Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Need a boost

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

  • #76
    Non-enforceable Order IMO.
    Why work when the gov and/or you pay for everything?

    Problem is that I believe people can stay on welfare until their children are in school. If she is working under-the-table she is breaking the law and should be bunted off of welfare. If you want her to work then you should simply report this activity.

    Comment


    • #77
      A 14B perhaps to ask the judge to set a date? First of course sending an e-mail offering a deadline or I will have to pursue court? I dunno .. so sick of court. Maybe I'll just work day and night to pay for her lifestyle.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
        Great post. Agree with everything. Those are all my thoughts exactly. Or she may say that she needs to relocate to QC (like we all initially thought).

        I'm not here to complain about Welfare etc ... I just need some financial relief and for her to take some damn responsibility for her child financially. This is a fully bilingual, educated woman who worked every day prior to pregnancy. Government jobs are all seeking employees like her right now. I really shouldn't have to work 3 jobs to keep my head above water while she works none.

        I must be able to use that order to my advantage somehow. Order is vague .. but any future judge would cringe and tell her to work .. pretty guaranteed.

        Just need advice on what subsequent steps I should take......if any?
        you cannot say what a judge will tell her to do. Face it there have been some rulings by judges. I think you need to wait till the child is back in mandatory school, then try to get things changed. Right now she will say that she needs to be home for the summer because she cannot get child care due to summer spots all filled up. Its just too early and you may fail.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
          Couldn't a Material Change of circumstances be financial hardship?
          No. You would have to claim "undue hardship" and you are clearly sitting in front of a computer or using a device that allows you connect to the internet to respond to this. You are not under any hardship at all. (In accordance with the requirements for making this claim.) You have to be living in poverty. Actual and real poverty.

          Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
          If they're going to allow her to simply stay on Welfare and not work the rest of her life than I have lost all faith in the system yet again.
          It isn't the system's fault though. It is your fault. You retained crappy counsel that didn't advise you as to what you were agreeing to. You agreed on consent to that.

          Good Luck!
          Tayken

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
            I notice that in your response to Takyen you added something to what you said was "word for word" I knew something had to be missing. Its okay, we all make mistakes.
            Not sure what you mean. The Daycare piece was another paragraph. The para on CS and offset is word for word (the one I put in he quote earlier). I left nothing out.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Tayken View Post
              No. You would have to claim "undue hardship" and you are clearly sitting in front of a computer or using a device that allows you connect to the internet to respond to this. You are not under any hardship at all. (In accordance with the requirements for making this claim.) You have to be living in poverty. Actual and real poverty.



              It isn't the system's fault though. It is your fault. You retained crappy counsel that didn't advise you as to what you were agreeing to. You agreed on consent to that.

              Good Luck!
              Tayken
              Fair enough. I prefer when you give me good news Tayken. But in all fairness I only have internet because I obtained anther job to pay for it. So the lesson I'm learning is that I must work 3-4 jobs to not suffer and for her to be lazy. Wow...fun stuff

              But you're smart .. so the truth will help me make better decisions.

              Thank you.
              Last edited by LovingFather32; 06-22-2016, 10:32 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by arabian View Post
                Non-enforceable Order IMO.
                Why work when the gov and/or you pay for everything?

                Problem is that I believe people can stay on welfare until their children are in school. If she is working under-the-table she is breaking the law and should be bunted off of welfare. If you want her to work then you should simply report this activity.
                Yea I do believe its time Welfare knew she was committing fraud.

                Guess I'll keep looking for more jobs .. perhaps 4 jobs so that she can continue to spend our tax dollars.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                  I read a past thread you did on WD and you quoted the judge giving hell to the mom saying something like "I feel that the mother has stayed on social assistance unnecessarily, etc". SO WD had the same problem. Thought you might have a soft spot for this Tayken due to that.
                  Actually you are incorrect. The mother in the matter made an argument that because she was on social assistance that she would have more time to care for the child and therefor should have majority access. As well, the mother attempted to use the fact she was on social assistance for a number of arguments. It wasn't really to do with the fact she was on social assistance but, that she was using it as an argument to gain majority access and sole custody. Nothing to do with the court's dislike of litigants (parents) on social assistance.

