Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Divorce Law are a Joke and Dads are the Punch Line

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pursuinghappiness wrote ..."I would agree that all things being equal. Ie, there is no disruption in career due childbirth/childcare, equal division of childcare/household duties, etc, I would agree with your post. But to apply that rule generally to all cases is far too simplistic.

    While I would agree that support laws aren't always fair to circumstance which is very unfortunate. They are not designed to screw men, they're designed to protect children".

    First, the laws were not written to protect children, they are written to CYA of government. Just take several hours to read through a few Family Law legislation and that will be come very apparent.

    Second, Having children IS a Career choice! I have also taken care of my children since birth - from mid-night feedings to changing diapers. I realize this may not be the norm for the average dad, but it was for me. I also work with many woman who 'take time off' to raise children. I may have lost some income but it has been more than made up for in my relationship with the children. If the TRUE value of that was added to assets at divorce most of those moms demanding assets and support (like you) would be paying their ex;s significant sums. Add this to this the current legislation and Union agreements that guarantee one year of parental leave during which NO loss/reduction/change in employment is allowed to take place, and women (and some men) do not actually put careers on hold at all.

    In your argument, putting a career on hold to raise children somehow results some sort of lost future earnings - clearly this is not so in the VAST MAJORITY of cases (99.9%). I could easily attached a reasonable value of $200,000 to spending up to the first year of life as the primary caregiver to a child. PUT that ASSET on your balance sheet and see who gets the house!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lautario View Post
      In your argument, putting a career on hold to raise children somehow results some sort of lost future earnings - clearly this is not so in the VAST MAJORITY of cases (99.9%). I could easily attached a reasonable value of $200,000 to spending up to the first year of life as the primary caregiver to a child. PUT that ASSET on your balance sheet and see who gets the house!
      I would love to see how you get to $200,000 as an annual income for raising a child.

      I understand there are many facets involved as being a stay at home parent. But $200,000 is a number I doubt you could ever reasonably get to for doing various PART TIME activities. Stay at home parents are not a full time chefs, cleaner or daycare, especially if they have a partner. Full time chefs stand in a kitchen for 8 plus hours a day cooking hundreds of meals. Not 2 maybe 3. A full time cleaner again spends 8+ hours doing nothing but cleaning each day. The only way you could possibly get to $200,000 is if you described each job as full time, and the reality is...it is not even comparable to full time employment.

      Comment


      • If the TRUE value of that was added to assets at divorce
        Um...it is...that's why the courts often try very hard to keep 50/50 access in place even for men who haven't necessarily provided this before.

        You want to have a discussion solely based on finances and what I'm saying is that when two people contribute to a partnership...the contribution they make cannot always have a dollar figure associated with them..that doesn't make them less valuable.

        And let me clarify (since you referred specially to my situation as if you knew what it was)...I am not a stay-at-home parent. I've always worked except for short periods after childbirth but I know people that do stay home and make a significant contribution to childcare and household in doing so while the other parent is able to excel at a career and make money.

        If having children and who maintains the majority of their care is a career choice, its a career choice made by BOTH partners..not just one. In divorce, the court seeks (not always well, I agree) to equalize contributions....ie. 50/50 access to children, child support, etc.

        And you're also wrong that putting a career on-hold for child rearing doesn't affect your long-term career or long-term earnings. Its just simply not true.

        You want to put a $ value on the priviledge of staying home the first year with the kids...I found that highly amusing. I had small, difficult newborns and spent that year nursing every 2 hours, with sore boobs, listening to screeching....trust me, I would have trade my stbx for that "pleasure"...personally I enjoyed the break when I went back to work.

        Again, I find extremist posts kind of useless and generally borne out of anger and bitterness. And while I do sympathize with anyone who feels shafted by an system which needs change, I found your post simplistic and focused solely on $.

        Comment


        • Apparently I have written very poorly. So let me clarify;

          My point was to address comments by Pursuinghappiness that she had to "give up" her career to raise children, so THAT IS why she is entitled to lifelong support from her ex. My argument is that quitting work WAS and IS a career choice she made. Further, that time with your children could (and should) easily be assigned a monetary value - I chose $200,000, but you can pick your own number. Further, that value should be seen as an asset and put on HER balance sheet at time of division of assets.

