Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are your thoughts?....

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Lolita123 View Post
    To start off, I feel very sad that a person felt that they needed to end their life. Regardless of the 'real' story... when someone is capable of ending their own life, it's a pretty dark time for them.


    Now, on the subject at hand.. I think we need to step away from mother / father and talk about the person paying CS versus the one receiving CS. Yes, statistics provide information that most cases it's the mother that is the one receiving the CS... and that starts with society where many jobs that are occupied by woman are paid at a lower rate.. (teacher, early childhood educator, etc..) but, nothing today prevents a woman from choosing a career that will provide her with a good salary. I have a problem with people who complain about not making enough money and then not doing anything to change it... Unless you have a disability - and even then - every human being is capable of choosing a career path that will suit their needs. If during your marriage you were lucky enough to have a job that paid 'less' because your spouse was the one who had a job that paid more.. and yet you still benefited from it.. well be thankful!


    Now that you are separated... you need to realize that that time is over... your job now is to make sure that you provide to your children... and if you don't want to 'reduce' YOUR standard of living well, this should not mean that your EX should pay for it. Cause as it has been demonstrated many times, the amount of CS (when not in a situation of OFF-SET) is not accurate... why? because it does not take into account the amount that the custodial parent makes...


    Here are 2 examples:
    1-Custodial parent makes $40,000 Non Custodial makes $ 100,000 CS for 2 children in Ontario would be $1,471.00 a month
    2-Custodial parent makes $200,000 Non Custodial makes $ 100,000 CS for 2 children in Ontario would be $1,471.00 a month


    So, how can this be right? the CS is to make the living conditions or the child similar in each household.. ALL cases should take into consideration the income of BOTH parents to show that even if you are the custodial parent, you have a responsibility to provide to your children from your own income... Also, as Quebec does, it should take into consideration scenarios were the non custodial parent has at least the children 20% of the time.. most likely those cases are every other weekend, extended long weekends, some overnights, half/half summer, holidays like march break, Xmas.. etc... While the children reside mostly with the other parent, the non custodial parent still has to provide shelter, food, some clothing.. etc..


    Another thing that is not fair...


    Same custody arrangement meaning that the 40% has not been met...


    Custodial parent last year made $40,000 and non-custodial parent made $100,000 .. CS for 2 kids in Ontario is again $1,471.00 per month...


    Custodial parent gets a 2nd job to pay for vacations ... now makes $60,000.. non-custodial parent still makes $100,000.. CS again $1,471.00 per month


    So the custodial parent has no 'obligation' to 'give any extra money to the children... BUT if the non-custodial parent decides to get another job because they struggle to pay for their things monthly... well THEY will be obligated to give some for more child support... how is that fair?


    That is why BOTH parent's income need to count... and parents SHOULD be allowed to earn extra income with overtime or other job without having to pay even more...


    To me, it's about fairness... and the children... As much as Québec is something 'out there' ... I think that they have a much better approach to CS than the federal guidelines...


    And spousal.. don't get me started on that... if you studied to be a lawyer and gave up your practices to care for the children and support the other person in their career choice .. it's one thing... If YOU decided to start a certain career.. even before you had children.. and it was a lower salary... well your career choice had nothing to do with the fact that you had children... and you enjoyed the life you had while you were with someone who made more... now that it's over.. assume the choices you made, find another job, follow courses online..


    All that to say that we need to start looking at this not woman versus man.. but at this point, the 'calculation' are wrong.. the 'purpose' and the actual effects of the guidelines along with the CCB stuff is not working.. children DON'T have the same living of standard in both houses...


    Different people, different scenarios.. guidelines should be guidelines, not rules.. and if a case is well presented in court explaining why they are stating X amount of CS .. and it makes sense.. and it's factual... and the children are first in mind.. things would work out.. but at this moment, the GOV doesn't care.. they want to make sure that they get the most tax (since the payor who is mostly higher income is the one being taxed on that money) and as soon as you are common law, they cut CCB BUT that doesn't apply for CS... not saying that it should.. but just to show how the gov always thinks of them first...
    Well said Lolita. Our Family Law System is so broken its a joke.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by cashcow4ex View Post
      (To answer question #1) The Fathers Rights Movement has failed simply because no politician is willing to throw themselves on that landmine to have changes made! Like the saying goes "Hell hath no fury like a women scorned". What possible incentive would a politician have to scorn millions of women (for the most part) across this country.

      (To answer question #2) There are many reasons why mothers are on social assistance (and a great number of them are also "living off ex's paychecks at the same time". Deadbeat dads, unfairly payed, out of the work force too long, under educated, lack of motivation, better posturing for court battles, access to more social assistance programs, better posturing for SS.

