Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

ifonlyihadknown · #**151** 09-22-2017, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan

You made a choice to stay with someone who insisted on staying at home. You stayed for 20 years. You were complacent in this. You got yourself into this mess. If you had been married for say five years and left when the kids started school and she still refused to work and then were ordered to pay thousands a month for the rest of her life maybe I would feel sympathetic but you got the result you did because you were married for 20 years to someone who didnt go to work.

Of course, I'm biased, but when I read this, it seems that all the responsibility is on one party and none on the other. "You made a choice..." "You stayed for 20 years." "You got yourself into this mess." You could have just walked out on your family when your spouse didn't go back to work.

If the other spouse had the opportunity to go out and work and decided it was easier to stay at home, where is there responsibility? As it's set up now, the less you do, the longer you do it, the greater the rewards. And you are not responsible for anything, despite being an adult.

I heard this a lot during my separation and found it really annoying. In my personal case, my choice was to dig my own grave deeper, or walk away earlier. Sure it's a choice, but it's a choice similar to drinking cyanide or drinking hemlock - not much of a choice.

I bear all the responsibility, my ex, none. I have to work and maintain my SS payments until at least 65, if I don't, my wages are garnished, I loose my driver's license and passport, and I can go to jail. I can never choose to work part time, retire early, or to try and find work in a different field that I might find more rewarding. If I'm ever out of a job, I'm finished.

On the other hand, my ex is retired at as of the date of the separation agreement with a full pension (paid by me), no responsibility to do anything to become self-sufficient. Cash, prizes, and fun!

I don't know how common my case is. Whether it is an outlier or not. But to me, the system definitely needs reform; some shared responsibility to start.

1ati2de · #**152** 09-22-2017, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berner_Faith

Did you take parental leave or did she take all the leave?

She did

Quote:

Did you take time off work when the children were sick or did she take the time off?

I did

Quote:

Did you take the children to their medical appointments or did she take them?

I did

Quote:

Sorry but most men think they help out equally but the truth is they don't.

If she stayed home and did all this she did support your career. No one said you had to have a huge jump in income to show she supported you but the fact you didn't suffer any disadvantages in your career because she did what was required for the children is what SS would be based on.

On what planet did she support my career? I don�t have a money tree in the back yard to pick hundred dollar bills from. At least one person has NO CHOICE to work to pay bills as no one else is going to do it. Common sense hopefully at some point needs to kick to see this even with family law! WOW This right here is what needs change. My career did not advance period, I need to pay bills for my family to live!

Quote:

I think the only thing that's going to change when/how spousal support is paid out is time. There are more two income families now a days than there were in the past. Most families can't afford for one spouse to stay home full time, so SS will be a none issue. But men also have to step up and make the change in their families. They are entitled to parental leave and they need to start taking it.

Start of my thread this is stated, 50/50 parental leave for 2 years, equality.

Quote:

You can't always blame the women when the men themselves don't have the balls to stand up to their wives.

Nope the man�s balls are beaten to shit by her lawyer, Judges, and the system pretty much to powder� and women know this and use every means possible to screw the men as hard and as long as they can.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

LovingFather32 · #**153** 09-22-2017, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ifonlyihadknown

I have to work and maintain my SS payments until at least 65, if I don't, my wages are garnished, I loose my driver's license and passport, and I can go to jail. I can never choose to work part time, retire early, or to try and find work in a different field that I might find more rewarding. If I'm ever out of a job, I'm finished.

This is scary to me. Why can't SS just be for a transition period until the ex can find a job. Why cant there be a time limit?

Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being poured in to getting women back in to the workforce after separation, regardless of age. I referenced the government projects in another thread. These programs build leadership skills, job skills and assist them in obtaining employment. Their ex isn't their parent or sugar daddy. I get SS if it's temporary while the OP finds work and/or gets back on their feet...but not until 65 and not being able to change jobs, being threatened jail and no license. That's insane.

Do these ex's have developmental disabilities? I don't understand why they refuse to use the programs put in place by our gov't to become self sufficient? It's starting to remind me of those who play the welfare system.

ifonlyihadknown · #**154** 09-22-2017, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LovingFather32

Do these ex's have developmental disabilities? I don't understand why they refuse to use the programs put in place by our gov't to become self sufficient? It's starting to remind me of those who play the welfare system.

