Tweet
I am new here. I came here to find information and to see if what I witnessed over the years is normal part of divorce and child support. I have never gone through a divorce, but the woman I love who I call my significant other is going through hell with her ex-husband over custody and child support. How could someone, so honest and ethical, be treated so badly by her own children and family law. The problem is the pain and despair that my significant other has endured over the years at the hands of her ex-husband and to a certain extent these days his lawyer. They were divorced 10 years ago and shared custody of children. It was in the court order. She fell sick to the turmoil and stress a few years ago, and the ex-husband unilaterally took the children and never allowed them back saying they are old enough to decide they dont want to be part of her life. Telephone conversations and visits were not allowed. He made sure the children would not visit and made every attempt to short change any visit with excuses. He bullied children to not give out their cell phone numbers, and once the daughter did and was punished. They are now 18 and 16. She feels she has lost the children and she has. They were her life.
He then decided to come after her saying he is owed child support according to the table. She has paid out of love of her children. However, there are so many lies told by the ex and his lawyer, it is beyond my belief what I see. All these letters I have seen are so full of lies, and I discussed with her lawyer and he says it is without prejudice. This is a mockery of the legal system to outright lie and bully someone who is honest and does not want confrontation. How can such things take place in a legal letter written by a lawyer?! There is no court order for child support but she pays. He has broken many of the items in the original court order.
Through the 10 years I have seen the situation, I witnessed the ex-husband make life hard for her at every turn. All the little things like calling and blaming her for things when he himself has done worse for mistakes adds up. To make her look bad in the eyes of children is one thing, but to prevent contact so no emotional bonding can take place is in my book child abuse. He knows the kind of heart she has and constantly uses bullying tactics. He despised having to share custody. It did not seem like it was for the love or good of the children, but for revenge for the mistake they made in getting married. He knows the children were her world, and started the parental alienation. He never followed the court order that each have parenting rights. He always willed his desires. When he got the chance for the big move he did, taking advantage of her when she was in a vulnerable situation. He knew she was vulnerable and increased the harassment to the point she fell ill to mental illness. He told me many times on the phone that he did not ever want the kids in our house again. He also called one day and said today the kids did not want to hear her name anymore and was happy. He was calling to peep on whether she was recovering so he could plan the next tactic. The call was to find out how to keep the children away for more time and to tell me not to contact the children to tell them she is getting better. Information had to go through him and he would tell them. It was our mistake not to challenge his unilateral decision to keep kids with him with no contact. However, she felt some shame in the breakdown, and she wanted to recover fully. That was a mistake that we must live with now, as during that time the alienation process was in full steam, and we cant undo the harm
Well after the many years of parental alienation, the children do not visit their mother anymore, maybe once every couple months if that, to collect gifts on their birthdays and ask for shopping trips. She pays child support but the children do not appear to be getting clothing etc. However, his house has seen many renovations, driveway redone, remarried and supports his new wifes child, puts up a big wedding ring etc. He will not pay for hockey that his son wants to play though, so the mother paid but wont get any reimbursement. He says it is not a justified extra activity and it was only done to buy her child back.
We can live with some of this, but the thing that burns me up is using parental alienation as a means of getting child support and revenge. The law says if the children reside with the dad, the mom must pay the table amount. However, the law should reinforce that having a mother and father is important as well. There does not appear to be any discussion on the ruthless tactic. No evidence to support the childrens claims has been in lawyers letter. The children appear to be afraid to contradict their dad. The son will be 19 and really makes no attempts to be a son to his mom. She has gone through surgeries, birthdays, and special days with no visits or sympathy. The son, sensing he would not be able to play hockey because his dad wont pay, then started coming around more to bribe her mom into registering him and buying all new hockey equipment. After this, he did not visit for 3 months and had the gall to still support his dad when the mom tried asking for reimbursement for half the cost. This is not right to teach your children to look down on a parent and take advantage of them. They had the gall to say in a letter that the dad had bought all previous equipment. Ahem .I know it is a lie, because I had bought 90% of all the equipment that he has used since he was 9 years old!! How can someone lie like that!
A 19 year old who says he does not want to support her and in essence does not want to be child of the mom, still gets all the advantages of his mom loving him. She has to pay 50% of education costs. She has paid for his hockey. She still buys him clothes and shoes that the father has not bought even with the more than $1200 each month he receives in child support. All other extra costs are added in addition to the $1200. His salary is better than the average Canadian. This child support table etc. is not consistent with the average person and family. If they were still married, the ex would have been strong willed and penny pinched and the child would not have what he has. It is because he is child of divorce that he can be lazy and not seek student loans and work harder in school. He is only in school, accepted at the last minute, because he has no idea of what he wants to really do. Of course his father wants him there, because he gets money to help pay his mortgage etc., and does not have to account for how the money is spent (not on child). A child of an intact family may not even have the opportunity to go to post-secondary education even though they could much more skilled, have more desire to succeed in a career, and have more intellect. Such a child would have to work hard to get bursaries or student loans. Why are the laws providing more support for children of divorce?
Sorry if this is so long. If I actually wrote all that I have seen, it would be a book. I am not an adversarial type of person, but seeing the things that have gone on, it would be best to learn to be more I think. In a way, I was also a victim of the parental alienation and I was a target as well by being associated to my significant other. Bottom line is I am here to understand and gain more knowledge into what appears to be a nasty area known as family law. It just seems so unethical the way lawyers scribble out letters and protects the client through lies. The lawyer representing the ex-husband in question is a lawyer who sought public office many times. Now that is scary. To elect someone who bullies, threatens, and lies from one threatening letter to another, with no reasonable logic from each letter would be a big mistake. If he would be elected and takes office in a public position what kind of back room games would be played with public funds and decisions!