      I would like to pose a question to the members.

      1) Wouldn't there be a lot of less deadbeat parents if the system was on level ground for both parties?


      Yes.. and the only reason why is the fact that people have a different definition of deadbeat parent... someone avoiding the system purposely and living the high life while the kids suffer.. those will stay... but parents who now have to see their kids less often because of the way the system is now, paying full CS table when they have 30% of the time the children yet pay like they have them 0%... and that makes it that they are now in a situation where they barely have anything else at the end of the month to live off... someone who will refuse to pay more because the $1400 does not go to the kids... kids don't have proper clothes, proper school supplies, are not in a sport even a recreational one yet the custodial parent has a brand new car, hair done every 4 weeks, a closet full of designer clothes, restaurants, outings etc... well I don't blame those non-custodial parent to say enough is enough... So YES it would change something since the parents who have GOOD reasons not to pay more... or that are not has involved with the kids has they would like to would be able to pay what truly is fair and they would have their own resources for the children... sometimes I wonder if there are situations where basic human rights are not even overlooked or ignored... and what about the right of the child to see both parents and to have BOTH parents provide... this system makes it that ONE parent is obligated to provide (full table amount) while the other decides what the children get to benefits from with that money...


      I also think that being accountable for the CS that is received would be a great thing... children need clothing, school supplies, shelter, food, medical etc... One way (and this is just a very quick idea so not perfect) but to have a prepaid credit card for the children (or even a shared bank account)... where things are charged to that card... and going according the % of each parent... so if you make $40,000 and the other makes $60,000 so family income is $100,000.. and if the CS is $1000 a month (random numbers here for ease of reference).. well the first parent puts $400 and the other one $600... that way, if there is abuse, there are records... if everything is legit and there is not enough to cover, then it's easy to come to an agreement or to show to a judge the numbers... and every year.. it's time to review the CS.. anything left could either be returned to each party (using the same ratios)... or if agreed put in something like an RESP or whatever both parents agree on...


      So 2 things to change.. FAIRNESS and ACCOUNTABILITY!
      Last edited by Lolita123; 05-17-2018, 09:18 AM. Reason: add clarity

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Lolita123 View Post
        the CS is to make the living conditions or the child similar in each household.
        Not true for a situation with a CP/NCP. The purpose of CS in that case is to make the living conditions in the custodial parent's house only similar to what it would be if the parents had not divorced.

        In a CP/NCP situation, the NCP is assumed to spend no money (aside from CS) on the child. The NCP is also assumed to have the kid roughly zero percent of the time. Therefore, the standard of living of the NCP is completely irrelevant.

        You are possibly confusing it with shared parenting, where the goal of CS in that case is to somewhat equalize the standard of living, though to be honest it often fails horribly in that regard as well.

        Different people, different scenarios.. guidelines should be guidelines, not rules..
        The idea of making the guidelines mandatory was to reduce courtroom arguing over amounts. See how SS is all over the map? Imagine if CS was the same. CS isn't always fair (and in fact is frequently quite unfair) but at least very few legal dollars are spent wrangling over the amount.

        the GOV doesn't care.. they want to make sure that they get the most tax
        I think this is why the fight to make CS fair fails. The people who realize it is unfair often tend to be crazy right-wing conspiracy-theory loonies. When you say stupid shit like "the government is keeping CS high for more $$$" then normal people just tune you out.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Janus View Post
          Not true for a situation with a CP/NCP. The purpose of CS in that case is to make the living conditions in the custodial parent's house only similar to what it would be if the parents had not divorced.

          In a CP/NCP situation, the NCP is assumed to spend no money (aside from CS) on the child. The NCP is also assumed to have the kid roughly zero percent of the time. Therefore, the standard of living of the NCP is completely irrelevant.
          Another shining example on how the Gov't got it wrong! Totally unfair way to look at it.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Lolita123 View Post
            I also think that being accountable for the CS that is received would be a great thing...
            You are only the millionth person to come up with this brilliant idea. Sadly, the concept is horribly flawed, and has been flatly rejected by every single judge. You are wasting your time making the argument.

            children need clothing, school supplies, shelter, food, medical etc...
            and movie tickets, and vacations, and fancy restaurants sometimes, and toys, and allowance, and a nice house. Child support is not just for "survival", it is for "lifestyle". Lifestyle of the child should be what it would have been if the parents had not divorced.

