Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Publicly shaming Fathers

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

  • respondent
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    Then deal with it in court and stop painting all women with the same brush. Just because you are dealing with a difficult person doesn�t mean all women are the same.
    I never sad all women the same. I mentioned that saying only men are bad and non payor is wrong, as women could be skipping CS same but different way as men. It is you who suggesting shaming "fathers" by posting their pictures, rather than dealing with non payors in court.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by respondent View Post
    I have agreed on SS because she lied in affidavit she lost her job and unable to find one. If she didn't, she would never get it.

    Then deal with it in court and stop painting all women with the same brush. Just because you are dealing with a difficult person doesn’t mean all women are the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • respondent
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    You keep making confusing statements. Your ex wanted to go back to work but then she was lazy and stayed home. You paid ss voluntarily. You worked from home as she wanted to get back to work. None of this makes sense. If you agreed to ss then that�s on you. If she successfully argued for entitlement then that�s not the courts fault. Either you need to deal with the courts or you need to shut up but none of what you are saying makes you treated unfairly. You earn a high income. You owe based on that income. What you owe and how it is paid is based on the argument before the court. Instead of bitching here and making ridiculous arguments on something not at all on topic, maybe you should focus on understanding the law, getting your lawyer to do their job or seeing a therapist to deal with your issues with being treated �unfairly�.

    Working from home does not mean giving up your career for your spouse. You were at home working. And if you paid ss without knowing her entitlement then shame on you for falling for it.
    I have agreed on SS because she lied in affidavit she lost her job and unable to find one. If she didn't, she would never get it.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Publicly shaming Fathers

    Originally posted by respondent View Post
    Actually in our case I stayed home (WFH) with kids. It wouldn't be everyone's case, but I was at some point even working with a 3 months old (not just staying home, but working), as my ex wanted to get back to work, and we didn't want sending kid at this age to a daycare.

    You keep making confusing statements. Your ex wanted to go back to work but then she was lazy and stayed home. You paid ss voluntarily. You worked from home as she wanted to get back to work. None of this makes sense. If you agreed to ss then that’s on you. If she successfully argued for entitlement then that’s not the courts fault. Either you need to deal with the courts or you need to shut up but none of what you are saying makes you treated unfairly. You earn a high income. You owe based on that income. What you owe and how it is paid is based on the argument before the court. Instead of bitching here and making ridiculous arguments on something not at all on topic, maybe you should focus on understanding the law, getting your lawyer to do their job or seeing a therapist to deal with your issues with being treated “unfairly”.

    Working from home does not mean giving up your career for your spouse. You were at home working. And if you paid ss without knowing her entitlement then shame on you for falling for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • respondent
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post

    I have a feeling your case is going the way it should be but you are just bitter about having to pay your ex because she stayed at home and you earn a lot of money. That isn�t your ex�s fault or the court and you really need to let it go.
    Actually in our case I stayed home (WFH) with kids. It wouldn't be everyone's case, but I was at some point even working with a 3 months old (not just staying home, but working), as my ex wanted to get back to work, and we didn't want sending kid at this age to a daycare.

    Leave a comment:


  • respondent
    replied
    Originally posted by StillPaying View Post
    I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing, not knowing what you're saying.

    If you're paying spousal support, then it really doesn't matter if it's 50/50 or kids are 100% with ex. You'll pay the same whether offset or not. On to the next issue...
    I would disagree with this statement as well - open the DivorceMate or their free online MSC and and play few scenarios. For high earners the tax component is a huge difference how the support is paid.
    And actually in my case I wouldn't pay SS - I only did it because my ex lied that she is unemployed, but as it appeared later she is in 6 digits and Divorce Mate shows 0 SS when shared custody.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Publicly shaming Fathers

    Originally posted by respondent View Post
    right, and you advised it will be very expensive process making it not worth it.

    You seem to constantly miss important factor - mothers do avoid paying support for their kids too, just they do it differently.

    No I said the process to have her charged with contempt or to take it to trial to show perjury was expensive.

    Your case appears more complicated or it is simple and you want to get your ex. If you have proof she is working for cash or is able to work then you need to move to have income imputed to her. Your lawyer should be helping you do this. Do a search on this forum on imputing income to learn how other did it. You would probably have to go to trial which is expensive (most family law trials start at 80 grand) and not necessarily worth it.

    If you are simply angry with your ex and upset you have to pay support to her, that’s a different story. It is how it works out for some couples. You could fight to have spousal for a set period of time and then go up to a specific off set amount. The system is much better than it was years ago and your lawyer should be helping with this stuff.

    I have a feeling your case is going the way it should be but you are just bitter about having to pay your ex because she stayed at home and you earn a lot of money. That isn’t your ex’s fault or the court and you really need to let it go.

    Leave a comment:


  • StillPaying
    replied
    In my books when ex hides the income and doesn't pay support (offset) to avoid or mislead court order on support, that is as bad if not worse than not paying court ordered support, as in addition to not supporting child you are doing perjury.
    I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing, not knowing what you're saying.

    If you're paying spousal support, then it really doesn't matter if it's 50/50 or kids are 100% with ex. You'll pay the same whether offset or not. On to the next issue...

    Leave a comment:


  • respondent
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    And you were told what to do by stillpaying. You want the courts to do something they are incapable of doing because you don�t like the current outcome. You also have a lawyer. If the lawyer hasn�t told you how to deal with it then they are either a bad lawyer or nothing can be done.
    right, and you advised it will be very expensive process making it not worth it.

