Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This system needs work!!

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Beachnana View Post
    Law is made from the decisions of reputable learned judges who make decisions based on the laws our democratic government have put in place.
    Yes, it's a democracy but I never voted for any of those jag-off lawyers running our country. The end result is those in power imposing their will on some members of the country's society. In that sense the Canadian legal system is similar to a dictatorship.

    According to the news today in 95% of households both parents work outside the home. I think they are referring to big cities where housing costs soften dictate the need for both parents to work.
    Yes, housing costs are by far a modern family's largest expense. If a man has any overnights at all with his children at his home, he incurs that expense. If you pay for housing, you're basically supporting the household. Is it fair for a man with, say, 30% parenting time to be ordered to support 2 households - his own and the ex's?

    So I expect things will change. But not for you my friend. You already screwed your life up.
    You have no proof of that.

    Comment


    • #62
      Some of you may find this article interesting. However, you have to read the whole article - not just the headlines:

      Women Are Bringing Home More Of The Bacon, Census Data Shows

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Beachnana View Post
        1ati2de: you would have fitted in well In The Victorian era. Workhouses and all that good stuff.

        You are bitter I get it. But really who gets married and has children, makes family orientated decision while still planning on separating and screwing each other over.

        Honestly the system is in place to try and fix the messes that this society has made of the constutue of marriage and family.

        If children were all put into a big " home" until they could work and adults could just propagate and ship the results of to this big home the. Society would be able to cope with high percentages of failed families.

        But this is the society we live in and we need to cope as best we can.

        Rule of law is as a result of decision made in court by our peers.

        Time will change how we view the marriage and family dynamics.

        But you need to get our of the .victorian era. That's scary!
        WOW! It’s clear to see what side of the fence you are on. Sorry I live in the real world and look, listen, experience, and see what is going on. Might be because I actually work but who’s to say. The system is corrupt and needs work to say the least. Personally I have significantly benefited financially along with finding someone since my divorce and was by far the best thing I have done. So enough with the bitter pill as this system is f___ed to say the least and I’m very, very secure now. Too many horror stories I have read, talked about, or heard about and I’ll tell you one fantastic “family Law” case that has happened to a family member.

        Started living together (common-law) at the ages of 28 and 44. Ended 20 years later when the younger partner provided the papers for separation. Huge difference in the yearly income and ended the same way. Obviously the lesser income person benefited tremendously in the relationship.

        Outcome was is now “SHE” is paying him over $3000 a month for many years and has to pay life insurance with him as the beneficiary. Over half the estate was paid to him and this poor retired woman had to change her retirement goals.

        Pretty sure many more cases can be brought into this from both sides of the fence here and the outcome is the same. Family law is a joke no matter how you cut it. So just like the Victorian era society still accepts, and supports slavery today. Moving forward SS needs to be eliminated period!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by CoolGuy41 View Post
          Yes, it's a democracy but I never voted for any of those jag-off lawyers running our country. The end result is those in power imposing their will on some members of the country's society. In that sense the Canadian legal system is similar to a dictatorship.
          Bang on the money!

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
            WOW! It’s clear to see what side of the fence you are on. Sorry I live in the real world and look, listen, experience, and see what is going on. Might be because I actually work but who’s to say. The system is corrupt and needs work to say the least. Personally I have significantly benefited financially along with finding someone since my divorce and was by far the best thing I have done. So enough with the bitter pill as this system is f___ed to say the least and I’m very, very secure now. Too many horror stories I have read, talked about, or heard about and I’ll tell you one fantastic “family Law” case that has happened to a family member.

            Started living together (common-law) at the ages of 28 and 44. Ended 20 years later when the younger partner provided the papers for separation. Huge difference in the yearly income and ended the same way. Obviously the lesser income person benefited tremendously in the relationship.

            Outcome was is now “SHE” is paying him over $3000 a month for many years and has to pay life insurance with him as the beneficiary. Over half the estate was paid to him and this poor retired woman had to change her retirement goals.

