Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motions

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    Its great to have cs but having a partner to help with the kids is better. Im sure every parent on this forum will agree that marriage woes aside, dealing with kids 24/7 with special needs, illnesses, appointments, homework, fights with siblings, weather, eating, bedtimes etc, is a strain alone. When you have your childs other parent saying forget it, deal with it yourself, you tend to get frustrated and beaten down.
    That's exactly the way I feel. I'd take shared custody any day to save my sanity!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by youngdad91 View Post

      That was the Friday nights to Sunday nights ordered on your motion. He has been complying I assume.

      I am really really curious - would you have been seeking to impose 50/50 access on him if the children weren't special needs and you were already educated and had a good job, and had a new partner ?
      With the exception of one weekend, he has been.

      I don't know what it's like to raise children that don't have special needs; are you implying that if your daughter was special needs you wouldn't want 50/50? I am educated, I need to upgrade some of my skills, many employers require continued education. I'm not looking to replace their Dad with a new partner, they already have one, therefore it should be their right to be parented equally by both parent, not a replacement Dad.
      Last edited by kate331; 11-18-2018, 12:18 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Wow. Just read this whole thread. I am beyond baffled at the suggestion a single mom get a partner to help with parenting. Wow. Just wow.

        Youndad, your age is evident when you post that’s for sure.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Karma2016 View Post
          Wow. Just read this whole thread. I am beyond baffled at the suggestion a single mom get a partner to help with parenting. Wow. Just wow.

          Youndad, your age is evident when you post that’s for sure.
          Not sure if it is an age thing (I'm in my 60's) as even most gentleman my age would find his statement ridiculous. I just pass it off to youthfulness or a cultural thing perhaps. He has a very pronounced distaste for women (as evidence by his frequent posts). All in all though, I'm sure he's just a young man who has gone through a very difficult separation and who is not adept at expressing himself properly in accordance with Canadian standards of polite conversation.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by youngdad91 View Post
            All I'm seeing here is angry, frustrated, or otherwise emotionally unstable women on this forum who can't cope in stressful situations. They're putting their own shortcomings on me.. from mental illness to Canadian "standards of politeness".. Just saying. However, that is not to say that there are not any sweethearts on this site.

            PS:
            You are clearly not finding what you're looking for here, perhaps another site may be more suitable for you.


            Unless you have some relevant advice directly related to the original post, please refrain from posting just to ' hear yourself speak', as the saying goes, and constantly derailing threads.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
              I gotta disagree. Child support helps cover his portion of the expenses, it doesn't do his parenting for him. The other parent contributes financially but it's not dad's job to do her parenting for her...?
              I'm going to be careful here, because I kinda respect Kate and I know that in her particular situation she is certainly hoping to get the father involved but he is busy being a total loser. Kate also really has her head on straight, and she really deals well with antagonistic people like young dad. Kate also got dealt a crappy hand, much worse than average. Nothing I say should be interpreted as any slight against Kate.

              Caveats out of the way...

              Table child support is premised on the idea that the paying parent provides absolutely nothing else to the child. That is why 35% parents get so horribly screwed, they are paying for their 35%, and they are paying as if they are actually spending 0% on the kid.

              I recognize that money is not everything, but unfortunately a parent paying table CS is doing as much as is required. There is no moral or legal expectation that the paying parent does anything beyond pay. Some parents want to parent, some parents are comfortable not parenting and just paying. It is unreasonable to demand that any parent to pay table CS and, on top of that, share some other burden. One can hope, but cannot demand, and cannot condemn for failing to provide that extra help.

              I'm reminded of Arabian, who likes to tell fathers who are stuck paying CS for kids they never wanted that they should have thought of that before they had sex. Perhaps she can feel free to provide the same message to mothers: don't have sex and avoid abortions unless you are willing to raise a kid alone. Or, alternatively, be prepared to dump a kid into a group home if you get a divorce down the road.

              (Side point: The message is especially pertinent to mothers, because unlike fathers, who only have a choice at conception and then lose all agency, mothers have multiple options to bail: during pregnancy, after birth, almost any time really. It is really easy for a mother to bail with no consequences.)

