Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Remind me why I do not need to reply to this

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
    May be the person making the higher income does so because the lower income earner made sacrifices the higher income earner was not willing to make. Not saying thats the OPs situation, just saying its possible!
    That is what spousal support is for. Child support is supposed to be for the support of the child.

    In a shared custody situation, CS is basically disguised spousal support to punish the harder working spouse.


    Really!! Just because I collect child support I am not attempting to increase my income, which by the way will never, never, never match my exs. And I am relying on "handouts" and I am not a role model for my children?!!
    Exactly. You are a parasite sucking from the teat of your ex spouse. The only difference between you and a welfare bum is that a welfare bum steals from society in general, so the pain is spread about. Your theft is much more focused.

    Hopefully, the lesson that your children learn when they grow up is that they should be independent, successful people. They should look at you and be ashamed on your behalf. Frankly, I would find it humiliating to live with a parent who did not have the ambition to increase her income, but was willing to take money from another adult.

    They should aspire to be better than you, and they probably will. The fact that you take support is not a matter of pride, it is a recognition of failure on your part to be a positive, useful, contributing member of society. If you don't earn as much as your ex, that is your fault. Get off the couch and start working more if you want the higher income, stop being a leech.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by stripes View Post
      ...there's also the vague threats, beginning with phrases like "you leave me no choice but to ...". The only responses from my end were statements that I would not read or respond to emails that were either vulgar or insulting.
      "you leave me no choice but to ..."

      I wouldn't necessarily consider that phrasing as "hostile", and it really depends on the context in which it is being used. I guess it's a threat in the sense the person intends to follow through on something, but again, depends on context.

      ex.
      "You leave me no choice but to make sure I get sole custody, as you are a terrible parent to our child" (hostile)

      "You leave me no choice but to attempt to remedy this situation through legal means, because I have received no response, on my many attempts to contact you to go forward through mediation with you, on this matter. (who is being hostile here? - not a great example, all I could come up with)

      Comment


      • #33
        Good lord, I am really hoping that this is a satirical riff on a stereotypical view of child support recipients (and I'm saying this as a net payor) and not what the poster Janus actually thinks.


        Originally posted by Janus View Post
        That is what spousal support is for. Child support is supposed to be for the support of the child.

        In a shared custody situation, CS is basically disguised spousal support to punish the harder working spouse.




        Exactly. You are a parasite sucking from the teat of your ex spouse. The only difference between you and a welfare bum is that a welfare bum steals from society in general, so the pain is spread about. Your theft is much more focused.

        Hopefully, the lesson that your children learn when they grow up is that they should be independent, successful people. They should look at you and be ashamed on your behalf. Frankly, I would find it humiliating to live with a parent who did not have the ambition to increase her income, but was willing to take money from another adult.

        They should aspire to be better than you, and they probably will. The fact that you take support is not a matter of pride, it is a recognition of failure on your part to be a positive, useful, contributing member of society. If you don't earn as much as your ex, that is your fault. Get off the couch and start working more if you want the higher income, stop being a leech.

        Comment


        • #34
          "You leave me no choice" strikes me as phrasing which is intended to duck responsibility and blame the other party - it's all your fault, I am not responsible for anything. At least that's the way it was used in my case. And what followed the phrase was usually something vague like "seek legal remedies" or "consider options which will be expensive and difficult for you". And as I mentioned earlier, no follow-through on the threats.

          Originally posted by dad2bandm View Post
          "you leave me no choice but to ..."

          I wouldn't necessarily consider that phrasing as "hostile", and it really depends on the context in which it is being used. I guess it's a threat in the sense the person intends to follow through on something, but again, depends on context.

          ex.
          "You leave me no choice but to make sure I get sole custody, as you are a terrible parent to our child" (hostile)

          "You leave me no choice but to attempt to remedy this situation through legal means, because I have received no response, on my many attempts to contact you to go forward through mediation with you, on this matter. (who is being hostile here? - not a great example, all I could come up with)

          Comment


          • #35
            My ex did the typographical symbols too. ("I'm thoroughly %^$ed off with your attitude ..."). I was tempted to reply with an entire email written only in symbols-

            Dear hisname,

            *()&^%$#)_ , #%^!^$& &*((^% *& *)(^%$#!, *&^%$)(*!~~

            I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, myname

            - but decided that would be pretty immature.




