Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This system needs work!!

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

  • This system needs work!!

    Iíve been reading lots on this forum and have pretty much come to one conclusion; family law is a complete joke and the government needs to stay out of couples lives. I have now finished my divorce and the only people making money obviously is the lawyers and thatís it. Iím going to go on a bit of a rant as we move forward and like it or not I think itís something that drastically needs change.

    1. Married or common-law should be the same, NO laws should be brought in unless children are involved.

    2. Spousal support should NEVER be awarded to either parties, man or woman. After marriage/common-law, the law states that if one individual makes one hundred thousand a year and the other twenty thousand the total between both parties are roughly split? This is a complete joke because that is what you are worth going into a relationship, and what you are worth coming out, thatís all youíre worth! No matter what circumstance going on in the relationship period that the monies should be split between a couple. You can better yourself with education OR change or carrier even if children are involved, period! Too many people are crying foul and need to pull the head out thinking your spouse owes you! They owe you nothing, you owe yourself as we have ample resources to start or improve yourself weather kids or other circumstances are involved. As a ďcoupleĒ you need to work together to better each other without crying your spouse owes you! If you decide to stay home after marriage and do nothing then thatís what you are worth, nothing! With children or not as this is your decision as unfortunately options are available!

    3. Child support should be fixed at a reasonable rate per child to assist with necessities, NO support shall be paid in 50/50 custody, these are children and we only want whatís best for them. Children should not come with a price tag pending what the parentís income for support. Every child that have a dead beat parent who will not pay, the government needs to step in and pay and have the government use what is required to get the money back from the payer. Child support shall be paid pending on your income to keep consistency when required.

    4. Pension, retirement investment, individual investments stays with the individual, NOT split.

    5. NO joint financial endeavors shall be permitted without mutual documentation (No joint bank accounts either IMO). A house will start at 50/50 and be altered accordingly to oneís income, might be a 60-40 split or what works. If one individual purchases a property to reside then that party owns 100%, no splitting or payments shall be made to the other party. Other arrangements can be made at a later date but needs to be documented and signed.

    6. With the birth of a child BOTH parents split the maternity time 50/50 for a minimum of 2 years. Government should supply daycare for children over the age of 2 to allow both parents to work. Children need equality with both parents regardless!

    Sorry for the rant as society needs to worry about supporting themselves and not looking for handouts. Children need equality also.

  • #2
    What you wrote makes sense and I would support it. Unfortunately Canadian politicians are "working" on other things; e.g., deciding whether marijuana should be fully-legal or continue to be semi-legal, and other left-wing nonsense.

    The courts in Canada consider it a normal thing to sentence one person (typically a man) to work largely for the benefit of another person (typically a woman) for decades. However, this is a non-issue in the recent federal and provincial election platforms that I've had a chance to skim.

    Comment


    • #3
      Given that approximately 41% of marriages end in divorce, the disaster that is known as family law should have a much higher priority in this country. However, trying to reform it would be a hot potato, politically, and I doubt any of our politicians will take this on. Nothing to gain, and plenty to loose.

      If everyone who wanted to get married had to hear what happens in the 41% of marriages that don't work out, you'd have almost no marriages. It's like playing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets in the revolver.

      What scares me are the rules around Common Law marriages. They apply without your knowledge and can have dire consequences.
      Last edited by ifonlyihadknown; 08-23-2017, 11:03 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        While I won't disagree that there's changes that should happen, your points are easily picked apart with a quick glance, and if you were to want to move forward in any sort of way with the hope of making changes, you would need to work on them, a lot.


        Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
        Iíve been reading lots on this forum and have pretty much come to one conclusion; family law is a complete joke and the government needs to stay out of couples lives. I have now finished my divorce and the only people making money obviously is the lawyers and thatís it. Iím going to go on a bit of a rant as we move forward and like it or not I think itís something that drastically needs change.

        1. Married or common-law should be the same, NO laws should be brought in unless children are involved.
        What then determines who gets the house? Joint savings account? The couch a couple split the costs on? The list goes on.

        Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
        2. Spousal support should NEVER be awarded to either parties, man or woman. After marriage/common-law, the law states that if one individual makes one hundred thousand a year and the other twenty thousand the total between both parties are roughly split? This is a complete joke because that is what you are worth going into a relationship, and what you are worth coming out, thatís all youíre worth! No matter what circumstance going on in the relationship period that the monies should be split between a couple. You can better yourself with education OR change or carrier even if children are involved, period! Too many people are crying foul and need to pull the head out thinking your spouse owes you! They owe you nothing, you owe yourself as we have ample resources to start or improve yourself weather kids or other circumstances are involved. As a ďcoupleĒ you need to work together to better each other without crying your spouse owes you! If you decide to stay home after marriage and do nothing then thatís what you are worth, nothing! With children or not as this is your decision as unfortunately options are available!
        I won't even bother, as spousal support is way too complex of an issue, generally with a ton of emotion on both sides of the fight.

        Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
        3. Child support should be fixed at a reasonable rate per child to assist with necessities, NO support shall be paid in 50/50 custody, these are children and we only want whatís best for them. Children should not come with a price tag pending what the parentís income for support. Every child that have a dead beat parent who will not pay, the government needs to step in and pay and have the government use what is required to get the money back from the payer. Child support shall be paid pending on your income to keep consistency when required.
        What defines a reasonable rate? What's reasonable for a person on social assistance is different from that of a person making minimum wage, which is in turn different from a person on Salary making $50k/yr, or $100k/yr, and so on.

        Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
        4. Pension, retirement investment, individual investments stays with the individual, NOT split.
        From a selfish standpoint, I'm inclined to agree. However for an example of why this isn't cut and dry either, I'm military, we get a lovely defined benefits pension from the federal government if we put enough time in. If I have a civilian wife who chooses to marry me, she's going in with the understanding that she's moving across the country every 3-5 years, and will not be able to establish herself well in a career. If we split later on, would she not have sacrificed and enabled me to get that pension? Why wouldn't she?

        Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
        5. NO joint financial endeavors shall be permitted without mutual documentation (No joint bank accounts either IMO). A house will start at 50/50 and be altered accordingly to oneís income, might be a 60-40 split or what works. If one individual purchases a property to reside then that party owns 100%, no splitting or payments shall be made to the other party. Other arrangements can be made at a later date but needs to be documented and signed.
        Seems fairly reasonable and nothing comes to mind immediately.


        Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post

        6. With the birth of a child BOTH parents split the maternity time 50/50 for a minimum of 2 years. Government should supply daycare for children over the age of 2 to allow both parents to work. Children need equality with both parents regardless!
        Sounds like a well intentioned plan, but incredibly expensive from the taxpayer point of view. Statscan shows 5.8million kids in Canada 14 and under. Some of that is over daycare age, so very unscientifically we will reduce that to 4million. I've never seen a daycare that charges less than $30 a day. I would roughly guess your plan would cost in excess of $31 billion per year (4mill kids x $30 x 52weeks x 5 days per week) And that's assuming the government could run daycare as efficiently and as well as the private sector..

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Soiled View Post
          While I won't disagree that there's changes that should happen, your points are easily picked apart with a quick glance, and if you were to want to move forward in any sort of way with the hope of making changes, you would need to work on them, a lot.


          What then determines who gets the house? Joint savings account? The couch a couple split the costs on? The list goes on.
          5. NO joint financial endeavours shall be permitted without mutual documentation (No joint bank accounts either IMO). A house will start at 50/50 and be altered accordingly to oneís income, might be a 60-40 split or what works. If one individual purchases a property to reside then that party owns 100%, no splitting or payments shall be made to the other party. Other arrangements can be made at a later date but needs to be documented and signed.



          What defines a reasonable rate? What's reasonable for a person on social assistance is different from that of a person making minimum wage, which is in turn different from a person on Salary making $50k/yr, or $100k/yr, and so on.
          Exactly, it would have to be evaluated on what a child needs to survive and live a comfortable life. A salary at 30k/y might be $300/M and $150/y might be $1500/M and all children would receive an equal amount. This is if 50/50 custody is unrealistic.


          From a selfish standpoint, I'm inclined to agree. However for an example of why this isn't cut and dry either, I'm military, we get a lovely defined benefits pension from the federal government if we put enough time in. If I have a civilian wife who chooses to marry me, she's going in with the understanding that she's moving across the country every 3-5 years, and will not be able to establish herself well in a career. If we split later on, would she not have sacrificed and enabled me to get that pension? Why wouldn't she?
          I understand this point however the system almost makes it out to be that the breadwinner is at a disadvantage period. If she makes a sacrifice and she decides to be with you and it don't work out why do you need to pay anything? This is a choice people make and that's it. Same idea if two people are late going to an event and the driver gets stopped for speeding, is the passenger going to pay half the ticket and the difference in insurance costs till its over?