Thanks for your time! It helps to tell my side of the story. It may mirror someone elses. It is depressing to see what people go through, especially when children are involved. The child loses a role model in some cases, and the mother or father loses all the good and love they provided for so many years. When someone is out to get the other through revenge and satisfaction, everything becomes unfair.
He then decided to come after her saying he is owed child support according to the table. She has paid out of love of her children. However, there are so many lies told by the ex and his lawyer, it is beyond my belief what I see. All these letters I have seen are so full of lies, and I discussed with her lawyer and he says it is without prejudice. This is a mockery of the legal system to outright lie and bully someone who is honest and does not want confrontation. How can such things take place in a legal letter written by a lawyer?! There is no court order for child support but she pays. He has broken many of the items in the original court order.
Through the 10 years I have seen the situation, I witnessed the ex-husband make life hard for her at every turn. All the little things like calling and blaming her for things when he himself has done worse for mistakes adds up. To make her look bad in the eyes of children is one thing, but to prevent contact so no emotional bonding can take place is in my book child abuse. He knows the kind of heart she has and constantly uses bullying tactics. He despised having to share custody. It did not seem like it was for the love or good of the children, but for revenge for the mistake they made in getting married. He knows the children were her world, and started the parental alienation. He never followed the court order that each have parenting rights. He always willed his desires. When he got the chance for the big move he did, taking advantage of her when she was in a vulnerable situation. He knew she was vulnerable and increased the harassment to the point she fell ill to mental illness. He told me many times on the phone that he did not ever want the kids in our house again. He also called one day and said today the kids did not want to hear her name anymore and was happy. He was calling to peep on whether she was recovering so he could plan the next tactic. The call was to find out how to keep the children away for more time and to tell me not to contact the children to tell them she is getting better. Information had to go through him and he would tell them. It was our mistake not to challenge his unilateral decision to keep kids with him with no contact. However, she felt some shame in the breakdown, and she wanted to recover fully. That was a mistake that we must live with now, as during that time the alienation process was in full steam, and we cant undo the harm
Well after the many years of parental alienation, the children do not visit their mother anymore, maybe once every couple months if that, to collect gifts on their birthdays and ask for shopping trips. She pays child support but the children do not appear to be getting clothing etc. However, his house has seen many renovations, driveway redone, remarried and supports his new wifes child, puts up a big wedding ring etc. He will not pay for hockey that his son wants to play though, so the mother paid but wont get any reimbursement. He says it is not a justified extra activity and it was only done to buy her child back.
We can live with some of this, but the thing that burns me up is using parental alienation as a means of getting child support and revenge. The law says if the children reside with the dad, the mom must pay the table amount. However, the law should reinforce that having a mother and father is important as well. There does not appear to be any discussion on the ruthless tactic. No evidence to support the childrens claims has been in lawyers letter. The children appear to be afraid to contradict their dad. The son will be 19 and really makes no attempts to be a son to his mom. She has gone through surgeries, birthdays, and special days with no visits or sympathy. The son, sensing he would not be able to play hockey because his dad wont pay, then started coming around more to bribe her mom into registering him and buying all new hockey equipment. After this, he did not visit for 3 months and had the gall to still support his dad when the mom tried asking for reimbursement for half the cost. This is not right to teach your children to look down on a parent and take advantage of them. They had the gall to say in a letter that the dad had bought all previous equipment. Ahem .I know it is a lie, because I had bought 90% of all the equipment that he has used since he was 9 years old!! How can someone lie like that!
A 19 year old who says he does not want to support her and in essence does not want to be child of the mom, still gets all the advantages of his mom loving him. She has to pay 50% of education costs. She has paid for his hockey. She still buys him clothes and shoes that the father has not bought even with the more than $1200 each month he receives in child support. All other extra costs are added in addition to the $1200. His salary is better than the average Canadian. This child support table etc. is not consistent with the average person and family. If they were still married, the ex would have been strong willed and penny pinched and the child would not have what he has. It is because he is child of divorce that he can be lazy and not seek student loans and work harder in school. He is only in school, accepted at the last minute, because he has no idea of what he wants to really do. Of course his father wants him there, because he gets money to help pay his mortgage etc., and does not have to account for how the money is spent (not on child). A child of an intact family may not even have the opportunity to go to post-secondary education even though they could much more skilled, have more desire to succeed in a career, and have more intellect. Such a child would have to work hard to get bursaries or student loans. Why are the laws providing more support for children of divorce?
Sorry if this is so long. If I actually wrote all that I have seen, it would be a book. I am not an adversarial type of person, but seeing the things that have gone on, it would be best to learn to be more I think. In a way, I was also a victim of the parental alienation and I was a target as well by being associated to my significant other. Bottom line is I am here to understand and gain more knowledge into what appears to be a nasty area known as family law. It just seems so unethical the way lawyers scribble out letters and protects the client through lies. The lawyer representing the ex-husband in question is a lawyer who sought public office many times. Now that is scary. To elect someone who bullies, threatens, and lies from one threatening letter to another, with no reasonable logic from each letter would be a big mistake. If he would be elected and takes office in a public position what kind of back room games would be played with public funds and decisions!
Thanks for your time! It helps to tell my side of the story. It may mirror someone elses. It is depressing to see what people go through, especially when children are involved. The child loses a role model in some cases, and the mother or father loses all the good and love they provided for so many years. When someone is out to get the other through revenge and satisfaction, everything becomes unfair.
Comment