            Originally posted by Qrious View Post
            In an email, I have, "once a ##### always a #####."

            He actually used the pound signs, not that he's above actually saying the words to me, but he must have known better than to put it fully in writing.

            Also, "You are who you are." (I took this as a compliment because I happen to like who I am)

            And when I emailed and asked him to stop calling me down to our son through text message (that I had copies of), I got, "F... off. He knows what you are like..."

            I've had a LOT worse to my face, but he's a little more careful about what he puts in writing. I have phone message recordings that would peel the paint off a new car.

            Oops - forgot - controlling, mentally unstable....

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by dad2bandm View Post
              "you leave me no choice but to ..."

              I wouldn't necessarily consider that phrasing as "hostile", and it really depends on the context in which it is being used. I guess it's a threat in the sense the person intends to follow through on something, but again, depends on context.

              ex.
              "You leave me no choice but to make sure I get sole custody, as you are a terrible parent to our child" (hostile)

              "You leave me no choice but to attempt to remedy this situation through legal means , because I have received no response, on my many attempts to contact you to go forward through mediation with you, on this matter. (who is being hostile here? - not a great example, all I could come up with)
              This could be considered as projecting blame.

              When dealing with a high conflict, possibly, accusatory previous spouse, you can take it a step further by removing 'I' or 'you' references. Factual statements may carry more weight. I am sure Tayken could take it a step further.

              Ex; Several attempts have been made to discuss mediation, with no response. In order to remedy this situation, legal means will be sought.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                But, one would question possibly why there is 50-50 access schedule then if you were say a "stay at home parent"?
                This makes no sense. Why would there not be 50/50 access in this situation?

                Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                Why could you "never make an income equal to his"? You are intelligent from what I can tell in your postings. So, what is holding you back from making equal or even more than the other parent? You may not be able to do it in the immediate but, with 50% of your time not occupied you do have the opportunity to train for a new career, etc...
                I do not have time on my side. It has taken him 25-30 years to reach the income level he is at. I don't have that many years. And before you go getting your knickers in a knot, I plan to work well beyond retirement age.

                Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                You actually did say that as I quoted you directly. You may not have "meant" what you said.
                Actually, this is what I said;

                Really!! Just because I collect child support I am not attempting to increase my income, which by the way will never, never, never match my exs. And I am relying on "handouts" and I am not a role model for my children?!!
                Nowhere did I say I was not attempting to increase my income. You assumed that just because someone is accepting support that they must not be attempting to make their situation better.

                Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                You may feel it is ridiculous reasoning but, I am premising my argument that equality should extend to all aspects of "shared parenting". Even financial responsibility. But, it may be difficult to discuss this topic as you obviously feel you are being targeted by my statement. Clearly my statements have touched a nerve and you have taken them personally.
                By your definition, equality extends to all aspects of "shared parenting", including emotional and physical well being. Finacial equality is easily evident by how much support is paid. The other two are not as easily evident. A court will make sure support is paid, but who is ensuring that the emotional and physical well being of the children is met?

                I do not feel directly targeted. I do feel that your definitions are generalizations that are simply just your opinion on the matter.

                Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                Well, if you are a full joint custodial parent with 50-50 access... You defined that you are "equal" parents. You either did this by agreement or a court did it for you on an order.

                If the 50-50 access and joint custody was the result of an order on a motion or trial it does bring to light why someone would think they are nothing more (or less) of a joint custodial parent and equal access parent.

                As well, society has an expectation (as does the court) that the best interests of children is best served by joint custody and equal access ("shared parenting").
                My point exactly. I do not consider myself any less of a joint equal parent even though I do not make the income that my ex does.

                Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                That is your personal opinion of the track record of the other parent. But, either an agreement or court order is in place for 50-50 equal access and joint custody. So, despite your "feelings" that "he fails" he is recognized by an agreement as an equal parent with equal access. This is despite your feelings that "he fails" as a parent.
                No, your description was that a 50/50 situation was extended to emotional and physical well being. I asked you who gets to decide if the childrens emotional well being is being met by the other parent. If I get to make that call, I would say he fails.