              My point is: A father who is paying table CS is completely fulfilling his obligations and should be commended as such. I would be thrilled to have my kids full time and get table CS from my ex. Hell, that's what I wish for every time I blow out some candles.

              Comment


              • #22
                I get what you're saying, but disgaree that a person's parental responsibilities and obligations are based solely on financial contribution. The other parent may be fulfilling their financial obligation, but that's it.

                Otherwise, a parent's responsibility would be divvied up based on that percentage and things like 'joint custody' would be a 'percentage custody' instead. Parent A pays 30% table amount and therefore gets 30% medical decision making responsibility, and emotioonally supports their child but only up to 30% of their potential. But that isn't the way it works- nor should it.

                Someone paying table support, or offset or whatever it may be is completely fulfilling their *financial* obligation, but if they believe that is the ONLY obligation, they are 100% failing the best interest of the child, which is the only obligation that has a lifetime impact on the child.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I agree with you Janus. I reiterate that people are ultimately responsible for the outcome of their actions (male or female). I believe the courts recognize and endorse this thinking as well. It is very sad when a parent does not want to equally parent a child, however, that is ultimately their choice.

                  Prior to separation, a decision was made by both parents to bring the children into the world. Therefore both parents bear the cost of raising the children.

                  I think we have to remember that people with children with severe physical or mental disabilities, and who are raising the children on their own, do not get the relief of the other parent's access time to recharge their batteries, so to speak. Respite care, which can be extremely expensive, is a cost that should be factored into CS.

                  I would prefer to have a reliable support system in place so that I would know exactly when I could look forward to time to rest and refresh. An unenthusiastic and unreliable non-custodial parent would be the last person I would rely on to provide me with help/relief. I certainly would explore every avenue available to ensure that the cost of respite care was shared equally between both myself an the father of my children with no exceptions.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Janus View Post
                    (Side point: The message is especially pertinent to mothers, because unlike fathers, who only have a choice at conception and then lose all agency, mothers have multiple options to bail: during pregnancy, after birth, almost any time really. It is really easy for a mother to bail with no consequences.)

                    My point is: A father who is paying table CS is completely fulfilling his obligations and should be commended as such. I would be thrilled to have my kids full time and get table CS from my ex. Hell, that's what I wish for every time I blow out some candles.
                    Just a quick rhetorical question to all single moms on this forum (excluding legit abusive and toxic relationships - although some of these cases are questionable, e.g. false status quos):
                    If they replaced child support with forced shared parenting (50/50), do you think women will be so eager to become single mothers?!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      You can’t paint all PARENTS with the same brush. There are bad moms who withhold access and demand every nickel and dime they can just as there are plenty of dads who find a new partner with no kids and feel their table support is sufficient.

                      In intact marriages ALL INCOME is put in the pot and ALL TIME is shared. Table support is the governments way of calculating necessity. Its wrong to deny a parent time with their child just as it is wrong to deny a child the ability to live without necessities because one (or both) parents are not happy with the outcome.

                      One of the reasons I never had kids is because of the difficulty and expense of doing it alone. I commend parents either divorced or married who have kids. Its not easy.

                      Table child support will always be debated as will the custody situations. Theres no one size fits all solution. To go back to Kates original question about a motion, I think its absurd her ex would file a motion to NOT take the kids an hour early. Parents who decide they are tired of being parents (and there are a lot of women who have done that) are selfish. The only people they hurt are their kids.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by youngdad91 View Post
                        Thanks but no thanks. I'll pay and speak to my lawyer instead. Too many antagonistic mom's on this site.
                        Perfect. Good luck with everything

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by youngdad91 View Post
                          LOL. Yes.. throw a low blow at me to sort of appear somewhat on their side in hopes of your comments about child support to not get completely spat on by them.
                          No, I do not mind being antagonistic. I am not strongly affected by people disagreeing with me. I genuinely believe that Kate is a good person(TM), or at least her writing makes her appear to be one. Maybe she is a sociopathic sadist in real life, but if so she hides it well.

                          Some of your points may be correct, but your delivery is terrible. I prefer not to have my arguments conflated with yours .

