Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:09 AM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,885
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
You can disagree with me on this one if you would like. But, the guidelines are vetted by a large body of experts and if there was a systemic issue with them it would be addressed.
The guidelines are what we have, but I am not sure I would call them fair:

One father’s fight for gender-neutral justice | Full Comment | National Post

They are based off of faulty 80's logic that women were always worse off post divorce and that men were always better off financially. They aren't even used in Quebec, which uses a different and more fair system......I mean Quebec is more fair....of all places???

Most of the US and Australia and other countries are revising their child support and custody regimes to bring them up-to-date with modern realities.

Have I ever felt hopeless? When it came to the financial aspect no. There are times when I feel like I am being nickled and dimed and have issues relating to my parenting time. But money....not really....money comes, money goes....I'll never be rich, I just need to be content.
  #32  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:22 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,997
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 HammerDad View Post
The guidelines are what we have, but I am not sure I would call them fair:

One father’s fight for gender-neutral justice | Full Comment | National Post

They are based off of faulty 80's logic that women were always worse off post divorce and that men were always better off financially. They aren't even used in Quebec, which uses a different and more fair system......I mean Quebec is more fair....of all places???

Most of the US and Australia and other countries are revising their child support and custody regimes to bring them up-to-date with modern realities.

Have I ever felt hopeless? When it came to the financial aspect no. There are times when I feel like I am being nickled and dimed and have issues relating to my parenting time. But money....not really....money comes, money goes....I'll never be rich, I just need to be content.
Related decisions

Supreme Court of Canada - Applications for Leave

Lucien Roger Khodeir v. Nora Jane Premi, 2011 CanLII 14362 (SCC) - 2011-03-17

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Premi v. Khodeir, 2010 ONCA 721 (CanLII) - 2010-10-28
Superior Court of Justice
Premi v. Khodeir, 2010 CanLII 3109 (ON SC) - 2010-01-22
Premi v. Khodeir, 2009 CanLII 42307 (ON SC) - 2009-07-14

Legislation cited (available on CanLII)

Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp)
Family Law Rules, O Reg 114/99
Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175

Quick search on the "champion" from the National Post article...
  #33  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:23 AM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,885
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Related decisions

Supreme Court of Canada - Applications for Leave

Lucien Roger Khodeir v. Nora Jane Premi, 2011 CanLII 14362 (SCC) - 2011-03-17

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Premi v. Khodeir, 2010 ONCA 721 (CanLII) - 2010-10-28
Superior Court of Justice
Premi v. Khodeir, 2010 CanLII 3109 (ON SC) - 2010-01-22
Premi v. Khodeir, 2009 CanLII 42307 (ON SC) - 2009-07-14

Legislation cited (available on CanLII)

Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp)
Family Law Rules, O Reg 114/99
Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175

Quick search on the "champion" from the National Post article...
Not saying the guy is a saint, but just saying he has delved into the numbers far more than most....
  #34  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:28 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,997
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 HammerDad View Post
Not saying the guy is a saint, but just saying he has delved into the numbers far more than most....
The interesting read to his theory and attempt is found here:

CanLII - 2009 CanLII 42307 (ON SC)
  #35  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:46 AM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,885
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
The interesting read to his theory and attempt is found here:

CanLII - 2009 CanLII 42307 (ON SC)
Read it. Interesting......the unconstitutional part was blah blah...I am more focused on the numbers.

And considering there was a study way back in like 1999 that found that the guidelines (I think it could've been in the for the sake of the children study) that found that the guidelines contained sums that could only be described as a limited spousal support payment, was worked into the equation.

And again, while I am not adverse to paying c/s, which I pay full amounts on time, I don't believe the formula used to determine c/s is entirely accurate. Especially when government reviews of the guidelines found that they are not fair/accurate to the payors (that is if one is willing to overlook all the other studies done them as being biased).
  #36  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:51 AM
sa_snoopin sa_snoopin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 20
sa_snoopin is on a distinguished road
Default

Tayken - I will answer. No criminal charges were laid because he didn't physcially hit me. He broke doors, mirrors, verbal abuse, harassment and stole my car from the garage - police called it matrimonial property.
He's at the matrimonial home because he claimed that he was supporting our 26 year old married son (no disabilities, son is working full time but in constant debt). He had harassed me so much (taken door knobs off, destroyed property, left nails at the wheels of my car, scratched my rental, etc... much more) that I didn't fight him on the big house.
Because of my income and the fact that I'm part owner of property, I don't qualify for legal aid. I have spoken to Duty councel several times and was told that I was doing everything right.
The judge made the order for him to stay away from me.

