodial parents that don't receive any child support from their exe's. I sympathize if you should be in such a situation! However, I am talking about greed here... I am talking about the non-custodial parent that invested a lot of personal energy to get to a stage where they have a good living going for them but when in divorce, the courts pull it right out under their feet.

Having said this, then can you explain to me why is it that a child support payment is based on the non-custodial parent's salary without a maximum cap? You hear judgments like a custodial parent receiving 3,4 even 5K a month in child support. Why the abusive payments?

Judges are intelligent individuals and they know that a whole family can be supported with 10K/year or less!!! Why would a single mom/dad want an EXTRA 36 to 60K$ (tax free) to live and support a child ?

There has to be some sort of incentive for a judge to prescribe such a brutal payment. And don't get back to me an tell me that its because the custodial parent's life style needs to be preserved !!! That is total BS put forwards by judges again!!

Naaaaaaa that's too easy, there's more to it than that....

You know what hammerdad, I run two corps, I know what accounting books are supposed to look like, I know what in and out entries look like in financial book keeping. I know how advances to shareholder and dividends entries look like and more.

And if you are in this field, let me ask you a question, have you seen all the checks that go out from the federal government... have you seen all the checks that come into the state's bank accounts? All the judge's salaries may be made public alright, but frankly, I would love to sit down with a government accountant and look over federal government's bank account's general ledger and see all the entries that depict to whom, why and where alllllllll checks are going ---one by one.

Then I would like the expense report from all the states receiving any money from the federal government and see exactly where this money goes.

Lots can happen in the dark!

I am sorry hammerdad, I just don't buy it.

Something beneath you and I and everyone else is going on here.

Everything is backed up by the same excuses:

- Best interest of the child... its like as if we want to feed all our children with Champaign and caviar !!!! Anyone man or women can bring up a healthy child while going to work plus getting a reasonable child support payment! There are plenty of day cares around and collaborative help towards day to day life chores involving the child form the non-custodial parent should always be available.

-The same lifestyle needs to be maintained.... sorry, that's what a divorce is.... break up, torn apart, broken, split-up, division, separation are all words that mean divorce.... why would judges increase the child support so much that it would contribute to maintain the other "divorced" half to the same life style.... It makes no sense!!! The only sense I see in this intent is kickbacks! If you don't agree, show me the books!

-A man is stronger than a woman and therefore if a man hits a women he should be jailed, but if a women hits a man we let it go because a man is much stronger than a women... I say BS. This too points to kickbacks, the more the law punishes men (but not women) for violence, the more the marriage takes a tendency towards divorce... the more divorces the more kickbacks. Don't believe it? Prove me wrong!

Everything in this divorce field has an excuse to elude the probable dark kickback system that may have, may be and may always be in place !
Concerned, it's all business here, best interest of the kids?! BS... maybe in their best interest yes, splitting families apart it's their job, and everyone has a job to do, CAS, OCL, cops, shelters...good life, go fatherlessness go, that's the reality, face it or not!

Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2014, 02:49 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 90
Concerned is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
First off, that link demonstrates performance payouts for states, not payoffs for judges.
Okay, so where does the money go? If you are very involved you must know where this money goes right... asides from fixing the streets and parks, I am sure some of it goes to the court house maintenances etc... ! right? give me a few examples...

Quote:
As a poli sci student I did much research on Federal Provincial transfers, and never saw any kind of "incentive based payment" let alone one like you suggest may exist.
And YOU and many others including ME may never see one !

Quote:
Am I a lawyer? No. Do I know lawyers, sure I do. I know the Dean of a law school, as well as many other lawyers in many fields. My ex worked at the second largest law firm in the country. I was heavily involved in politics and you couldn't swing a cat at a political meeting without hitting a lawyer.
And who's to say that those lawyers that you and I know, would know exactly where all the money goes huh? In my own companies, I have thousands of checks being issued, ask me if I know where aaaalllll these checks go. Imagine how many loose ends there can be in the government and state administration that layers wouldn't be aware of. C'mon guys, we are all assuming these governments are 100% sincere... corruption is everywhere, even in a judges backyard.

Quote:
I'm going to point out that lawyers are on opposing sides during divorce court, and losing lawyers would very quickly complain if there was a kickback scheme that made them lose on a consistent basis.
again, how, how, how would they know?

Quote:
Finally I will leave you this: Extraordinary claims (as this is) require extraordinary proofs, which you have not provided. All I see is wild eyed speculation.
[/QUOTE]

Sooooooo, we agree that an open investigation is required to produce an in depth analyses of the governments (US, Canadian etc...) financial books and trace all payments! Yes its a big task, but if they are doing this, this would be the most unethical fraud that would be committed. No one should be able to get away with this.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2014, 02:54 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 90
Concerned is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Concerned, it's all business here, best interest of the kids?! BS... maybe in their best interest yes, splitting families apart it's their job, and everyone has a job to do, CAS, OCL, cops, shelters...good life, go fatherlessness go, that's the reality, face it or not!
aaahggr! There's just too much agony on men's part for this to be that simple!!! It's deep, dark, out of reach and unethical. If we all choose not to believe this kickback stuff is one thing, but why not prove it.

