Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Asking for 50/50

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by SadAndTired View Post
    With all the talk about default 50/50 access, I wondered how many parents actually ask for it? My ex never asked for 50/50.

    I think that people on this board are a select focus group. Many here are/were deep in conflict with another party or who are trying to educate themselves on the processes or those who are trying to protect their children or assets. We may not be an accurate sampling of the general population who is divorcing.

    Having said that, anyone could spin their story. I could say that my ex never asked for 50/50. That he chooses his job first. That he has cancelled parenting time in favour of a vacation only a few months after separating, bash, bash, bash. Blah, blah, blah. I could angrily rant that he is a EOW guy by choice!!

    Or I could speak in a positive way and explain that ex is a physician, who works long hours and is required to be on call at the hospital. He says that I am a great mom who took care of the kids for years while he was in school/worked and sees the benefit for the kids. He could have 50/50 with the use of many babysitters and time away from the children anyway but I believe that he thinks it is best for them to be with me. Not because he does not want them but because his scheduling is very difficult.

    See the spin?

    So, my question is this, how many Dads actually want 50/50? Obviously most on the board are/were fighting some sort of battle but "in real life" I have met many men who don't seem to mind EOW. Men who, even though I have explained the rights of the child, the better division of support money, etc, seem content with eow......

    Wondering what others think.
    My ex used 50/50 as a negotiating tactic. He clearly didn't really want 50/50 as he stopped seeing the child within weeks of having thousands of arrears forgiven, and has since left the country and given up custody.

    50/50 is fantastic for involved parents. But, it's a loop hole for the scumbags out there who just want CS reduced. This is as equally applicable to women and men.

    My hubby is content with eow with his son. I think that's down to his night shift schedule and his overbearing male-bashing ex. I think he decided to just not take on the fight for the sake of peace.

    Comment


    • #62
      50/50 is fantastic for involved parents. But, it's a loop hole for the scumbags out there who just want CS reduced. This is as equally applicable to women and men.
      Actually it isn't a loophole because that would be worse than saying child support is a loophole. 50/50 entails 80% of the expenses of raising the child alone. Secondly, it isn't like the "scumbag" is GETTING something from the mom, he is just NOT PAYING her as much (because he'll still be paying offset) + HE will have to have accommodations and all the other needs for children whereas EoW dads can basically stick the kids on the couch and be done with it.

      39% is a loophole....

      Child support from higher income men is also a loophole since it allows poor women to get access to an unaccountable, untaxed source of money which they have no incentive no compulsion to spend on their children.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Links17 View Post
        Actually it isn't a loophole because that would be worse than saying child support is a loophole. 50/50 entails 80% of the expenses of raising the child alone. Secondly, it isn't like the "scumbag" is GETTING something from the mom, he is just NOT PAYING her as much (because he'll still be paying offset) + HE will have to have accommodations and all the other needs for children whereas EoW dads can basically stick the kids on the couch and be done with it.

        39% is a loophole....

        Child support from higher income men is also a loophole since it allows poor women to get access to an unaccountable, untaxed source of money which they have no incentive no compulsion to spend on their children.
        Parent A and Parent B make an agreement, no court, just an agreement filed with the court. Parent B agrees to guideline support, eow access.

        Parent A finds out years later that Parent B hasn't been truthful regarding income. Parent A makes a motion to increase CS to guideline based on actual income.

        Parent B responds with motion for 50/50 custody, offset support.

        Parent A opposes this as Parent B has been eow parent by CHOICE since separation years ago.

        Parent A, on the encouragement of a lawyer, drops CS arrears in exchange for 50/50 being taken out of the equation by Parent B.

        Parent B has used 50/50 as a negotiating tactic to alleviate themselves of all outstanding arrears which have accumulated since Parent B was less than truthful during the critical agreement stage.

        If Parent B really, truly wanted 50/50, why would they trade it for a few thousand dollars? Parent B never really wanted 50/50, but they lied about wanting it in order to save themselves some money. In fact, Parent B doesn't want the child at all, as evidenced by their inability to exercise any access since.

        That's how a NCP, uses 50/50 as a negotiating tactic.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
          Parent A and Parent B make an agreement, no court, just an agreement filed with the court. Parent B agrees to guideline support, eow access.

          Parent A finds out years later that Parent B hasn't been truthful regarding income. Parent A makes a motion to increase CS to guideline based on actual income.

          Parent B responds with motion for 50/50 custody, offset support.

          Parent A opposes this as Parent B has been eow parent by CHOICE since separation years ago.

          Parent A, on the encouragement of a lawyer, drops CS arrears in exchange for 50/50 being taken out of the equation by Parent B.

          Parent B has used 50/50 as a negotiating tactic to alleviate themselves of all outstanding arrears which have accumulated since Parent B was less than truthful during the critical agreement stage.

