Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My letter to Justin Trudeau

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by arabian View Post
    So your ex is off making big money, drags you through court to get 50-50, then doesn't see his child?

    Maybe there should be a "default" where if an absentee parent doesn't exercise access the 50-50 is automatically nullified?

    If we could bring contempt motions for not using access - then that would be a remedy. But, apparently you can't force a parent to be a parent even if they already agreed to be a parent.

    If we could bring contempt motions for not honouring the financial aspects of the agreements, that might be a remedy. But, I believe that can't be done either.

    So, from a legal point of view, I could do NOTHING until he moved out of the country and established a definitive material change. Doesn't stop him from appearing - by phone - to contest my quest for sole custody.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by FB_ View Post
      The court system's are not gender bias. The reason the things are the way they are is because of historic household roles not court bias.

      Again a system that encourages fighting is the problem. The system needs to be fixed but not because of gender bias. It's because it is significantly out of date with current roles and current economic realities. There is almost no reason that 50/50 shouldn't be ordered in MOST cases. I agree abuse and other problems are issues but most of the cases can be solves quickly without fighting using common sense. A system that demands 50/50 as a starting point would be a good place to start.

      People also have to take responsibility for where they are in their lives. Decisions they have made and the affects that it has on them, their children and their finances.
      Okay, so lets assume we use a 50/50 starting point. Now given all the different dynamics there are, of course, there are going to be different outcomes. That is expected and perfectly acceptable.

      What is not acceptable is the behaviour afterwards of both genders! Nor is it acceptable that we have a system that not only supports the bad behaviour but often encourages it.

      How do we fix this? God only knows!

      Maybe we need a system with no lawyers, no judges, just a mediator who sits down the parties either together if they can face each other or in separate rooms. You have 5 sessions. Sort it out or have a standard agreement which has 50/50 custody, both incomes added up and split 50/50 and a ban on having anymore children or relationships for 5 years. And once an agreement has either been agreed or imposed you cannot change it for 5 years and immediate criminal charges for anyone who does not abide 100% by the terms of the agreement. Because it is criminal for any parent to use a child as a pawn in their personal hate agenda for an ex partner.

      I doubt that the above would work though. We have fundamental freedoms and rights to screw up our own, and everyone involved with us, lives and we would need a complete support system funded and managed by the government which of course will never happen. Children don't vote.

      So we need to take tiny steps to fix some problems and hope we can move forward to a better system. Maybe we all need to take a step back and look at our own situations and see how we could do better and hope our move towards a better relationship with ex's will pay foreword. Maybe we can kill our Ex's with kindness,!!!
      Last edited by Beachnana; 02-21-2014, 12:51 PM. Reason: Missed the word kill lol

      Comment


      • #48
        Ship all the parents off to an isolated location - no one leaves until issues are resolved. You have one crack at it so if you don't bring your financials tough luck. Kids are off having fun in a camp somewhere.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by arabian View Post
          Ship all the parents off to an isolated location - no one leaves until issues are resolved. You have one crack at it so if you don't bring your financials tough luck. Kids are off having fun in a camp somewhere.
          Ha Ha. Reminds me of a sign I saw outside a "posh" English Pub. " parents of children found to be disruptive will be asked to take their children outside" someone had added " where the useless parents will be shot and the children given away to more deserving people"

          We are all our own worst enemies for sure!

          Comment


          • #50
            This is the whole point, it's way more complicated than a simple set of standards will ever be able to handle.

            The best interests of the children allows for that.

            Again the problem is the ability to fight for money. The default should be 50/50 with set-off CS. It's then up to the parents to step up and make sure they do what they have to do to maintain it. Lets face it people are going to fight, no law is going to stop that. The problem is it's setup backwards. The onus is currently on a parent to prove 50/50 is in their best interest. It should be the burden to prove that it's not in the best interest.

            Again the current system is setup that when a parent moves out he/she loses rights. Having two parents in a fight living in the same house is NOT in the best interest of the children. You should have 50/50 until it can be proven otherwise.

