Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spousal Support Guidelines - Canada - Even Uglier

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

  • #31
    So if "youth and beauty" are women's resources then marriage has "used" up her resources. She gave you the thing you valued about her. Youth is not renewable, arguably from your POV, neither is beauty because as she gets older she will have less and less of it.

    She has your children, arguably, it makes her less likely to be able to find a suitable replacement partner. If the bulk of her time and energy goes into raising those children, she has less time and opportunity to "re-partner" and then many men aren't keen on the idea of an instant family. Maybe the trade off wasn't as one sided as you feel it is.

    Comment


    • #32
      I understand your position completely. I too tend to have a stubborn streak. I absolutely will not back down. So where does that get us?

      Looking at your situation from my perspective (the cheap seats) I see two people who probably were very much enamoured with each other at one time. You are a passionate person who rightfully demands loyalty. Your ex fucked around on you (you might have as well but never admitted it). You knew your relationship was deteriorating... probably due to both of you having obstinate personalities... and you clung on to the adultery like a 'woman scorned.' You both lawyered-up and proceeded to try to one-up each other. Along the way you probably fought with your lawyer and decided that you could self-represent better than the 150.00/hr lawyer was prepared to do on your behalf. You were indignant and your ex was stubbornly fluffed up by her legal team on her 'rights' under the divorce act and many, many years of case law. Your ex was laughing to your face because she bought "the best lawyer that your money could buy" (a phrase taken from an actress in a movie). This further infuriated you and so on....

      This is not a "random person" that receives your hard-earned money - this is the mother of your children (your former lover who spread her legs willingly to accept your seed and who had to do the same to give birth).

      Your children are watching. Your children are listening. Always remember that.
      Also, how you treat your ex is something that girlfriends in your future will judge when considering if you are worthy of a relationship with you.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Links17 View Post
        It's permanent in the sense because she will still earn at least roughly 6000 * 15 years = $90,000 in child support payments which is tax free. It converts into about $150,000 of gross income salary and I get 0 from her.

        That money is on to of the fact I will pay the lion's share of special expenses and all the actual cost of raising the children.

        Prenups don't mean jack in Canada - if they did it would be great
        Michael McCain divorce case shows pitfalls of keeping family fortune | National Post

        I'm using colorful language to describe my ex- it's 50% trolling but she is actually a terrible person, she isn't the worst in the world but she is terrible.

        Who appeals an alimony termination order at 35 years old? Not contest, APPEAL! I am embarrassed for her, how pathetic.

        Who refuses to work between the age of 32-35 (while being bilingual, educated an healthy?). Refuses to support their children

        Who shamelessly leaves their kids with their old mother while the father of the kids is down the street begging to take them and goes on a 2 week vacation while SHE has them as per court order for vacation?

        Who tries to put the father in jail, over 3000$ while receiving 2500$/month from him (literally)

        She isn't the devil, but she is exceptionally bad and I am comparing this to the people on this forum and the case law I have read, it isn't a subjective thing.

        The cheating is practically a non-issue, as far as I am concerned she just wanted out of the relationship with me (which is fine) but didn't have the balls to do it.

        The only catch is she needs to take care of herself because I am a package, you can't have sex with other people and expect me to pay for you to do it. You can't travel the world while I work 9-5.... it's disgusting - oh wait, you can - thanks to spousal support.
        The child support you pay supports your children, not her. As someone who receives child support it is highly aggravating to be told that I'm "paid" by the ex. I am not. The ex provides financial resources for the upbringing of his child. That's what you're doing as well.

        Even in your view, it isn't lifelong support as children inevitably grow up and become self-sufficient on their own.

        The cheating isn't a non-issue for you. You mention it in nearly every post, along with colourful adjectives that imply she's a whore.

        Men marry frequently for money. Frequently. Again, you're making generalizations that many men would find offensive, forget the women.

        If this is the communication style you choose in life, I'd be more likely to leave my kids with mom for two weeks than request you do anything remotely close to a favour for me.

        I have a very strong feeling that anything she has tried to do to you is payback for everything you've done to her. The pair of you have settled into spatting roles where the person with the biggest insult wins.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by arabian View Post

          Your children are watching. Your children are listening. Always remember that.
          Also, how you treat your ex is something that girlfriends in your future will judge when considering if you are worthy of a relationship with you.