In cases of indefinite spousal support and SS is enough to live comfortably, there is little incentive to go out and work.

1ati2de · #**155** 09-22-2017, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LovingFather32

This is scary to me. Why can't SS just be for a transition period until the ex can find a job. Why cant there be a time limit?

Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being poured in to getting women back in to the workforce after separation, regardless of age. I referenced the government projects in another thread. These programs build leadership skills, job skills and assist them in obtaining employment. Their ex isn't their parent or sugar daddy. I get SS if it's temporary while the OP finds work and/or gets back on their feet...but not until 65 and not being able to change jobs, being threatened jail and no license. That's insane.

Do these ex's have developmental disabilities? I don't understand why they refuse to use the programs put in place by our gov't to become self sufficient? It's starting to remind me of those who play the welfare system.

With my Ex I have found work for her doing the same job and she refused. My lawyer found her three jobs the same day of questioning, she agreed she had more than enough experience and flat out refused to get a job or even entertain getting a job.

My lawyer also stated that because the 65 rule I might have to take a life insurance policy out on myself and she is the beneficiary.

My case came to an end the beginning of last year and never knew this was in the works.

1ati2de · #**156** 09-22-2017, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ifonlyihadknown

Of course, I'm biased, but when I read this, it seems that all the responsibility is on one party and none on the other. "You made a choice..." "You stayed for 20 years." "You got yourself into this mess." You could have just walked out on your family when your spouse didn't go back to work.

If the other spouse had the opportunity to go out and work and decided it was easier to stay at home, where is there responsibility? As it's set up now, the less you do, the longer you do it, the greater the rewards. And you are not responsible for anything, despite being an adult.

I heard this a lot during my separation and found it really annoying. In my personal case, my choice was to dig my own grave deeper, or walk away earlier. Sure it's a choice, but it's a choice similar to drinking cyanide or drinking hemlock - not much of a choice.

I bear all the responsibility, my ex, none. I have to work and maintain my SS payments until at least 65, if I don't, my wages are garnished, I loose my driver's license and passport, and I can go to jail. I can never choose to work part time, retire early, or to try and find work in a different field that I might find more rewarding. If I'm ever out of a job, I'm finished.

On the other hand, my ex is retired at as of the date of the separation agreement with a full pension (paid by me), no responsibility to do anything to become self-sufficient. Cash, prizes, and fun!

I don't know how common my case is. Whether it is an outlier or not. But to me, the system definitely needs reform; some shared responsibility to start.

I'm sorry to hear about your situation, no matter how you cut it this is wrong. You are a pretty strong individual and I respect you for keeping it together.

Pursuinghappiness · #**157** 09-22-2017, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian

Totally naive, in particular regarding Spousal Support:

I financed my ex/our business for many years... decades. (A full partnership in an incorporated business). Upon separation he took off with all the money and left me holding the bag for corporate debt. You had better believe he pays me SS - indefinitely.

The only "improvement" required is in my ex's department. I'm self-sufficient (always have been). SS is the only way I can recoup a small percentage of my losses.

-------

easy answer - don't get married... don't procreate...

be sure to be prepared to look after yourself when you are a old man, all alone, surrounded by your "wealth"

Sheesh

I agree that your spouse may owe you money however SS is a bad remedy. My ex absconded with a lot of money during my marriage too...money that I worked extremely hard to earn. However, I didn't and wouldn't pursue SS. There needs to be remedies for our types of situations but SS isn't it. SS implies that an ex-spouse is a dependent and it encourages too many women to sit around and not be financially responsible in marriage and after marriage.

Rioe · #**158** 09-22-2017, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LovingFather32

Do these ex's have developmental disabilities? I don't understand why they refuse to use the programs put in place by our gov't to become self sufficient? It's starting to remind me of those who play the welfare system.

In many cases, spousal support IS welfare. The type of person who abuses welfare is pretty much the same type of person who demands SS instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sometimes I think the family law system (part of government) sees awarding SS as a way of avoiding burdening the welfare system (another part of government) any further.

