Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let`s assume

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

  • Let`s assume

    I have a question. And for this question, let`s just ASSUME its facts and possible outcomes. (knowing full well that "assume" makes an A55 of U and ME)

    So, let`s suppose that an ex-spouse loses his/her home to the bank for failing to make mortgage payment. This house is NOT the matrimonial home. This parent is now renting a "shack". This parent has 50% shared custody. This parent is obliged to make CS payment through FRO, ordered by the court.

    The specific question is as follows : Could this (losing the home) in any way, in the long or short term, affect the 50% shared custody? Does bad money management play a role somewhere along the way?

    Let`s assume best and worst case scenarios. Feel free to use your imagination. I am curious to find out about your responses and opinions.

  • #2
    Just an opinion .. but I would think that the type of home and amount of income wouldn't affect shared custody as long as the child's needs continue to be met.... whatever those may be(?) .. a clean and safe place to live, food, clothes, emotional support and care-giving, reasonable stuff... etc., etc. But that's just my uninformed opinion, based on nothing really.. ... I'm sure others will have better replies. Good luck.

    Comment


    • #3
      Pleasde define "emotional support". How does one go about discussing and proving lack of? A touchy one...

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't know really .. I guess I think of it as generally being available to the child .. to talk, enjoy each other's company, help with homework, and even proper discipline snd structure .... versus, say, emotional neglect and/or abuse that adversely affects the child somehow.

        But, again, I really don't have a clue. Just thinking as I type.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Suzie View Post
          I have a question. And for this question, let`s just ASSUME its facts and possible outcomes. (knowing full well that "assume" makes an A55 of U and ME)

          So, let`s suppose that an ex-spouse loses his/her home to the bank for failing to make mortgage payment. This house is NOT the matrimonial home. This parent is now renting a "shack". This parent has 50% shared custody. This parent is obliged to make CS payment through FRO, ordered by the court.
          Who is defining the new place as a "shack". The parent who is renting or the other parent... being a "shack" would be dependent on ones opinion. What I would consider a shack, others may not and vice versa.

          The specific question is as follows : Could this (losing the home) in any way, in the long or short term, affect the 50% shared custody? Does bad money management play a role somewhere along the way?
          As long as the children are being taken care of, there is no reason it would affect custody. The only way it would MAYBE affect custody is if the parent that is not living in the "shack" takes it upon themselves to arbitrarily change the custody arrangement.

          Comment


          • #6
            to me as long as the shack isnt a cardboard box on the side of the street, as long as it is safe then who really cares what it looks like. To some people my house may not be good enough for them because its a semi-detached, but to me its my palace. Its all perception.

            Losing a house isnt just because of bad money mangagement. It could be a job loss, injury or whatever. There are so many factors that can lead to home loss. There should not be a stigma attached to it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Don't think you lose you home for failing to make "a" mortgage payment... would have to be a series of missed payments I would think. Circumstances in losing home might be of relevance (drug abuse, gambling, mental illness).

              Shack is ok as long as it is clean, warm, and safe.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Suzie View Post
                The specific question is as follows : Could this (losing the home) in any way, in the long or short term, affect the 50% shared custody? Does bad money management play a role somewhere along the way?
                If one parent can only live in a shack, then perhaps CS should be adjusted to better equalize the financial situation between the two households, for the best interests of the children.

                As an alternative, the fiscally responsible parent can try to grab sole custody. If the genders were reversed, this would have a snowball's chance in hell (mother losing kids because she doesn't have enough money? no way, father would be hosed), but with the noted genders, it might be possible.

                Comment


                • #9
                  An interesting "what if".... too bad it is now going become a battle of the sexes. I'm not so sure that OP was looking for this sort of a response.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Janus View Post
                    If one parent can only live in a shack, then perhaps CS should be adjusted to better equalize the financial situation between the two households, for the best interests of the children.

                    As an alternative, the fiscally responsible parent can try to grab sole custody. If the genders were reversed, this would have a snowball's chance in hell (mother losing kids because she doesn't have enough money? no way, father would be hosed), but with the noted genders, it might be possible.
                    uggh please lets not make this about genders

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have long posited that greater equality in Family Law is coming due to same sex marriages. Who is the mommy and who is the daddy becomes irrelevent when there isn't a mommy or a daddy.
                      With this in mind, I wonder if ones chances in court would improve if they decided to become transgender???
                      Mrs. Doubtfire goes to court? ^^^^

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        So long as the children remain fed, clothed and have a place to sleep, I can't see it being an issue.

                        We don't take children away from low income families simply due to the type of residence they live in. If the house was filthy and the kids were living in squaller with little to eat and no place to sleep, then yes, it would become a matter for the CAS to intervene and arrange for an alternate living scenario.

                        Bad money management is no reason to change status quo unless it is due to an other factor (ie. drug addiction).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Suzie View Post
                          Does bad money management play a role somewhere along the way?
                          it does, average millionaire goes bankrupt twice along the way .. lol

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                            uggh please lets not make this about genders
                            But it is about genders. In a case conference, when the judge asked my ex how she was going to provide for our son. (my ex quit her job after separation because she was too busy with litigation) My ex said she would move for more SS, CS and exclusive possession from me. Very innocent response but the judge was not convinced, not because of this answer but because the status quo was working fine for our son. Could I have given the same answer had the situation been reverse?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You could have given the same answer and you would have gotten the same response from the judge.

                              You could argue gender bias if the judge had agreed with her reasoning.

                              What you encountered was a sense of entitlement from your ex, due to her gender. Yes that exists in society. It has nothing to do with bias in the courts.

                              You could encounter judges who have bias and would acknowledge gender entitlement, but this is diminishing year by year.

                              When you say the judge referred to "status quo", that was a simplistic answer to close the conversation.

                              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