                  In addition, in later arguments, the court ordered specifically that the mother was to provide the disclosure of income as WorkingDad made a request of the court for child support. WorkingDad didn't agree to settle matters on consent to a crappy and poorly written agreement.

                  I have intimate knowledge of that file. Very intimate. That is why I don't have a soft spot for your "opinion" of that file. I rely upon facts - not emotional interpretations. As well, I rely upon a large body of case law to form my opinions and not just "one" case.

                  I am trying to save you money from having to hire a lawyer, instigate further litigation, have to prove a "material change in circumstance" to even proceed to a motion hearing and having to spend easily 80,000 + in costs to get the matter to trial for a final decision? For what a reduction of 230-300 in monthly CS?

                  Have you done the offset calculation on what you actually earn and what the other parent could potentially earn and then multiply that by the number of months until the child turns say 21? Assuming your child is 4 years old that is 216 months (roughly) and at 300 a month it is 64,800. Way cheaper than going to trial...

                  As well, the other parent can reply to your application to seek sole custody and majority access. Even if they have no case you have to respond and pay money to do so.

                  Sorry to say but, I do not think you have the emotional fortitude that WD has to self represent. He is eastern European (Ukrainian) and as tough as granite when it comes to this stuff. A rare cat for sure.

                  Good Luck!
                  Tayken

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    In the end ..

                    I have 50/50 and I'm LOVING IT. Still have an ear-to-ear smile about it. Priceless!

                    I'll figure out the money thing.

                    But when everybody gets paid on your next check .. remember that a portion of your tax dollars deducted from your hard work are going to my ex.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      There are anonymous "rat lines" set up across the country for welfare fraud reporting. Most often people report when someone is shacked up with someone else which reduces or eliminates the offender's benefits.

                      Remove her benefits and she'd have little option but to get a job.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                        In the end ..

                        I have 50/50 and I'm LOVING IT. Still have an ear-to-ear smile about it. Priceless!

                        I'll figure out the money thing.

                        But when everybody gets paid on your next check .. remember that a portion of your tax dollars deducted from your hard work are going to my ex.


                        ... only because you and others will not report her

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Sorry to say but, I do not think you have the emotional fortitude that WD has to self represent. He is eastern European (Ukrainian) and as tough as granite when it comes to this stuff. A rare cat for sure.
                          Then you don't know me very well.

                          And I didn't say the judge had anything against welfare in the case you cited. The judge simply pointed out that the mother was staying unemployed intentionally and staying on social assistance and it wasn't okay.

                          WD's great .. but lets face it....any litigant would have been in his case. His ex made his case for him...what a nut bar.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by arabian View Post
                            [/B]
                            ... only because you and others will not report her
                            Good point. I'm getting on that.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              I do find a lot of info on here useful.

                              But I know for a fact Tayken and others have been very wrong in their opinions....such as their opinions on Links and his case. Lot's of hating and know-it-all type stuff .. the courts dont always agree with odf posts. So I digest what I read carefully then make the best decisions possible.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                                That was the exact wording buddy.

                                Couldn't a Material Change of circumstances be financial hardship? I have 50/50 costs for the kid also. Why should she be able to not work and stay home on Welfare. I read a past thread you did on WD and you quoted the judge giving hell to the mom saying something like "I feel that the mother has stayed on social assistance unnecessarily, etc". SO WD had the same problem. Thought you might have a soft spot for this Tayken due to that.

                                I don't think "should" was in there. It says that the Respondent is currently seeking employment and that once she is employed for 30 days that she SHALL PROVIDE the applicant evidence of her income, and the CS SHALL be modified using the offset approach.

                                If they're going to allow her to simply stay on Welfare and not work the rest of her life than I have lost all faith in the system yet again.
                                here is a cut and paste of what you posted before. You did leave part of it out if you read it. You just missed a word when you said it was word for word then corrected it with the above post.
                                The Respondent must obtain and is currently seeking employment. Once the Respondent is employed full time for over 30 days, she shall provide the Applicant of her income, and the child support will be modified using the offset approach.

                                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