Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Women's Rights

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

  • Women's Rights

    I feel I need to speak out on behalf of all the female member's that have either PM or e-mailed me. We are all deeply offended that the thread containing spousal support referred to as "free money" has been shut down. I was the last one to post on that, and quite frankly I did not find my post insulting or offensive, nor did any of the other members that contacted me.

    Obviously Sean you have your own agenda. And you are a Moderator and have the ability to control the forum. There is now no doubt in my mind or in minds of the majority of the female members that you want our voices "locked". And you have your own agenda.

    Jeff, Lindsay & LV, your voice of reason would be truly appreciated now.

  • #2
    I have also pm'ed you among others like Jeff about this.

    I find it especially weird that Jeff had commented how" everyone has been remarkably well behaved" in this thread. I guess Sean felt otherwise....

    Grace I do believe you or really anyone said in that thread offensive - save Sean's words and closing the thread in general.

    I also might be paranoid about this but I also ask... What other powers do the moderators have? I know they can edit posts, can they read our private messages? This gives me pause and really makes me question my faith in this forum.

    Comment


    • #3
      I am concerned too... seems fishy to me.

      Comment


      • #4
        I will defer to Jeff's wisdom on this subject - he is the administrator of this forum. It should be noted that I have only received on private message on the topic.

        As I said in the previous forum - the reason I closed it is because it had morphed beyond a discussion about child support into spousal support. If I am wrong for applying a judgement call as a moderator, then I would suggest that I will defer to Jeff.

        I encourage anyone to continue a thread about how they feel about my comments. Debate is always healthy. I also started a thread on why spousal support matters including my own belief system on the topic. I hope this clarifies things.

        Comment


        • #5
          "There are solutions to the challenges of divorce..." that is Sean motto, and I no doubt that this post will be edited by one of the moderators. But I will go out on a limb anyway. I know that going through a divorce is challenging for both sides but to stop one sides voice is not appropriate. Each side needs to be heard. Perhaps I need to change my stance of mediate instead of litigate as a Judge may be less biased based on the law than a mediator who is biased.

          To be on the safe side, want to vent your frustration e-mail me as opposed to PM me.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Divorcemanagement
            I will defer to Jeff's wisdom on this subject - he is the administrator of this forum. It should be noted that I have only received on private message on the topic.
            and I suppose that would be mine.... trust me there have been many other pm's about this.... between us members. I guess most of the people who were offended were thinking you wouldn't really listen anyway.

            Comment


            • #7
              again the idea of Sean shutting down a thread where we challenge him on something I would think would be akin to him trying to mediate his own divorce. Or a judge trying to rule on his own case. Doesn't seem quite right.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have my own opinion on spousal support.

                I don't see spousal support as "Free Money". It is taxable to the recipient and tax deductible to the payer.

                I am all for spousal support if one has needs and the other has means. To me the concept is in place and it is law to assist one spouse after a relationship breakdown to become self sufficient and to avoid a spouse from becoming a public charge. Self sufficiency may never happen if the the relationship was a long term marriage and a significant amount of time was devoted to the home and to the caring of children. The age and health is a significant factor of a spouse. It is most difficult to retrain and enter the workforce in a person's later years in life.

                Moreover, It also equalizes both parties to a position to support their children.

                There are several criteria that are considered and are given equal weight and each spousal support order or agreement is fact driven.


                LV

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi Grace,

                  I've mostly commented on this in other threads - just check around. I hope that I've addressed your concerns.
                  Ottawa Divorce

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    just my opinion

                    Originally posted by logicalvelocity
                    I have my own opinion on spousal support.

                    I don't see spousal support as "Free Money". It is taxable to the recipient and tax deductible to the payer.

                    I am all for spousal support if one has needs and the other has means. To me the concept is in place and it is law to assist one spouse after a relationship breakdown to become self sufficient and to avoid a spouse from becoming a public charge. Self sufficiency may never happen if the the relationship was a long term marriage and a significant amount of time was devoted to the home and to the caring of children. The age and health is a significant factor of a spouse. It is most difficult to retrain and enter the workforce in a person's later years in life.