I have seen the faces on judges giving out these child support judgments, their faces aren't sincere, they have greed written all over them!

Look no one knows me here, but when I smell a rat, I am rarely wrong!

Concerned!
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2014, 03:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,717
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

It has been stated time and time again, the reasoning behind c/s being based off salary, with no cap, is because they were developed to provide the child with the same form of lifestyle as the child would have enjoyed had both parents stayed together.

There is no conspiracy causing high net worth individuals to pay large amounts. It is simply the notion that the custodial parents household should be relatively equal to that of the NCP's household. Whether or not the guidelines accomplish that, I agree that may be debatable. As they don't consider debts and other matters of either household.

But the guidelines are better than the arbitrary amounts previously ordered, that varied wildly, and caused even more court battles where both parents argued why c/s should be one amount or another. As such the guidelines actually decrease court costs and legal fees paid by the parties.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2014, 03:04 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

The conspiracy is the receiver of child support spends the money on themselves and there is no accounting EVER of that. The receiver of child support should get 0 benefit from child support or government benefits received for the kids. It should by be spent on the kids.

No monies in the world is are as unaccounted for as child support.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2014, 03:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,717
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
The conspiracy is the receiver of child support spends the money on themselves and there is no accounting EVER of that. The receiver of child support should get 0 benefit from child support or government benefits received for the kids. It should by be spent on the kids.

No monies in the world is are as unaccounted for as child support.
How's one to move forward in life if they have to constantly report back to their ex? You do understand that causing the CP to justify their expenses to the NCP would create constant conflict between the spouses right?

Does the CP have to justify how they spend the C/S alone? Or do they also have to show how they spent their own money as well? One could rightly argue that, as both parents are expected to contribute to the child, maybe an accounting of the C/P's money should be articulated when reporting on C/S expenses.......which is simply unfair and intrusive. But again, if reporting were required, it could be easily argued.

When one divorces, it is to move on with their lives with as minimal interaction with the ex as possible. Having to justify and report on c/s doesn't do that. And it could be used as tool to maintain contact and potentially be a means of abuse.

Edit - and if you don't want to have the recipient report to the ex, how much more in taxes do you want to pay to have a government agency setup to oversee how c/s is being spent? Personally, I'd rather allow my ex to spend a few bucks on a Coach purse, than pay thousands in taxes over the years to prove she is only spending the money on the kids. Notwithstanding the taxes, that is just another invasion by Big Brother into the lives of taxpayer.

Last edited by HammerDad; 04-09-2014 at 03:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2014, 03:34 PM
paco's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 273
paco is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
How's one to move forward in life if they have to constantly report back to their ex? You do understand that causing the CP to justify their expenses to the NCP would create constant conflict between the spouses right?

Does the CP have to justify how they spend the C/S alone? Or do they also have to show how they spent their own money as well? One could rightly argue that, as both parents are expected to contribute to the child, maybe an accounting of the C/P's money should be articulated when reporting on C/S expenses.......which is simply unfair and intrusive. But again, if reporting were required, it could be easily argued.

When one divorces, it is to move on with their lives with as minimal interaction with the ex as possible. Having to justify and report on c/s doesn't do that. And it could be used as tool to maintain contact and potentially be a means of abuse.
Hammerdad, have you heard about accountability? simply having a dedicated cs account where all cs payments are made, and the non-custodial parent should have access all the time to view where money goes should be normal, in this life we're all held accountable for everything we do, same with CS, don't tell me that two small kids eat and needs clothing for $1000/month, just to give an example. Here is more than that, I believe it's a political decision to get full table CS awarded to custodial parent (mostly mothers).

Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2014, 03:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,702
DowntroddenDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paco View Post
Hammerdad, have you heard about accountability? simply having a dedicated cs account where all cs payments are made, and the non-custodial parent should have access all the time to view where money goes should be normal, in this life we're all held accountable for everything we do, same with CS, don't tell me that two small kids eat and needs clothing for $1000/month, just to give an example. Here is more than that, I believe it's a political decision to get full table CS awarded to custodial parent (mostly mothers).

Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk
Two small kids need a place to sleep. They need a place that has electricity, water, realistically cable and internet. They may need a parent with a car to drive them places. They need many things more than just food and clothes.
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
Trying to understand Section 7 expenses ChrisB Financial Issues 27 02-22-2013 11:49 AM
What a schedule...unbelievable knackered Divorce & Family Law 26 08-17-2012 09:39 AM
Unbelievable, really. gettingtakenforaride Divorce & Family Law 3 02-29-2012 10:51 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 AM.