                You have made the call that I have failed on the financial obligation. So I asked, who makes the call on the other two obligations?
                Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                Actually, the other parent is a role model because they contribute equally emotionally and physically to the children's well being and they contribute more financially to the children's well being. Not only can this parent "be a parent" they can be one that also earns a larger income. All while having the equal and same responsibility to meet the emotional and physical needs of the children. In my opinion it speaks volumes to this parent's abilities... Furthermore, if the other parent was truly a "failure" then they wouldn't be a joint custodial parent with equal access...

                Good Luck!
                Tayken
                This is just your opinion that the other parent is by default, a role model just because they contribute more finacially. Contributing more financially does not mean that they are also contributing equally to the childrens well being.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  That is what spousal support is for. Child support is supposed to be for the support of the child.

                  In a shared custody situation, CS is basically disguised spousal support to punish the harder working spouse.
                  Depends entirely on how the recipient spends the money, doesn't it?

                  Janus quoted stripes:
                  Really!! Just because I collect child support I am not attempting to increase my income, which by the way will never, never, never match my exs. And I am relying on "handouts" and I am not a role model for my children?!!
                  I interpreted this not as an admission of fact from Stripes, but as a sort of incredulous recap of things she was being accused of.

                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  Exactly. You are a parasite sucking from the teat of your ex spouse. The only difference between you and a welfare bum is that a welfare bum steals from society in general, so the pain is spread about. Your theft is much more focused.

                  Hopefully, the lesson that your children learn when they grow up is that they should be independent, successful people. They should look at you and be ashamed on your behalf. Frankly, I would find it humiliating to live with a parent who did not have the ambition to increase her income, but was willing to take money from another adult.

                  They should aspire to be better than you, and they probably will. The fact that you take support is not a matter of pride, it is a recognition of failure on your part to be a positive, useful, contributing member of society. If you don't earn as much as your ex, that is your fault. Get off the couch and start working more if you want the higher income, stop being a leech.
                  If earning a higher income were as easy as that, we'd all be richer. Maybe an ex is the higher income earner because they both pursued their passions and their interest in electrical work turned out to be more lucrative than your interest in hairstyling. Maybe you are just not callous enough to become a high-paid lawyer.

                  I'm sure we'd all like to go back to school to train for a better job, but tuition fees don't pay the mortgage. And the idea that just because an access schedule is 50-50 and the parent presumably has free time does not make class schedules automatically compatible with it. Try doing well in a course when you can only attend half the classes.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by stripes View Post
                    "You leave me no choice" strikes me as phrasing which is intended to duck responsibility and blame the other party - it's all your fault, I am not responsible for anything. At least that's the way it was used in my case. And what followed the phrase was usually something vague like "seek legal remedies" or "consider options which will be expensive and difficult for you". And as I mentioned earlier, no follow-through on the threats.
                    There must be a template our exs. followed! This is almost the same wording my ex. used.

                    Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                    Ex; Several attempts have been made to discuss mediation, with no response. In order to remedy this situation, legal means will be sought.
                    If this was the intention behind the use of, "You leave me no choice", then it shouldn't have been buried in the rest of the crap spewed about in the e-mail.
                    Last edited by frustratedwithex; 05-30-2013, 03:31 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by stripes View Post

                      One thing I noticed was that he's recently started referring to me as "high conflict" and going on and on about how he needs to protect himself from "high conflict persons" like me. This in the midst of volleys of insults and rants from his end. I can only imagine what this would look like to a lawyer or judge. I can assure you that I'm extremely careful with my communications and actions.
                      .
                      I think we have the same ex! Mine does this all the time.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        This makes no sense. Why would there not be 50/50 access in this situation?
                        Well, you state that in your situation that the other parent isn't competent. (See quote below from you.)


                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        I do not have time on my side. It has taken him 25-30 years to reach the income level he is at. I don't have that many years. And before you go getting your knickers in a knot, I plan to work well beyond retirement age.
                        If you haven't noticed, rarely do I get my "knickers in a knot". Especially with discussions on an anonymous message forum on the internet. So no worries.