Another part of the problem is that capitalism has got us into this mess where people working full time at minimum wage still cannot support their household (even if it's only one person!) decently.

As noted though, people bring this upon themselves. They marry and agree that it will be a 'traditional' marriage in which one person (yes, usually a woman) stays home while the other one works. It is most likely to happen when one person has a far better career than the other one, and can support the household on one income. I'm sure the 1% consider it pretty silly for one person to work for $22k a year at a McJob when the other spouse makes hundreds of thousands.

If you marry and your spouse suddenly decides not to work, against your will, then it's not a family decision, and you need to react somehow. Pare down the budget for frivolities. "Sorry honey, no money in the budget for mani-pedis anymore." "Sorry dear, we can't afford to keep your motorcycle on the road anymore." Or yes, leave, because your spouse isn't being a good financial partner you can rely on, but is instead a lazy mooch.

I'd like to be able to say that this sort of attitude should be noticeable and avoided during courtship, but I fell for it myself.

As equality advances, more women get good careers, more men participate in child care and housework, and more same sex marriages break down as well, I think we will start to see people expected to be self-sufficient more.

ifonlyihadknown · #**159** 09-22-2017, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de

I'm sorry to hear about your situation, no matter how you cut it this is wrong. You are a pretty strong individual and I respect you for keeping it together.

My biggest beef is actually with the system, not the result.

I think that:

There should be hard rules for SS, similar to CS. None of this "SSAG" crap. None of this scrubbing through Canlii looking through previous court cases.
There should be mandatory arbitration by a government civil servant to come up with a divistion of assets, to decide costody (50-50 as a default), SS, and SC. No lawyers allowed in the room.
If you don't like the answer, then you can appeal to the courts. But there should be a strong presumption that the arbiters ruling is correct. You can't just go because you don't like the result. The arbiter would have had to have made an error.

The system as it stands, is as heart wrenching and abusive as possible. It lacks transparency, takes far too much time, and destroys lives. No one but the lawyers benefit. Seeing the divorce rate in this country, it's a disgrace that none of our politicians even addresses this.

Note that I may not like the results, but if the rules were clear and in writing, I would at least know them and be able to complain to my local MPP, MP if I wanted to.

Pursuinghappiness · #**160** 09-22-2017, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rioe

In many cases, spousal support IS welfare. The type of person who abuses welfare is pretty much the same type of person who demands SS instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sometimes I think the family law system (part of government) sees awarding SS as a way of avoiding burdening the welfare system (another part of government) any further.

Another part of the problem is that capitalism has got us into this mess where people working full time at minimum wage still cannot support their household (even if it's only one person!) decently.

As noted though, people bring this upon themselves. They marry and agree that it will be a 'traditional' marriage in which one person (yes, usually a woman) stays home while the other one works. It is most likely to happen when one person has a far better career than the other one, and can support the household on one income. I'm sure the 1% consider it pretty silly for one person to work for $22k a year at a McJob when the other spouse makes hundreds of thousands.

If you marry and your spouse suddenly decides not to work, against your will, then it's not a family decision, and you need to react somehow. Pare down the budget for frivolities. "Sorry honey, no money in the budget for mani-pedis anymore." "Sorry dear, we can't afford to keep your motorcycle on the road anymore." Or yes, leave, because your spouse isn't being a good financial partner you can rely on, but is instead a lazy mooch.

I'd like to be able to say that this sort of attitude should be noticeable and avoided during courtship, but I fell for it myself.

As equality advances, more women get good careers, more men participate in child care and housework, and more same sex marriages break down as well, I think we will start to see people expected to be self-sufficient more.

I'm not a fan of traditional marriages. I think it encourages to many women to be irresponsible adults and to falsely believe that they don't have a responsibility to be fiscally self-dependent. The reality should be that if you make stupid choices, you should reap the consequences of those choices. And that means that if you don't get educated, keep your skills up and either periodically work or have a career and money of your own, then you assume the risk of that choice in the event of a divorce.

No man or woman should have to pay for an ex-spouse who wants to be lazy and not support themselves. There should be no reward for being a leech. Period.

Personally, I think this would make marriages healthier. Its easier to relate to and to respect a partner who's your equal and not a child-like dependent.

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