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.
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