Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Take on the joke that is our Family Law

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

  • My Take on the joke that is our Family Law

    I just wanted to say my piece on our Legal system.

    The courts preach for splitting parents to get along for the childrens sake. So in their infinte wisdom, they design a system that makes it near impossible to be amicable with each other because they take the custodial parent and throw them on a pedestal and take the paying parent and throw them under the bus.

    At some point enough has to be enough. The paying parent can not be completely finanacial responsible for the children. Me and my ex chose to have children. So why am I the only one paying for their well being. If the children are "ours" then should the courts not factor in an amount from her as well. In what society does a 9 year old child cost nearly $500 a month not taking into account any money the custodial parent should be contributing as well.

    The courts when they make their decision are simply saying the following.
    "You the custodial parent will have smiles and rainbows until your children are 23"
    "You the paying parent are now a system of financial support with some visitation to your children,ohh and by the way you are now at the mercy of your ex. Just keep the money flowing and all should work out...hopefully"

    I know have less ill feelings to those fathers you hear that finally pack it in and dissapear. I am not saying its right at all so dont go freaking out. But sometimes a paying parent is forced to either continue living in extreme poverty and at the mercy of their vindictive Ex, or make a hard decision and try to start over and this is the fault of our Family Court System and theirs alone.

    But hey, were Canadians and since when do Canadians have any kind of cahonies. Us Canadians for the most part just accept things as they are. Hence the reason the American Family Laws are much more equal for both parties.

    Let the insults start flying!

  • #2
    If the child is living primarily with the Custodial Parent, then obviously that parent is contributing financially to that child, as well as doing most of the effort to raise the child.

    Obviously the NCP also has to contribute to the child financially, and this is simply done by income according to impartial tables. It seems reasonable to me.

    I think we can agree that one very big problem is that the courts and the system puts most, if not almost all, of its efforts to making the sure the payments happen.

    What the system does not do is put effort into is assuring that the payments should STILL be continuing - the payor has to work very hard to stop them when the receiver will not cooperate.

    Also the system puts very little effort enforcing access rights, and of course does not fully believe that both parents should have equal access to the child.

    So to me, the payments and the CS table seem reasonable to me. What is grossly wrong with the system is the bias in favour of the CP with respect to access, and justifying/changing continued CS payments, yet access for example is equally, if not more important than CS payments.

    The only thing is that if there is conflict, it can be hard on the kids, even if it is unreasonably or intentionally created by one of the parents, so keeping the kids out of it means restricting access, BUT the system is very reluctant to punish (out of site of the children), the one causing conflict and preventing access - which should be punished as access to ones children, and being forced to pay when it is not justified are both HUGE rights issues.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by billm View Post
      If the child is living primarily with the Custodial Parent, then obviously that parent is contributing financially to that child, as well as doing most of the effort to raise the child.
      Let me correct you right here. My case ex does not working and not going to by seating on welfare. So what she contributes financially? right $0.00. Also let me inform you that just because of kid and my CS she much better of financially that she would be without kid. And I am sorry but there is a LOT and I repeat A LOT of people who has (or adopt) kids JUST TO HAVE THAT INCOME COMING...

      Obviously the NCP also has to contribute to the child financially, and this is simply done by income according to impartial tables. It seems reasonable to me.
      I will repeat one more time one thought what come to what I believe can dramatically change whole system.
      If one parent want sole custody and do not agree/fight against another parent to have joint custody and when both parents all fine (no drug, abuse etc) that parent should be fully financially responsible. In my case I want 50/50 but mom want sole and visitations from me. I will never accept my self as visitor to my child... He is not in a jail to have his father to be a visitor.

      I think we can agree that one very big problem is that the courts and the system puts most, if not almost all, of its efforts to making the sure the payments happen.
      yea but I would go even further. Courts make sure that payments coming to lawyers. Putting dad in position when he has to just barely make thouse payments and when nothing left for him and his family it's not what make payments coming... To have dad involved in life of kid when he see and enjoy kid growing up THAT ONLY THING WHAT REALLY CAN MAKE PAYMENTS COMMING...

      What the system does not do is put effort into is assuring that the payments should STILL be continuing - the payor has to work very hard to stop them when the receiver will not cooperate.

