View Single Post
  #3  
Old 05-31-2011, 10:32 AM
canadamama canadamama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
canadamama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I don't get this. I didn't read through the whole thing - it's really long and it clearly has an agenda from the start. Forst of all, this is NOT a study, it is a 'report' which is a) very obviously highly subjective, with its big yellow NOT FAIR tags all over the place, and b) very blatant about the fact that is has a clear agenda - "help Canadian individuals and organizations in their efforts to expose and to correct the miscarriage of Justice that has been committed against Canadian children and their families as a result of lack of accountability and due diligence by Canada’s Department of Justice." Pre-assumptions all OVER the place. Start with a conclusion and go from there.

Second of all, I looked through the charts and like I said, while I did not read them all, the big yellow NOT FAIR tags are plastered all over the place completely indiscriminately, and I disagree with their assessment in many cases. If the payor makes $100K, and the recipient (who has the kids) makes $20K, why is it unfair if the final tally leaves the recipient, who is raising the children of the marriage, and paying for their food, their housing, their clothing - everything - to be coming out with a household income of $42,092.59, while the person living alone has a household income of $54,618.85? The SOL of the payor is going to be WAY higher than that of the recipient - and more importantly, of the kids. The kids are living in a household with far less disposable income than that which the payor enjoys. How is this unfair to the payor?
Kids are bloody expensive. This whole CS thing keeps getting tangled up with entitlement issues that are directed at the WRONG party. CS isn't about one adult person giving money to the other adult person. It is about contributing to the HOUSEHOLD where the children reside, so they can be properly provided for to the best ability of both parents, according to their respective financial resources. This whole idea that it is OK for the household without children to have double the income of the household with the children - why would any parent want that??
I read a lot here about how the recipient parent should just 'suck it up' but at the end of the day it's not them that has to suck it up - it's the kids, who, if the author of this report had their way, would be living in a household with a 30K income while the other parent is living single on... what... 70K?
Please.
How much you hate your ex, and how badly you got screwed over in your marriage is IRRELEVANT when calculating CS. It may make you seethe to watch them live in a sweet house and drive a minivan while you have to get by with a 1-bedroom and a compact, but the reality is that that sweet house is your KIDS' house too, and that minivan means a lot more mobility and opportunity to get around and do stuff with their friends.
I noticed that ALL of the charts in this "study" (man that is bugging me) assume that the person who is paying CS makes more. Well Boo Hoo. How about when they make less? Guess what - they still have to pay and contribute to their children's well-being and that is as it should be.
It's not ABOUT who gets more - it's about making sure that children can enjoy the standard of living their parents can provide for them, and yes, kids are expensive.
Reply With Quote