Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Janus · #**131** 09-20-2017, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian

oops - forgot about the homework and science project work. I'm sure I've forgotten many things and I hope others can chime in to enlighten our friends here.

I think spousal support is appropriate when couples have voluntarily arranged their financial affairs such that one spouse works and the other stays home. The house goes up in value, both partners share. The "income producing ability" of a spouse goes up in value, both partners share. (I would look at the increase in income earning value rather than income, but that's another story) As I said earlier in the thread, "voluntarily" also implies a level of informed consent, but I have no issues with the concept of spousal support when it is appropriate.

That said, let's not go overboard with the description of the daily grind for a stay at home spouse. I'm a single parent. I do pretty much everything that a stay at home spouse does... AND... I work full time.

Housework sucks, but it isn't that hard, and it doesn't take 8 hours a day. Taking care of kids is time consuming, but most parents would rather hang out with the kids over going to work.

Adults should work for money. If an adult in your partnership is not working, then both people in that partnership are going to suffer. The people saying that the nonworker should take the entire hit are clearly wrong. However, saying that the nonworker leads a life of epic drudgery is equally ridiculous.

arabian · #**132** 09-20-2017, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piggybanktoex

We have all been down this road (discussion) before.

Those that pay support don't like it and those that receive support like it.

Go figure.

I too, would love to receive someone else's money instead of earning it myself.

I would say that Court has determined it already has previously been "earned." It is now taxable to recipient and a full tax deduction to the payer.

The only thing to determine is duration - this is reflected in the total assessment of the marriage.

Would sure be nice if I had a slave/personal maid do everything for me and not pay them anything for years (they could borrow my car from time to time and sleep in the garage/basement I suppose). Heck I'd even let them have a few nights off a month, but only after all their jobs were complete.

Rioe · #**133** 09-20-2017, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piggybanktoex

We have all been down this road (discussion) before.

Those that pay support don't like it and those that receive support like it.

Go figure.

I too, would love to receive someone else's money instead of earning it myself.

It's all about valid reasons, and being reasonable people.

I'm sure there are people who pay support who understand how it was justified and agree with it, just as there are people who receive support who don't like it and are busy trying to become self-sufficient instead.

It's up to the courts to make sure that support is only awarded in the reasonable cases, and that both payer and recipient understand the reasons.

The problem is that society's definition of reasonable has evolved over time and not all courts/judges have kept up.

1ati2de · #**134** 09-20-2017, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian

This is when I really wish we had both spouses on a thread LOL. I'm sure it would be very enlightening.

Oh I agree on that one, I would love to hear both sides of every story told.

Quote:

To those who do not value people who stay home to look after largest investment the two will every have (home and family) - you are but a small minority of Canadians.

I would change that to the majority as lifestyles and cost of living can�t justify a one family income especially in the two biggest cities in Canada.

Quote:

I worked throughout most of my marriage (career which I gave up to contribute to go into business with my then-husband). I was fortunate to have much flexibility. There isn't a chance my husband would have fared as well as he did without my contribution.

That was your choice to quit your career to support and contribute to something possibly better, only you can answer that.

Quote:

I don't get where you think that stay-at-home parents do nothing but watch soap operas. When I would go to the school I was always so very thankful of those parents who would volunteer their time and look after MY child and assist MY CHILD'S teacher... I appreciated those parents who volunteered for the numerous field trips/ski trips/camping trips that my son was fortunate to be able to participate in. I appreciate the parents who volunteered to be on the parent-teacher committees. I appreciate the parents who opened their doors to my child and others after school when we weren't able to pick our kids up. I appreciate the parents who sent in home-baked goodies at haloween, Christmas, Easter for all to enjoy.....

I know my husband was very grateful that he could work extended hours (sometimes away for a week at a time or more) and know, with confidence, that our son was looked after and home was maintained in his absence. I know my husband appreciated all the times when I entertained his very-large family with home-make food which took weeks to prepare. I know my husband appreciated coming home to an immaculate home with beautifully prepared meals, after having a shower in the immaculate bathroom and slipping into his nice clean and ironed clothes. I know my husband appreciated having quality time with his son when he was home (instead of schlepping with housework). At the end of the day my husband had a wonderful sleep in his clean bed, knowing his lunch for work (should he require one) was waiting for him in the fridge when he departed the next day. I know when husband had time off he appreciated that I made all of the social arrangements and frequently entertained his friends in style. I know my husband appreciated that when he came home from a hard day on the golf course that his bills were paid for him and cards/condolences/flowers were delivered to his family when required. Did I mention that my husband rarely had to meet the accountant or banker as I took care of all financing of equipment?