      Also the system puts very little effort enforcing access rights, and of course does not fully believe that both parents should have equal access to the child.
      you are spot on with this one

      So to me, the payments and the CS table seem reasonable to me. What is grossly wrong with the system is the bias in favour of the CP with respect to access, and justifying/changing continued CS payments, yet access for example is equally, if not more important than CS payments.
      I do not agree with CS table seem reasonable. It's not. First of all that should calculate after taxes base on real money what come to the pocket... 2nd that should tax deductible and income on other part... (now it's opposite) All benefits what parents receive for kid CCTB all that staff should be taking into account to. Just ask yourself a question. Why when single mom ask support from government they give her about $500 assuming that it's enough for kid a month but when it come for CS from father it can be 1000k 2000k sometimes 9000k a month .... I do not understand that... Also payer should have rights to ask HOW MONEY SPENT ...

      The only thing is that if there is conflict, it can be hard on the kids, even if it is unreasonably or intentionally created by one of the parents, so keeping the kids out of it means restricting access, BUT the system is very reluctant to punish (out of site of the children), the one causing conflict and preventing access - which should be punished as access to ones children, and being forced to pay when it is not justified are both HUGE rights issues.
      I think just couple word in Law would dramatically change behavior of access blockers... 3 court contempts for blocking access -- lost of custody automatically. Next step - become access parent with supervision.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
        I do not agree with CS table seem reasonable. It's not. First of all that should calculate after taxes base on real money what come to the pocket... 2nd that should tax deductible and income on other part... (now it's opposite) All benefits what parents receive for kid CCTB all that staff should be taking into account to.
        The CS tables take all this into account already, including the fact that it is after tax dollars being transferred.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by billm View Post
          The CS tables take all this into account already, including the fact that it is after tax dollars being transferred.
          Can you explain how you come such conclusion ?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
            Can you explain how you come such conclusion ?
            Yes - this is from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-.../qa-qr.html#a1

            "The figures in the tables reflect the average amount of money that Canadians at various income levels spend to raise a child. Economic research on family spending shows that there is no single fixed cost of raising a child. In general, families of similar size and income spend the same proportion of aftertax income on children. So the cost of raising a child depends on how much income, and how many children the family has."

            There is more information there that describes how the tables were created...easy to find, easy to read. So...anyone who complains that CS should be taxed on the receiver side and deducted by the payer's income does not understand this simple concept and probably just likes to complain
            Last edited by billm; 05-07-2011, 03:55 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              [quote=billm;66308]If the child is living primarily with the Custodial Parent, then obviously that parent is contributing financially to that child, as well as doing most of the effort to raise the child.

              My ex chose to fight for full custody. Please dont tell me that any money comes from her damn pocket. I was in that family just 2 years ago and it did not cost almost $500 a month for each kid. If the system was fair it would recogognize that she is also financially responsible for those kids.

              Obviously the NCP also has to contribute to the child financially, and this is simply done by income according to impartial tables. It seems reasonable to me.

              The CS table does not take into account everything and most certainly is NOT impartial. I dont know about your situation but in my case If it was impartial as you say I wouldnt be living like a 3rd class citizen while my Ex lives a fairytale life.

              So to me, the payments and the CS table seem reasonable to me. What is grossly wrong with the system is the bias in favour of the CP with respect to access, and justifying/changing continued CS payments, yet access for example is equally, if not more important than CS payments.

              Well you must have lucked out if you found in your divorce the CS tables fair. I happen to disagree totally though. As I mentioned before the custodial parent is offered by our Judicial system the benefit of all the access, joy, and fun with our children without spending 1 lousy red cent of their money.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by billm View Post
                Yes - this is from The Federal Child Support Guidelines: Step-by-Step

                "The figures in the tables reflect the average amount of money that Canadians at various income levels spend to raise a child. Economic research on family spending shows that there is no single fixed cost of raising a child. In general, families of similar size and income spend the same proportion of aftertax income on children. So the cost of raising a child depends on how much income, and how many children the family has."

