Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Women's Rights

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

  • #31
    Your counter-arguments actually validate everything I said. Including your reply to LV's post above.

    For example, you stated:

    "...often it is the interpretation of the law..."

    My point exactly why we need firm rules to prevent all this "interpretation".

    You also added:

    "We should be examining the reasons why one or both parties brought the matter to court in the first place."

    Because we have no firm rules. Lose your job. back to court. Get a raise. back to court. No custody or access laws. Off to court. Ex spouse gets married, back to court to end SS. SS duration, amounts, variations. CS amounts, variation, duration. Section 7. Section 9. Section 15. Imputed incomes. And on and on. It goes on forever.

    Long affidavits. Lies. False allegations of Abuse. False criminal allegations. Restraining orders. CAS. Its all part of the game to work the system.

    You have contradicted yourself. In previous posts you mention they are revising the SS laws. Why. Because the current non-law is a mess. The looser the framework, the more play to the game.

    Primary caregiver term is a load of crap. It is a big check-box to determine custody and access. You yourself have stated that whether perceived or real, Mom is the PG. Therefore, Dad's case is completely prejudiced before walking into the courtroom and he is on the defence.

    Also, are we to believe that in any family that Mom has passed on, or moves out or falls of the face of the earth, the other parent doesn't step in. Are we to say in this modern two-income family that Dad is not pulling his share. Good lord. I only need to walk down my block to see Dad’s out there doing stuff with their kids. Parties. Lessons. Appoitments. School.

    The reasons Dad's asked for shared is: they know that is all they can hope for based on the biases in court.

    It is very easy to sabotage shared parenting by one party. Like you said, simply make sure it doesn't work and judge will rule against that. Again Dad is on the defence. That's two big strikes against him and he hasn’t even prepared his repsonse.

    There are simple reasons why the average case is in court beyond loose laws. Revenge, Punishment and Greed. With no laws, you can do whatever you want. And get a tax deduction! And those reasons equally apply to both sexes.

    Do we let kids drive under 16. No, that’s the law. Each parent doesn’t go before court to prove their kid can drive. Same with drinking. Smoking. Schooling. But when it comes to divorce, who can sling the most mud and exhaust the other parent “wins” the kids and the cash.

    Isn’t this entire thing about the kids? And these are not kids of TWO parents. Why are they suddenly kids of one parent in the eyes of the law - regardless of who changed diapers, made supper, took them to a ball game, taught them to drive.

    It sickens me to put under a microscope constantly when you are divorced. Society has complete double-standard to married couples and children of a marriage. Could you imagine telling any parent that is still married that they can now only see their children every second weekend for 36 hours.

    Comment


    • #32
      Because we have no firm rules. Lose your job. back to court. Get a raise. back to court. No custody or access laws. Off to court. Ex spouse gets married, back to court to end SS. SS duration, amounts, variations. CS amounts, variation, duration. Section 7. Section 9. Section 15. Imputed incomes. And on and on. It goes on forever.

      Long affidavits. Lies. False allegations of Abuse. False criminal allegations. Restraining orders. CAS. Its all part of the game to work the system.
      Your comments here point out the pitfalls of the family law system and it's limitations. Mandatory shared parenting still isn't the answer - it might be desirable from your perspective, but the fact is that both parties in a dispute have rights and one of those rights is to have someone who isn't the two parties in litigation make a decision when both sides can't. So I would throw it back to you, if this is what's wong with the system - what is a better system?

      You have contradicted yourself. In previous posts you mention they are revising the SS laws. Why. Because the current non-law is a mess. The looser the framework, the more play to the game.
      To my knowlege, Ottawa isn't revising laws relating to spousal support. If you are referring to the Spousal Support guidelines, they are a tool which is now being used to give everyone involved in a spousal support dispute an idea of what amounts are realistic given the length of the marriage, whether there are children or not, and the incomes of the parties. The guidelines act to encourage settlement although I am not sure whether there has been less litigation since they started being used by judges and lawyers.

      Primary caregiver term is a load of crap. It is a big check-box to determine custody and access. You yourself have stated that whether perceived or real, Mom is the PG. Therefore, Dad's case is completely prejudiced before walking into the courtroom and he is on the defence.
      Crap or not, in most Canadian households, men defer the primary care of the kids to women.