          If Parent B really, truly wanted 50/50, why would they trade it for a few thousand dollars? Parent B never really wanted 50/50, but they lied about wanting it in order to save themselves some money. In fact, Parent B doesn't want the child at all, as evidenced by their inability to exercise any access since.

          That's how a NCP, uses 50/50 as a negotiating tactic.
          Parent A was an idiot because his 50/50 request was obviously a bluff and if there was a status quo and a correlation between a request for child support modification and then custody change their motion would have failed with costs.... 50/50 is not a negotiating tactic - its an endgame unless somebody is incredibly dumb because at the end of the I think we saw in the other document judges order sole custody 80% of the time.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Links17 View Post
            Parent A was an idiot because his 50/50 request was obviously a bluff and if there was a status quo and a correlation between a request for child support modification and then custody change their motion would have failed with costs.... 50/50 is not a negotiating tactic - its an endgame unless somebody is incredibly dumb because at the end of the I think we saw in the other document judges order sole custody 80% of the time.
            Parent A isn't an idiot. Parent A knows full well what Parent B's motives are. Afterall, Parent A has known and endured the narcissitic behavior of Parent B for years. However, if Parent A is financially stretched and can't afford legal bill after legal bill to "out" Parent B, then Parent A has no choice to fold their cards. All Parent A wanted was Parent B to pay the support as Parent B agreed to do 6 years earlier.

            Of course it's a failing objective if 50/50 was the REAL objective. However if the real objective was to not pay what they should have paid for the preceding 6 years, then the objective was a success. If Parent A doesn't have the funds to push through the motion, then Parent A, who has honoured every aspect of the agreement made 6 years ago is out thousands of dollars because Parent B is a scumbag.

            Parent B has since lost custody entirely and has zero court ordered access (beyond emails/phone calls).

            I know Parent B is the big loser in this situation, however Parent B feels successful. And this feeling of invincibility is what fuels Parent B.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by wantmyfreedom View Post
              In a perfect world people will act more reasonably. In the real world people will not cooperate with each other even if they are forced to. This is exactly why mediation works for some and not others.

              In a forced 50/50 the kids will suffer from their parent's jackass behaviour.

              Re read my post. You have to factor in the material circumstances for each family. Child's routine and schooling district are couple of examples to consider.
              And it is due in the most part, to jackass behaviours and unreasonable parents, that I don't think I'll ever get behind presumptive 50-50. And, of course, the reasonable ones don't wind up in court, they mediate/agree to 50-50 or other agreed access.

              Given what I presume would be a lengthy time period and evaluations required in order to prove 50-50 is NOT in the best interest of the child, I don’t think we should sacrifice the stability and well being of a child during the time it takes to obtain a judge(s) decision.
              Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

              Comment


              • #67
                I guess right up front the parent who takes or has control of the child wins Sole Custody?

                The other parent can just pack it in, being a parent and pay support at the first "NO" from the new custodial parent?

                NO ..being the unreasonable buzzword.

                Who decides which parent is thrown into the EOW pit? The one that changed the locks? Left for Grampa's gingerbread house with junior?

                I thought it was written very clearly here....it pays to be unreasonable. Obviously that post was ignored.

                Thank goodness it's the minority here with their lousy EX's (if believed) that hold a minority opinion on parents rights, and the child's right to equal time with both.

                Myself I have a hard time with the collateral damage. The extended families be it grandparents aunts, uncles, and cousins thrown into the dumpster, because juniors well being was better served with a unreasonable parent.

                Thank goodness also there is the CLRA which touches on the issues above that can weed out the unreasonable parent

                It's best to get a child away from a "unreasonable parent" even through lengthy Court battles....for the child's long term development right into adult hood
                Last edited by MrToronto; 12-03-2014, 12:02 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
                  I guess right up front the parent who takes or has control of the child wins Sole Custody?

                  The other parent can just pack it in, being a parent and pay support at the first "NO" from the new custodial parent?

                  NO ..being the unreasonable buzzword.

                  Who decides which parent is thrown into the EOW pit? The one that changed the locks? Left for Grampa's gingerbread house with junior?

                  I thought it was written very clearly here....it pays to be unreasonable. Obviously that post was ignored.

                  Thank goodness it's the minority here with their lousy EX's (if believed) that hold a minority opinion on parents rights, and the child's right to equal time with both.

                  Myself I have a hard time with the collateral damage. The extended families be it grandparents aunts, uncles, and cousins thrown into the dumpster, because juniors well being was better served with a unreasonable parent.