                There is more information there that describes how the tables were created...easy to find, easy to read.
                I think it's another bullshit from a Canadian government... Amount before tax does not show how much money come to the family. There is number of deductions what not voluntarily at my place of work. Union, pension and bla bla bla.

                Also how you would justify this...

                I pay about ~6000 in child support a year. I still can not clam it as tax credit and I still can not claim kid as Dependant... I may be stupid but I do not understand one clear thing if I do not have Dependant why I have to pay 6000? I just did specially for this post
                I open my taxes. By adding child support I would get 2k back as refund. Now my ex does not work and sit on OW. She do not benefit from claiming him at all. So who benefit from not allow me clam CS as tax deductible and her is income? If you think kid think again )

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by billm View Post
                  The CS tables take all this into account already, including the fact that it is after tax dollars being transferred.
                  B S sorry I do not buy that. Haven't the table amounts gone up considerably since it was changed? What about disposable income? I know what i pay for two and its crippling. I certainly can not buy new 50,000.00 suvs. Its not because shes frugal...well she is when its spent on the children. The facts are dads are going bankrupt or driven into small two room apartments maybe one room for some...suicide because they've been financially destroyed and their children have been denied them and have gone so deep financially and emotional stepped on that they see no other way out...that somehow the children maybe one better off without them....the family law system is fucked up and what makes it even worse is those charged with administering it. Oh then there is the arguments..dad isnt providing suitable place for the children...the table amounts are designed for the have and the have nots!

                  Also to O P point. If the Ncp is putting 500.00 a month for a child then the Cp should be putting and equal amount. Well if both parents need to keep a home food and clothes....botth are to pay s7. ..Ncp has the child 38% of the time which means Cp has child one day a week more....that is worth 500.00 or in reality 1000.00/ month in expenses? really??? what child N E E D S that kind of money? That money is not for the child and is just another form of spousal support. And when talking about that kind of money in my opinion its not going to the needs of the child. Moreover how is in the best interest of the child that when the child comes to dads or the ncp that the child is expected to live at a substandard level than that at moms or the Cp?

                  Now if the Ndp has no contact with the child then you might have a valid aguement with me...maybe. I ask you one question Bill. Why is it when access is given to dads kept j u s t under that 40% threshold????? Really Bill if dad can have 35 pr 38% which really comes down to 1 day a week more...why not give dad that one day??? If not to make dad or NCp if you prefer pay....why is that? How can anyone say that it is in the best interest of the child...that mom or the Cp has that extra day? It is total bullshit! and politics and business...it is designed to be adversarial.

                  Where I do agree is the problematic system with enforcing access and i believe that there should be enforment system put in place that hands out punitive measures or involves law enforment to make sure access happens...my guess its easier to politically easier to punish dad than mom!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Sorry anyone who thinks the tables are fair should come live as the payor for a year while they watch their money fund yet another trip for the ex to take to Mexico.

                    So many flaws. Maybe - and I say maybe they are fair if the dad (in most cases it is the dad who is the payor) NEVER saw his kids but if you are in the over 1% to 39% you are paying twice for everything. Clothes, bikes, house with bedrooms for the kids, etc at not just their moms house but his too.
                    So my partner pays out $14XX CS an then we have to buy everything here too. And she wants more money for section 7 daycare plus (semi private ski lessons, private swim lessons etc. )

                    By your rational that each is paying equally to the kids that would mean the kids need 2800 per month. Uh, last time I checked we weren't raising Paris Hilton.

                    We sink deeper in debt and she takes flying lessons. HA! Fair my arse!
                    Last edited by karmaseeker; 05-07-2011, 11:51 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by karmaseeker View Post
                      Sorry anyone who thinks the tables are fair should come live as the payor for a year while they watch their money fund yet another trip for the ex to take to Mexico.

                      So many flaws. Maybe - and I say maybe they are fair if the dad (in most cases it is the dad who is the payor) NEVER saw his kids but if you are in the over 1% to 39% you are paying twice for everything. Clothes, bikes, house with bedrooms for the kids, etc at not just their moms house but his too.
                      So my partner pays out $14XX CS an then we have to buy everything here too. And she wants more money for section 7 daycare plus (semi private ski lessons, private swim lessons etc. )

                      By your rational that each is paying equally to the kids that would mean the kids need 2800 per month. Uh, last time I checked we weren't raising Paris Hilton.

