Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law > Common Law Issues

Common Law Issues The law regarding common law relationships is different than in cases of divorce. Discuss the issues that affect unmarried couples here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 09-13-2006, 04:52 PM
common-lawkids common-lawkids is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4
common-lawkids is on a distinguished road
Default Kids rights in partition act

I am dealing with a case of domestic violence. My ex-partner was removed from the house by the police and has paid only $40. per month child support over the past 5 years. We bought a home together 8 years ago, to which he only contributed 20% of the down-payment. I carried the majority of the household expenses. He hasn't contributed a cent since 3 months prior to separation and owes a substantial amount in property taxes and insurance, etc.

I am self-employed and have been making all the mortgage payments. We have tried to make offers to get him off title but they were 'without prejudice' offers and the court does not consider them. He has been sitting on the house for 5 years watching the property values increase. Recently he refused our offer to settle out of court (again without prejudice) and brought on a motion to 'force the sale of the house' under the partition act. The leading case is davis. v. davis which said that the partner in the house did not have exclusive possession rights.

However, I am deeply disturbed by this because the courts refused to weigh the outstanding arrears in child support and against his claim for the sale of the property. At this point, it is the only security left that I have for my child's future. He has also claimed that he is unable to work due to an auto accident....the court ordered in his favour the sale of the house.

My question is = why would the courts force the sale of the home, knowing that he has been highly negligence in supporting his child, compounded by the fact that he is claiming he is unable to work due to chronic pain. (fraudlent accident)

Now, essentially I have no recourse with the courts...unless I want to go bankrupt fighting this issue. Essentially they've colluded with and empowered an abuser to neglect their parental obligations.

If i have to move, then I will never be able to get back into the real estate market as the values have increased substantially in 8 years.

This is not about my rights to the property...it's about my child's right to her future.

Why doesn't my child have the same rights as those children under matrimonial law.???

This is unconstitutional..
  #2  
Old 09-13-2006, 06:33 PM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

common-lawkids,

Welcome to the forum

From what you have mentioned, the scales of Justice have not been in your favour.


The first thing I would do is request full medical disclosure of the other party that supports the disability and also further disclosure to the auto insurer records. If he is able to work, I suspect the auto insurer would of severed the income replacement benefit, if any or they may still be paying. One thing is certain, auto insurer's like to close out outstanding claims and often offer lump sums in lieu of ongoing liability.

Any income replacement benefits he receives from the auto insurer would be considered income under the child support guidelines. You may not never know what he receives from the auto insurer as a income replacement benefit as the income is not required to be reported on ones respective income tax. If you do have all the information then you could seek retro active child support and perhaps have the court input an income to him for ongoing child support obligations.

lv
  #3  
Old 09-13-2006, 10:59 PM
common-lawkids common-lawkids is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4
common-lawkids is on a distinguished road
Default partition act

Thanks logicalvelocity.

Good point to put on our list of questions for the next round in court.
I'm still wondering why the law does not really walk their talk. In the best interests of the children, would it not make sense given the certain circumstances that the court look at what's best for them financially and not what's best for the applicant parent. I don't claim spousal support so I can't even apply for exclusive possession under the act because they only consider allowing that if there's no hope of getting future spousal support.....they don't consider child support in this context. I find this absolutely appauling.

And, he has a pattern from a previous marriage where he forced the sale of his wife's house and into bankruptcy at the same time. His intent was only vindictiveness and getting access to money for himself. FRO just caught up with him from that relationship - he swindled his son out of 15 years of proper support and when they finally caught up with him, he claimed financial hardship and they reduced his 6 figure arrears to $20k to be paid back at the rate of $350. per month....which will take years to pay back....

The only way I can get the court to reverse the order is to prove (via appeal) that he is doing this out of malice and is a vexatious litigant.

What do you call a parent who subverts the intent of the law to purposely avoid paying child support and has his hand out for money, before taking care of the basic needs of his children? I call it CRIMINAL....

As of next week, I officially go on the tax payers dollar - how would they feel knowing that they're paying to support my child instead of the birth father and that it's because of the dsyfunctional system where only the lawyers are securing their future and leaving a generation of children out in the cold.

I would love to hear from others if they have had similar experiences and if anyone would be interested in mobilizing a class action suit to challenge the existing laws....??

Thank you so much for your input. I'm am so grateful to have found this forum.
  #4  
Old 09-14-2006, 07:34 AM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

common-lawkids,

Quote:
he swindled his son out of 15 years of proper support and when they finally caught up with him, he claimed financial hardship and they reduced his 6 figure arrears to $20k to be paid back at the rate of $350. per month....which will take years to pay back....
This suggests in itself that his income is low and moreover, this prior financial support obligation would take priority over the second child support obligation. ie: First family rule of thumb. I suspect his financial position in life was fully investigated. You could check that court file as it is open to the public.

lv
  #5  
Old 09-14-2006, 07:40 AM
Decent Dad Decent Dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I am just curious as to which part of the law you would want changed?