          Good point. When I met my partner, he was in the midst of a gruesome custody battle for 50/50 with his ex (he got the 50/50 and is living well, while ex is now on husband #3 after #2 went to jail for trying to burn down the house). But he didn't trash-talk his ex, he didn't brag about how successful he was in court, and he didn't talk about "winning". He treated the whole legal struggle as something that was necessary but unfortunate. He certainly didn't treat it as his opportunity to show the judge and the world how smart and awesome he was and how pathetic and messed-up his ex was. I definitely noticed what this behavior said about his character.

          I think that being obsessed with your ex is like having spinach stuck in your teeth - it's obvious to everyone, even if you don't notice it. And no matter how much you insist you don't have spinach stuck in your teeth - your life is fantastic, you have tons of money and friends, your kids are thrilled to bits with you - well, you still have that spinach stuck in your teeth.

          Comment


          • #35
            Ockham's Razor - when there are multiple explanations for things, it is normally the simplest one that is the truth.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

            Instead of all this conjecture about obsession etc....
            Each of you send me a cheque every month for 500$/month for the next 20 years. I hope it doesn't bother you.

            500$/month is the difference for me of the fancy sports car I want to buy and the less fancy one. It actually impacts me day-day.

            In terms of "trashing" my ex, as I've said before:
            -What I do here is a mix of trolling and my real position, I play devil's advocate a bit seeing if I CAN prove she is the devil incarnate.
            -with my close friends/family I share my opinion (and they agree mostly)
            -with her and the kids (I remain silent and in fact I try to give the kids a better impression of her)
            -in court, I state the facts and let the judges make their opinion

            Let's not forget, I do pay for my children directly and care for them 50% of the time. My ex does nothing for "me" in terms of caring for the children. She just receives my support.

            Child Support has nothing to do with the children, before the guidelines there used to be an analysis done of the needs of the children and CS was awarded contextually.... the feminists and the government weren't happy because it didn't lift single mothers out of poverty. They put together a working group came up with a a few ways of determining child support amounts, then chose the most expensive way, then they defiscalised it and then legislated it. Child support awards were way higher since then.

            They did it because it is a private internalized welfare system.
            They did it becasue it saved the government 100s of millions of dollars/year because instead of it being taxed in the hands of the low earner (who was welfarish) it was taxed in the hands of the wealthy one

            I don't care how she cares for the kids when they are in her care. If she can't care for them due to finances or anything else then I can take them off her hands and she can go live in a shelter. Child support is divided between paying for the mother and paying for kids, if the kids lived with me full-time they would get that 500$ or it would be spent on myself. When I pay her child support she spends on them "theoretically" and the rest she spends on herself.

            People are sheep, and so this injustice continues unchecked.

            Comment


            • #36
              That's not actually how Occam's Razor works. It doesn't require that you take someone's own account of their situation as the simplest explanation of the situation. For example:

              Someone posts repeatedly on a Internet forum about how his ex-wife is a stupid lazy whore/prostitute/giver of blowjobs on street corners and how the entire justice system is rigged against men because he has to pay spousal support and child support (except for the sixteen legal actions he wins.

              One explanation is that this person did indeed marry a stupid lazy whore without realizing she was a stupid lazy whore, and then had children with her, and further that the entire family law system in Canada is filled with people who are biased against men and try to make them pay stupid whores as much money as possible, but that this system can be outsmarted by the heroic efforts of self-represented individuals.

              Another explanation is that this person is still angry over his divorce and resentful of his child support obligations. Both he and his ex are flawed human beings, neither of them are evil or perfect, and the family law bureaucracy is imperfect but generally delivers outcomes which mitigate the impact of divorce.

              Which explanation is simpler and more plausible?

              Comment


              • #37
                I'll reframe it more simply -

                The 2 explanations for why (or other people) are not happy about post divorce situations is:

                a) We are pissed over the divorce
                b) We are pissed we are going to pay $200,000 to our former spouse.

                and then apply this logic on it.
                In any situation would you be happy to pay 200,000$ for nothing in return?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Consider it "for services rendered" and then maybe it's more palatable?

                  SS is 100% tax deductible for you.

                  Next time you marry be sure to marry someone who makes at least the same amount of money as you do.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                    I'll reframe it more simply -

                    The 2 explanations for why (or other people) are not happy about post divorce situations is:

                    a) We are pissed over the divorce
                    b) We are pissed we are going to pay $200,000 to our former spouse.

                    and then apply this logic on it.
                    In any situation would you be happy to pay 200,000$ for nothing in return?
                    You were not forced to marry someone who was expecting $200G in return for nothing. You chose to marry this person. Gun to head was not present.

                    You lack acceptance that you got yourself into this situation and it isn't a combination of bad spouse, bad laws and bad judges. Its actually just a simple bad choice. Bad choices often cost us lots of money. This long into it, you're still in blame stage. It's everyone else's fault but yours.