            Pretty sure many more cases can be brought into this from both sides of the fence here and the outcome is the same. Family law is a joke no matter how you cut it. So just like the Victorian era society still accepts, and supports slavery today. Moving forward SS needs to be eliminated period!
            So what side does it seem clear Iam on?

            I was pretty sure I was not on any side. Just stating that the law will take a while to adjust to crazy messes of separations that are now the norm not the exception.

            Law cannot be changed on a dime.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Beachnana View Post
              So what side does it seem clear Iam on?

              I was pretty sure I was not on any side. Just stating that the law will take a while to adjust to crazy messes of separations that are now the norm not the exception.

              Law cannot be changed on a dime.
              Fair enough but I still don't understand why SS should be ever looked at with no children that are conceived in the relationship.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
                Fair enough but I still don't understand why SS should be ever looked at with no children that are conceived in the relationship.
                Just because there are no children doesn't mean that one half of the couple didn't make sacrifices or have their earning potential disadvantaged by the career needs of the other half.

                Say one spouse is in the military, and their partner had to quit their own job and find a new one every few years to follow the postings.

                Even if they had no children, there are still long-term traditional marriages where one spouse was the breadwinner and the other one was expected to be the supportive homemaker. The homemaker then has quite the challenge to find work upon the breakdown of the relationship, with a huge gap in the resume.

                SS should be looked at, to make sure situations like that are captured. I don't think it should be so automatic or taken for granted though. There should always be the expectation that the ex works hard to become self-sufficient. If that's too great an expectation because of age, then the division of pension funds should be used instead of SS. And I think it should always be limited to a few years, five at most, say; long enough for the ex to get a degree and find a good job.

                This is the sort of thing that changes very slowly as societal expectations change. Once, you could manage a household on one income. No longer.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                  Just because there are no children doesn't mean that one half of the couple didn't make sacrifices or have their earning potential disadvantaged by the career needs of the other half.

                  Say one spouse is in the military, and their partner had to quit their own job and find a new one every few years to follow the postings.

                  Even if they had no children, there are still long-term traditional marriages where one spouse was the breadwinner and the other one was expected to be the supportive homemaker. The homemaker then has quite the challenge to find work upon the breakdown of the relationship, with a huge gap in the resume.

                  SS should be looked at, to make sure situations like that are captured. I don't think it should be so automatic or taken for granted though. There should always be the expectation that the ex works hard to become self-sufficient. If that's too great an expectation because of age, then the division of pension funds should be used instead of SS. And I think it should always be limited to a few years, five at most, say; long enough for the ex to get a degree and find a good job.

                  This is the sort of thing that changes very slowly as societal expectations change. Once, you could manage a household on one income. No longer.
                  Well in my opinion a homemaker really is another excuse. When no kids are present I’m pretty sure no one can brainwash another person into not making themselves better with courses, to get a degree as we all know more time is available with either man or woman. The time “IN” the marriage should be used for not after the fact, after the fact in the present system is when one lawyer cries to another about it. Even if you are with someone that is holding you back from advancing your carrier… get out quick and run. When society start worrying about catering to their own needs it will be a better place instead of crying to a lawyer.

                  For the one off reason such as military or whatever should still not clutter up family law system, you have a choice and it is your choice, live with it either good or bad. Estate should be 50/50 split for the “duration” of the marriage period as both parties have benefited in the relationship.

                  You are absolutely right change is needed but as you state it’s hard to live on one income, it’s even harder paying someone that does nothing for you.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Simple solution:

                    If people don't want to truly "become one" and share in joint resources/joint risks in marriages/common law then.... stay single.

                    I find it quite interesting that people who bitch about the system are invariably right back into another live-in relationship which often turns out just as bad as the marriages they left.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
                      you have a choice and it is your choice, live with it either good or bad.
                      Your argument works both ways. I don't think it bolsters your position in any meaningful manner. Both sides made a choice. Both sides have to live with the consequences.