          Divorce laws have some how come to assign a mysterious value to lost career time, but NO value to stay at home with kids time. This works against dads in virtually ALL cases.

          Think of it this way, how much would you pay to go back in time to spend ONE day with your children when they were small - or a dead relative, etc. The amount you are willing pay should be seen as the TRUE daily value of ALLOWING one spouse to quit work and be a stay at home parent.

          So it should be Career $$$ = stay at home $$$.

          but courts act as though Career = $$$$ and stay at home = 0.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lautario View Post
            Apparently I have written very poorly. So let me clarify;

            My point was to address comments by Pursuinghappiness that she had to "give up" her career to raise children, so THAT IS why she is entitled to lifelong support from her ex. My argument is that quitting work WAS and IS a career choice she made. Further, that time with your children could (and should) easily be assigned a monetary value - I chose $200,000, but you can pick your own number. Further, that value should be seen as an asset and put on HER balance sheet at time of division of assets.

            Divorce laws have some how come to assign a mysterious value to lost career time, but NO value to stay at home with kids time. This works against dads in virtually ALL cases.

            Think of it this way, how much would you pay to go back in time to spend ONE day with your children when they were small - or a dead relative, etc. The amount you are willing pay should be seen as the TRUE daily value of ALLOWING one spouse to quit work and be a stay at home parent.

            So it should be Career $$$ = stay at home $$$.

            but courts act as though Career = $$$$ and stay at home = 0.
            First I completely disagree with your post.

            so THAT IS why she is entitled to lifelong support from her ex
            But this is where you are shown to be unreasonable - no one said "lifelong support", yet you do - why? It makes no sense to argue something by exaggerating the other side's position as it shows you to be arguing only for the sake of arguing, rather than making a specific point about an ACTUAL situation.

            Also, not working is by definition of marriage a decision made by BOTH parents as the best solution. They both suffer the economic consequences of loosing that income both immediately and in the future UNLESS they get divorced. In that case the one that sacrificed earning potential carries that burden. In that case SS to compensate for damage (but not complete compensation, both must bear the damage of that career) is fair.

            Assigning a monetary value to staying at home that should be treated as an asset is BS, and if you don't know it, you're too jaded to see straight.

            My ex stayed home for 12 years. It worked for me, it worked for her, it worked for our kids. We all benefited from it. I think staying is a privilege, however loosing career or earning potential is a down side. If it didn't work for me, we could have switched it up, but we did not do that. At the end of the marriage, I was were I was supposed to be career wise, she was not, so I pay her part of the damage to her career, which she has started again - simple and business like.

            Comment


            • RE; billm, "Assigning a monetary value to staying at home that should be treated as an asset is BS, and if you don't know it, you're too jaded to see straight."

              Maybe get your facts straight and read the entire post! I have my kids and always have. I take no support payments of any kind, and never intend to do so. I believe people MUST be responsible for themselves and their own actions. We have development to much of a ideology of entitlement and this ideology permeates antiquated divorce law!

              You think assigning value to time with children is BS but in the same breath ARE assigning value to an imaginary loss of career advancement.

              All is fine, you can assign NO VALUE to spending time with your children, I expect they also assign little or no value in spending time with you.

              I am still looking for that person who can PROVE in COURT that they actually LOST career mileage by staying home. Its just not the case in today's world.

              And lets be clear, spousal support often does last a life time, and as other people have pointed out, actually out lives the paying spouse as they can be required to maintain life insurance to ensure the receiving spouse keeps getting support until their death.

              Child support can also last 20-25 years or more, even though in the real world few un-divorsed parents actual do so. People need to be responsible for themselves! Take money and ongoing support out of divorce, most of these forums would be gone and we would not be making criminals out of people who cannot afford the outrages supports payments required of them!

              Comment


              • My point was to address comments by Pursuinghappiness that she had to "give up" her career to raise children, so THAT IS why she is entitled to lifelong support from her ex. My argument is that quitting work WAS and IS a career choice she made.
                I said absolutely none of those things...this is why you come off as extremely foolish.

                One, I worked my entire marriage except for phases around giving birth. Giving birth wasn't a career choice for me as I would have gladly worked while my husband pushed children out of his dick, however, as it wasn't biologically possible for us...WE made the choice that I'd give birth and nurse the children.

                I also never said anything about lifelong support from my stbx. Anywhere ...ever. Either copy and paste where I posted that or basically you exaggerated/lied because you are exactly what you seemed to me to be from the very beginning.

