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
  #31  
Old 06-01-2011, 10:58 AM
Mess Mess is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karmaseeker View Post
If people are committing suicide because of a system that can take everything from them leaving them destitute, in jail, without health cards, with out a drivers license, homeless - I call that fatally flawed. And yes those might be extreme cases but if this happened in another country Canadians would be outraged by the human rights violations.
People commit suicide because of depression which is a mental illness. The "dedication" to that fellow who killed himself on the "study" put out by Canada Court Watch was asinine and if you fell for it I feel sorry for you.

The system doesn't fuck people over, people fuck people over. You lose your housing and credit cards because you fuck up your own finances through thoughtless decisions. In some cases an ex can make life hell but that is the ex, not the system, and they can do it through the criminal courts with fake assault claims, or civil courts with fraudulent claims just as easily.

I'm outraged by the violation of rational thought by people who blame everyone but themselves for the things that go wrong with their lives.

In ANY circumstance, with ANY set of laws there are going to be sole custody decisions where one parent is the support payor. In ALL systems some people won't be able to handle simple budgeting.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-01-2011, 11:03 AM
WorkingDAD WorkingDAD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,660
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadamama View Post
I don't get this. -----


It's not ABOUT who gets more - it's about making sure that children can enjoy the standard of living their parents can provide for them, and yes, kids are expensive.

You are do not get it canadamama for sure. What are you talking about? It is clearly about who gets more. all that bla bla bla about standard of living all that ...

what about standart of living of another parent who (pay attention here) ALSO WANT AND CAPABLE TO BE A PARENT?

I will be short.

When having custody and access means more money - we can stop right here. Nothing and I repeat nothing convince me that this not about who get more.

As I said before. If we would be able to change at least on thing.

If one parent do not agree (fight) without REAL reason against another parent to have 50/50 that parent HAVE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE financially for the kid(s)..

I bet that would change WHOLE nonsense what we have now. It is real shame for CANADA. I am here just about 5 years, work from day 1 till today. I never own money in my life to anyone now I am 25k in debt. Just for last two years.


It's not about who get more... give me a brake..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-01-2011, 11:14 AM
WorkingDAD WorkingDAD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,660
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
People commit suicide because of depression which is a mental illness. The "dedication" to that fellow who killed himself on the "study" put out by Canada Court Watch was asinine and if you fell for it I feel sorry for you.

The system doesn't fuck people over, people fuck people over. You lose your housing and credit cards because you fuck up your own finances through thoughtless decisions. In some cases an ex can make life hell but that is the ex, not the system, and they can do it through the criminal courts with fake assault claims, or civil courts with fraudulent claims just as easily.

I'm outraged by the violation of rational thought by people who blame everyone but themselves for the things that go wrong with their lives.

In ANY circumstance, with ANY set of laws there are going to be sole custody decisions where one parent is the support payor. In ALL systems some people won't be able to handle simple budgeting.
Mess, I agree that people source of actions but not a system but I have one question for.

Don't you think that main goal of the system is to prevent people from other people who try to use it? To be fair and not biased. To not allow mom get Legal AID lawyer base on crap in affidavit without even one single prove and take dad to the court just because he get married.

Don't you think that system should not make people sitting on welfare and
getting CS better off than other parent who actually working?

Yes that people who use it but yes it a system what ALLOW THEM TO USE IT. and quite frankly in family law not only allow but encourage...
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-01-2011, 03:16 PM
LostFather LostFather is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 639
LostFather is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
People commit suicide because of depression which is a mental illness. The "dedication" to that fellow who killed himself on the "study" put out by Canada Court Watch was asinine and if you fell for it I feel sorry for you.

The system doesn't fuck people over, people fuck people over. You lose your housing and credit cards because you fuck up your own finances through thoughtless decisions. In some cases an ex can make life hell but that is the ex, not the system, and they can do it through the criminal courts with fake assault claims, or civil courts with fraudulent claims just as easily.

I'm outraged by the violation of rational thought by people who blame everyone but themselves for the things that go wrong with their lives.

In ANY circumstance, with ANY set of laws there are going to be sole custody decisions where one parent is the support payor. In ALL systems some people won't be able to handle simple budgeting.
okay but what does the criminal system do to these people that make these case claims? Nothing in my opinion, nothing more than a finger wave. I might add that by the time it gets sorted out status quoe is established and to me its makes the system that more corrupt and asinine in my opinion. There has to be real punishment handed down on these people and the fact it took so long to correct or get to the truth should not affect or have any consideration against the person or the children that has to even fasley accused.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-02-2011, 02:18 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,077
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadamama View Post
After separation, there isn't enough to go around for everyone to have the SOL they had before - that's reality. If there is going to be hardship, it shouldn't be borne by the kids. Period.
Going on this argument why isn't Unemployment Insurance setup to protect households from changes in SOL on job loss?

