Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

being a male, will possibly get spousal support

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by jays2017 View Post
    - also yesterday mentioned about the spousal support and she freaked out saying i will get nothing and she will go for full custody if i go for spousal support
    Ha! Typical female response. So she wants full custody not because it is in the best interests of the child, but instead because she don't want you to be entitled to any child support or spousal support because she has a higher income. And further, because she wants MONEY from YOU.

    That first issue. Second issue, the system is biased. If not obvious by all the moms running into this thread like cockroaches taking the mom's side, the complete opposite would be true if your incomes were reversed, and she had come here asking about spousal and child support.


    Yes you are entitled to spousal support because she makes more money than you. You will be earning less after the divorce and she has to compensate you for that. The house will have to be divded equally.

    Don't confuse joint custody with shared custody. Joint custody is decision making. Shared custody is time sharing. You will need to have child for 40% or more of the time in your care. If you do, then she will have to pay you child support based on the difference, i.e., $50,000/year. Which translaes to a little over $400/month child support.

    My advice: DO NOT LEAVE THE MAT. HOME. DO NOT ALLOW HER TO CREATE AND ARTIFICIAL STATUS QUO - STAY IN YOUR CHILDS LIFE EQUALLY. If she distrubs the status quo, then bring a motion to keep the status quo.

    My other advice: Start meeting with GOOD lawyers immediately. She sounds like yet another control freak. Don't let her toss you into the PAY PAY PAY and DO DO DO cage. Soon enough she will be arranging your marriage with your new wife for you - telling you where and when to have it. he. he. he. That thread was closed but this was just another opportunity for me to take another dab at it
    Last edited by trinton; 10-16-2017, 10:55 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rockscan View Post
      Pull that and your stbx will go for full custody with you paying full table cs leading to an expensive battle for what you really want--money.

      Give your head a shake and start thinking whats best for your son not you!
      Except for the mom, to my surprise, is the one that is doing it for money. The father has a right to ask for spousal support, just as would the mom if she had the lower income.

      - also yesterday mentioned about the spousal support and she freaked out saying i will get nothing and she will go for full custody if i go for spousal support
      Last edited by trinton; 10-16-2017, 10:44 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Agreed,

        My ex didn't do anything to allow me to succeed, but she got SS because she is a woman.

        Did not go back to work

        Did not give up school for me

        Did not relocate from job

        Anyone can clean house, make food, and do laundry. All minimum wage work.

        Women don't like the law when it works against them.

        Personally, I think you should fend for yourself, but not until the other gender has to as well. What's good for the gander, is good for the goose.

        AND YES, ARABIAN IS THE EXCEPTION.....SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUE IN COURT FOR WHAT HER BUSINESS PARTNER (HUSBAND) DID TO HER IF SHE WAS ACTUALLY A REAL BUSINESS PARTNER IN A COMPANY.
        Last edited by piggybanktoex; 10-16-2017, 10:51 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jays2017 View Post
          just a thought..is there anyway the judge could grant me full custody and my wife have all the visitation she wants, i would move to kitchener where my parents are and my parents would defenitly help with any day care , dropping off to schoool etc...while my wife right now gets home approx 6 pm...but than again she would buy a townhouse closer to the area where we are now and keep our son at the same school and still be close to his friends...she is a good mother , no faults..
          thoughts
          thanks
          Yes you can get sole custody while child lives with mom. Chance of that being ordered? Rare, extremely rare. I would stay away from Kitchener. The judges there are beyond biased. You will hear horror stories from fathers on this site who have appeared before the mother-biased Kitchener family court judges.

          Stay where the children reside. If she moves with the children, then you immediately motion the return of the children to your care and there you have sole custody status quo.

          She is a good mother, no faults. Presumably, you are also a good dad with no faults. So why should she have sole custody? Why does she want sole custody other than because she is trying to punish you for asking for something you are entitled to, i.e., spousal support?

          If you are both good parents, and you communicate with her, then it should be joint custody and equal parenting times. IF she witholds her cooperation and communication, sort of like she is now with the whole, you want spousal support then I want sole custody and full child support kindergarden utter non sense, then yes, I would go for sole custody.

          You may want to re evaluate your position. How good of a mother is she if she wants to cut you out of the decisions and leave you with very little time with your children? How good of a mother is she if she is doing that just to financially benefit from the divorce? Are the children her primary concern or is this all about her chequing and savings account ?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by piggybanktoex View Post
            AND YES, ARABIAN IS THE EXCEPTION.....SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUE IN COURT FOR WHAT HER BUSINESS PARTNER (HUSBAND) DID TO HER IF SHE WAS ACTUALLY A REAL BUSINESS PARTNER IN A COMPANY.
            Her ex obviously had the better lawyer.

            The system may be biased, but with a way better lawyer then your ex who knows the judge well. Given your ex is a little messed up and done some "WTF" things, then you could expect to have really good results.

            At the end of the day, Arabian is still getting spousal support and defending every motion to stop it. Meanwhile telling men not to persue spousal support. Not biased or jilted at all.
            Last edited by trinton; 10-16-2017, 10:59 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by trinton View Post
              Her ex obviously had the better lawyer.