            In cases where one parent moves current laws should apply in regard to access/custody. If a parent really wants to be an equal the actions will speak for themselves. Deadbeat parents aren't going to change... Again there is no law to fix these people because they just don't care.

            Comment


            • #51
              If one can allow for the possibility that some, not all dads are dead beats. One can also allow room for the possibility that some, not all mothers are malicious in their actions in family court. There are many fail safes already established because of the cultural phenomenon of dead beats yet where are the fail safes to prevent legal harassment, patient alienation, false accusations and financial devastation?

              We have an entire act around enforcement of payments which includes garnishment, licence lost, and in effect debtors prison.

              These laws came into place because there were deadbeats and still are.

              Yet, what are the laws for denied access? Why should one parent ever lose status of joint custody unless in an extreme case if proven not alleged abuse.

              I referred to the pendulum of laws because it is not in the middle or equal. Yet to deny the possibility that some women are vindictive seeking power and profit out of a sole custody award is denying thousands of men's stories across this country.

              Therefore we need to look at all ways the system can be abused, both by men and by women. What social implications laws have on our children and society at large. And what economic hardships are created for anyone payor and payee in a court room that allows for laws to be use against one another.

              You can't fix problems by denying half of the equation.


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by karmaseeker View Post
                If one can allow for the possibility that some, not all dads are dead beats. One can also allow room for the possibility that some, not all mothers are malicious in their actions in family court. There are many fail safes already established because of the cultural phenomenon of dead beats yet where are the fail safes to prevent legal harassment, patient alienation, false accusations and financial devastation?

                We have an entire act around enforcement of payments which includes garnishment, licence lost, and in effect debtors prison.

                These laws came into place because there were deadbeats and still are.

                Yet, what are the laws for denied access? Why should one parent ever lose status of joint custody unless in an extreme case if proven not alleged abuse.

                I referred to the pendulum of laws because it is not in the middle or equal. Yet to deny the possibility that some women are vindictive seeking power and profit out of a sole custody award is denying thousands of men's stories across this country.

                Therefore we need to look at all ways the system can be abused, both by men and by women. What social implications laws have on our children and society at large. And what economic hardships are created for anyone payor and payee in a court room that allows for laws to be use against one another.

                You can't fix problems by denying half of the equation.


                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                The only thing I'll state is that the father of my child is a deadbeat dad. Not because he's in arrears, but because he doesn't bother one tiny bit with the child.

                My husband is the opposite of a deadbeat dad to his son. And that mom isn't malicious at all - but her same-sex partner is.

                So, the only Malicious Mothers I come across are the wives of my ex and my husband's ex.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by karmaseeker View Post
                  You can't fix problems by denying half of the equation

                  Probably the best thing you've said so far.


                  The proposed legislative change, which I personally think will go no-where, does not address the other "half of the equation" but instead is intended to give automatic rights to absentee parents. It also does not address the situation of children born out of rape or incest. Give default 50-50 rights to a pervert? I think not.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Karmaseeker - I agree strongly with your last few points. To further contribute to your position I think we need multiple levers and a holistic approach to how the law is reformed. More specifically we need connecting AND intersecting laws that deal with more facets than just child support payments. I agree that alienation and denial of access to children is of utmost importance. Most interestingly is that access to BOTH parents is the right of the CHILD. But there are no sanctions to be had when denying the child that right. It ends up being a circular situation and no one is held accountable for their actions and inactions. The kids suffer at the hands of their parent and the law is idle to that affect.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by karmaseeker View Post

                      We have an entire act around enforcement of payments which includes garnishment, licence lost, and in effect debtors prison.

                      These laws came into place because there were deadbeats and still are.

                      Yet, what are the laws for denied access? Why should one parent ever lose status of joint custody unless in an extreme case if proven not alleged abuse.


                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                      The laws for denied access? Contempt of Court covers that. Ask my ex. It's one of his favourite "compliance" methods.

