Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Issues with a Motion on Consent

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

  • #16
    Issues with a Motion on Consent

    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Not really. The judge called the matter back and refused to endorse the agreement without an explanation. They do it in all cases when there is no child support or it is being waved. They make both parties appear before them to get the reason. Judge did this in this case.



    I still think the judge should have made the other parent pay CS.


    There is cases where if the cost of securing and administering child support isn't ideal, then CS is waved. I've usually seen that in shared custody cases where the difference of income would result in up to 100$ in child support and both families have high salaries to keep the standard of living at both households similar. In this case , is mom still getting access? Is so,with father having that high salary and mom having to pay dad, the standard of living would be way off balanced and possibly trouble some. One judge might agree and one judge might completely disagree. But I think the judge is to ensure the child's best interests which includes child support. It could be set aside in a savings account.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #17
      The order was signed by the judge as is, without any CS. I can't be sure why the judge did this rather than endorsing the custody change and imposing support. The payments coming my way would have been about $435. It would have been nice if he hard ordered it, but in the end, it doesn't matter to me. I just wanted my kids.

      It's a final order, and nothing more was said about support.

      I don't know if this particular event was a gender bias issue, but in my experience, there is a HUGE bias against men when it comes to child custody issues. I've seen it myself on numerous occasions from judges, lawyers, counselors, teachers, etc. Also, I've heard many, many people argue otherwise making all kinds of excuses why the system is skewed this way, or why a child goes to the mother, or that it doesn't exist at all, but really, it does. My ex got away with so much and the courts just looked the other way: sexual abuse allegations; homelessness (with the kids), domestic violence, constantly moving (13 times since I left 10 years ago), unemployment, child abuse, neglect (not feeding them, not bringing them to appointments), etc. If a guy had kids and did the things she did, the courts would have ordered the change long ago.

      The simple fact of the matter is the bias exists; just like there are biases against women in other contexts. Bias exists in our society in all ways - race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It's there. There is no reason to believe that it wouldn't exist against men in a child custody context.

      My kids suffered for this bias, and I'm going to be spending the next 10 years trying to fix it. The good news is: they are now happy and being well looked after.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Beaudoin View Post

        My kids suffered for this bias, and I'm going to be spending the next 10 years trying to fix it. The good news is: they are now happy and being well looked after.

        Bottom line and everything else is fluff if you ask me. I have 50-50 and gave up claiming child as dependent in alternate years. My son meant more to me than the money, and my spelling of love is : TIME

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Beaudoin View Post
          The order was signed by the judge as is, without any CS. I can't be sure why the judge did this rather than endorsing the custody change and imposing support. The payments coming my way would have been about $435. It would have been nice if he hard ordered it, but in the end, it doesn't matter to me. I just wanted my kids.

          It's a final order, and nothing more was said about support.

          I don't know if this particular event was a gender bias issue, but in my experience, there is a HUGE bias against men when it comes to child custody issues. I've seen it myself on numerous occasions from judges, lawyers, counselors, teachers, etc. Also, I've heard many, many people argue otherwise making all kinds of excuses why the system is skewed this way, or why a child goes to the mother, or that it doesn't exist at all, but really, it does. My ex got away with so much and the courts just looked the other way: sexual abuse allegations; homelessness (with the kids), domestic violence, constantly moving (13 times since I left 10 years ago), unemployment, child abuse, neglect (not feeding them, not bringing them to appointments), etc. If a guy had kids and did the things she did, the courts would have ordered the change long ago.

          The simple fact of the matter is the bias exists; just like there are biases against women in other contexts. Bias exists in our society in all ways - race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It's there. There is no reason to believe that it wouldn't exist against men in a child custody context.

          My kids suffered for this bias, and I'm going to be spending the next 10 years trying to fix it. The good news is: they are now happy and being well looked after.

          If I understood correctly, you didn't ask for child support, you filed an affidavit explaining why you didn't want child support, and I could see why and I don't blame you.

          A judge shouldn't have waved that at it is the right of the child. Likely an error in law.

          Ah well, you got your child back, what more could a father possibly want.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by trinton View Post
            If I understood correctly, you didn't ask for child support, you filed an affidavit explaining why you didn't want child support, and I could see why and I don't blame you.

            A judge shouldn't have waved that at it is the right of the child. Likely an error in law.

            Ah well, you got your child back, what more could a father possibly want.
            Correct. I didn't ask for support, but as you rightly pointed out, I was expecting the judge to impose it regardless because he would be waiving the rights of the child; so I was surprised that he let it go. But, in a way, I think it was for the best. If he had ordered it, I can't help but wonder whether that would have simply motivated her to fight to get them back. Even on a 50/50 basis, it wouldn't be in their best interest.

            Now that they are older (9 and 11), they reveal what it was like living in her care and I gasp at some of the things they tell me. It was worse than I thought. I try to refocus their thoughts to the present.

            You're absolutely right. I'm over-joyed that I finally have my kids safe with me. I don't care about the CS.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Beaudoin View Post
              I don't care about the CS.
              I wouldn't either, neither would I expose my children to more conflict because of it. You've got your kids. Enjoy the dream

              Comment


              • #22
                Bias by random people is one thing.

                Bias by the court is a whole other ball game.

                Failure to systematically wipe out the bias will cause future fathers and children endure worse.

                It is a civic obligation to expose the family court system as one of the biggest promoters of gender bias in the 21st century.

                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