                    As for the child support you act like the kids are turned off and put in a closet when not with you. In fact, she takes care of your kids when you're not there and you take care of her kids when she's not there. It's a 50/50 split. And, because you chose to marry and have children with a woman who refuses to work, you're paying for your kids at her house too. Again, choices that bite you back.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Quite the interesting debate/dogpile...

                      The best point raised by links though, which wasn't really acknowledged, was that there isn't any 'warning' of the consequences of a failed marriage.

                      Perhaps some school systems in the country touch on it, but myself as someone who was raised in a home with parents who stayed together, I had no education whatsoever on what happens when marriages fail, and was extremely fortunate not to get nailed, as my ex was heading down the path that would have left me on the hook to support her.

                      People go into a marriage thinking everything is wonderful, nothing could go wrong, best of intentions, blah blah blah. The vast majority of people aren't considering a marriage and wondering about the consequences of a split after their spouse has been unemployed for years.

                      Pre marriage courses that churches require you to take before getting married focus on compatability, resolving differences, and such. They don't touch on spousal or child support.

                      There's no fine print on a marriage contract to read and discover the perils of spousal support.

                      Most people, who haven't already been through a divorce, unless they have parents or close friends who've gone through it, have only a very vague idea, if any, of the potential consequences. The lack of education provided about this is, as links says, criminal.

                      Do you really think there would be nearly as many spousal support payers as there are now, had they been properly educated on what could happen to them if they stayed with someone who refuses to work? Would an engineer be willing to wager a significant portion of their future income on a marriage to a waitress?

                      Once there's been a few years of marriage, and there is income disparity between the spouses, the 'power' is completely in the court of the lower income half. They can care less about making the marriage work, and do whatever they want, knowing that they've got at least a few years worth of a free ride ahead.


                      As for the argument of nobody held a gun to your head to marry the person... People change, their priorities and ambitions change. Your married to someone and after ten years, you have a couple kids. Your partner decides they want to be a stay at home parent and quit their job. You can disagree with that decision all you want, but you cannot by any means force them to work, no matter how detrimental to the finances that decision is. In the interest of the kids, and because you likely still love your partner, you stay with them and make it work. Your partner is now on the road to being able to get all kinds of spousal support should the marriage break down, despite you disagreeing with, and not supporting them in their decision to stop working.

                      We have zero real control over the actions of our spouses if they decide to make those sort of decisions, but those decisions can hold a hell of a lot of control over our futures. The only way to avoid it, with the current system is to either not get married, or bail on the marriage at the first sign of your spouse getting on the road towards making you a support payor.

                      Or of course, you can close your eyes to it, and pray that your partner doesn't jump into bed with someone else, or hit a midlife crisis and decide they need a new life without you.

                      In some cases a good argument can be made for spousal (yours comes to mind Arabian) however there are a lot, likely the majority, of cases where it is unjust, doesn't make sense, and is just a reward to someone for having successfully played the system. If the government wants us to pay spousal, then they should be having us sign a contract much like a prenuptial, prior to getting married, which states exactly what spousal support is, how much it can potentially be, and in what circumstances it will occur.

                      If that seems unreasonable, I would challenge you to go find as many people as you can that are in their early 20s that are engaged and quiz them about spousal support to see if they understand it and the consequences. I would be willing to wager that the majority would have only a very vague idea, or none at all.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The point was accountability for the decisions you make instead of blaming the spouse, the system, the courts, the judges, the female gender as a whole.

                        Absolutely people change and evolve over time, that's nature of humans. What seems to be missing from the discussion is holding yourself accountable for the bad and good decisions you make. Blaming the world won't change the world or change the way you make decisions.

                        If I polled twenty somethings that are engaged and asked them about spousal support, maybe 2 or 3 out of 10 would be aware, but the remainder shouldn't be blaming everything and everyone else because they weren't aware. Only hindsight is 20/20, the rest of the time it's an educated crap shoot.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Good points you're raised ^ Soiled.

                          Perhaps people have to "review" their marriages every 5 years? In fact there is no reason why a prenup does not have a specific review period in it.


                          ....Upon the date of marriage the intent of the parties is that they both shall maintain continual employment and jointly pay _% into savings.... (etc.) This agreement shall stay in place until such time as a) children or b) review upon 5 years of marriage. Agreement shall immediately because invalid should either party voluntarily cease to be employed.... and so on.

                          The only prenup agreements I have read have been those which allocate pre-marriage assets. The prenup only comes into play upon the end of the marriage.