    You seem to constantly miss important factor - mothers do avoid paying support for their kids too, just they do it differently.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by respondent View Post
    Thank you for the speculations, but when I asked exactly what to do when you finally got a proof that ex lied about her income you were among first who said it would be long and expensive battle. If you got different knowledge since on how to make someone liable for perjury on income, please advise.

    https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/...ad.php?t=24045

    In my books when ex hides the income and doesn't pay support (offset) to avoid or mislead court order on support, that is as bad if not worse than not paying court ordered support, as in addition to not supporting child you are doing perjury.

    And you were told what to do by stillpaying. You want the courts to do something they are incapable of doing because you don’t like the current outcome. You also have a lawyer. If the lawyer hasn’t told you how to deal with it then they are either a bad lawyer or nothing can be done.

    Leave a comment:


  • respondent
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    You had previously commented that women manipulate men and stay home and get cs and ss unfairly. Not to mention that your scenario above rarely happens.

    Seriously dude, take a breath. Stop delving into strange conspiracy ideas and get over this idea that you are a victim of an unfair system. If you aren�t getting anywhere it�s because you have a bad lawyer or your ex is right.
    Thank you for the speculations, but when I asked exactly what to do when you finally got a proof that ex lied about her income you were among first who said it would be long and expensive battle. If you got different knowledge since on how to make someone liable for perjury on income, please advise.

    https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/...ad.php?t=24045

    In my books when ex hides the income and doesn't pay support (offset) to avoid or mislead court order on support, that is as bad if not worse than not paying court ordered support, as in addition to not supporting child you are doing perjury.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by respondent View Post
    if your ex took off with kids, the fact you earn more or less than her is irrelevant - there won't be offset table amount, and you paying her same she has 0 income or 1,000,000.
    More intriguing scenario is you both earn more or less the same, but you are on T4, and she has her own business. She comes to case conference and tells that "kids are my only priority after I ran away from that monster". Judge will mumble something unreasonable and will assign temporary child and spousal support to this heroic mother who sacrificed her career for the sake of kids. He won't make any decisions on kids residency before the OCL, and I can tell you it will take time, during which you will be paying your ex and a lot.

    It may seem that she deserves the support, but on my books it is actually she who isn't supporting her kid financially.

    You had previously commented that women manipulate men and stay home and get cs and ss unfairly. Not to mention that your scenario above rarely happens.

    Seriously dude, take a breath. Stop delving into strange conspiracy ideas and get over this idea that you are a victim of an unfair system. If you aren’t getting anywhere it’s because you have a bad lawyer or your ex is right.

    Leave a comment:


  • respondent
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    Unfortunately (for men) in many relationships one person earns more than the other. Women though are the ones who have the babies and must take time off greatly impacting their career.
    if your ex took off with kids, the fact you earn more or less than her is irrelevant - there won't be offset table amount, and you paying her same she has 0 income or 1,000,000.
    More intriguing scenario is you both earn more or less the same, but you are on T4, and she has her own business. She comes to case conference and tells that "kids are my only priority after I ran away from that monster". Judge will mumble something unreasonable and will assign temporary child and spousal support to this heroic mother who sacrificed her career for the sake of kids. He won't make any decisions on kids residency before the OCL, and I can tell you it will take time, during which you will be paying your ex and a lot.

    It may seem that she deserves the support, but on my books it is actually she who isn't supporting her kid financially.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by respondent View Post
    If you are high earner then yes, then yes - you are that fairy legal godmother. And here is most beautiful part. The CS doesn't affect your line 150 i.e. you still eligible for legal aid on top of that.

    I want to note that my husband’s ex earned more money and played that card—poor me I make too much money—when in reality her case was seriously flawed and against the rules.

    Unfortunately (for men) in many relationships one person earns more than the other. Women though are the ones who have the babies and must take time off greatly impacting their career. Studies have been done to show that women bear a greater burden when it comes to workforce success due to the child bearing and caregiving status. Maybe you should have given up your career and stayed home with the kids!! Not that it makes a difference. My husband stayed home with the kids to support his ex’s career. When they split she bitched about how he was always unemployed and claimed he stole her money she earned through equalization. She failed to realize he was unemployed because one of them had to be able to get the kids from school, stay home when they were sick and support the home life while she went out and earned the big bucks. He wasn’t eligible for spousal as he was capable of earning money and had a penis. And his kids won’t speak to him because they believe their mom’s bullshit about how he was a useless bum who did nothing in their marriage. So truly life is unfair across the board.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by respondent View Post
    No, my point is that Title of this thread is gender biased. Mothers are as guilty of not financially supporting children as fathers, and often more. They don't appear on FRO most wanted list because they just get sole custody and CS from the start, without any effort. Then they exhaust by lengthy and expensive courts their ex husbands. Many many fathers would've raise and support their children, if they were given that opportunity, and you wouldn't need that FRO.

    Again, the thread title was created by a bitter father who didn’t accept responsibility for how he tanked his case. The thread title itself and intention behind it is biased.

    One could also argue you are biased as you have an order for spousal and child support and you don’t like it. Therefore you have an anti-woman bias from the start.

    I went and looked at the list posted. It hasn’t been updated in over a year. The 41 people on it are men and about half are immigrants or have noted residences overseas. They all work in industries that are easy to earn cash in avoiding support.

    Like I said before, you SHOULD be mad at them for creating this idea that men are always the deadbeats and abandoning their kids. Rather than bitching that women are the biggest problem in family court.

    Leave a 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