Well with my experience it was from what I see and been told by my child.

arabian · #**135** 09-20-2017, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus

I think spousal support is appropriate when couples have voluntarily arranged their financial affairs such that one spouse works and the other stays home. The house goes up in value, both partners share. The "income producing ability" of a spouse goes up in value, both partners share. (I would look at the increase in income earning value rather than income, but that's another story) As I said earlier in the thread, "voluntarily" also implies a level of informed consent, but I have no issues with the concept of spousal support when it is appropriate.

That said, let's not go overboard with the description of the daily grind for a stay at home spouse. I'm a single parent. I do pretty much everything that a stay at home spouse does... AND... I work full time.

Housework sucks, but it isn't that hard, and it doesn't take 8 hours a day. Taking care of kids is time consuming, but most parents would rather hang out with the kids over going to work.

Adults should work for money. If an adult in your partnership is not working, then both people in that partnership are going to suffer. The people saying that the nonworker should take the entire hit are clearly wrong. However, saying that the nonworker leads a life of epic drudgery is equally ridiculous.

I agree with you ... somewhat. However, it remains that a stay-at-home parent's contribution is indeed recognized by the court. Sure some are lazy but then same could be said for a person who works outside of the home and who doesn't work to their fullest potential despite the sacrifices the other person is making to stay home and make life easier for everyone.

There are many issues which court can not possibly take into consideration (unless one is extremely wealthy and wants to legally argue every aspect.. some do).

Wouldn't that be something if someone, who is arguing for SS, requests that amount be based on an imputed income for many years (for underemployment)?

rockscan · #**136** 09-20-2017, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de

Well with my experience it was from what I see and been told by my child.

My nephew tells people mommy is always working and daddy sits in the hot tub. Kids aren't always the greatest witness to what is going on.

If you are already bitter about paying cs/ss then you see/hear what you want to.

Like I said before, despite not paying ss (which he was eligible for) my partners ex continues to tell everyone how horrible it was that she was ordered to pay him half the value of their assets. Her bitterness has clouded her idea of whats fair.

1ati2de · #**137** 09-20-2017, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berner_Faith

See this is always the typical response... wife stays home but husband says all she did was watch soaps all day... he fails to mention the clean house he came home to, how he dodged all his responsibilities for his children, home cooked meals, he was able to advance his career because he didn't have to take care of his children or make dinner or do his own laundry or clean his own house. Real tough life he has, his only responsibility is work and then he gets to go home and relax while his wife continues to work until the children are in bed.

Like most comments are one sided I can say I lived it! The house was never cleaned properly, home cooked meals were maybe once a week, takeout was delivered and Swanson and mac&cheese her friend. Never ran errands as she did not want to drive and yes believe it or not soaps and Utube were her priority. She did do the wash once every 2 weeks so I should be grateful. So from 4:30 to 5:00+ I get to go play at work and have a easy life LOL! I guess I should be happy leaving the house for 12+hours a day to “support” my family and come home to do most of the work again. Why do we stay? For our kids, parents do what’s best for them and put our feelings aside.

Quote:

You work for a job for years and get fired the company pays a severance... sometimes this is lump sum and sometimes it's paid out on an on going basis. Maybe we should for go severance to since the worker had the benefit of a job for years so now they can just move on and find a new job and continue to be self sufficient

On what plant? Sorry but severance is not automatically paid from an employer, seriously? I have been let go from one company as the bank closed it down, lost 2 weeks pay. The other company the owner decided to close down and I was guaranteed 8 weeks of work after the announcement. Believe it or not you can “work” for a company for 30+ years and let go with nothing in your pocket; this is what happens in the real world! Severance is not mandatory period. But family law states that it is for a spouse? Now how much of a joke is this eh? So average severance for say 30 years is 2 weeks or basically 1 year, yet our government states that the spouse in unemployable and so might be the worker of 30 years that did not acquire any skills but made good money. Yet the company will not pay for him to sit on his ass for life. Amazing !!

1ati2de · #**138** 09-20-2017, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan

My nephew tells people mommy is always working and daddy sits in the hot tub. Kids aren't always the greatest witness to what is going on.