                  Thank goodness also there is the CLRA which touches on the issues above that can weed out the unreasonable parent

                  It's best to get a child away from a "unreasonable parent" even through lengthy Court battles....for the child's long term development right into adult hood
                  It's disturbing that some may disagree with the above by Mr. T. Makes me wonder.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                    Parent A isn't an idiot. Parent A knows full well what Parent B's motives are. Afterall, Parent A has known and endured the narcissitic behavior of Parent B for years. However, if Parent A is financially stretched and can't afford legal bill after legal bill to "out" Parent B, then Parent A has no choice to fold their cards. All Parent A wanted was Parent B to pay the support as Parent B agreed to do 6 years earlier.

                    Of course it's a failing objective if 50/50 was the REAL objective. However if the real objective was to not pay what they should have paid for the preceding 6 years, then the objective was a success. If Parent A doesn't have the funds to push through the motion, then Parent A, who has honoured every aspect of the agreement made 6 years ago is out thousands of dollars because Parent B is a scumbag.

                    Parent B has since lost custody entirely and has zero court ordered access (beyond emails/phone calls).

                    I know Parent B is the big loser in this situation, however Parent B feels successful. And this feeling of invincibility is what fuels Parent B.
                    Parent A can self represent especially in a situation like this.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Parent A probably wants to just move on with life. This case is a perfect example of why in some cases 50/50 should not be a default.

                      This case is also a perfect example of how 50/50 can be manipulated to avoid C/S obligations.

                      While C/S can be enforced. Access cannot be enforced. The only loser in this equation is the poor kids involved.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by wantmyfreedom View Post
                        Parent A probably wants to just move on with life. This case is a perfect example of why in some cases 50/50 should not be a default.

                        This case is also a perfect example of how 50/50 can be manipulated to avoid C/S obligations.

                        While C/S can be enforced. Access cannot be enforced. The only loser in this equation is the poor kids involved.
                        Sorry, but your realize as show in the stats posted on this thread or another 8/10 contested cases are sole custody so its a pretty crappy tactic which doesn't work - and i think we can all agree that 20% contested cases being shared is a pretty low # and we don't really think that ONLY 20% of dads who are willing to go to court for shared custody deserve it.

                        Access can be enforced, they just don't care. Why should they?

                        In fact they do actually "enforce" access in Quebec now by charging you an additional 20% in child support if you fail to visit your child - just another money grab.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                          Sorry, but your realize as show in the stats posted on this thread or another 8/10 contested cases are sole custody so its a pretty crappy tactic which doesn't work - and i think we can all agree that 20% contested cases being shared is a pretty low # and we don't really think that ONLY 20% of dads who are willing to go to court for shared custody deserve it.

                          Access can be enforced, they just don't care. Why should they?

                          In fact they do actually "enforce" access in Quebec now by charging you an additional 20% in child support if you fail to visit your child - just another money grab.
                          Unless you are family law research expert I would be very weary about throwing stats around to prove a point.

                          Most contested cases which go through the courts have third party experts involved.

                          There is a high level of hostility between the two parents. Who do you think is caught in the middle? Its the kids.

                          Ever stop and ask why sole is recommended? BECAUSE shared custody is not in the best interests of the poor kids caught in the middle of this hostility.

                          When both parents can co parent post divorce then shared parenting is beneficial. When you have parents undermining each other then it is damaging for children.

                          The parents aren't entitled to 50/50 just cause they want it. R U kidding?The kids are entitled to the best arrangement and that should be done with the material circumstances surrounding each case.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            On the other hand, if the presumption of 50-50 shared access and offset CS (with minimum wage imputed to those who don't earn it themselves)(and half offset would be even better) was well-established, there wouldn't be as much time or money to fight over, so parents might be more reasonable from the start. Without the fight, there may be less conflict and hostility to begin with.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                              On the other hand, if the presumption of 50-50 shared access and offset CS (with minimum wage imputed to those who don't earn it themselves)(and half offset would be even better) was well-established, there wouldn't be as much time or money to fight over, so parents might be more reasonable from the start. Without the fight, there may be less conflict and hostility to begin with.
                              Correct. The system as it is currently aligned appears to either reward bad behaviour, or at the very least is challenged to stop it.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                                Parent A can self represent especially in a situation like this.
                                Parent A has just spent nearly two years going through the court process, thousands in legal fees for what should have been a simple update to child support. Parent A is not in an emotional place to be self-representing after two years of a lawyer getting nowhere.

                                Parent A did eventually represent themselves later when the case for sole custody was locked tight by the actions of Parent B.

                                Access cannot be enforced by the custodial parent. Nobody can physically force someone to pick up their child, no matter the agreements in place. This is what makes the whole system idiotic. Access can only be forced by the NCP on the CP through court. The NCP never really has to adhere to any of the obligations they make with regard to access. They're fully entitled to alienate themselves from the child with zero consequence.

                                I have found the court system to be a game of Survivor. It's outwit, outplay and outlast. Lawyers are the House of the Casino in court, they're the only ones who never lose.

                                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