Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mothers never die!

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

  • #16
    We should reach out to the dad and tell him to counter motion that the mother get life insurance in case she dies based on our arguments here.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Janus View Post
      So, if the custodial parent makes 4 times as much money as the NCP, your position is that the NCP should not have to pay child support?

      I'll spell it out for you. If the mom dies, she immediately becomes the NCP. As such, she is obligated to pay CS. The way that dead parents pay CS is through life insurance. Regardless of the custodial situation, any adult who could be on the hook for CS has an obligation to carry life insurance, because said adult could die.

      Hence my side comments about the mother being immortal, because that is the only reason she should be exempt from the life insurance requirements.

      I guess there is another argument here. If you think that relative incomes should come into play when determining CS obligations, then perhaps the mom might not require life insurance. What would your cutoff be stripes? triple income for CP? Double? Quadruple? Since the judge in this case (or you) is just making up law, any figure would be fine.
      Read. My. Words. I never said that Mom shouldn't have life insurance. In fact said explicitly that everyone ought to carry life insurance. The difference between Mom and Dad in this scenario is that if Mom dies, the financial loss to the kids is less than if Dad dies, because her earnings are so low. If Mom died uninsured, Dad would not lose any CS payments. If Dad died uninsured, Mom would lose a lot. So while I think everyone ought to be insured, I can see why the judge was more concerned with Dad than with Mom.

      (And I don't think a dead person can be a non-custodial parent, unless they return as a spectre).

      Comment


      • #18
        This case nauseates me.

        Mother should have had better legal representation. The "family business" ... a fricking carpet company (wink wink) that makes 9 bills a year (on a bad year)??? Son is so broke that his daddy has to buy him a home right next door to the mother.... poor woman. I don't buy the "tax planning" explanation for the many years of father and his bros receiving 250k income.

        Mother agrees to waive her right to SS for the house (hope it is a spectacular home). Hope the mother has the sense to move... perhaps somewhere closer to the stable her daughter goes to for riding lessons that the father doesn't have to pay for. (boys can have hockey but daughter can't have her riding).... that's really fair. Judge talked like the family couldn't afford it. I didn't see any mention of mortgages but I did notice the father's 11,000.00/annum vehicle expense.

        You guys are griping about life insurance???

        4 kids. Mother intends to go back to work but hasn't gotten to it yet. I get that. That is not unreasonable, particularly for a mother who has 4 ACTIVE children.

        There are just sooo many things in this case that don't make much sense to me.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Janus View Post
          Whatever will they do with that information?

          Good catch though, I did miss that nuance.
          They will create more unnecessary conflict over a morbid topic that has no place in family law.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by stripes View Post
            (And I don't think a dead person can be a non-custodial parent, unless they return as a spectre).
            Actually you can will custody for 6 months. So a dead person can delegate their responsibility over the children.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by arabian View Post
              This case nauseates me.
              If you want to vomit look up the carpet company on CanLII.

              Comment


              • #22
                Thanks Tayken - Yes I did look up the company and it's founder - what a crook

                Ruling upheld against carpet supplier who overbilled Ottawa Community Housing | Ottawa Citizen

                Looking into the father-in-law explains why the mother in this thread's case didn't stand a chance. FIL can afford to go through a 7-year litigation against the city. Funding his son's divorce would have seemed like "chump change" to him.
                Last edited by arabian; 12-09-2016, 10:59 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by stripes View Post
                  If Mom died uninsured, Dad would not lose any CS payments. If Dad died uninsured, Mom would lose a lot.
                  Ok Stripes, I'll try to sum up my understanding of your stance through some hypothetical situations. Correct me if I have misrepresented you in any way.

                  A) Mom has kids

                  Dad pays $1300 in CS, mom contributes her $300 to herself.

                  B) Dad has kids

                  Mom pays $300 in CS, dad contributes his $1300 to himself


                  C) Mom has kids, Dad dies

                  Mom gets the equivalent of $1300/month through life insurance, and still gets her own earnings.

                  D) Dad has kids, Mom dies

                  Mom pays nothing because Stripes thinks she doesn't need life insurance. Dad contributes his $1300 to himself, but doesn't get the $300, but that doesn't matter because Stripes thinks that if you don't make much money you don't have to pay CS.

                  E) Mom has kids, she dies, Dad gets kids

                  Mom pays nothing because Stripes thinks she doesn't need life insurance. Dad contributes his $1300 to himself, but doesn't get the $300, but that doesn't matter because Stripes thinks that if you don't make much money you don't have to pay CS.

                  F) Dad has kids, he dies, Mom gets kids

                  Mom gets the equivalent of $1300/month through life insurance, and still gets to contribute her own earnings.


                  ...I've lost track. Why does the mother not need life insurance again Stripes?

                  I'll summarize total resources available to kids:

                  Mom custody: $1600
                  Dad custody: $1600
                  Mom dies: $1300
                  Dad dies: $1600

                  Something doesn't quite fit...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Read. My. Words. Again.

                    I think Mom should have life insurance. I think Dad should have life insurance. I think everyone should have life insurance. Dad contributes more than Mom to the kids' financial needs, so if he got run over by a bus and, being dead, lost his income, there would be a really big hit to the kids' finances. That is why Dad really really needs insurance.

                    But
                    I
                    Think
                    Every
                    Parent
                    Ought
                    To
                    Carry
                    Life
                    Insurance
                    As
                    A
                    Matter
                    Of
                    Course.

                    I'm not sure I can be any clearer than that.

                    Originally posted by Janus View Post
                    Ok Stripes, I'll try to sum up my understanding of your stance through some hypothetical situations. Correct me if I have misrepresented you in any way.

                    A) Mom has kids

                    Dad pays $1300 in CS, mom contributes her $300 to herself.

                    B) Dad has kids

                    Mom pays $300 in CS, dad contributes his $1300 to himself


                    C) Mom has kids, Dad dies

                    Mom gets the equivalent of $1300/month through life insurance, and still gets her own earnings.

                    D) Dad has kids, Mom dies

                    Mom pays nothing because Stripes thinks she doesn't need life insurance. Dad contributes his $1300 to himself, but doesn't get the $300, but that doesn't matter because Stripes thinks that if you don't make much money you don't have to pay CS.

                    E) Mom has kids, she dies, Dad gets kids

                    Mom pays nothing because Stripes thinks she doesn't need life insurance. Dad contributes his $1300 to himself, but doesn't get the $300, but that doesn't matter because Stripes thinks that if you don't make much money you don't have to pay CS.

                    F) Dad has kids, he dies, Mom gets kids

                    Mom gets the equivalent of $1300/month through life insurance, and still gets to contribute her own earnings.


                    ...I've lost track. Why does the mother not need life insurance again Stripes?

                    I'll summarize total resources available to kids:

                    Mom custody: $1600
                    Dad custody: $1600
                    Mom dies: $1300
                    Dad dies: $1600

                    Something doesn't quite fit...

                    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