          Sounds like a well intentioned plan, but incredibly expensive from the taxpayer point of view. Statscan shows 5.8million kids in Canada 14 and under. Some of that is over daycare age, so very unscientifically we will reduce that to 4million. I've never seen a daycare that charges less than $30 a day. I would roughly guess your plan would cost in excess of $31 billion per year (4mill kids x $30 x 52weeks x 5 days per week) And that's assuming the government could run daycare as efficiently and as well as the private sector..
          True but this would help in equality in a relationship and the billions wasted in family court systems across the country would be brought to a minimum if government stayed out of peoples personal lives. Pretty much everything we do is at our discretion, choices, freedom of speech, day to day interaction. Laws govern us to set standards yet they make people pay for other people to live their lives after marriage???

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
            Given that approximately 41% of marriages end in divorce, the disaster that is known as family law should have a much higher priority in this country. However, trying to reform it would be a hot potato, politically, and I doubt any of our politicians will take this on. Nothing to gain, and plenty to loose.

            If everyone who wanted to get married had to hear what happens in the 41% of marriages that don't work out, you'd have almost no marriages. It's like playing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets in the revolver.

            What scares me are the rules around Common Law marriages. They apply without your knowledge and can have dire consequences.
            I agree with you, ifonlyihadknown. But I think it's weird that I cannot even find a fringe party (one with less to lose) that would take a stab at reforming family law. There is no debate PERIOD.

            Maybe it's because the group discriminated against is more of a minority than we think. Yes, about 41% of marriages end in divorce, but almost only the men get screwed so half the population is cool with it, some men don't get married, reduces the percentage of people affected further, some women do not exploit their exes to the max extent of the law, some men are bums with no money to take. The discriminated minority is (1) men, (2) with money, (3) divorcing, whose exes are (5) greedy, and (6) have the money/means to take them to court.

            I think there's a lack of awareness around these issues. People do not know that after a certain income level, child support basically becomes spousal support by another, intentionally-deceptive name.

            I remember a long time ago in grade 8 a guy in a wheelchair came in to my guidance class and talked about how he got drunk and explored a construction site, then he wound up in a wheelchair. It's almost as if today's guidance class should have a separate session for boys where a divorced guy comes in and talks about how badly he got screwed by the courts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Totally naive, in particular regarding Spousal Support:

              I financed my ex/our business for many years... decades. (A full partnership in an incorporated business). Upon separation he took off with all the money and left me holding the bag for corporate debt. You had better believe he pays me SS - indefinitely.

              The only "improvement" required is in my ex's department. I'm self-sufficient (always have been). SS is the only way I can recoup a small percentage of my losses.

              -------

              easy answer - don't get married... don't procreate...

              be sure to be prepared to look after yourself when you are a old man, all alone, surrounded by your "wealth"

              Sheesh

              Comment


              • #8
                I always laugh at the arguments for ss. Its not a given like cs is. In many cases people have to fight for it. If your ex has been awarded ss (or you have been awarded it) there could be a very good reason. In some cases the ss ex did sit on their ass and do nothing. However there are many spouses who allowed that to happen. Marriage is never equal for everyone and its not always the system that is broken.

                Now if you want to talk about the court process and how long it takes and how unreasonable people reap the benefits...theres an argument I can get behind.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                  However there are many spouses who allowed that to happen. Marriage is never equal for everyone and its not always the system that is broken.
                  ....many spouses allowed that to happen.... excuse me? really?

                  What are you exactly saying? That one spouse should threaten the other into working? Lock them in the basement? strap them with a wip until they agree to work? What are you saying is the option? Violence?

                  There are no options. Once you're married....the contract says your DONE!!!!. Leave them because they won't work? Well that will just lead to SS anyway.

                  There is only one way to avoid the threat of SS....never marry while at the same time maintaining a relationship with a person who makes more than you. Stay as far away from Canadian Family Law as possible!! There is zero reason for anyone to marry in this hostile environment.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by arabian View Post
                    Totally naive, in particular regarding Spousal Support:

                    I financed my ex/our business for many years... decades. (A full partnership in an incorporated business). Upon separation he took off with all the money and left me holding the bag for corporate debt. You had better believe he pays me SS - indefinitely.
                    Only two reasons you got SS in this case: 1) your a women 2) Your judge is corrupt and requires a good one.

                    You and your ex were married. The income you both earned was shared within your relationship. period. One partner can burn the entire bank account, if both spouses have access, and both are on the hook for it. SS is not designed as a means to repay funds. If so, its possible for one spouse to then tell the other to empty the account and later say they knew nothing of it during divorce. Great way to set yourself up for life.