      Also, are we to believe that in any family that Mom has passed on, or moves out or falls of the face of the earth, the other parent doesn't step in. Are we to say in this modern two-income family that Dad is not pulling his share. Good lord. I only need to walk down my block to see Dad’s out there doing stuff with their kids. Parties. Lessons. Appoitments. School.
      I dislike the term "primary caregiver" as well because it invites an argument of parental fitness based on a division of household labour. That being said, if most father's are deferring most of the child care to their wives when they are married, it should come as no surprise that most women will also assert they were the primary caregiver to the children.

      The reasons Dad's asked for shared is: they know that is all they can hope for based on the biases in court.

      It is very easy to sabotage shared parenting by one party. Like you said, simply make sure it doesn't work and judge will rule against that. Again Dad is on the defence. That's two big strikes against him and he hasn’t even prepared his repsonse.
      If it is so easy to sabatoge shared parenting by one party, then this proves my hypothesis about mandatory shared parenting not working - if one person wants to have primary care or custody, that's the direction they are going to whether shared parenting is mandatory or not.

      There are simple reasons why the average case is in court beyond loose laws. Revenge, Punishment and Greed. With no laws, you can do whatever you want. And get a tax deduction! And those reasons equally apply to both sexes.

      Do we let kids drive under 16. No, that’s the law. Each parent doesn’t go before court to prove their kid can drive. Same with drinking. Smoking. Schooling. But when it comes to divorce, who can sling the most mud and exhaust the other parent “wins” the kids and the cash.

      Isn’t this entire thing about the kids? And these are not kids of TWO parents. Why are they suddenly kids of one parent in the eyes of the law - regardless of who changed diapers, made supper, took them to a ball game, taught them to drive.

      It sickens me to put under a microscope constantly when you are divorced. Society has complete double-standard to married couples and children of a marriage. Could you imagine telling any parent that is still married that they can now only see their children every second weekend for 36 hours.
      Do we require parents to have a license in order to drive a car? Yes. Do parents require licenses to have kids? No. Dr. Catherine Covell from the Children's Rights Centre at the University College of Cape Breton stirred up a controversy about ten years ago by asserting that parents should have a license to have kids and when I am mediating a custody dispute, I often think the exact same thing.

      The fact of the matter is that we live in a period of our history where women are valued for their parenting abilities and men are valued for their earning capacity. I can't change that - this is also reflected in the courts. Is it fair that a guy has to be put under the microscope when he wants shared parenting - absolutely not. However it is also unfair when a stay-at-home mom is put under the microscope when she is asking for spousal support. Everyone is under the microscope in family law litigation - so what is the answer. What is a better system than what we have now? Everyone points the finger of blame at the system but nobody talks about an alternative system that is going to balance the serious issues that you have mentioned.

      Comment


      • #33
        On women's equality

        Some facts to discuss:
        1. Fact: Women biologically are the one's who go through the physical transformation of giving birth to a child. Most often women are the main parent for a child, at least for the first year.
        2. Women still do at least on average 80% of the child care and home care within a house hold whether they work fulll time, part time, or stay at home.
        3. Women are often what would be described as the primary caregiver of the children.
        4. If a man took time off his work to raise children, he is congratulated and appeased for sacrificing his career and income to make the children a priority
        However, a woman who does the same is told that she should be grateful for that opportunity and had "lived for free" and is often asked why she didn't choose to work more.
        (*note: This is said with the understanding that many men who choose to be the primary caregiver are not given the respect as a parent for their role as primary caregiver and are not given equal treatment, should they have chosen to stay home with their kids. I acknoledge that.. and with that i go on

        5.Women, often being the primary caregivers, and often having taken time off to have and raise children, are often at a significant income disadvantage.

        6. having less income means that the person with more income has more power in the separation, whether it is through litigation or as a tool to get what the person wants for an agreement.

        7. Men often seem to use the threat to take the child away from the mother as a means to achieve the agreement they want.

        8. Joint Custody is not often arguable or optional anymore. And can be a serious problem for children in conflict cases.
        9. It is more common for access not to be utilized than to be denied. Its very common that in even in joint custody, less shared custody, that the women must ask the man's permission for almost any decision regarding the child, and leaves her with more chains on her feet than within the marriage. And all the man has to do is paint her as "unfriendly" to be able to punish the woman by using the child as a tool, knowing how that would hurt her.

