Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 04-02-2018, 02:12 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,981
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

As always the author fails to expose the reality of the situation and case law reveals the reality. The author hasn't figured out that you can use the direct quotes to find the case law on anything when writing about reported cases.

The case law (of which there are two cases BTW) doesn't reflect at all in the article. This author does a disservice to all readers in the way cases are represented.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-10-2018, 11:42 AM
Asphenaz Asphenaz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 119
Asphenaz is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Man was a coward. He took the easy way out. His actions will effect his children for the rest of their lives.
I disagree with labeling him a coward. Taking your life is not the easy way out; it's a sad reality when a person feels it's their only way out of painful situation.

Like StillBreathing mentioned, someone along the way should have realized he needed help and attempted to get him the help. Counselling should be made available to all and especially during separation / family law.

Many men and women can't get help because on paper they make too much yearly to qualify, and due to SS and CS they are left with with barely enough income to survive let alone pay for help.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-13-2018, 08:53 PM
Links17 Links17 is offline
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,166
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Seems like a fairly open-shut case of going to great lengths to hide income for which the judge took great pains to prove.

If the judge was making shit up he could have gone to appeal.

I'm sorry a person committed suicide but he had a lot of options including thailand...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-16-2018, 04:13 PM
Lolita123 Lolita123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 36
Lolita123 is on a distinguished road
Default

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...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-17-2018, 08:19 AM
cashcow4ex's Avatar
cashcow4ex cashcow4ex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 287
cashcow4ex is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kate331 View Post

I'd like to know how you would answer 2 questions I have.

1) Why has the Fathers Rights Movement failed?

2) Why is it that so many Mothers are left on Social Assistance? Shouldn't they be living off ex's paychecks instead?
(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?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-17-2018, 08:21 AM
cashcow4ex's Avatar
cashcow4ex cashcow4ex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 287
cashcow4ex is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-17-2018, 09:01 AM
Lolita123 Lolita123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 36
Lolita123 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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 at 09:18 AM. Reason: add clarity
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-17-2018, 12:38 PM
Janus's Avatar
Janus Janus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,848
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-17-2018, 12:54 PM
cashcow4ex's Avatar
cashcow4ex cashcow4ex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 287
cashcow4ex is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-17-2018, 12:55 PM
Janus's Avatar
Janus Janus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,848
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thoughts on hiring a private investigator nogoingback Financial Issues 39 04-08-2015 06:39 PM
Joint chequing account for shared expenses - thoughts? billm Financial Issues 22 05-10-2013 09:55 PM
4 way conference - need advice / thoughts Dee1973 Divorce & Family Law 13 09-04-2012 12:29 PM
Thoughts on using a Certified Business Valuator to calculate imcome to imput? CycleDad Financial Issues 2 06-06-2011 05:09 PM
Any thoughts on this? smissttt Divorce & Family Law 8 02-21-2010 05:31 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 AM.