                          If lawyers can make money off Prenuptial/Marriage agreements I'm sure a new industry will be born.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            None of that would work. The government would just adjust to make people anyways through some other loopholes.

                            In Canada, they removed the requirement to "be married" in order to get spousal support. They also will overturn any prenup that does not comply with family law (i.e: you cannot opt of spousal support).

                            Only in Quebec can you live with somebody and not become responsible and that is why Quebec has a much higher common law percentage (2x or 3x the national average) because it ACTUALLY makes a legal difference (I didnt know this) however in Quebec if you get married in a religious service the priest etc... is obligated to make you sign the civil marriage document. Furthermore in Quebec they are trying to introduce spousal support in common-law but under the guise of civil damages....

                            You guys think I am calling it "Privatized Welfare" out of some sort cynicism but it TRULY is. It really has nothing to do with what's fair, right or reasonable. It is only about what is the maximum we can force a person to pay without causing the majority to quit their jobs so the general government budget doesn't have to pay for them.

                            Even if SS was truly just to compensate a woman for lost earnings the calculation would be JUST based on what she could have earned (now and in the future) if she continued on her career path * 50% (up to the ability of the guy to pay). However it isn't - there is also the other which is non-compensatory which is just to give the woman the same lifestyle she was accustomed to during the marriage because for some reason it is too unfair for her to live off what she is capable of earning.

                            Once upon a time non-compensatory was really just means & needs. Now it has morphed into "How can we keep you at the same standard of living as before?" When you read the logical acrobatics to justify spousal support at the levels they award, one thing is clear - the final answer is "You will pay spousal support" it's only a matter of giving the excuse why you should and if we can't then we will make a new reason up.
                            Last edited by Links17; 08-07-2016, 05:37 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I highly disagree about it being a matter of personal accountability. If knowledge around the consequences of a failure of marriage was on the same level as the consequences for theft, murder, etc, then yes it's fair game to say it's personal accountability for making a poor decision on a marriage partner.

                              Education about spousal support only seems to come from law school, personal experience, or the experience of family/friends. To suddenly hold somebody who had no idea about it legally obligated to financially support another person who should be perfectly capable of fully supporting themselves is just ludicrous. Even more so when the person receiving the support ended the marriage of their own accord, whether through cheating or just one day deciding they're done with it.

                              And yes, this is a failing of the system, the courts, and the judges, as its created a punishment/reward without educating the populace properly before they enter into a marriage. I won't touch on blaming the female gender as I've attempted to make everything gender neutral and I don't care to open that can of worms.

                              As for the marriage reviews every five years, if society insists on things like spousal support, then yes absolutely. Any other long term contract (mortgage, cell phone, insurance, etc) we enter into gets reviewed and or renewed every few years, absolutely marriage should be the same.

                              Happy 5th anniversary! If you choose to stop the marriage now you can escape with half your financial assets and pay $800/mth in spousal for the next 2 years. Or should you agree to a further 5 years of marriage your obligations may increase to the same amount but for 5 years. Romantic! But at least nobody can say they were blindsided by it then.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I think Links you are misinterpreting and clearly misunderstanding spousal support. It isn't as cut-and-dried as you think. Maintaining a lifestyle prior to divorce is rarely accomplished unless parties divorcing are extremely wealthy. I know court has determined I am entitled to indefinite SS but I can assure you that my current lifestyle is nowhere close to what it was while I was married. Not even close. For one thing, there exists a distinct difference for people who are married to wage-earners (income easy to calculate and corroborate) as opposed to self-employed. If a person was married to a self-employed individual then that person had better have alot of money to be able to advance their claim. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to defend and collect SS from an uncooperative ex who is self-employed? I suspect that most entitled recipients give up as they simply do not have money to hire accountants and lawyers who will work tirelessly for them for many years.

                                I personally don't give a rat's ass about Quebec. Quebec is an anomaly amongst the majority of other Canadian provinces and territories. If one wants to live common law then "each to their own." I've always had difficulty with the concept that Quebec is a predominantly Catholic province yet common-law is the norm? Someone please explain this to me or correct me. I am your typical English-speaking older woman from the western part of the country.

                                FYI - if one quits their job to avoid paying spousal support they will be imputed income by the courts and may eventually lose their drivers' license, passport and have bank accounts garnisheed.

                                I think the biggest part where you draw blanks in your argument Links is your failure to recognise the contribution of the entitled individual. You also have difficulty in accepting one of the most important parts of determining spousal part is the recognition that the longer people are married the more their finances MERGE/MINGLE and they BECOME ONE. Think of it like a business if you need to.

                                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