                    Moreover, It also equalizes both parties to a position to support their children.

                    There are several criteria that are considered and are given equal weight and each spousal support order or agreement is fact driven.


                    LV
                    I am all for spousal support as a stop-gap measure - but I am not convinced 'needs and means' is really always given equal consideration. It seems to me that if there are means, need can always be created.

                    More important, I believe, is the test of self-sufficency - and the requirement that effort at such is put forward. Particularly in short-term relationships, economic disadvantage is difficult to prove, but even if one accepts that it exists, for how long, and to what degree should the now ex-partner be responsible for supporting another adult?

                    In our jurisdiction, the trend is toward indefinite orders, therefore essentially handcuffing the payor for life. This hardly seems like incentive to the recipient to become self-sufficent.
                    I understand completely that there are situations where a SAHM will never be able to equal the standard of living that existed within the relationship, so how about a graduated approach?
                    Why are higher income earners seemingly punished for being successful, while their ex-spouses aren't even asked to support themselves?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi working,

                      It seems to me that if there are means, need can always be created.
                      I have seen several financial statements where support payors are claiming a $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 monthly deficit. I think it's just as easy to show lack of means if there is a need. It's hard to determine whether a need is legitimate, but just as hard to determine whether a payor's lack of means is legitimate.

                      Particularly in short-term relationships, economic disadvantage is difficult to prove, but even if one accepts that it exists, for how long, and to what degree should the now ex-partner be responsible for supporting another adult?
                      In our jurisdiction, the trend is toward indefinite orders
                      With short term relationships, usually under five years, I would think it's very uncommon for spousal support to be awarded for an indefinite amount of time. In most cases, support is limited to a couple of years, or some support recipients accept lum-sum spousal support.

                      Spousal support recipients are absolutely encouraged, if not ordered, to obtain employment. Obviously this may not apply in some situations, such as a support recipient with a disability. The court will examine the recipient's employment history to determine how experienced he/she is, and how long he/she has been out of the work force. Obviously, the more experienced the recipient, the easier he/she will find a job, and the less need for support.

                      Spousal support is reviewable the same as child support. While in some cases it may not always be revisited every single year, it may be revisisted within 2 or 3 years of an order. Unfortunately, it all depends on the specifics of the case, and this is why spousal support is such a sticky subject.

                      I see what you're saying in your post, but I thought I would just examine the other side of things.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lindsay
                        Hi working,

                        I have seen several financial statements where support payors are claiming a $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 monthly deficit. I think it's just as easy to show lack of means if there is a need. It's hard to determine whether a need is legitimate, but just as hard to determine whether a payor's lack of means is legitimate.
                        As far as financial statements go, I do see what you are talking about as far as both sides being able to say whatever they want - the reality is that income has to be declared to Revenue Canada, and while I am certain the unscrupulous could find ways around that, for the most part, it's an effective way to determine income level - it's very difficult to determine the complete truth on the 'need' side in a similar manner.

                        Originally posted by Lindsay
                        With short term relationships, usually under five years, I would think it's very uncommon for spousal support to be awarded for an indefinite amount of time. In most cases, support is limited to a couple of years, or some support recipients accept lum-sum spousal support.
                        We sat before a case management judge recently who assured us that even a short (6 year) relationship, an indefinite order was likely ... kinda scary for the payor! The issue with a lump sum, of course, is that there is no tax benefit for the payor - he loses dollar for dollar.

                        Originally posted by Lindsay
                        Spousal support recipients are absolutely encouraged, if not ordered, to obtain employment. Obviously this may not apply in some situations, such as a support recipient with a disability. The court will examine the recipient's employment history to determine how experienced he/she is, and how long he/she has been out of the work force. Obviously, the more experienced the recipient, the easier he/she will find a job, and the less need for support.
                        In your experience, what would happen to a recipient who did not obtain gainful employment prior to a review? Might support be terminated regardless? Or would that still imply need?