The whole SOL argument in my opinion is flawed. There should be cutoffs for support when both parents make over a certain income. Sure, when there is an income imbalance that would place one of the new "households" below the poverty line the higher income "household" should insure their children are not living in poverty. But, this should be based on what the standard recognized poverty line is. They could even use the average household income from Statistics Canada as the cut off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadamama View Post
The numbers I saw in that report (I can't call it a study) do not look to me like they are horribly unfair. You are focusing on how the recipient's income is increasing by 132%... but if that is reframed as the household income of the children's primary residence, and it can be achieved by the payor reducing their own income by 23%, how is that so unreasonable??
It is unreasonable in situations where both household incomes are well above the average household income levels. Kids need basic essentials but, there should be a threshold (upper boundary of income maybe) to the guide lines.

Nothing more disgusting than to see two people with incomes over 70K fighting over "child support" in court. 1) It is a total waste of court resources and 2) the vast majority of families don't make this in COMBINED income let alone separate and apart.

Furthermore, my opinion is that any dispute where both parties make over the household income before the courts should be forced into private alternative dispute resolution. There are a lot of people with the means to resolve their dispute clogging the courts with banter in my opinion.

Edit:

Furthermore to a point Workingdad made on 50/50 as a default requiring a much stronger burden of evidence beyond what is provided in the rules is necessary to stop people from miss using the courts to wast money and court time.

Every dollar spent on a court battle is 50 cents each parent could invest into their child's future. The reasons for a lawsuit for custody need much stronger rules.

Nothing more annoying than to watch two people with financial statements with over 70K each fighting over child support and what private school their children should attend. They are just taking their pains of their failed marriage out on each other at the expense of taxpayers.

Last edited by Tayken; 06-02-2011 at 02:35 AM. Reason: Additional comment
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-02-2011, 02:41 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,077
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by LostFather View Post
okay but what does the criminal system do to these people that make these case claims? Nothing in my opinion, nothing more than a finger wave. I might add that by the time it gets sorted out status quoe is established and to me its makes the system that more corrupt and asinine in my opinion. There has to be real punishment handed down on these people and the fact it took so long to correct or get to the truth should not affect or have any consideration against the person or the children that has to even fasley accused.
Shaw v Shaw already provides the case law to this situation and is very recognized. I doubt there isn't a single sitting judge who isn't very aware of this decision.

Basically father got mother arrested on DV charges. Mother motioned for 50-50 a few days later. Judge lambasted father and set up a parallel order with his decision returning the children to 50-50 with both parents.

There was a distinct differentiation between Family Law and Criminal Law identified in this decision and a very STERN warning to solicitors, police and the crown in their involvement in FAMILY LAW matters.

CanLII - 2008 ONCJ 130 (CanLII)
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-04-2011, 07:15 AM
LostFather LostFather is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 639
LostFather is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Shaw v Shaw already provides the case law to this situation and is very recognized. I doubt there isn't a single sitting judge who isn't very aware of this decision.

Basically father got mother arrested on DV charges. Mother motioned for 50-50 a few days later. Judge lambasted father and set up a parallel order with his decision returning the children to 50-50 with both parents.

There was a distinct differentiation between Family Law and Criminal Law identified in this decision and a very STERN warning to solicitors, police and the crown in their involvement in FAMILY LAW matters.

CanLII - 2008 ONCJ 130 (CanLII)
Mom, drinking and driving (wonder if she ever did with the children in the car) and the "father" gets lambasted....interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-11-2011, 11:19 AM
Epona's Avatar
Epona Epona is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Brampton
Posts: 422
Epona is on a distinguished road
Default

winterwolf7:
With net annual income of $63,000 (l. 150 on income tax return) and payor living in Ontario:
Monthly child support for one child is $584/month
or $7,008/year. $63,000 - 7008 leaves $ 55.992 or $4,582/month for you to live from.
With just a cursory look, the figures don't add up the same way as you claim. I'm not surprised many people don't believe your claims. I reckon there's more to your story.
There is a lot of information missing in your original post to this thread. Is $63,000 net or gross? I don't know what province you live in, but the table guidelines are Guidelines. They are not the ultimate answer, though many judges will follow them. They are a place to start, depending on the circumstances of the individual payor and take many factors into account. They do not exist to bankrupt the payor.