Is my understanding of the Family Law totally wrong? When two people divorce all assets and properties are divided in half no? So why do we have to fight for this when the law is in place already? Why is the law not implemented. You commit a crime and it's proven, you are punished.

I don't understand what I need to do to get a judge to make an order for the law to be implemented? How do I need to phrase it in a court document that I want what I'm entitled to by law?

No, I'm not using his infidelity as proof of anything. I know that much about this 'no fault' divorce.
  #37  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:56 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,997
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 HammerDad View Post
Read it. Interesting......the unconstitutional part was blah blah...I am more focused on the numbers.
It was an interesting approach to get jurisprudence put in place. I do have to give the person credit on the attempt. It was well structured enough that the Attorney General of Ontario had to get involved in the matter...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
And considering there was a study way back in like 1999 that found that the guidelines (I think it could've been in the for the sake of the children study) that found that the guidelines contained sums that could only be described as a limited spousal support payment, was worked into the equation.
I haven't gotten to these paragraphs yet in the case law... Could you post them up? (the paragraph numbers) Especially the ones you found interesting?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
And again, while I am not adverse to paying c/s, which I pay full amounts on time, I don't believe the formula used to determine c/s is entirely accurate. Especially when government reviews of the guidelines found that they are not fair/accurate to the payors (that is if one is willing to overlook all the other studies done them as being biased).
Economic factors change on such a rapid pace that being "accurate" in a formula such as this would take significant effort to maintain. If it is off by hundreds of dollars then, it needs to be fixed but, there is a threshold where the return on investment isn't worth it.

I am trying to deduce where the journalist got the billions in errors numbers from as a result of the CS formulas. They are just such absurdly large numbers that it is hard to accept even prima face.

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #38  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:59 AM
FightingForFamily FightingForFamily is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

I snorted when Tayken said the guidelines don't leave people destitute.

Sorry but I don't believe earning $61k per year and being told to live on $1400 is a good system when non-working partner has $2800/month coming in, tax free, sans employment.

What, is my son supposed to sleep on the floor in the single bedroom I can afford to rent until he is 18 years old? How is that reasonable? Why would he even want to come over and visit?

I make an above average salary and I am destitute. What if I only made $50k? or $40k? I'd have like $900/month to live on and support my child when he is with me.
  #39  
Old 11-22-2012, 11:01 AM
Janus's Avatar
Janus Janus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,043
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
There is lots... Search "forensic accountant" and you will find it all. Also, if you search this very forum you will find jurisprudence to this fact.

Another good search is for "undue hardship" and "child support" on CanLII.

I trust that you are an able bodied person, are able to use a search engines on the internet as you are able to post to this forum.

CanLII
Whenever people make wild claims, you always demand that they produce case law evidence to back up their statements.

You have made a pretty wild claim here: that an opinion from a financial advisor (very distinct from a forensic accountant) can be used to reduce child support. I asked for a single case where this was true. You instead made snarky reply about finding my own case law.

You made the wild claim Tayken, the onus is on you to provide the case law to back it up.
  #40  
Old 11-22-2012, 11:02 AM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,885
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

I'll see if I can find the articles later.

But even in Canada, not every province follows the same model. Quebec follows a different model, one that more closely resembles the route many US states and Australia are turning to.

In many States, c/s is tied to both parents incomes and the amount of parenting time had by the non-custodial parent. One would think that is a more fair regime. Although it does have it draw backs as the recipient may find it beneficial to under employ themselves to receive more c/s as employment income is taxed, and c/s is not....

But anyway...I don't think this system is entirely fair. It doesn't take into consideration current realities and was based off of faulty logic to begin with (that the woman is always or substantially more likely to be better off financially and that the man was always better off financially post divorce, when the reality is both genders get the short end of the stick).
Closed Thread


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
Dealing with Stress Jeff Divorce Support 8 11-05-2014 11:04 AM
How did/do you survive financially? hubby Financial Issues 32 10-29-2013 12:01 AM
Is it hopeless? First case conference gone wrong....any advice is appreciated exceptiontotherules Divorce & Family Law 22 12-01-2012 04:32 PM
How to financially separate scoobydoo Financial Issues 0 02-18-2010 08:20 PM
What if they never financially disclose or get a lawyer? Insights Divorce Support 6 03-18-2006 01:02 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:04 PM.