Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This system needs work!!

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
    Why should tax payers have to pay for parents to put their children in daycare? What about the mass of people who don't have kids? Their tax dollars go towards other peoples kids because parents don't want to be responsible for their own offspring?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ? Do people not already pay tax for education that they may not use as they don’t have kids, a healthcare system they may never need, roads as they may not have a car to drive, our military that we don’t really require and on and on. The costs of the family court system across Canada are in the millions if not billions that should managed better than it is, this cost is probably staggering and would definitely help to achieve a better workforce across the country.

    We are not talking about children here, it’s about spouses, man or women that cry about what the other owes me and looks for every out available to get more money. If people were accountable for their own actions life could be different and government should look at means to achieve this instead of insisting to pay for others.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
      ? Do people not already pay tax for education that they may not use as they don’t have kids, a healthcare system they may never need, roads as they may not have a car to drive, our military that we don’t really require and on and on. The costs of the family court system across Canada are in the millions if not billions that should managed better than it is, this cost is probably staggering and would definitely help to achieve a better workforce across the country.



      We are not talking about children here, it’s about spouses, man or women that cry about what the other owes me and looks for every out available to get more money. If people were accountable for their own actions life could be different and government should look at means to achieve this instead of insisting to pay for others.


      Exactly... people need to be responsible for their own actions so if you consent to a spouse staying home and raising your children then you need to pay for said actions. If you decide to have children and return to work then you need to be responsible for your own actions and pay your own daycare, not expect the government to. If you decide to work instead of taking your share of the parental leave then you need to be responsible for your own action and concede to the fact that you have allowed your spouse to take your share. If you decide to support your spouse throughout their marriage then you need to be responsible for your own actions and continue supporting them after marriage, after all it was your actions that created this situation.

      Maybe a better alternative if that if one spouse is going to stay home the other pays them a wage as a home maker, that way they have an opportunity to save their own money and have their own investments? Stay at home spouses basically work for their spouse but get no compensation.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
        So then please explain how this is either partner’s responsibility to “pay” for the person to live? In most cases both parties individually have made more money in the duration, financially they have grown with investments and other means together. So why would the one partner who usually started with a higher income on the hook to pay the other partner? I guarantee when most people meet no one is pulling someone off the street, taking them off welfare in order to live together. Both parties were living separate lives before without help now one person has to subsidise ones income?

        Only in family law can this take place, the one with the higher income is always on the hook to pay for the other person for whatever reason and to boot with a timeframe with or without children. I would like to hear this and the government needs to stay out of people’s lives as majority of the cases its hatred and greed. I personally have settled and don’t pay, I’m not bitter about it but the system needs to be looked at as it is a joke.
        Unfounded, unproven assumptions.
        You don't get it. That's ok. You settled. You certainly do sound bitter though.

        You should enlighten yourself if you want to continue this sort of discussion though. Read cases from CanLii for a start. You do not understand the basic law w.r.t. and difference and combination of SS and CS. In order to get a grasp of thing you should really read precedent cases upon which judges have based their decisions and how the current laws have evolved.

        Read the part about how one person (not always female) gives up career to stay home and raise family. After you understand that part you might be able to grasp things a little better.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
          Exactly... people need to be responsible for their own actions so if you consent to a spouse staying home and raising your children then you need to pay for said actions. If you decide to have children and return to work then you need to be responsible for your own actions and pay your own daycare, not expect the government to. If you decide to work instead of taking your share of the parental leave then you need to be responsible for your own action and concede to the fact that you have allowed your spouse to take your share. If you decide to support your spouse throughout their marriage then you need to be responsible for your own actions and continue supporting them after marriage, after all it was your actions that created this situation.

          Maybe a better alternative if that if one spouse is going to stay home the other pays them a wage as a home maker, that way they have an opportunity to save their own money and have their own investments? Stay at home spouses basically work for their spouse but get no compensation.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
          I have always maintained that a wage paid to the stay-at-home parent would solve most of the problems.

          Also people should look at the contractual obligation a bit more.

          Comment


          • #35
            System does need work and the government is aware. So are the judges, lawyers, social workers, and everyone else who has touched Family Law with a 40-foot pole.

            Biggest problem is that it is biased. Take all Spousal support cases denied, and you will find that 80% of the were denied to men. Now take those 80% of the cases, and reverse the situation so the man and women are now on opposite sitdes, and you will find that women in the reversed situation were granted spousal support.

            As our judges retire and we hire new judges, the biases of the family courts , specifically the biases of stuck in the past old skool judges, will start to go away.
            Last edited by trinton; 08-30-2017, 04:30 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Although the judicial branch is a major part of the problem, I have an issue with the statute laws too. The law has largely lost the concept of personal responsibility. I do not see more men receiving spousal support as the solution; in fact, I am quite repulsed by that concept. What is needed is less state interference and less litigation.

              The law as is, particularly the Child Support Guidelines, incentivize litigation and parental alienation.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by CoolGuy41 View Post
                Although the judicial branch is a major part of the problem, I have an issue with the statute laws too. The law has largely lost the concept of personal responsibility. I do not see more men receiving spousal support as the solution; in fact, I am quite repulsed by that concept. What is needed is less state interference and less litigation.