                      We sink deeper in debt and she takes flying lessons. HA! Fair my arse!
                      Ha...f'in A

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        At first I thought, OK, $525 a month is fair, I can handle that. Then I sit down and realize just how much money that really is. What else in my budget comes close to that? Nothing, that's enough food for a family of six people for a month, offered up for just ONE child.

                        Then you add on another $1200 in spousal support.

                        I think it's absolutely disgusting and criminal that I can make more than 60k per year, yet over 70% of my salary is taken away before I see it. In other words, my standard of living would be the same if I was making $19000 per year. This is below minimum wage.

                        My ex has a nice 2 bedroom apartment in a good neighborhood, a nice car, no dept, all bills paid. In the meantime, I can barely afford a room in someone elses house. I need to BORROW a car for my access visits because ex refuses to drive. I sleep on borrowed furniture. Between support and Government benefits, she is making 50% more than me, yet I am the one working my ass off while she does nothing.

                        And as mentioned, she has the NERVE to try cutting my access visits out because she doesn't like where I'm living when she put me in these circumstances to begin with.

                        I will fight to the death to keep joint custody because I do not accept being forced to pay but having no input.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by winterwolf7 View Post
                          At first I thought, OK, $525 a month is fair, I can handle that. Then I sit down and realize just how much money that really is. What else in my budget comes close to that? Nothing, that's enough food for a family of six people for a month, offered up for just ONE child.

                          Then you add on another $1200 in spousal support.

                          I think it's absolutely disgusting and criminal that I can make more than 60k per year, yet over 70% of my salary is taken away before I see it. In other words, my standard of living would be the same if I was making $19000 per year. This is below minimum wage.

                          My ex has a nice 2 bedroom apartment in a good neighborhood, a nice car, no dept, all bills paid. In the meantime, I can barely afford a room in someone elses house. I need to BORROW a car for my access visits because ex refuses to drive. I sleep on borrowed furniture. Between support and Government benefits, she is making 50% more than me, yet I am the one working my ass off while she does nothing.

                          And as mentioned, she has the NERVE to try cutting my access visits out because she doesn't like where I'm living when she put me in these circumstances to begin with.

                          I will fight to the death to keep joint custody because I do not accept being forced to pay but having no input.
                          Yup! You've put in a nutshell!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by billm View Post
                            If the child is living primarily with the Custodial Parent, then obviously that parent is contributing financially to that child, as well as doing most of the effort to raise the child.

                            Obviously the NCP also has to contribute to the child financially, and this is simply done by income according to impartial tables. It seems reasonable to me.

                            I think we can agree that one very big problem is that the courts and the system puts most, if not almost all, of its efforts to making the sure the payments happen.

                            What the system does not do is put effort into is assuring that the payments should STILL be continuing - the payor has to work very hard to stop them when the receiver will not cooperate.

                            Also the system puts very little effort enforcing access rights, and of course does not fully believe that both parents should have equal access to the child.

                            So to me, the payments and the CS table seem reasonable to me. What is grossly wrong with the system is the bias in favour of the CP with respect to access, and justifying/changing continued CS payments, yet access for example is equally, if not more important than CS payments.

                            The only thing is that if there is conflict, it can be hard on the kids, even if it is unreasonably or intentionally created by one of the parents, so keeping the kids out of it means restricting access, BUT the system is very reluctant to punish (out of site of the children), the one causing conflict and preventing access - which should be punished as access to ones children, and being forced to pay when it is not justified are both HUGE rights issues.
                            After reviewing your profile I now understand your thought process. You have 50/50 custody arrangement and therefore you dont give your ex CS or if you do its minimal.
                            Walk a mile in our shoes, then come back and let us know if you think the CS tables are still fair and impartial.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Cashcow4ex:

                              No insults from me!

                              I have 100% full custody of my two kids where my Ex lives in another region of Canada, has a great paying job, but refuses to pay child support going on two years now, notwithstanding that I do have a temporary child support order in place. I used to be the non-custodial parent and the court did not grant me a single break at all.

                              Thanks for your post.

                              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