Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

interesting article

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

  • interesting article

    Experts recommend changes to Quebec family laws to reflect current trends | CTV News

  • #2
    Links will be tossing in his sleep tonight about this one.

    I agree that parent's who stay home with children and who are disadvantaged by it should be compensation. Wait.... isn't that.... spousal support?

    Thanks for the link SOTS - very, very interesting and something that I'm sure will lead to a lively debate here.

    Comment


    • #3
      See and I think when they say things like 'common law couples shouldnt have the same rights as married couples' it makes me think we have a hierarchy of parenting, its unfortunate but a lot of times its the parents who children when they arent in a relationship that get the worst of it.

      I personally think its time they made a set of rights for all parents instead of attempting to classify them by their living situation.

      Society has changed drastically, theres less marriages, more divorces, more common law unions, more children born out of wedlock and one night stands and everyone across the board has increased cost of living.

      Im not trying to start a massive debate with my opinions, but Im sure lots of us would agree that Family Law is a little out of touch with reality, and modelled on social concepts from 60-80 years ago.

      Its time to just revamp it entirely so its reflective of modern day society, and for gods sake, do something about the cost of it. Its not right to financially destroy familys to ensure the childrens best interests are upheld, because its not in the childs best interests to financially destroy the parents.

      Comment


      • #4
        The arguement against common law couples getting the benefit of spousal support is that when you marry you apparently make an explicit agreement to partner up financially (I never saw that in the agreement, but anyways) however by not marrying you are giving each person the autonomy to decide what they want to do with their career and not make the other person responsible. The new recommendations are actually not so bad in certain ways but I am 100% sure the way they will be implemented me will be them the equivalent to spousal support.

        Comment


        • #5
          Center piece of the recommendations seems to be the welfare of children of a common law relationship. That's long overdue. Bravo!

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't think it really changes laws pertaining to the welfare of children. Parental responsibilities flow from the parent-child relationship, not from any relationship between the parents.

            What did strike me is what appears to be a move away from indefinite spousal support (what the article inaccurately calls alimony) to the principle of a fixed sum awarded in compensation for opportunities foregone because one parent was at home raising children - in other words, putting a clearer price tag on the opportunity cost of being a stay-at-home parent, whether or not you're married to the other parent.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't trust the legislators to do it well at all.

              I do agree that the "hierarchy of parenthood" which could disadvantage SAHMs if a common-law parternship dissolves doesn't seem right.

              However, in my situation, I am now (against our collective will) declared common-law and do not have kids with my partner, but we both have kids from previous marriages who live with us part-time.

              We each take care of our OWN kids financially. I pay support for mine, and she is responsible for all the expenses of hers. It is already ridiculous that CRA and Canadian Law in general conspire to make this arrangement costly, impractical and unfair.

              All benefits, subsidies and credits are removed from my partner because the law is assuming I will "take over" and pay for her kids. Not only is that unfair, it's not even remotely possible when I am already paying support for my own children. So our whole family suffers, essentially so that I can try and protect myself from being declared in-loco parentis.

              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