            One way (and this is just a very quick idea so not perfect) but to have a prepaid credit card for the children...that way, if there is abuse, there are records...
            Custodial parent thinks that she needs an SUV to drive kids around. Not just any SUV, but a sweet $80,000 ride. NCP disagrees. Who is right? Custodial parent thinks the kids need a night at Great Wolf Lodge. NCP disagrees, who is right?

            You need to understand this, unless proven otherwise, it is assumed that every single decision the custodial parent makes is in the best interests of the child. CP doesn't have to prove this, it is presumed to be true. Can you prove that the night at GWL didn't help? Massage therapy for mom could be a legitimate child-expense, since she needs to relax given that she has the kids all the time, and the massage makes her a better parent, which is better for the kids.

            if everything is legit and there is not enough to cover, then it's easy to come to an agreement or to show to a judge the numbers...
            So every year, parents have to go to court to fight line by line over spending. This is insanity. And obviously there is not enough to cover, at any level of CS. The list of "kid's stuff" just grows proportionately to income.

            So 2 things to change.. FAIRNESS and ACCOUNTABILITY!
            No, only one thing to change. Become a 50% parent. If you are not a 50% parent, then the court doesn't care about you, I don't care about you, society doesn't care about you, the government doesn't care about you... and to a large extent, your children don't care about you.

            As a 50% parent, this rule already exists! Sections 9b and 9c essentially call for accountability, but you don't get to trigger S9 as a non-custodial parent.

            Did I mention that as a NCP nobody cares about you? Stop being a whiny NCP parent, and get shared custody.

            Then you can fight.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by cashcow4ex View Post
              Another shining example on how the Gov't got it wrong! Totally unfair way to look at it.
              The best way not to be a cash cow for the ex is to get shared custody.

              I agree, there should be something between 0% and 40%, but there isn't, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Easier to get shared custody than change established CS doctrine.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Janus View Post
                Not true for a situation with a CP/NCP. The purpose of CS in that case is to make the living conditions in the custodial parent's house only similar to what it would be if the parents had not divorced.

                In a CP/NCP situation, the NCP is assumed to spend no money (aside from CS) on the child. The NCP is also assumed to have the kid roughly zero percent of the time. Therefore, the standard of living of the NCP is completely irrelevant.

                You are possibly confusing it with shared parenting, where the goal of CS in that case is to somewhat equalize the standard of living, though to be honest it often fails horribly in that regard as well.



                The idea of making the guidelines mandatory was to reduce courtroom arguing over amounts. See how SS is all over the map? Imagine if CS was the same. CS isn't always fair (and in fact is frequently quite unfair) but at least very few legal dollars are spent wrangling over the amount.



                I think this is why the fight to make CS fair fails. The people who realize it is unfair often tend to be crazy right-wing conspiracy-theory loonies. When you say stupid shit like "the government is keeping CS high for more $$$" then normal people just tune you out.


                I agree IF the real living situation is 0% and 100%... but the federal guidelines fail to recognize anything below 40% ... even 38%.. and even at 40% judges have been shown to award full support... So that is issue number one... and you said that word... those guidelines assume lots of things that are not reality.. if you have your children 30% of the time, there is a cost that you are paying to have them.. yet that is not recognized.. and THAT creates different living of standard... where they get to do all kinds of things with the Custodial parent (who get money for 365 days a year) while with the other parent they can't go to any activities and sometimes have to share a bedroom because a 2 bedroom is that they can afford.. while the CP has the 3 bedroom house with finish basement and garage...


                on the fact that CS is to avoid court battles etc... Quebec did it right... and the federal should think about changing it.. here is a quote from a Fraser institute review:
                (full report link: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/site...guidelines.pdf)


                As mentioned above, although Quebec participated in the FLC, the province ultimately decided not to participate in the implementation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Rather, Quebec developed its own child supportsystem, and the Quebec Child Support Guidelines (2011) provide, in fact, support for some key issues raised in this report. Specifically:



                1. The Quebec system uses the incomes of both parents (less a personal reserve amount) to determine the amount of child support (and the shares of such amount that each parent is expected to pay) whereas the Canadian system uses only the pre-tax income of the NCP and never determines an amount the CP is expected to pay.
                2. The Quebec system starts with basic child costs determined by experts whereas the Canadian system relies on equivalence scales.
                3. The Quebec system, while not fully accounting for the custody time of the NCP, does make an adjustment to the support paid as long as the NCP has the children at least 20% of the time. (In the federal model, the threshold for even considering access or custody time for the NCP is 40%, and even then there is not really an accounting. Rather, the court is simply directed to consider it).
                4. The Quebec system makes some effort to accommodate new relationships whereas the federal scheme gives no consideration to second families and the effect of such on the CP or on new responsibilities faced by a NCP.
                5. In terms of outcomes, in the Quebec system NCP table support declines dramatically as a percent of after-tax income as income increases whereas with the federal Guidelines, the percentage is essentially flat, as we saw in figure 1, which compared the percent of NCP income paid in support under both systems.


                all that to say that guidelines are good.. but they have to admit that there are many issues that need to be addressed since they were first implemented!!!


