Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mothers never die!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mothers never die!

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

    [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".

    [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.

  • #2
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Janus View Post
      From http://canlii.ca/t/gvvpw
      [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.

      Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
      [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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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 ...

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.


                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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:

                        (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?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I missed the opportunity to reference Highlander in this thread. So I am doing it now.

                            Family Law Quickening: There can only be one!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X