                        With regards to time, there isn't much debate if time isn't on your side. But, there are always to improve one's financial situation. Time isn't always a factor to reaching an income level. Although it isn't important but, it isn't always the only factor. My recommendation would be not to give up on the time issues. In fact, if you have to work into retirement a change may help you retire earlier.

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        Actually, this is what I said;

                        Nowhere did I say I was not attempting to increase my income. You assumed that just because someone is accepting support that they must not be attempting to make their situation better.
                        Actually, I didn't "assume". Nor did I state you were not attempting to increase your income. I was asking why you had made that statement and what was preventing you from.

                        You chose to respond to my position and I am just responding and inquiring and asking more details and putting forward my position. Common patterns of behaviour in a debate.

                        My hypothesis on off-set child support is based on review of case law, case files, content from this website and behaviour patterns of joint custodial parents who receive child support in the off-set ("set-off").

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        By your definition, equality extends to all aspects of "shared parenting", including emotional and physical well being.
                        Just to clarify your assumption I did not state a definition. I suggested that the definition of "shared parenting" (or "equal parenting") should extend to all aspects of parenting. I didn't state that my perspective is correct nor that yours is wrong. I was simply exploring a topic and the definition of "equality".

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        Financial equality is easily evident by how much support is paid.
                        I would say this is just a demonstration of success in one's career at a point in time. To this I would add that stay-at-home-parents (real ones) rarely are ordered to 50-50 access. Especially after 25-30 years...

                        Turning the tables, what if the other parent had died rather than the separation and divorce? Whom would have supported the children in that case? The government doesn't pay child support to people who's spouse died.

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        The other two are not as easily evident. A court will make sure support is paid, but who is ensuring that the emotional and physical well being of the children is met?
                        The courts do this all the time. It is part of Rule 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act of Ontario ("best interests test"). It is clearly stated in the best interests. So, to answer your question directly who is ensuring that the emotional and physical well being of the children is met? Well, one could argue that through the application of Rule 24 in the courts is just that.

                        Originally posted by CLRA
                        (2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including,

                        (a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

                        (i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,
                        (ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and
                        (iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

                        (b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;
                        (c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;
                        (d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;
                        (e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;
                        (f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;
                        (g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and
                        (h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application. 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1); 2009, c. 11, s. 10.
                        This is the basic principals of determining the "best interests". In fact, one could argue (hypothetical as they wouldn't be successful) that the higher earning income parent can best provide "the necessaries of life" (rule 24.(2).(d))

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        I do not feel directly targeted. I do feel that your definitions are generalizations that are simply just your opinion on the matter.
                        They entirely are my opinions. Thank-you for challenging them though. As I have stated time and time again on this site... I am no expert on the matter. I use this site as an opportunity to better understand the complex issues of "family law".

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        My point exactly. I do not consider myself any less of a joint equal parent even though I do not make the income that my ex does.
                        The topic wasn't if you considered but, in the eyes of children, what their interpretation might be in a future state. Who in a joint custodial equal access situation will have the most impact on the child's development and success as a parent.

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        No, your description was that a 50/50 situation was extended to emotional and physical well being.
                        Actually, that is my position as emphasized by Rule 24 of the CLRA "best interests". It is the prime objective of the determination of custody and access of children used by the courts.

                        I trust you don't disagree with the best interests test.

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        I asked you who gets to decide if the childrens emotional well being is being met by the other parent. If I get to make that call, I would say he fails.
                        In a seperation and divorce, you don't get to make that call. If the matter is dire and needs the attention of the court system. A judge makes the call and not either parent. The judge will apply Rule 24 to the "evidence" to determine the call.

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        You have made the call that I have failed on the financial obligation. So I asked, who makes the call on the other two obligations?
                        Just to clarify, I have never stated that you failed. You are interpreting that out of my statements. If I felt you failed at something, I trust by now you would know that I am very forward with my opinions when someone has "failed".

                        To answer your question who makes the call on the other two obligations... Please see Rule 24 of the CLRA on who makes the call if the parents are in dispute and the courts are involved...

