Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sexist Child Benefit Policy

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

  • #16
    Yes...because Mom knows best

    Originally posted by undersc0re View Post
    I have been asked to prove I am eligible for these child tax benefits twice now in last few years, the first time i had to mail them the same documents back 3 times before they gave in, second time I just sent in the letter from the school and my court order of primary residence, and filled out the forms best I could and they never contested.

    I am a bit confused on this issue, so is it that women do not have to go through this ordeal? Just men?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by undersc0re View Post
      I have been asked to prove I am eligible for these child tax benefits twice now in last few years, the first time i had to mail them the same documents back 3 times before they gave in, second time I just sent in the letter from the school and my court order of primary residence, and filled out the forms best I could and they never contested.

      I am a bit confused on this issue, so is it that women do not have to go through this ordeal? Just men?

      A woman I work with just went through this even though she has had primary (court ordered) custody for the last three years and the father has every other weekend etc. She is not sure why she had to do it this year but after some back and forth she got it sorted out.

      so its not just gender bias.

      Comment


      • #18
        Thats messed up! I am kind of in disbelief about this. Although I am expecting to be questioned about my childs residence with me again by the tax guys within 2 yrs of the last one, just because thats the way it goes!

        On a somewhat similar note,
        I returned a call to the family maintenance enforcement office yesterday, I said to the lady, "I am returning a call to a woman who left me a msg a few min ago". She asked my info and said thats funny I can't find you in here, she asked more details....and finally said there must be a problem...pause...oh are you the recipient or payor sir? I said the recipient and she said oh ok, thats the problem. She pulled my info 2 seconds later...lol she assumed because I am a male, I was the payor....well I am assuming that is what the initial problem was. Same sort of thing happened to me with the clerk at the courthouse 3 months ago. It is kind of funny how their voice and attitude changes when they find out you have primary residence and care of the children....

        Edit** just read above post, nice to know we all get questioned at least once...the tax people probably always say it is random, I am sure there are other reasons...
        Last edited by undersc0re; 10-22-2016, 08:58 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          I know she had to submit her court order, proof of where the child goes to school and some other stuff. She just couldn't understand why it was an issue this time. I told her to expect this to happen again due to the experiences other people on this forum have had with this issue.

          Comment


          • #20
            It's not just divorced families...

            https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thes...ist-again.html

            Comment


            • #21
              I switched jobs in the summer and now work for a financial advisor. Today we received a call from a mother... CRA was denying her claim to child benefits saying one of her children did not qualify as a citizen. She has three children who are all Canadian citizens. Her husband made big money, however he fell ill and passed away 6 months ago. For the first time she has applied for child tax benefits and is being denied. She has to prove she has the children and that her one child is a Canadian citizen.

              She has submitted proof her husband passed away, provide all the children's birth certificates and such and they still denied her. They are now requesting a notarized letter saying she is who she says she is, her children are Canadian citizens, her husband passed away and that she has work at the same job for 15 years.

              It's not only men who have to prove their entitlement. Often CRA agents don't know what's going on because it's all computerized. That being said, in relationships it's usually the woman that claims he benefits. Dads don't care at that time. It's when separation happens dad care and by that time CRA is so use to paying the mom that dad now has to prove his entitlement (shared or primary parenting)


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                I switched jobs in the summer and now work for a financial advisor. Today we received a call from a mother... CRA was denying her claim to child benefits saying one of her children did not qualify as a citizen. She has three children who are all Canadian citizens. Her husband made big money, however he fell ill and passed away 6 months ago. For the first time she has applied for child tax benefits and is being denied. She has to prove she has the children and that her one child is a Canadian citizen.

                She has submitted proof her husband passed away, provide all the children's birth certificates and such and they still denied her. They are now requesting a notarized letter saying she is who she says she is, her children are Canadian citizens, her husband passed away and that she has work at the same job for 15 years.

                It's not only men who have to prove their entitlement. Often CRA agents don't know what's going on because it's all computerized. That being said, in relationships it's usually the woman that claims he benefits. Dads don't care at that time. It's when separation happens dad care and by that time CRA is so use to paying the mom that dad now has to prove his entitlement (shared or primary parenting)


                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                is this the case?
                CRA asks widow for letter from ?someone in authority? to prove she?s raising her daughter

                Comment


                • #23
                  Stop try to equivocate - You are effectively doing the same thing as racists do when they say "All lives matter"

                  Yes we can push, yes we can fight... but the point is why the presumption that when YOUR biological kids are with you in a house and 3rd party random women lives there that SHE gets the benefits, and this isnt some random whacko bureacrat implementing policy. IT IS THE OFFICIAL POLICY.

                  Sure others have challenges with government organizations but those are execution issues.

                  The OFFICIAL POLICY here is to give money to random women who happen to live in the same house as you because of prejudice and discrimination. Even if you can file a procedure to have it changed. The mere presumption is offensive and discriminatory.

                  If this was the other way around - I would worry for World War 3.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                    Yes we can push, yes we can fight... but the point is why the presumption that when YOUR biological kids are with you in a house and 3rd party random women lives there that SHE gets the benefits, and this isnt some random whacko bureacrat implementing policy. IT IS THE OFFICIAL POLICY.

                    Sure others have challenges with government organizations but those are execution issues.

                    The OFFICIAL POLICY here is to give money to random women who happen to live in the same house as you because of prejudice and discrimination. Even if you can file a procedure to have it changed. The mere presumption is offensive and discriminatory.

                    If this was the other way around - I would worry for World War 3.
                    Yes, I agree that it's absolutely ridiculous that another person with no legal guardianship of YOUR kids would get the money intended for THEM, just because this person resides with you and is linked with you financially.

                    The reason it started out like that was due to societal reasons which are simply not valid today.

                    Unfortunately, things like that are entrenched in law and CRA cannot do anything about it unless the laws are changed. And lawmakers usually have much greater priorities to focus on rather than changing piddly little laws that don't have a huge impact on the majority of the population. And as though that wasn't enough, I have seen, in my workplace where we have policies to ensure we interpret the laws that affect us properly, that when laws DO get changed, they usually miss the mark of fixing what they were meant to address in the first place.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Find me a law on the books that discriminates against women that hasn't been changed?

                      Its a priority when it affects women - only because there are government funded organizations that do just that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Feminist groups make sure of that

                        Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                        Find me a law on the books that discriminates against women that hasn't been changed?

                        Its a priority when it affects women - only because there are government funded organizations that do just that.

                        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