Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How come Family Law makers won't...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I buy clothes and other items for my kids because I don't want my kids feeling like they are 'visiting' daddy...that they have to bring clothes over to use...etc - having stuff for them at my place only re-inforces (I hope) that they have a home with me...that it is their home as well.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by thefunone View Post
      I buy clothes and other items for my kids because I don't want my kids feeling like they are 'visiting' daddy...that they have to bring clothes over to use...etc - having stuff for them at my place only re-inforces (I hope) that they have a home with me...that it is their home as well.
      That is exactly it. Yes CS is supposed to go towards clothes, but if the kids have to pack a bag every time they go to the other parents house, it isn't really their home, it is no different then spending a weekend with a relative. Snow pants are probably replaced by most families 2-3 time a winter because they get destroyed or lost. My point was, as a new partner, I knew my partners obligations and those obligations will continue for many years to come. I can't just walk into the picture and complain about it. Whether he pays $1000, $1500 or $500, it wouldn't change the fact that we provide just has much at our house as Mom does.

      Do I think the tables are fair? Not really, but there isn't much to be done about it at this time. And my point was, if one chooses to buy a house to accommodate all children having their own bedrooms, those housing costs do not change whether you have the children 25%, 50% or 100% of the time. Your mortgage is the same, your gas/oil is most likely the same. Hydro may differ with more bodies in the house. Food costs will go up with extra mouths to feed. The basic housing costs do not change.

      Comment


      • #18
        So....going back to my original post in this - how or why is it that Ontario can't provide a graduated system?
        Do we have to seek or start a movement to address this issue?
        If it is lawyers/judges/legal beagles who create the SSAGs and set the tables...can they not also see the impact this has on those that pay yet have a period of access where a reduction in costs would facilitate the kids having equal amenities at both homes?

        Comment


        • #19
          I suspect the reason for having two divide points only (at 40% and at 60%) is probably logistics and inertia.

          Logistics
          If the system had a sliding scale with, say, divide points every 10%, then there would be nine of them instead of two, and there could be 4.5 times as many opportunities to fight about how much one has the kids.

          Inertia
          Lawmakers currently see a system in place that seems fair at first glance. It's not until you really get into it that you see where it falls down, due to its roots in the whole kids go with the mom while dad earns the money idea. Any lawmaker who does have personal experience with the system is probably either a payor who has no time to fight, or a recipient who has no desire to change anything.

          Personally, I'd love to see 50-50 access with half-offset CS just be the standard. Deviating from it would have to be done by mutual agreement or by a judge with a valid reason, and situation specific access and CS recalculations could be done at that time.

          Comment


          • #20
            I don't know if there would end up being 9...once the 40% is reached it would result in the CS offset and then if it continued it would just reverse the other way...
            Still frustrated.....arrrrgh...

            LOL

            Comment


            • #21
              From the top down politicians and lawmakers have known the Divorce Process is broken, Reports like "for the sake of the children" by and for the government 10 years ago has been ignored.

              The child support guidelines formula for calculating child support was proven flawed yet the formula has never been changed. A fair calculation would mean there would be little need for Court. (the present system encourages court)

              The government in it's infinite wisdom forces a support payer to continue child support and even increases it to pay tuition for Adult children...where married couples can decide on there own (more needless court)

              The serial relationships with multiple partners some people have and the courts ease to pointing to any ex partner with money to force him/her to be responsible for other peoples kids (more needless court)

              It's clear "that people divorcing must bear the responsibility of a lower standard of living" but the Government has decided to try and maintain the same standard of living for a custodial parent.....even when the custodial parent earns more or gets into another relationship. (more needless court)

              I'll leave it on one last note....A over thirty woman had sex with a "minor boy" and got pregnant, the boy was later ordered to pay child support.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by thefunone View Post
                I don't know if there would end up being 9...once the 40% is reached it would result in the CS offset and then if it continued it would just reverse the other way...
                Still frustrated.....arrrrgh...

                LOL

                Change CS dramatically at 40% and at 60% access

                Three different CS allocations, for two divide points. People fight about getting from <39% to 40%, and about going from >60% to 59%. Big fights sometimes.

                Change CS more gradually every 10% access
                Ten different ratios of CS allocation, for nine divide points. Would people fight about changing smaller increments of money? Who knows.

                Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
                I'll leave it on one last note....A over thirty woman had sex with a "minor boy" and got pregnant, the boy was later ordered to pay child support.
                I think we've discussed that one before:

                http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...ort-him-16718/

                US case in the 1990s. Not sure how it's relevant to anything here and now.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Why would you want to ruin a billion dollar industry?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Once.is.enough View Post
                    Why would you want to ruin a billion dollar industry?
                    where is your proof that its a billion dollar industry?? Its not a business.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                      where is your proof that its a billion dollar industry?? Its not a business.
                      Don't be so naive - The complete and utter opposition of the law society to having "A Rebuttable presumption of shared custody" is the root of this house of cards.


                      For Quebec

                      Custody time of an (ACCESS) parent is determined by the # of hours they have access including school/daycare etc....

                      That is then converted to days and then take over a year to determine if it is "shared custody"

                      In Quebec:
                      ~0 - No access rights - you can be ordered to pay an additional 20% child suppot
                      <20 - Regular Access rights; you pay full suppot
                      20-40 - Extended Access Rights - you get a 20% reduction in CS
                      40% - CS is pro-rated AND you can now collect half the child benefits

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                        where is your proof that its a billion dollar industry?? Its not a business.
                        The Big Business of Divorce

                        Us numbers but I'm sure we are not too far off.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                          Don't be so naive - The complete and utter opposition of the law society to having "A Rebuttable presumption of shared custody" is the root of this house of cards.


                          For Quebec

                          Custody time of an (ACCESS) parent is determined by the # of hours they have access including school/daycare etc....

                          That is then converted to days and then take over a year to determine if it is "shared custody"

                          In Quebec:
                          ~0 - No access rights - you can be ordered to pay an additional 20% child suppot
                          <20 - Regular Access rights; you pay full support
                          20-40 - Extended Access Rights - you get a 20% reduction in CS
                          40% - CS is pro-rated AND you can now collect half the child benefits
                          That makes sense, as the more you have the kids the more income you require for additional food, increase utilities, etc. Most parents would fall in the 20-40% range and that 20% reduction would be useful towards food and such. Problem being, people will still fight over 40% because of the further reductions.

                          50-50 equal access from the beginning, unless there are extreme reasons why it can't happen. Extreme doesn't mean because one person was the "primary" caregiver while the other parent was out working, but in cases of child abuse or the like, then sway from 50-50. It has been said before, that those who really are only fighting for 50-50 for CS purposes will fall flat on their face when it actually happens, but everyone owes it to their children to try.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Once.is.enough View Post
                            The Big Business of Divorce

                            Us numbers but I'm sure we are not too far off.
                            I'm not quite so bitter and cynical, but I do agree that it's in the best interests of lawyers, judges (all former lawyers) and politicians (often former lawyers) to ensure that laws remain murky and contentious so there will always be a need for lawyers.

                            Comment

                            Our Divorce Forums
                            Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                            Working...
                            X