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        This is just your opinion that the other parent is by default, a role model just because they contribute more financially.
                        Actually, that is not just my opinion but, is supported in studies and other materials. Children learn by example.

                        Your are clearly feeling that I am attacking you with your opinion. I am simply exploring a topic that is all.

                        Originally posted by frustratedwithex View Post
                        Contributing more financially does not mean that they are also contributing equally to the childrens well being.
                        As a role model some might argue that they are contributing more as they are equally involved both in custody and access... All while being able to earn more too. You can disagree with that as it is just an opinion. My opinion is just that... an opinion. It is not carved in granite.

                        Good Luck!
                        Tayken

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                          If earning a higher income were as easy as that, we'd all be richer. Maybe an ex is the higher income earner because they both pursued their passions and their interest in electrical work turned out to be more lucrative than your interest in hairstyling. Maybe you are just not callous enough to become a high-paid lawyer.
                          Then by definition possibly the person is not "equal" as a parent? If they are able to jointly parent and have equal access one would possibly question why the other parent obtains and still continues to grow not only in their relationship with their children but, in their employment?

                          It all boils down to choices in life. The challenge is that most people's careers and "ability" to earn income these days are well established before marriage. If we truly are independent people and responsible for our own actions it should not be the fault of any person to the marriage contract because the person they married did not pursue a more fruitful career. (Just pondering the idea here.)

                          Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                          I'm sure we'd all like to go back to school to train for a better job, but tuition fees don't pay the mortgage.
                          Alternative education opportunities abound in our society today. Night classes, etc... Online education...

                          Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                          And the idea that just because an access schedule is 50-50 and the parent presumably has free time does not make class schedules automatically compatible with it. Try doing well in a course when you can only attend half the classes.
                          Depends on where you live though. UoT, York and other schools in the Toronto area have multiple campuses and continuing education programs. You don't have to go to school full time to obtain education. Even at the masters level now. But, this is geographically bound to specific large population densities. Someone in a Northern Community doesn't have this opportunity and access to education... But, there is always on-line and distance education.

                          PS: Rioe, I suspect you are a highly educated person. (Just my assumption built on your contributions to this site.) Is this correct to assume?

                          Good Luck!
                          Tayken

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                            Depends on where you live though. UoT, York and other schools in the Toronto area have multiple campuses and continuing education programs. You don't have to go to school full time to obtain education. Even at the masters level now. But, this is geographically bound to specific large population densities. Someone in a Northern Community doesn't have this opportunity and access to education... But, there is always on-line and distance education.

                            PS: Rioe, I suspect you are a highly educated person. (Just my assumption built on your contributions to this site.) Is this correct to assume?
                            Somewhat. You tell me where I can do a part-time online masters from outside the Toronto area and I'm all over that! I was actually pondering mediation certification the other day, but then I came to my senses.

                            And to counterract your other statements, people are not created equal, so they are not likely to have equal opportunities for income, no matter what the time available to them. If my ex was a supermodel making millions and I hummed along as a receptionist, why would that make one of us a better parent and role model than the other?

                            Stripes (the original poster, remember her?) is in the exact same position at the same firm as her ex, and makes slightly more due to her higher merit pay. Does that make them more or less equally good parents, her a slightly better parent, or should it depend on their actual parenting ability?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              At the risk of muddying the waters further, and screwing up the quote function, I didn't actually say what Janus is quoting me as saying (I'm not sure who did say that). One thing the ex has never done is accuse me of taking handouts. (And to be clear, if CS is arrived at legally and both parents continue to do their level best to financially support the child, given that they may have different means, I don't regard it as a "handout).


                              Janus quoted stripes:
                              Quote:
                              Really!! Just because I collect child support I am not attempting to increase my income, which by the way will never, never, never match my exs. And I am relying on "handouts" and I am not a role model for my children?!!
                              I interpreted this not as an admission of fact from Stripes, but as a sort of incredulous recap of things she was being accused of.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by stripes View Post
                                At the risk of muddying the waters further, and screwing up the quote function, I didn't actually say what Janus is quoting me as saying
                                To muddy even further, I didn't quote you as saying what people are saying I quoted you as saying.

                                I quoted frustratedwithex.

                                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