        10. Abuse is rarely provable and the past conduct of the parent is not usually relevant, especially if it was against the other parent.

        11. Child support should be seperate from time with the child. If one cannot deny access because of a lack of child support, why should money and the child be linked at all then?

        12. Spousal Support: is as LV says: to assist the person with less income to get back on their feet.

        *. In my own experience and research, it is women who should be asking why we are not treated equally. Equal pay, equal respect.
        It seems like where we are at is a step backward, that 50 years ago the role of the mother was valued more than it is today. Why does the role of the mother need to be less valued in order to ensure the role of the father is equally valued.



        Ladies, we have a long way to go. I am not alone in this. The UN has repremanded Canada by not living up to its promise for equal treatment for women. I see a LOT of "father's right's" websites, And while I understand there is merit to argue some of the other side, sorry boys, but you don't know how favoured you are. I would like to see a lot more women stand up for themselves and be less complacent on the issue. We need to take action and fast.

        Comment


        • #34
          Divorce managment: you are certainly a voice of reason.

          Comment


          • #35
            SilverLining

            Are your posts your own or simply C&Ps from NACSM or some other site?
            I think this site is about discussion, not plagiarism.

            FN

            Comment


            • #36
              A good comminity is always diversifed. Opinions which can be supported by official statistics will always go further. The opinion appears to be dated back to the 70's or 80's. Nevertheless, it is welcome.

              Times are changing and Joint Custody is very alive in Ontario. Kruger and Baker are distinguished. Kaplanis, Ladisa, and Ursic are the leading Ontario Appeal Court Decisions.


              lv

              Comment


              • #37
                (Just to clarify: the 50/50 shared physical parenting, not to be confused with the definition of "joint decision making" or Joint Custiody, which I support and see very differently from shared parenting, My notes were discussions on women's rights, and the problems with the presumption of shared parenting right off the bat).

                I appreciate that all opinions are welcomed here. Although its pretty insulting to say that my opinions are any less worthy than the many unsubstantiated opinions I find on this forum. I had thought that this was a forum for discussion and evaluation, advice and reflection, not a means to spend time insulting another, by calling my perceptions of the family court system dated.

                I am a supporter of joint custody, I am a supporter of parents who negotiate there own terms and learn to get along and become better people because of their seperation, not in spite of it. I think both parents are important. I feel my stance is as reasonable and current, as the next person's. And they are my own, not plagarised as 'free now" meanly accused.

                PLease cut the negativity. I am very busy and my own experience of this has been very taxing, but I will happily post very recent articles and stats that support my views. Right now I wonder, if this is the response I get, if there is any point. I might prefer to use my time more efficiently to get my point across.

                Thanks.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by SilverLining View Post
                  (Just to clarify: the 50/50 shared physical parenting, not to be confused with the definition of "joint decision making" or Joint Custiody, which I support and see very differently from shared parenting, My notes were discussions on women's rights, and the problems with the presumption of shared parenting right off the bat).

                  I appreciate that all opinions are welcomed here. Although its pretty insulting to say that my opinions are any less worthy than the many unsubstantiated opinions I find on this forum. I had thought that this was a forum for discussion and evaluation, advice and reflection, not a means to spend time insulting another, by calling my perceptions of the family court system dated.

                  I am a supporter of joint custody, I am a supporter of parents who negotiate there own terms and learn to get along and become better people because of their seperation, not in spite of it. I think both parents are important. I feel my stance is as reasonable and current, as the next person's. And they are my own, not plagarised as 'free now" meanly accused.

                  PLease cut the negativity. I am very busy and my own experience of this has been very taxing, but I will happily post very recent articles and stats that support my views. Right now I wonder, if this is the response I get, if there is any point. I might prefer to use my time more efficiently to get my point across.

                  Thanks.
                  Silverlining,

                  This appears to be a sensitive subject for you. There was no insult implied. Feel free to post articles and stats on the subject. Significant Research can be found on the federal justice site. Although dated, A good read is "For the Sake of the Children"


                  Government of Canada's Response to the Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access


                  lv

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by SilverLining View Post

                    Ladies, we have a long way to go. I am not alone in this. The UN has repremanded Canada by not living up to its promise for equal treatment for women. I see a LOT of "father's right's" websites, And while I understand there is merit to argue some of the other side, sorry boys, but you don't know how favoured you are. I would like to see a lot more women stand up for themselves and be less complacent on the issue. We need to take action and fast.
                    As a divorced dad who attended some local "father's rights" meetings, there are some valid issues raised but mostly there was a lot of anger and frustration.