              The system may be biased, but with a way better lawyer then your ex who knows the judge well. Given your ex is a little messed up and done some "WTF" things, then you could expect to have really good results.

              At the end of the day, Arabian is still getting spousal support and defending every motion to stop it. Meanwhile telling men not to persue spousal support. Not biased or jilted at all.

              Um yes I was a full partner in the limited corporation (I was stuck with the corporate bills after x went bankrupt and took all the company money).

              This had nothing to do with whomever had a better lawyer. You don't know what you are talking about. It had, at the time, to do with bankruptcy law in Canada.

              I did not tell "men not to persue [pursue] spousal support." I merely pointed out the expense of it all and for the poster to examine closely costs/benefit of hiring lawyer to pursue it.

              Of course I defend any motion to stop SS as is my right. I have been successful with and without lawyers and in front of 12 different judges over the past 7 years.

              Spouting off on something you know nothing about (my personal situation) is not rational. I do not comment on your personal situation as I do not PRETEND to know anything about it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Im surprised none of the mom haters have jumped on this thread. Here's a guy who is worried about HIS standard of living and suggested he get full custody to get SS and CS. If he was a woman you guys would all be up in arms. His argument is still the same regardless of sex. He wants to get SS when he may not be entitled to it and full custody to be able to make all decisions and get spousal.

                Comment


                • #23
                  It's that whole "shoe's on the other foot" thing.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by arabian View Post
                    Um yes I was a full partner in the limited corporation (I was stuck with the corporate bills after x went bankrupt and took all the company money)..
                    So then why didn't the family courts return YOUR portion of this money back to you ? Or is that why you get SS, to cover YOUR money ?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by piggybanktoex View Post
                      It's that whole "shoe's on the other foot" thing.
                      Lmao. Wow. Don't kill me. Quite honestly first time I have heard that idiom and fits in really well with the Canadian Family Courts. And I say Canadian because the Sweden Family Court has shoes that are backwards compatible.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by trinton View Post
                        So then why didn't the family courts return YOUR portion of this money back to you ? Or is that why you get SS, to cover YOUR money ?


                        Umm that's exactly what her SS is for... when he squandered money to his friends and family there was no way of getting that money back... but with SS she has been able to recoup the costs


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                          Umm that's exactly what her SS is for... when he squandered money to his friends and family there was no way of getting that money back... but with SS she has been able to recoup the costs


                          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                          So this confirms she did pursue SS. Why should the gentlemen here not pursue SS from his wife before she Squanders it on purses and heels?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            https://www.mysupportcalculator.ca

                            You could expect anywhere from 300-500 a month if I punched in numbers right. +400 for child support.

                            Instead of paying you 7 to 900 a month, she wants 500 a month to herself by getting sole custody. typical mom. don't let her squander YOUR money (and your relationship with your kids) like that.
                            Last edited by trinton; 10-16-2017, 08:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              FYI I was in the same situation with almost the same income spread. I am female, no work interruption, except for 3 mat leaves, and was the lower salary of the two. SS was not even a consideration, according to several lawyers I talked to. I was clearly told that I had close to zero chance of obtaining SS and 100% chance of depleting my life's savings going after it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by trinton View Post
                                So then why didn't the family courts return YOUR portion of this money back to you ? Or is that why you get SS, to cover YOUR money ?
                                When someone hides assets (company equipment and money) in someone else's name (family and g/f) its a difficult journey, particularly if those assets are owned by a corporation. When one partner in the corporation goes bankrupt the other person, by default under corporate law, becomes President and automatically is liable for all debts. Had I known this I would have gone bankrupt first and then my ex wouldn't have been able to and would have been liable for the debt. My ex was charged with fraud but not prosecuted as criminal court deemed it family law matter. We all know how swiftly family court works.... When someone is under bankruptcy protection the maintenance enforcement agencies cannot (according to the current bankruptcy act) enforce aggressively. I did not want to reveal this on the forum because of all the losers out there who will likely take advantage of this information. I'm tired of your incessant attacks on me about this. In fact I have withheld this information for years. Hope you take this knowledge and know that you have helped many aholes.

                                Please know that I have done whatever was in my ability (and my corporate, family law and criminal lawyer) to do to rectify my situation.

                                As an aside, had I not been a full partner in business (and financed my ex and our company), I would have and continue to be fully entitled to spousal support on an indefinite basis. My ex can and does make excellent money with or without my financial support. We were married for 30 years. I supported our joint effort but did in fact give up a doctorate education and further successful career in order to provide support to my husband and our business. The matter is extensive and complicated and probably well over your head.

                                Something you and many others forget is that people living in Toronto area (or Ontario for that matter) represent only part of Canada as a whole. Many of you may disagree with the concept of SS but I can assure you that there are MANY Canadians who do have traditional marriages (YOUNG AND OLD). Our current family laws are to represent ALL Canadians, not just 30 and 40 year-olds who live in the Toronto area.

                                You may disagree with SS but the fact is that it exists and is upheld by our court system. I will not pass judgement on people who are entitled to it and who defend and collect it. I will not pass judgement on those who collect and those who pay CS either. It is ... what it is.

                                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