He was 14 and a casual question after seeing it for years, when you are off work for three weeks you realise that the weekend is the 5 day work week at my house for my Ex

Quote:

If you are already bitter about paying cs/ss then you see/hear what you want to.

Im done and over with it, has no effect on me but with other people is an issue that needs to be fixed.

Quote:

Like I said before, despite not paying ss (which he was eligible for) my partners ex continues to tell everyone how horrible it was that she was ordered to pay him half the value of their assets. Her bitterness has clouded her idea of whats fair.

I believe the assets in the marriage should be divided 50/50. Not what was brought into the relationship.

1ati2de · #**139** 09-20-2017, 02:39 PM

Let�s add more evidence of why you actually think SS is mandatory and Ill add in a little realty check into it, please add into the reality as one sees fit please.

Man and woman meets and get married, both at the age of 20. Man finds a job that pays well and works for a company that has great pay, benefits and on the job training, not much skill set that can be used in any other job. The woman stays home to have a have a family and raise the kids.

30 years go by and they both end the 30 year relationship, so let�s look at �working� vs �housewife�, same outcome as both are terminated after 30 years of service.

Working.

- 30 years of service for a company
- Never late, worked all the hours one could.
- Made the company lots of money.
- Liked his job and good employee.

Terminated after 30 years of working.

- 50 years of age, not many skills to offer as it was a repetitive job.
- Good case might get 4 weeks� severance per year, 120 weeks of severance possible.
- Bad scenario is nothing can be offered $0.
- Go in the workforce at 50 years of age and look to start a career again.
- Most likely will have a hard time finding employment and will not make the same wage.
- Stressed and has to support his lifestyle.

Marriage.
- 30 years of dedication to my spouse and family.
- Enjoyed the good and the bad.
- Took care of the house and raised the family as my spouse worked.
- Love my family.

Divorcing after 30 years of marriage.

- 50 years of age, not many skills to offer as I was a housewife.
- 30+50 years of age, YES I�m getting paid for life! Ya baby!
- I get half plus money to live! Mo money, mo money, mo money!
- I can sit on my ass the rest of my life and get paid baby!
- I refuse to work and the judge/lawyers are going to agree!
- No stress here as I�m getting paid baby!

rockscan · #**140** 09-20-2017, 03:24 PM

I think you should also add up some of the actual and assumed costs of one spouse staying home too. Also acknowledge that a lot of these long term awards have happened in the last ten years for marriages of 25 years or more.

Issue two means that many of these spouses made the decision to have one spouse stay home around 1990 or so when the world was still embracing one spouse not working. In todays economy both spouses have to work BUT one spouse will have to shoulder the burden of dealing with the kids. That isnt just the maternity leave aspect, thats the kids being sick, needing a parent at school or activities or being available to arrive late/leave early to get the to/from daycare. Its not just a year off, it at least 12 years of accommodating for children.

To go back to the first issue, there are a number of costs that are incurred with two working parents. These include daycare (upwards of $300 per week depending on where you live), transportation to and from work, lunches/take meals for dinner and gas going back and forth. There are a lot of costs that two working parents incur and these are somewhat offset by one parent being at home.

Yes there are exceptions to the rule which is why the courts are trying to do something about it. If your ex's were awarded high and long ss decisions there was obviously some element of judgement in it. And if not then your ex must have had a really good lawyer who could argue need/reason.

I look at my career and my spouse's career vs my siblings situations. My spouse got married and had children. He had twenty years "out" of the workplace which impacted his earning potential. I have worked for 15 years with no kids or time away from work therefore I have a higher earning potential. His 20 years out of work helped his ex build her career and advance in her field. For my siblings, their spouses were on time served performance so they were able to work hours to advance whereas the others were at home and working limited hours in semi-dead end jobs to help support their spouses.

I always thought that ss was determined case by case against some elements of the law and that many applicants had to demonstrate that they deserve it. Am I wrong?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Going through a terrible time accepting the Justice System	PrincessKatie	Divorce Support	11	06-26-2011 03:09 AM
Dad will help other Dads	Decent Dad	Introductions	80	05-22-2010 12:47 PM
Lawyer calls for judicial inquiry into disfunctional family court system!	logicalvelocity	Political Issues	9	07-19-2009 09:41 PM
sick kids & time off work...	mcr	Parenting Issues	1	12-15-2008 02:48 PM
Canadians have a legal system, not a system of justice!	logicalvelocity	Political Issues	0	02-11-2008 11:41 PM

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

User CP

New posts

Advertising

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

User Name
Password