                    You and your ex were business partners. And as business partners were required to have agreements in place on the management of you company's finances and day to day activities. More important your individual roles. And as with any business where one partner steals from the company....there is a procedure to handle such activity....Criminal Law. Not family law.

                    Shameful to force a man into slavery, without a trial reviewing the crimes. Typical of a judge thinking they know all. Family court is no place for criminal justice. If your ex was truly at fault and skimmed all your money from the company....he should be doing time. Not working as a slave for you.

                    Ethically...what you're doing is a crime. You may tell yourself your getting repaid...but the judge must likely just said, " man must pay woman...period".

                    There is NO reason for the existence of SS.

                    Your case should have gone to another court. Did your judge happen to go to Harvard?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I entered into marriage as an equal to my husband, same qualifications and same earning potential. We both work full time. A few years after a couple of kids are born we mutually decided I would mostly stay at home to talk care of children, household, and organize our lives and work very little at part time work while he was the main income earner. We both contributed to the family, he in paid labour and I in unpaid labor. He increased his earning potential and added qualifications enabling him to increase financial earnings. I did not. We were supposed to share the fruits of both of our labours until death. Then the end of the marriage. I fully expect we should leave as equals financially, just as we did entering marriage. SS makes that happen. Just because one person is not earning money due to social constructs which devalue child raising does not mean they did not contribute labour to the family unit. That is why SS exists.

                      Unfortunatly my husband has the same views as posters above, believes my contribution to family labour is valueless, and also thought this during our marriage, cutting me out of all large financial decisions.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by denbigh View Post
                        A few years after a couple of kids are born we mutually decided I would mostly stay at home to talk care of children, household, and organize our lives and work very little at part time work while he was the main income earner.
                        "We mutually decided". However, you were 50% of that decision to hold your career. And keep in mind, your ex can NEVER force you to work. He can never make you work and use daycare to handle the kids while you worked. So, really was it a mutual agreement? What could your ex do to make you work if he wanted to. Most men just go with it....because we don't have a choice. "Happy wife Happy Life". ONLY way that it was mutual is if you had a contract going into the marriage and a amendment at the point of your "mutual agreement". Within that amendment it is decided what happens during divorce in respect to SS. There is no way your ex was thinking SS either at the time of your decision. Which would not hold up in any other court other than family court.

                        YOU made the decision to not work. NOT your husband. Not your husband because he has no authority over what YOU do. Your an independent woman before the marriage in charge of your decisions and your an independent woman within a marriage in charge of your decisions. No one controls what you do. Your husband can not make you work, nor not work. It is always the woman's decision to work or not. Because your independent.

                        Originally posted by denbigh View Post
                        We were supposed to share the fruits of both of our labours until death. Then the end of the marriage.
                        One of you canceled the marriage contract. You say it yourself, "Then the end of the marriage". End of contract, no more sharing the fruits. You're both independent people. Just because YOU made a bad financial decision during the marriage, your ex must now be a slave to you for life? How is that fair? Its down right unethical!!!

                        Originally posted by denbigh View Post
                        Just because one person is not earning money due to social constructs which devalue child raising does not mean they did not contribute labour to the family unit. That is why SS exists.
                        Correct. You provided labour raising children, as did your husband earning the money for the household. For the "household". Everything you needed your husband provided. Shelter, Food, Clothing, Car, makeup, etc... Some of this he probably covered/managed while he gave you money to by the rest. You had a joint credit card? You had a credit card? Who paid it? From who's money? Long story short...I am sure you shared the fruits of his labour. The time during the marriage, what was his is yours and yours his, including his salary.

                        But the marriage contract ended. As a independent woman why should you get SS? Why should you have a slave? George Washington had a slave....helped him make money. Your ex makes you money. For that he now has less than he had in the marriage. And just like a slave he has less incentive to work. So even though YOU decided to quit work in your marriage, you shared the income of your husband. Thus you were COMPENSATED. YOU knew what you would have as compensation when you decided not to work. So now that your on your own....WHY do you think your still entitled to that compensation, when your contract has ended?

                        Originally posted by denbigh View Post
                        I fully expect we should leave as equals financially, just as we did entering marriage
                        Easy...you decided not to work. And you were compensated during your marriage.


