View Single Post
  #26  
Old 01-11-2017, 04:49 PM
Janus's Avatar
Janus Janus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,209
Janus will become famous soon enoughJanus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
I would tend to disagree Janus... if mom cannot pay rent or utilities or daycare because dad isn't contributing how do you see that to be in the best interest of the children?
At the risk of sounding like a broken record... this is a shared parenting situation so there are two households of concern.

Household M: Mom's household
Household D: Dad's household

If Dad just lost his job, then the aggregate sum of money available to both households is substantially less. At least one household is going to lose money.

Current plan by Mom is that her CS payments should stay the same, so the entire loss should be visited upon household D. One could argue that this is unfair, but clearly Mom doesn't really care about being fair in this case, so I'll drop that line of argument.

My other argument is that making household D absorb the entire loss is unfair to the children, since their standard of living will drop in one house and not the other, and the entire point of CS in shared parenting is to maintain a similar standard of living between the households.

You can argue that Dad was responsible for the loss of income. I would point out that this is complete conjecture by the mother, and it still doesn't address the main argument which is that taking the money only from one household hurts the children. I put that in bold because it seems that while we care about mom here, we are forgetting about the kiddies. Even if Dad hit his boss in the face, it doesn't help the kids to take CS from him. It just hurts the children.

Let us assume that he is getting EI. EI does not replace anything close to 100% of earnings, especially for somebody making $100k. So, even if he is getting money from EI, going FRO on his ass is just going to hurt household D substantially, which yet again hurts the children.

Dad didn't offer to babysit. He's an idiot. You want to punish him. Is the plan to punish him by hurting him financially? Sure that hurts him, but it also hurts the children.

You can dress it up and justify it however you want. Dad's household is almost certainly suffering. Legally, you can beat the crap out of him in court. However, if Mom does that, then she is the stereotypical parent who hates her ex more than she loves her kids.

I won't support that, and frankly Berner, I'm surprised to see you supporting this as well. I usually see you as the voice of good and reason, and it is a bit jarring to see you on this particular case supporting the side of narcissistic greed.
Reply With Quote