Last edited by Epona; 06-11-2011 at 11:56 AM. Reason: Adding
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-11-2011, 11:42 AM
Epona's Avatar
Epona Epona is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Brampton
Posts: 422
Epona is on a distinguished road
Default

Karmaseeker:
Uh well, I'm worth more to my kids dead too. I happen to be a custodial mother. Should all parents commit suicide so their kids can benefit? What a ridiculous argument! Wonder how many custodial mothers have committed suicide and some take their children too? Wonder how many non-custodial fathers have murdered their children and committed suicide?
We all know divorce sucks, but the laws have improved over the years, though they aren't perfectly fair yet. They'll never be perfectly fair because it's impossible to apply the exact same rules to every unique marital failure.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-11-2011, 07:50 PM
LostFather LostFather is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 639
LostFather is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadamama View Post
I don't get this. I didn't read through the whole thing - it's really long and it clearly has an agenda from the start. Forst of all, this is NOT a study, it is a 'report' which is a) very obviously highly subjective, with its big yellow NOT FAIR tags all over the place, and b) very blatant about the fact that is has a clear agenda - "help Canadian individuals and organizations in their efforts to expose and to correct the miscarriage of Justice that has been committed against Canadian children and their families as a result of lack of accountability and due diligence by Canada’s Department of Justice." Pre-assumptions all OVER the place. Start with a conclusion and go from there.

Second of all, I looked through the charts and like I said, while I did not read them all, the big yellow NOT FAIR tags are plastered all over the place completely indiscriminately, and I disagree with their assessment in many cases. If the payor makes $100K, and the recipient (who has the kids) makes $20K, why is it unfair if the final tally leaves the recipient, who is raising the children of the marriage, and paying for their food, their housing, their clothing - everything - to be coming out with a household income of $42,092.59, while the person living alone has a household income of $54,618.85? The SOL of the payor is going to be WAY higher than that of the recipient - and more importantly, of the kids. The kids are living in a household with far less disposable income than that which the payor enjoys. How is this unfair to the payor?
Kids are bloody expensive. This whole CS thing keeps getting tangled up with entitlement issues that are directed at the WRONG party. CS isn't about one adult person giving money to the other adult person. It is about contributing to the HOUSEHOLD where the children reside, so they can be properly provided for to the best ability of both parents, according to their respective financial resources. This whole idea that it is OK for the household without children to have double the income of the household with the children - why would any parent want that??
I read a lot here about how the recipient parent should just 'suck it up' but at the end of the day it's not them that has to suck it up - it's the kids, who, if the author of this report had their way, would be living in a household with a 30K income while the other parent is living single on... what... 70K?
Please.
How much you hate your ex, and how badly you got screwed over in your marriage is IRRELEVANT when calculating CS. It may make you seethe to watch them live in a sweet house and drive a minivan while you have to get by with a 1-bedroom and a compact, but the reality is that that sweet house is your KIDS' house too, and that minivan means a lot more mobility and opportunity to get around and do stuff with their friends.
I noticed that ALL of the charts in this "study" (man that is bugging me) assume that the person who is paying CS makes more. Well Boo Hoo. How about when they make less? Guess what - they still have to pay and contribute to their children's well-being and that is as it should be.
It's not ABOUT who gets more - it's about making sure that children can enjoy the standard of living their parents can provide for them, and yes, kids are expensive.
Since we've supported that household...as if we were living there i wonder when the kids leave and a big part big part of that mortgage has even paid through cs. I would be entitled to a part of thru value of the home right?? Or are the children just considered renters? No they can't be renters as mom would have to report as income.

I wonder if any payor has tried to make claim to the home? I mean why not the payor supported the children and part of cs would go to mortgage. Children leave home. Mom has most or a big part of the mortgage paid through cs. Why shouldn't the payor have a % in any benefit that mom has gained?
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
Spousal Equivalent for CRA Cobourg Divorce & Family Law 21 01-14-2010 08:43 AM
Child Support Guidelines OnceBitten Financial Issues 16 09-28-2009 01:53 PM
Child support guidelines reducing equalization payout and subsequent changes ree Divorce & Family Law 0 08-06-2006 02:23 PM
child support guidelines Mikesgal Divorce & Family Law 3 05-18-2006 12:42 AM
Amendments to federal child support guidelines logicalvelocity Financial Issues 2 03-17-2006 04:20 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:03 PM.