                        I work. I provide labour. I have a contract with my employer. I think and know I should be getting more pay and strongly believe my direct supervisor is holding me back. Not even my decision to stay back. I'm being forced to stay back. I could earn so much more. Due to a disagreement between I and my employer unrelated; my contract is canceled. Shouldn't I get some sort of support? I gave my employer some of the best years of my life...and now I have no income and must fend for myself. I don't know why I am not entitled to the same support passed out by judges freely in family court. Why is privatized welfare only applied within family court? hmmmm?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Newfie76 View Post
                          Only two reasons you got SS in this case: 1) your a women 2) Your judge is corrupt and requires a good one.

                          You and your ex were married. The income you both earned was shared within your relationship. period. One partner can burn the entire bank account, if both spouses have access, and both are on the hook for it. SS is not designed as a means to repay funds. If so, its possible for one spouse to then tell the other to empty the account and later say they knew nothing of it during divorce. Great way to set yourself up for life.

                          You and your ex were business partners. And as business partners were required to have agreements in place on the management of you company's finances and day to day activities. More important your individual roles. And as with any business where one partner steals from the company....there is a procedure to handle such activity....Criminal Law. Not family law.

                          Shameful to force a man into slavery, without a trial reviewing the crimes. Typical of a judge thinking they know all. Family court is no place for criminal justice. If your ex was truly at fault and skimmed all your money from the company....he should be doing time. Not working as a slave for you.

                          Ethically...what you're doing is a crime. You may tell yourself your getting repaid...but the judge must likely just said, " man must pay woman...period".

                          There is NO reason for the existence of SS.

                          Your case should have gone to another court. Did your judge happen to go to Harvard?

                          My ex was charged with fraud over 5000 but when it went to court the prosecutor dropped it. I was flabbergasted! I was told: "This is clearly a matter for family court - take this up with your divorce lawyer." Needless to say, after an intense 6-month investigation the police were not impressed with this outcome. Had I not been married to my partner the fraud charge would have proceeded and I would have been able to proceed to recoup my losses (from people he was hiding assets) through that process.

                          My expensive lesson: Never go into business with your spouse.

                          Through the years of our marriage (30 years) I had benefit of competent legal advice (corporate). No one saw this one coming.... No one.

                          My ex has challenged the SS 8 times (I am expected to be served with papers soon - annual thing with my ex). Each and every judge who has heard the details of the case has dismissed my ex's claim. There is nothing fraudulent about my situation - my marriage is categorized as long-term traditional marriage. I am entitled to indefinite SS. Whether I see SS indefinitely is another matter entirely.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by arabian View Post
                            My ex was charged with fraud over 5000 but when it went to court the prosecutor dropped it. I was flabbergasted! I was told: "This is clearly a matter for family court - take this up with your divorce lawyer." Needless to say, after an intense 6-month investigation the police were not impressed with this outcome. Had I not been married to my partner the fraud charge would have proceeded and I would have been able to proceed to recoup my losses (from people he was hiding assets) through that process.

                            I disagree....if there was evidence of fraud....your ex would have been prosecuted. Not saying he did not fraud you...I am only saying there must have been no evidence. Prosecution will look at the entire case and decide on moving forward based on evidence, time in court (weeks/months/years), and chances of winning. Of course evidence would almost eliminate the other two.

                            Family court is not to decide if a spouse is awarded SS based on fraud or not. That's ridiculous. You were provided SS based on a 30 year marriage, your a woman, of which you most likely claimed that you took care of the household while your ex did not. Adding into the fact you were disadvantaged due to the relationship you had within the business. Even better if you claim your disabled and limited in your ability to do some things. cha ching... SS for you my dear. Cash for Life!! The big easy!!

                            Don't worry too much your indefinite ruling will hold. "until death due us part..." is the only thing the court refuses to remove from a canceled marriage contract.

                            Its surprising how this country, with its "great" Charter of Rights, thinks its ethical to in-debt a individual to a life time of slavery. And on top of that think its in the best interest of the children....disgusting.

                            Sorry Arabian.....you may think that your ss is payback....but its not. You got what every other woman got in your shoes. A lottery win.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Comparing SS and marriage to an employee/employer relationship is simplistic at best. Heck, I think I made a similar argument here in the past, and got schooled... But does anyone look at their employer/employee and state 'till death do us part'?

                              I don't like SS much myself, and consider myself to be lucky enough to have made some good choices during my marriage that enabled me to avoid it.

                              Railing against it here and insulting those who are recipients of it, won't accomplish anything however. If you're actually serious about doing something about it, organize a real petition (not that online garbage) or get in contact with politicians and see what you can do, or join a political party and work on making changes yourself.

                              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