                The law as is, particularly the Child Support Guidelines, incentivize litigation and parental alienation.
                It's not about more men receiving more about SS. It's the mere fact that the judges are biased and discriminating against men.

                The law says both parents are equally entitled to custody, and that maximum contact with both parents is generally in the best interests of the children, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Evidence to suggest otherwise should be real danger of harm, not the mother doesn't like dad.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                  ... if you consent to a spouse staying home ...
                  ... you have allowed your spouse ...
                  ... you decide to support your spouse throughout their marriage ...

                  ... then you need to be responsible for your own actions and continue supporting them after marriage, after all it was your actions that created this situation.
                  I've heard these sentiments several times as I went through my separation and divorce and this manner of thinking really bothers me.

                  It's as if the spouse is some minor child who is unable to think or decide for themselves. It seem to me with this line of thought the responsibility only applies to one party in the marriage, while the other has none whatsoever.

                  And if the spouse decides to quit work and stay at home after the marriage? If the spouse decides to stay at home once children are older and in school? If the spouse simply decides not to work? What then?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
                    I've heard these sentiments several times as I went through my separation and divorce and this manner of thinking really bothers me.



                    It's as if the spouse is some minor child who is unable to think or decide for themselves. It seem to me with this line of thought the responsibility only applies to one party in the marriage, while the other has none whatsoever.



                    And if the spouse decides to quit work and stay at home after the marriage? If the spouse decides to stay at home once children are older and in school? If the spouse simply decides not to work? What then?


                    You cannot control another person but you can control you and what you do/consent to. If your spouse decides not to work and you don't agree you do not have to stay in the marriage. You have the option to leave. By deciding to stay you are consenting to the behaviour. It's like being a bystander... no one forced you to stay in an relationship with an unemployed ex... that was your decision and If that means you owe spousal support that's on your shoulders. You can't consent to supporting her and then all the sudden argue you didn't agree it was her decision.


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                      Y... and you don't agree you do not have to stay in the marriage. You have the option to leave.
                      Sad, but true.

                      If you are married to someone who decides not to work, or not to go back to work, the financially prudent thing to do is to end the marriage and cut your losses, ASAP.

                      As others have mentioned in these forums, for each day you support your spouse, you are on the hook for an extra half day of support. No good deed goes unpunished.

                      This is our Family Law system at the present time.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        There are options:

                        pre-nuptial agreement
                        marriage agreement
                        separation agreement

                        Strange that we don't hear much about marriage agreements.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I guess we only hear about agreements when they are thrown out by the court, not when they are upheld.

                          Given all that is involved with dissolving a marriage, they are far too easy to get into. If it was written up as a contract, it would probably be a very lengthy document and prevent many couples from marrying.

                          We'd also have a whole bunch of cases of Breach of Contract clogging up the courts! ("They didn't go back to work when they said they would!")

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
                            If you are married to someone who decides not to work, or not to go back to work, the financially prudent thing to do is to end the marriage and cut your losses, ASAP.
                            Depends on the type of female you married. If she was normal and you loved her , then you did the right thing. If she was a b1sh (a gold digger) that used it as an opportunity to turn around and screw you over with SS exactly 3 years later, then you made the wrong decision.

                            Women have the upper hand in this country given the bias and gender discrimination of the Family Law system and Family Court Judges, and sometimes you just won't know if she loves you or not. It's sad to think you would divorce her if she didn't work, given what the children would go through. I guess this is just one of many of the traumas the Canadian family laws cause upon families and children. If there was no SS, then this wouldn't happen. If she didn't love him then she would end it right there and then, not stay at home for 3 years pretending to love him, then get SS and continue banging the new guy. A good female, would just be upfront with you and not set you up for SS, every other weekend access, and full guideline child support + daycare + hockey + horseback riding + tea and wholewheat toast costs every morning. She would kindly let you know her feelings, end it, and get her butt in gear and get a job and further support an equal relationship with your kids.

                            Be glad however if she didn't 0-60 to a local women's "shelter" and show up to court with her 37 support workers.
                            Last edited by trinton; 09-01-2017, 11:22 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I am going to respond to the title of this post "the system needs work".
                              I agree 100%. Lawyers and/or the family justice system should start by being upfront with people. Instead of the standard line of "I can't tell you how much this litigation is going to cost"...they should be honest and tell you that the process involves multiple case conferences at $5000 per appearance, motions at $5000 per motion and then multiple TMC's at $5000 per pop. This does not include other work or emailing or correspondence your lawyer does inbetween. This can go on for upwards of seven years. You will also need to add in OCL or parenting assessors who also charge a minimum of $5000. Your litigation fees can easily run north of $200,000 prior to trial. Trial's can last 4-20 days at a cost of $5000 per day and a minimum of $15000 prep. Trials can then be appealed by a special appeals lawyer who charges 15000 minimum.

                              This detailed and frank conversation should be mandated by law whenever a family lawyer and new client meet.

                              This would be a good place to start to improve this destructive and soul crushing system. Just saying.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                my bill from my lawyer today was for just shy of 4000$, for 1 month only. Ive spent about 8000$ so far, and only separated 6 months, and have no agreement in place, and preparing for court

                                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