Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yet Another Stupid Arguement

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by SadAndTired View Post
    It is the right of the child to maintain contact and develop a relationship with both parents.
    This would imply that there is an obligation for a non-custodial parent to develop a relationship. That would be... interesting.

    The custodial parent has a right to the occasional weekend to him/herself.
    Where are these rights coming from?

    If access is persistently missed, the court may order it be suspended rather than expose the child to future disappointments."
    Well, that part I believe at least

    Sending my ex this link helped with "access" cancellations.
    You can't expect all ex's to be swayed by such silly stuff.

    Comment


    • #17
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by SadAndTired
      It is the right of the child to maintain contact and develop a relationship with both parents.


      This would imply that there is an obligation for a non-custodial parent to develop a relationship. That would be... interesting.
      Here you go Janus. Tayken provided caselaw....

      http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...t-child-13856/

      I know it is sort of a reverse argument, but could it not be made? That the child has a right to the see the non custodial parent regardless of the ncp's plans?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SadAndTired View Post
        I know it is sort of a reverse argument, but could it not be made? That the child has a right to the see the non custodial parent regardless of the ncp's plans?
        My understanding is that a child has a right of access to a willing noncustodial parent, and a custodial parent has an obligation to provide that access.

        I would be very surprised if a non-custodial parent has an obligation to provide anything other than cash. Frankly, the world would probably be a better place if NC's had to provide love instead of cash, but family law is not set up to enforce that type of stuff. Cash is a good substitute for love in our system

        Comment


        • #19
          Janus,

          It is clear that you are upset at having to pay cs. I am under the impression though that you do pay it.

          I am curious what your thoughts are about a non custodial parent utilizing access and the custodial parent being open and encouraging of it, despite the fact that the non custodial is not contributing any cs, despite court order(and has the means to do so)?

          Not all custodial parents are just looking for a buck and a lot of them are able to seperate the issues.
          Last edited by OhMy; 12-11-2012, 10:42 PM. Reason: Typo

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by OhMy View Post
            It is clear that you are upset at having to pay cs. I am under the impression though that you do pay it.
            I have 50/50 shared custody, so I only pay offset, but I pay that offset to a substantially wealthier household. I find the idea that this helps my children to be utterly ridiculous, but alas the best interests of my children are not considered in our family law system.

            I am curious what your thoughts are about a non custodial parent utilizing access and the custodial parent being open and encouraging of it, despite the fact that the non custodial is not contributing any cs, despite court order(and has the means to do so)?
            I would be surprised.

            That said, CS that is not paid will eventually be paid. Financial arrears cannot be escaped forever. Access "arrears" are generally never made up, and there is no enforcement agency to help those parents. A parent being denied support can get free help. A parent being denied access has to fight on their own dime.

            The point is, the custodial parent can afford to be "nice", because the cash will come eventually. A non-custodial parent cannot be "nice", because not getting access eventually can lead to even less access.

            As I said, family law has a laser-focus on cash, and very little else. Every now and then the courts fix an access problem, but it shouldn't come to that. Denying access should be tantamount to kidnapping, and treated as such. At the very least, I don't know why parents that deny access don't get their driving license suspended...


            Not all custodial parents are just looking for a buck and a lot of them are able the separate the issues.
            Some are. In the case of non-abusive parents, the focus of a custody battle is almost always cash (or control... but cash is a good form of control)

            Comment


            • #21
              Thank you Janus. Your insight is appreciated.

              Lastly, I will say 'surprise!'

              Comment


              • #22
                Thread changed topic - ended up being about child support/money. Wonder how that happened? Did I miss something?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                  Lastly, I will say 'surprise!'


                  I knew where you were going with that, of course.

                  That said, you will get your cash eventually, so I don't totally buy the "I'm not getting my money, but still letting spouse see the kids" routine. That said, I'm glad that you are letting the kids see their father.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Quote by Janus "if you are receiving table CS, then you are the parent. If you want the money, you need to accept the obligations that come along with the cash."

                    It is glaringly obvious that you are obsessed with MONEY. By your assertions, so long as table CS is being paid, that is (apparently) a blank cheque to act like an a-hole.

                    Really? Are most of us "bewildered" by the other parent not being responsible and seeing their kids regularly/as often as possible? I don't think so.

                    If it were my kids and "dad" called with his sob story (which could very well be BS) I'd say screw it, and make other arrangements. That's me.

                    You must have really got the short end of the stick Janus, and I don't pretend to know in which, or how many "ways." You make a lot of really angry, accusatory statements and the common theme you bemoan is usually the almighty BUCK.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Janus View Post


                      I knew where you were going with that, of course.

                      That said, you will get your cash eventually, so I don't totally buy the "I'm not getting my money, but still letting spouse see the kids" routine. That said, I'm glad that you are letting the kids see their father.
                      Well you are not in my shoes. You have no idea of my actual situation.

                      I seperated those issues at the very beginning for the sake of the children.

                      In my situation, the non payment is about the other party trying to control me.
                      Yes, I have actual evidence of that.

                      Merry Christmas.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by hadenough View Post
                        It is glaringly obvious that you are obsessed with MONEY. By your assertions, so long as table CS is being paid, that is (apparently) a blank cheque to act like an a-hole.
                        Absolutely not, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Paying table CS allows a parent to no longer be a parent, not be an asshole. I believe I said that if a parent is not using access and is cancelling at the last second, it would be very appropriate to go to court to reduce said access.

                        Really? Are most of us "bewildered" by the other parent not being responsible and seeing their kids regularly/as often as possible? I don't think so.
                        Well, *I* am bewildered... I want to see my kids as often as possible . If I was thinking only of myself and I could grab sole custody tomorrow, I would do it in a heartbeat. Every day away from my kids is really hard to take, especially this time of year for a variety of reasons. However, I can't and I don't think it is good for the children, so I wouldn't change shared custody even if I could.

                        You make a lot of really angry, accusatory statements and the common theme you bemoan is usually the almighty BUCK.
                        The weird part is that my kids are not getting screwed that badly, I just get annoyed at others who think that paying CS is a priori a good thing. In my personal situation, CS is just an unneeded money grab, surely you can understand why that might colour my viewpoint a little .

                        Also, as I read more, I recognize how unfair the CS system is. I don't have to be personally victimized to recognize that table CS at anything above 0% access is ridiculous.

                        I have also been browsing forums populated almost exclusively by recipients of CS recently. I should probably stop that. In general, their sense of entitlement and complete disdain for the payor of support is a little nauseating. Adults who refuse to work and then ridicule the source of their paycheck deserve their own special little circle in a hot place as far as I am concerned.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Do keep kids and document. You should ask him by e-mail to supply a doctor’s note stating that the doc said he must stay away from the kids and for how long he is contagious. You want to make sure that you can make any arrangements that may be required for the time indicated by the doctor not to put them at "risk". He is not a medical doctor and can’t determine that only his doctor can. If this is what he is saying, he should be able to back it up. This puts the accountability on him. There are reasons why they are ex's and unfortunate those reasons do not just magically disappear.

                          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