                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  The best way not to be a cash cow for the ex is to get shared custody.

                  I agree, there should be something between 0% and 40%, but there isn't, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Easier to get shared custody than change established CS doctrine.


                  Not in all cases... sometimes, CS makes it that they pay less than if they would have shared custody and the ex would go after spousal... so basically you end up paying pretty much the same as full CS.. and yet you have the children 50% of the time and have to pay on top of everything else...


                  also there is the issue when the parents live further away from each other for various reasons...


                  That is how wrong this whole thing is...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Janus View Post

                    Did I mention that as a NCP nobody cares about you? Stop being a whiny NCP parent, and get shared custody.

                    Then you can fight.
                    It really isn't that cut and dry. Some parents do not live close enough to be 50/50. Sometimes the courts wont allow 50/50 whether due to malicious lies or truths. Some parents (like myself) had to take my 50% proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial house to pay to the ex to cover off profit sharing and other parts of the settlement while she had nothing of asset to help off set that.

                    I Agree that those who willing choose to be NCP dont deserve the right to complain about certain aspects of the Family Law System, but there is also other circumstances as to why someone is a NCP.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      You are only the millionth person to come up with this brilliant idea. Sadly, the concept is horribly flawed, and has been flatly rejected by every single judge. You are wasting your time making the argument.



                      and movie tickets, and vacations, and fancy restaurants sometimes, and toys, and allowance, and a nice house. Child support is not just for "survival", it is for "lifestyle". Lifestyle of the child should be what it would have been if the parents had not divorced.



                      Custodial parent thinks that she needs an SUV to drive kids around. Not just any SUV, but a sweet $80,000 ride. NCP disagrees. Who is right? Custodial parent thinks the kids need a night at Great Wolf Lodge. NCP disagrees, who is right?

                      You need to understand this, unless proven otherwise, it is assumed that every single decision the custodial parent makes is in the best interests of the child. CP doesn't have to prove this, it is presumed to be true. Can you prove that the night at GWL didn't help? Massage therapy for mom could be a legitimate child-expense, since she needs to relax given that she has the kids all the time, and the massage makes her a better parent, which is better for the kids.



                      So every year, parents have to go to court to fight line by line over spending. This is insanity. And obviously there is not enough to cover, at any level of CS. The list of "kid's stuff" just grows proportionately to income.



                      No, only one thing to change. Become a 50% parent. If you are not a 50% parent, then the court doesn't care about you, I don't care about you, society doesn't care about you, the government doesn't care about you... and to a large extent, your children don't care about you.

                      As a 50% parent, this rule already exists! Sections 9b and 9c essentially call for accountability, but you don't get to trigger S9 as a non-custodial parent.

                      Did I mention that as a NCP nobody cares about you? Stop being a whiny NCP parent, and get shared custody.

                      Then you can fight.

                      As stated.. not all situation can be 50/50... here is a great example where in the US (I know we are Canada but the concept is still a good one)
                      they have implemented some accountability in cases where there seems to be abused... I think it would be a start...


                      https://pnwfamilylaw.com/blog/enforc...nts-were-used/



                      And that is the problem... I have seen CP who never have their kids over their weekend... and in time, the NCP spends much more quality time with the kids... I am not talking about cases where a father makes a choice NOT to see theirs kids.. but some situation make it that sometimes it happens... and in those cases it's funny how the NCP money's will mean something to the CP.. but anything they will dismiss it... especially when you have a situation as stated that is like 35/65... that is sometimes the reality for people who work on shifts such as nurses, firefighters, police officers.. has nothing to do with NOT wanting to see theirs children.. but their schedule makes it that it's not possible to have half and half...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by cashcow4ex View Post
                        It really isn't that cut and dry. Some parents do not live close enough to be 50/50. Sometimes the courts wont allow 50/50 whether due to malicious lies or truths. Some parents (like myself) had to take my 50% proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial house to pay to the ex to cover off profit sharing and other parts of the settlement while she had nothing of asset to help off set that.

                        I Agree that those who willing choose to be NCP dont deserve the right to complain about certain aspects of the Family Law System, but there is also other circumstances as to why someone is a NCP.




                        Exactly my point...

                        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