More on Good Parents Pay

[Decent Dad]

Here is an article basically outlining EXACTLY what I was talking about in my post under the thread Good Parent's Pay.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...40132/0/NEWS03


Also, I have heard that some MPP's in Ontario are going to push for default 50-50. When I find out more, I'll post!

[logicalvelocity]

Decent Dad,

Interesting article.

Also, I have heard that some MPP's in Ontario are going to push for default 50-50. When I find out more, I'll post!

The debate on that issue will be interesting considering there will be a provincial election soon enough.

lv

-typo-

[mom22galz]

The debate on default shared parenting has been around for quite a while. Ever since the Feds began looking at changes to the Divorce Act to replace the term "custody and access" with "shared parenting". Provinces tend to follow the feds (i.e., CS guidelines).

Domestic Violence groups are fundamentally opposed. Father's rights groups fundamentally in favour. I think each case should be judged on its own merits... but in reality how often does that happen?

From http://www.owjn.org/issues/custody/reflect.htm
"In abusive relationships, it is more than unrealistic; it is unreasonable. This new term will simply provide the abuser with one more means of controlling and harassing his former partner. To require ongoing consultation and joint decision making between an abuser and his victim is profoundly disrespectful of her reality and may well place her in an ongoing dangerous situation."

OWJN also has an interesting analysis of the Kaplanis case at http://www.owjn.org/issues/custody/jointlimits.htm

It's all about perspective. Wouldn't be feasibly for me, that's clear.

At the same time, I realize that my ex's p/t minimum wage job is not a living wage. He hasn't paid a dime in CS, I haven't saught it. Despite some of his deplorable actions, I have to maintain the higher moral ground and would feel reprehensible seeking water from a stone... plus, his stating he'd quit/run/hide or hit me for spousal should I try to get CS only adds that old fear factor back into the mix.

[logicalvelocity]

mom22galz,

At the same time, I realize that my ex's p/t minimum wage job is not a living wage. He hasn't paid a dime in CS, I haven't saught it. Despite some of his deplorable actions, I have to maintain the higher moral ground and would feel reprehensible seeking water from a stone... plus, his stating he'd quit/run/hide or hit me for spousal should I try to get CS only adds that old fear factor back into the mix.

I see your perspective. No one should be fearful. I believe that you mentioned previously you're basically waiting out the statute of limitations to alleviate the fear factor of the individual. It is unfortunate that this is occurring.

lv

[Decent Dad]

Domestic Violence groups are fundamentally opposed. Father's rights groups fundamentally in favour. I think each case should be judged on its own merits... but in reality how often does that happen?

One of the big problems I have with the current law is this guilty till proven innocence take that is rampant in our family law system. Currently all men must fight (and most likely lose) access and custody of their children for the sins of a few. No other law or court works like that. None.

Interestingly abuse works both way. But hey, everyone just overlooks all that. Sheesh.

And that guilty till proven innocence (i.e. bias towards fathers/men) is in every single aspect of the law and procedures: disclosure, incomes, retroactive, access, custody, and on and on. Men always have to prove their point, whether it is rightfully theirs to prove or not. Women, simply speak and what they at it is taken as the gospel. Judges are brutal.

And sadly, the #1 line item on an affidavit is abuse by spouse, whether true or not. So it truly devalues those that require actual help. Like crying wolf. Yet interestingly those same organizations never speak out about all the false reporting. One would think they would since it would potentially hurt their cause. Right. But do they? No.

Enough is enough already.

You would be surprised that more than just us fathers want 50-50:

For:
- grandparents
- second familes/step moms/step dads
- fathers
- women (yes women... since there are a lot that actually do go 50-50)
- NCP women

Against:
- CP women <- that would be about 20% of the voting population.


Finally, all this is solvable with the clause: 50-50 is the start. Unless their is abuse.

But it must be proven. And then you can work back from there. Unlike now where abuse is stated as part of the standard exit package (along with restraining orders, etc) and it just gets worse. And you have to fight for 50-50.

[logicalvelocity]

I came across an interesting site for BC family justice matters and a review of same. Is this a sign

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/#limitation

Family Relations Act

In February 2006, the Ministry of Attorney General announced a review of the Family Relations Act. The goal of the review is to modernize the law and support co-operative approaches to resolving disputes, in a statute that is easy to read. The first year of the review was devoted to research. The consultation stage begins in 2007. The Ministry of Attorney General will be posting discussion papers on this website in three phases:

Phase I:
Feb. - May 2007

- division of property
- division of pensions
- judical separation

Phase II:
Apr. - August 2007

- parenting after separation
- children's participation
- access responsibilities
- family violence

Phase III:
Aug. - Nov 2007

- child status (legal parentage),
- spousal and parental support,
- co-operative approaches to resolving disputes, and;
- other topics not included above or which arise in the consultations.(eg: limitation periods)

Please Note: The review does not address child welfare, adoption, child support, and divorce under the federal Divorce Act.


background information can be found in the May 2005 release of the Family Justice Reform Working Group's landmark paper on the reform of the family justice system
A New Justice System for Families and Children:

http://www.bcjusticereview.org/working_groups/family_justice/final_05_05.pdf

The first three discussion papers have been released and available here: www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/


lv

[mom22galz]

Hey DD, I'm not personally opposed to the idea. Heck, if you look at some old posts of mine, before the physical seperation, I initially wanted it that way. But things change.

Yet another sad tale of a wronged dad:
-wife cheated, got into drugs, hubby left, they agreed on shared, but he had the kids much more often than did she
-wife's gas cut off, no hot water for kids, hubby moves back
-wife continues her sorry ways and seems to only want hubby there as a sitter so she can go on with party lifestyle
-hubby needs out, divorce papers filed, mediated settlement indicates shared, all financial details agreed upon
-wife gets independant legal council (legal aid ba*l bust*r)
-suddenly, out of left field, wife wants primary physical, full tabled CS amount, half of all assets
-end of the day, wife wins

Certainly not in these kids' best interest...

I was just trying to show you the other side of the coin in my last post

LV, yes another 18 months till the Limitations Act kicks in. However, given he's not managed to be self-supporting in the 14 years I've known him, I doubt 18 months will change his ability to financially provide for his kids. I just hope his attitude changes by then, so he can see what he's putting our kids through. Ironically, that's the same timeframe as my youngest should begin f/t school so my Sect 7 expenses will drop dramatically...