                      What's the law for absentee parent not showing for access?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        We brought a contempt motion for denied access we didn't win contempt but were were awarded make up time.

                        I think a lot if people don't even bring their issues to court because they feel defeat before thy even begin because there is no clear outline of the process for this particular situation. Which is non sensical consider the pages and pages in the protocol of how to serve someone papers.

                        There are massive gaps in family law and little accountability.

                        Where the presumption of equal access should be the startin point there needs to be multiple scenarios of where to go in different circumstances. Like a spiders legs spread out from its body.

                        Obviously, a child conceived if rape should be handled differently. Leg one.

                        Leg 2: where parents live in same town

                        Leg 3 where parents live in separate towns or countries

                        Leg 4: where there is mental illness, abuse, or other fundementallu reason to question ones ability to parent. Proven not alleged.

                        Leg 5: where there is extreme high conflict.

                        Leg 6: when a payor dodges payment.

                        Leg 6: where a parent participates in denied access, harassment, parent alienation, or mental abuse of the children.

                        7: when spousal support is included

                        8. When cs, as, and section 7 are all applied for. Which I suggested a solution for in my original post.

                        9 where there are more children born in second marriages. ALL children Should be given equal rights.

                        Etc

                        Legislators love writing a million and one clauses for a million and one circumstances. It is absolutely doable to foresee solutions and create unique clauses for multiple if situations.


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by karmaseeker View Post
                          Arabian, Occupy is MY facebook page! Not OTtawa Divorce.com - but yet again you made a totally random accusation right out of thin air.

                          Are you out trolling on father's right pages? That is very questionable behaviour!!!!

                          And yes I provide a link to Ottawa Divorce.com
                          There's a big difference between providing a link for informational purposes and listing this website as your page's contact. Your opinions are not that of Ottawa Divorce Forum, nor are they endorsed or supported by this forum. You are misrepresenting your affiliations with this forum.

                          You are hereby respectfully asked to REMOVE the link from your page's personal contact links, should you wish to list it as a resource please feel free to do it elsewhere and state it's purpose, as a resource not owned or operated by you or your page.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by arabian View Post
                            Probably the best thing you've said so far.


                            The proposed legislative change, which I personally think will go no-where, does not address the other "half of the equation" but instead is intended to give automatic rights to absentee parents. It also does not address the situation of children born out of rape or incest. Give default 50-50 rights to a pervert? I think not.

                            Arabian you bring up a good point... default 50/50 has many pros but also cons. As many posters are aware, there are many disinterested parents, both male and female, but when it comes down to it, those disinterested parents would exercise their rights to 50/50 for offset CS purposes. This isn't necessarily in the best interest of the children.

                            It really is a fine line. There are many parents who would love 50/50 but their ex's fight it tooth and nail because they want 100% CS, but there are also cases where someone fights for 50/50 just so they can pay offset CS

                            In the case of incest - neither deserve to be parents (in my opinion) and as for rape, a rapist poses a risk to the child, therefore should not have any access (in my opinion)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              You want a change, get a lobby group, lots of money and apply some pressure. Politicians don't give a crap about whining men even if they're right (95% of CS payors are men)

                              Also if you read what the FCSG are based on you'll realize the guidelines themselves are complete crap. Compare the analysis to the Australian government analysis and you'll see what i mean. Especially in reference to equivalence scales (which is the foundation of the guidelines)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                                You want a change, get a lobby group, lots of money and apply some pressure. Politicians don't give a crap about whining men even if they're right (95% of CS payors are men)

                                Also if you read what the FCSG are based on you'll realize the guidelines themselves are complete crap. Compare the analysis to the Australian government analysis and you'll see what i mean. Especially in reference to equivalence scales (which is the foundation of the guidelines)

                                The guidelines are applicable to both genders.

                                If the guidelines are a problem, take up that cause. Keep gender out of the argument altogether, as it is irrelevant to the problem you claim. By including this gender bias argument you completely invalidate your claim by becoming one of those whinimg men.

                                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