                    There was an article from January of this year in the UK that showed that even today woman are worse off after divorce and can struggle for years, while men's financial situation improves a lot. This was based on a large scale study of divorce in the UK. So divorced women do have a long ways to go to achieve equality and fairness. Maybe indefinite spousal support is necessary...what do divorced women think?

                    Men become richer after divorce | Life and style | The Observer

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      One quote from the UK study makes me wonder.

                      "just 31% of separated mothers receive payment from the father of their children"

                      Either the study is faulty or conditions are much different in the UK than in Canada.

                      I would think that the % of Canadian mothers receiving CS is a hell of a lot higher than 31%. 90%?

                      FN

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by maurice View Post
                        ...
                        There was an article from January of this year in the UK that showed that even today woman are worse off after divorce and can struggle for years, while men's financial situation improves a lot. This was based on a large scale study of divorce in the UK. So divorced women do have a long ways to go to achieve equality and fairness. Maybe indefinite spousal support is necessary...
                        ...
                        Men generally make more money than women regardless of being married. Are divorced men to bear the brunt of this alone and share our greater earning potential with the women that benifitted from this while married to us? I make more money than my ex because when we met I had worked harder to achieve a greater income potential, as with most men that I know.

                        Should we subsisize all women by taxing all men for an 'equality tax'?

                        The idea that women after divorce should be equal financially to their former spouses suggests that marriage is for life, even if the commitment is not. The day that people separate, their lives should separate as well. There is a place for spousal support, but it should not be a gender equalizer, it should be based on what happened in the marriage.

                        This treats men and women as equals, each responsible for themselves, which is truly gender neutral.
                        Last edited by billm; 07-30-2009, 01:38 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Not sure I agree that men work harder to achieve a greater income potential. I obtained 2 university degrees, worked 2 part time jobs to put myself thru university and was raising a 2 year old all at the same time. I finished school and entered the workforce on a fulltime basis since she was 7 years of age. I have always worked very hard to get where I am without any type of support. I chose to have my child so I took full responsibility for her. I was not married to her father. I did not ask for child support nor would I. I wanted her so instead of aborting her I chose to keep her and the struggles that I knew I would have to face raising her on my own. She has a great relationship with her father and we pretty much earn the same amount. I have come to the conclusion though that this is not the norm. I married a wonderful man this year who is divorced with 2 kids and an ex who feels entitled, why I do not know. It is very hard for me to relate to her and why she feels the way she does. I believe we live in a country with equal opportunity for both sexes. Yet when a woman chooses to stay at home to raise the kids and a man chooses to be the bread winner for his kids that down the road when these two decide to part ways, all of a sudden the woman forgets she made a choice and blames the man for her predictament. I chose to have a child I also knew I would need to financially support my child so I did both. I am not saying there should not be some form of compensation for the woman but I do not feel the man should be responsible for the rest of his life for an adult who can fend for themselves in a country full of potential.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Hear Hear Silverlining!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Silverlining (4-25-2009 post) - I think you need to be more careful in distinguishing between 'confirmed facts', and 'opinions'. And half-facts e.g. 'Black people commit crimes' (do you see the equivalent 'fact' in your list?).

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by first timer View Post
                                I am not saying there should not be some form of compensation for the woman but I do not feel the man should be responsible for the rest of his life for an adult who can fend for themselves in a country full of potential.
                                Apparently this is a minority point of view. An article in the National Post from 2007 or 2008 stated that the norm is now "indefinite" spousal support, at least in Ontario. As I understand it, many divorced women feel that they are entitled to compensation for all the years of sacrifice as SAHMs, i.e., that being a SAHM should not impede financial independence after divorce. Who else but ex-husbands, who traditionally have had all the advantages, could be targeted for redress?

                                The thing is, this could wreck the traditional concept of marriage. What man (or woman, for that matter) would enter into a contract of marriage knowing that, if it all goes sideways, he/she will STILL be expected to pay up indefinitely, AS IF the marriage were intact? This reinforces the sense of "commitment phobia" that is much discussed these days.

                                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