                Married people make childbirth, childcare, household choices as a couple. Sometimes its in everyone's best interest that both work...sometimes that one works...w/e...but they make those determinations together. As such they take roles and responsibilities in ongoing care that is sometimes physical, sometimes financial.

                Despite the fact that you are ridiculously bitter, angry and silly...I can somewhat understand the argument regarding ss...but the child support argument is different. As I said, child support exists for children...not to penalize the father/parent.

                Next time you post...try a little comprehension and honesty. You wear your misogyny like a badge and its going to hurt you (and your kids) more than anyone else in the long run.

                Comment


                • And lets be clear, spousal support often does last a life time, and as other people have pointed out, actually out lives the paying spouse as they can be required to maintain life insurance to ensure the receiving spouse keeps getting support until their death.

                  Child support can also last 20-25 years or more, even though in the real world few un-divorsed parents actual do so. People need to be responsible for themselves! Take money and ongoing support out of divorce, most of these forums would be gone and we would not be making criminals out of people who cannot afford the outrages supports payments required of them!
                  What an utter load of crap. Spousal support is determined based on length of marriage. They don't arbritrarily make it last a lifetime...nor does that happen often, which is what you posted.

                  Life insurance that is used to protect payment assets is not provided to guarantee spousal support for life at all. Its used to guarantee that the payments owed for the term are protected in the event of death.

                  Do you just sit around in a chair all day drooling on yourself and screaming at imaginary purple elephants?

                  Again...are you actually suggesting that when a parent decides to drop out of the workforce to raise children that it has no longterm effects on their career, savings, seniority, etc? Seriously...are you really suggesting that or are you joking?

                  Comment


                  • Actually it is you who reeks of bitterness and entitlement. Poor you, born a woman and had to bear the children - if you felt that way you could have adopted!

                    I never said a parent should not pay support for their child, I just do not agree that the state should force it! If you actually believe that children deserve the money of child support then anti up a few thousand more dollar a year in taxes so the government can give that ENTITLED amount to ALL children. As I wrote previously there are thousands of kids in Canada who have no one to get child support from - don't they deserve the same as other children? Also, how about 50% of all awarded child support be mandated to go into a trust fund for the children and BOTH parents pay the exact same amount. The child turns 18 and the money IS THEIRS. I bet a lot more dads would be happy to make those kind of payments - and the kids, not the moms would get the benefit!

                    Oh sorry, that would not work in your entitlement society because someone else would be getting the money not you.

                    Comment


                    • I'm getting money? From who and when?

                      I think I'll stop bothering to post to you since you clearly can't read and/or comprehend and just create your own arguments based on a deep misogyny that transcends your ability to mentally function.

                      If any divorce law needs to be changed right now...its the one that gave you custody of children...you're scary and I feel kinda sorry for the longterm emotional health of your kids.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lautario View Post
                        You think assigning value to time with children is BS but in the same breath ARE assigning value to an imaginary loss of career advancement.
                        No I am assigning value to REAL loss. In most cases, where ones career is anything above minimum wage type, if you stay home, your career suffers. Specifically in my case, my ex was a unionized nurse. Staying home for 12 years put her back to the bottom of the pay scale - a very specific loss of earning in her field, which takes a specific time to recover from (8 years in her case). For that time period, I will pay her for some of that loss in very real earnings. My income and my career was not effected significantly. So why after marriage should she be at the bottom of her pay scale for her career, and myself at the top? It is not fair, it would not be fair in business, nor our partnership, so I pay her SS.

                        She saw the kids more than me during that time, but not a lot more given that when I came home I could 'take over'. We both chose that and now that we are done, we see the kids for the same amount of time. We shared in all things during marriage, she does not owe me for anything that arose DURING the marriage. And I doubt you would find any significant support for your idea of assigning a monetary value that is a debt to other parent that does not stay at home if you ask EVERY married or divorced person with children. You may think its a good idea, but practically no one would agree with that view.

                        Originally posted by Lautario View Post
                        All is fine, you can assign NO VALUE to spending time with your children, I expect they also assign little or no value in spending time with you.
                        When you say this kind of crap, the weight of any other statements you make are lessened - you clearly have anger issues as well as the inability to rationally argue your points.