                        Originally posted by Lindsay
                        I see what you're saying in your post, but I thought I would just examine the other side of things.
                        Thanks Lindsay - I know disagreeing with blanket orders of spousal isn't a popular opinion - but it's just that - my opinion! I appreciate the other side of things, and always like to hear balanced positions

                        I do understand that there are without a doubt many situations where some spousal, for either a specific or an indefinate amount of time is absolutely required. It just sounds to me like more and more people are believing spousal should be an absolute in most situations, and I take issue with that, is all.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Workingthruit -

                          I strongly recommend that you defer to the spousal support guidelines. They clarify "ranges" of time for spousal support based on the length of the marriage. I believe that it is an automatic indefinite in cases where the marriage is 20 years or more.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I would like to give my opinion on Spousal Support. First off I feel here in Ontario Judges have gotten out of hands in giving record amounts and record time levels. I know wants my ex is successful in getting it-it will financially destroy me. What good is having the paying spouse get to the point where he cannot start living his own or her own life anymore? If record amounts are to be awarded I can see more and more people going into arrears. What good will that be.
                            I agree with getting the spouse who stayed home back on their feet, but how long must it take. There should be limits on the amount of time one can collect and get back into the work force.
                            Looking at my own situation, my ex has been off work for 14 months and as made no attempt to find a job. When I finally end up in court will the Judge look at that, and ask her why she hasn’t looked for a job. Properly not. He will most likely have me pay her retro support and allow her indefinite time limit.
                            I do know if I can’t survive with what he says, then I will have to do what I think is right.
                            People must be reasonable. Does that exist anymore?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi working,

                              I do see what you are talking about as far as both sides being able to say whatever they want - the reality is that income has to be declared to Revenue Canada
                              In their financial statement, each party provides a list of their monthly expenses. While a payor could be making, say $80,000.00 a year, he/she could also claim thousands of dollars in expenses per month. If they have a huge debt load, they could be paying a large amount per month simply on interest. They could be paying a lot in medical expenses, or a lot in day care. These kinds of expenses, aside from daycare, would not be reflected on an income tax return.

                              income has to be declared to Revenue Canada, and while I am certain the unscrupulous could find ways around that, for the most part, it's an effective way to determine income level
                              As far as determining an income level, yes, I agree that income tax returns show this - at least the base salary. But in some cases, particularly with self-employed payors, the parties must also determine the bonuses and commission on top of what is submitted to the CRA. So there is another issue that may have to be dealt with before determining spousal support.

                              We sat before a case management judge recently who assured us that even a short (6 year) relationship, an indefinite order was likely
                              I'm not sure whether that surprises me. What is considered a long-term relationship, and what is considered short-term? There has to be a point where short-term ends and long-term begins. My understanding is that a short-term marriage normally ends when the parties have been married for longer than 5 years. Whether spousal support should be fixed or indefinite could depend on the situation. For 5 years, was the payor making $200,000.00 per year and the recipient nothing? What if the payor was making $1,000,000.00 per year? That's 5 years of an extremely high standard of living.

                              In your experience, what would happen to a recipient who did not obtain gainful employment prior to a review? Might support be terminated regardless? Or would that still imply need?
                              To be honest, I'm really not sure. The recipient has to at least show that a reasonable effort has been made to gain employment. But then there's the question of what is "reasonable." What could possibly happen is that, upon review, the support payments would be decreased due to the fact that the recipient has had more than enough time to secure employment. That's another issue that would really be up to the mediator/arbitrator/judge (assuming that the parties were unsuccessful in negotiating this issue).

                              spousal, for either a specific or an indefinate amount of time is absolutely required
                              You're absolutely right. The fact is that if two people are in a relationship, and one party makes more than the other per year, the party with the smaller income is entitled to support, whether it be for a fixed amount of time or indefinite.

                              Lindsay

                              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