1) To make people better parents. Can you legislate parenthood?

2) Make people work harder. Can you legislate work ethics? The current law allows imputing income, but you can't get blood from a stone.

3) Unequal division of the house? I am 100% for that. Lots of folks loose half the value of the house to the other parent when that parent did not a) contribute any downpayment... or b) did not pay any mortgage, taxes, upkeep. Although it would be really complex legislation since how do you factor in stay-at-home parents, etc. I think that is why they just do it 50-50. Yup, it completely sucks. I have warned numerous people about the 'threat' to their house before marriage. Like you, I also lost a substantial amount of cash through the 50-50 house split. Unreal.

4) Not force people from house. Well, technically you could buy him out. This one is an even worse kick to the shins (pay for your house twice). Either way, lots of issues as 3 above.
  #6  
Old 09-14-2006, 09:49 AM
Decent Dad Decent Dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Oh I forgot...

5) Rights for subsequent families. Currently your child has no rights. Actually, niether do children of intact families. Only children of a first divorce are granted rights and have full protection under the law. So you would probably want that reformed as well.
  #7  
Old 09-14-2006, 05:13 PM
common-lawkids common-lawkids is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4
common-lawkids is on a distinguished road
Default Buy Him Out

That would be the logical thing to do- however, the judge did not give that option. Instead she forced the sale of the house without any thought to slowing the process down and issuing a court order for his financial disclosure and weigh the house accounting accordingly. She ordered the sale of the house, prior to any evaluation of it being done and when I asked how this would be in the child's best interests' - throwing away the only secure asset we had that would increase in value and help pay for the child's education down the road -she said "bad things happen when people break up". I'd like to see how she'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot and she had to line up for welfare and risk the affordable housing she and her children were living in....and watch all her hard earned money go down the drain as a result of some moocher coming along for a hand-out with no intent of ever paying support.....it's nothing less than criminal.
  #8  
Old 09-14-2006, 08:45 PM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

common-lawkids,

At some point in time, he will be a better postion in life and that would be the time to seek retro-activity on the child support.

Does he maintain a regular access regime with the child or has he thrown away the relationship.


lv
  #9  
Old 09-14-2006, 09:50 PM
common-lawkids common-lawkids is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4
common-lawkids is on a distinguished road
Default Wishful thinking

As they say - the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. He neglected the son from his first marriage for 16 years and did not pay a cent until the court caught up with him. He expect to have access and he's abused his first wife and child enormously.

Pattern repeats itself - he has a long hidden history of living off women, which is now coming to light.

He excercises access under a court order for supervision and only to continue to harrass and stalk through my daughter. He has 4 criminal convictions for stalking and harassment.

Biology does not always give entitlement to be a parent - one has to be a responsible parent otherwise one damages a child. The damage is beyond repair. It's just not safe on that front. The police do not think so either.

On the financial front, he'll do everything possible to avoid taking responsability until the day he dies, unless it means going to jail - which would happen if the laws for child support neglect were stronger.

But thanks for the nice thought. It's more a fantasy than a reality at this point...

clk
  #10  
Old 10-24-2006, 01:14 AM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

common-lawkids,

as you mentioned,

Quote:
Biology does not always give entitlement to be a parent - one has to be a responsible parent otherwise one damages a child. The damage is beyond repair. It's just not safe on that front. The police do not think so either.
you posted a good point and I agree. The law does provide for this as custody and access regimes are to be determined by applying the best interest test. However, "police" are in no position to determine this as they lack the pedigree and credentials for same.

Quote:
On the financial front, he'll do everything possible to avoid taking responsability until the day he dies, unless it means going to jail - which would happen if the laws for child support neglect were stronger.
I agree, some individuals are like that, but not all. I am not clear how a person would be able to fulfill an support obligation if they were in jail and hence costing tax payers money to be institutionalized in such facilities. I do believe the FRO has the right concept for collection, but they are in dire need of improvement and turn around time.

lv
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 On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Someone please help me Aveariel Divorce & Family Law 12 09-08-2011 05:57 PM
Where Do I Go From Here? lorlaman Common Law Issues 9 08-08-2011 09:46 PM
Books about children's rights, for kids? Heart-broken dad Parenting Issues 8 05-17-2011 08:32 AM
Help with CS and time with kids deanp Financial Issues 1 01-26-2011 04:49 PM
Help! Many Questions! sophiejay43 Divorce & Family Law 5 06-24-2009 06:22 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 PM.