                      I think an argument could be made that there should be more informed consent. Perhaps a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement that specifically lays out expectations, followed by mandatory post-nuptial agreements every 5 years that confirm or change expectations. Currently massively impractical, but if enough people do it perhaps it could be standardized in some way.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Janus View Post
                        Your argument works both ways. I don't think it bolsters your position in any meaningful manner. Both sides made a choice. Both sides have to live with the consequences.

                        I think an argument could be made that there should be more informed consent. Perhaps a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement that specifically lays out expectations, followed by mandatory post-nuptial agreements every 5 years that confirm or change expectations. Currently massively impractical, but if enough people do it perhaps it could be standardized in some way.
                        I think this is an excellent idea Janus. If enough people start doing this then things would probably change. Of course a parallel change in legislation would be required.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Janus View Post
                          I think an argument could be made that there should be more informed consent. Perhaps a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement that specifically lays out expectations, followed by mandatory post-nuptial agreements every 5 years that confirm or change expectations. Currently massively impractical, but if enough people do it perhaps it could be standardized in some way.
                          I've made that argument in the past I believe. Wouldn't be too difficult to to implement. Lots of churches require you to do a marriage course, adding that information to their courses would be one way. Another would be that when you obtain the marriage license, the office has to provide you with a marital breakdown info pamphlet. They could even go so far as to having a second page to the license, having people sign that they read and understood the potential consequences.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Soiled View Post
                            Originally posted by Janus View Post
                            I think an argument could be made that there should be more informed consent. Perhaps a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement that specifically lays out expectations, followed by mandatory post-nuptial agreements every 5 years that confirm or change expectations. Currently massively impractical, but if enough people do it perhaps it could be standardized in some way.
                            I've made that argument in the past I believe. Wouldn't be too difficult to to implement. Lots of churches require you to do a marriage course, adding that information to their courses would be one way. Another would be that when you obtain the marriage license, the office has to provide you with a marital breakdown info pamphlet. They could even go so far as to having a second page to the license, having people sign that they read and understood the potential consequences.
                            I'm sure I've agreed with this idea in the past as well. Marriage is the only contract nobody bothers to fully understand before they sign it! Then they get totally blindsided and horrified by how dissolution of the contract works.

                            If it was government-mandated to have a prenup before the issuance of the marriage licence, no partner would have to look like the bad guy for asking for one and it would become a normal and accepted thing. It could reduce divorce battle costs, and transfer lawyer fees to before marriages instead of after their breakups. It could require updating regularly, to capture major relationship changes like having children or job and health changes.

                            It's like wills. People would be shocked to learn how their property is dealt with by the government when they die without one.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Im sure your ex's would have a different story like they stayed at home raising the kids while you worked. Or they stayed in one town because your career was more important. Or that they gave up trying to get more training or advance because they missed out while on mat leave. I have a hard time believing that you were duped by some scheming vindictive woman who sat on her ass while you worked. Ive seen enough stay at home moms or moms who are on mat leave struggle with the full time mom work. Keeping a house and raising children is not for the faint hearted. Added to that, there are plenty of people on here who fought and won ss fairly because it was owed to them. You were equally as able to fight to avoid it.

                              The system does need work but the basic rules are there to protect people. I cant argue against what some of the posters on here got including those who helped their doctor ex's go from 50 grand a year to 400 grand. Or Arabian who built a company with her husband only to have him defraud that company behind her back. Or the women who were raising the kids and keeping the homes while their husbands were out sleeping their way through a list of women. Yes there are some bad cases of unfairness but for the most part ss is legit.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                well stated rockscan

                                I do get tired of reading anti-female posts. When will people grow up and take responsibility for their part in failing relationship? I guess it is much easier to live in a perpetual state of denial. I'd wager a bet that those who blame their ex's now were blamers throughout their marriage.

                                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