                        Originally posted by Lautario View Post
                        I am still looking for that person who can PROVE in COURT that they actually LOST career mileage by staying home. Its just not the case in today's world.
                        Hmmm, I would imagine that has been done many times - but in my case I have stated specifically how my ex lost earning potential by staying home. Something we both decided on because we were in a financial arrangement called marriage.

                        Originally posted by Lautario View Post
                        And lets be clear, spousal support often does last a life time, and as other people have pointed out, actually out lives the paying spouse as they can be required to maintain life insurance to ensure the receiving spouse keeps getting support until their death.
                        Yes, in some cases earning potential is (ie career damage) is permanent, therefore the couple are financially tied together forever. But this is mostly only for very long term marriages. I agree with the idea of life long support in those situations. Life insurance would make sense in this situation. I have life insurance in place for my obligation for my kids support should I die. I don't for SS specifically, but the life insurance for CS more than covers that.

                        Originally posted by Lautario View Post
                        Child support can also last 20-25 years or more, even though in the real world few un-divorsed parents actual do so. People need to be responsible for themselves! Take money and ongoing support out of divorce, most of these forums would be gone and we would not be making criminals out of people who cannot afford the outrages supports payments required of them!
                        Huh?

                        If BOTH parents decided not to support their kids after high school, they don't have to, married or divorced. It is only when ONE parent does not agree with this that the other parent can be forced to continue support until the child finishes post secondary education. If a couple were married and only ONE parented wanted to support the child, it would be the SAME - that parent would spend FAMILY money (ie the money of the other parent) to support the child.

                        So divorced or not, it is up to the parents, there is no double standard.

                        CS is simple - support the children according to each means, as established by tables. Are the tables fair - they seem fine to me, but the point here is that CS support is reasonable.

                        SS should also be simple. Two people enter into a financial arrangement called marriage. After the marriage, they split up the assets and debts, and if one is economically disadvantaged by the marriage, both must share in that disadvantage. How much - that can be tricky, but again support is reasonable. However, there must be INCENTIVE for both to work as hard as they would as if they had no support in place. Even when there is no disadvantage, but simply a difference in incomes, some SS is awarded, which I can agree to, but that type of SS should be time limted, and also lessen each year - which is not usually done, so in that I think how SS is calculated should change.
                        Last edited by billm; 08-25-2011, 06:08 PM.

                        Comment


                        • ahhhh, thank you for all your personal attacks, the first and last refuge of people you cannot make rational arguments to defend their position..

                          Lets us recap my suggestion to help fix a broken divorce law system.

                          1. Family Law as it relates to marriage should include a standard prenup agreement as follows
                          - all assets divided up based on years of marriage
                          - no spousal support
                          - no child support
                          - other arrangements can be made prior to the marriage contract if both
                          parties so wish.

                          How do I support this;
                          - I believe child support should not be mandated, but rather a choice (albeit the right choice).
                          - 50% of child support should go into a trust fund for the child(s) foe when they turn 18 - after all that's who the money is suppose to be for.
                          - I do not believe spousal support is relevant in today's world - woman can easily find work and support themselves.
                          - I believe that it is fair to assign a monetary value to the benefit a woman gains by staying at home with her children that is at the very least equal to any so called loss of career advancement.

                          I also do not believe i the entitlement attitude of many in our society. ALL people need to be responsible form themselves and their life decisions. This includes what billm called the mutual decision for his wife (or more likely her husband) to stay home for 12 YEAR and take care of kids. To not make this personal, IT IS actually the individual persons decision to stay home and they should ( and likely did) consider the ramification of doing so. Clearly for many people, the VALUE of staying home is equal to or greater than going to work.

                          If a person was coresed into this MUTUAL decision, that is a criminal matter.


                          Considering that a contended divorce can typically cost both parties well over $50,000, )(of course to people access free legal aid there is no personal financial cost and thus no onus to settle leading to even higher overall financial costs)the above seems reasonable.

                          Comment


                          • Lautario:I agree --sarcasm---you should fully support your children all by yourself. You do not even comprehend basic arguments. Let us all not respond to this nonsense anymore.

                            Comment


                            • Momof6:

                              I wonder who could have possibly divorced that peach of a "man", eh?

                              Hopefully genetics favors their mom...lol.

                              (meow)

                              Comment


                              • lol--totally agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                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