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Janus View Post
                            I'm going to be careful here, because I kinda respect Kate and I know that in her particular situation she is certainly hoping to get the father involved but he is busy being a total loser. Kate also really has her head on straight, and she really deals well with antagonistic people like young dad. Kate also got dealt a crappy hand, much worse than average. Nothing I say should be interpreted as any slight against Kate.

                            Caveats out of the way...

                            Table child support is premised on the idea that the paying parent provides absolutely nothing else to the child. That is why 35% parents get so horribly screwed, they are paying for their 35%, and they are paying as if they are actually spending 0% on the kid.

                            I recognize that money is not everything, but unfortunately a parent paying table CS is doing as much as is required. There is no moral or legal expectation that the paying parent does anything beyond pay. Some parents want to parent, some parents are comfortable not parenting and just paying. It is unreasonable to demand that any parent to pay table CS and, on top of that, share some other burden. One can hope, but cannot demand, and cannot condemn for failing to provide that extra help.

                            I'm reminded of Arabian, who likes to tell fathers who are stuck paying CS for kids they never wanted that they should have thought of that before they had sex. Perhaps she can feel free to provide the same message to mothers: don't have sex and avoid abortions unless you are willing to raise a kid alone. Or, alternatively, be prepared to dump a kid into a group home if you get a divorce down the road.

                            (Side point: The message is especially pertinent to mothers, because unlike fathers, who only have a choice at conception and then lose all agency, mothers have multiple options to bail: during pregnancy, after birth, almost any time really. It is really easy for a mother to bail with no consequences.)

                            My point is: A father who is paying table CS is completely fulfilling his obligations and should be commended as such. I would be thrilled to have my kids full time and get table CS from my ex. Hell, that's what I wish for every time I blow out some candles.
                            Thanks for your kind words Janus, the respect is mutual.

                            That said I respectfully disagree. Yes I agree my ex is being a total loser, problem is my kids don't think he is, they think he is Best Dad in the World (and I don't think a new partner would change that). Their too young to know he is doing his part financially, they think money just comes out of bank machine for free and Santa chips in. I also don't regret going to court and basically forcing a few extra days of his time for their sake.

                            On a selfish note, I do enjoy my every other weekend as I enjoy having my home quiet and all to myself, so that court battle was well worth it. Yes, I do get funding for respite care and sometimes from my ex in lieu of taking them during school holidays but its mostly used for an extra set of hands on deck so the children can enjoy more outings.

                            And yes, I have used a Group Home previously for a weeks break from my eldest child, CAS arranged it for me. We told him it was overnight camp and he actually enjoyed it because all the outings/activities they did. But I will only use it again as a last resort.

                            When we choose to have 2 children, I never thought I would be raising them alone, my feeling was; Wow how can a parent just walk away? If I had walked, for sure the children would have been placed in care, or my Mother would have taken them, then beaten me up the side of my head to own up to my responsibilities. But for some reason when a Dad walks that's OK, there are many single Mom's in my position. In fact in S8 class last year, I dont think there was one child from an intact family or a shared custody arrangement.

                            I'd be interested to hear your views on why shared custody isn't the law yet. I'll start a new thread in the Political Section, before this one gets off the rails.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by youngdad91 View Post
                              My question was, are you only seeking 50.50 because it gives you a break from the special needs children? If your children didn't require all of the extra attention and care, would you still be seeking to increase his access?

                              (Knock on wood she's not) if my daughter was special needs I would be going for sole custody and not expecting a dime from my ex. I also wouldn't have anytime to be on this forum.

                              I guess it just so happens that man are well.. man and can do it without financial support from women.
                              Of course, why would my children be any different then yours, because their needs are different? Have you been into the newly legalized weed lately? Why would you take away your daughter from her Mother and not expect her to be responsible to financially support her, because she needs some extra help? I pray too, that your daughter doesn't have any barriers in her way, sounds to me having you as her Father is enough. The special needs community is very supportive, we don't need you adding to our stress.

                              Unfortunately I cant afford a hot shot lawyer like you, so I use this forum for advice. Why are you on this forum with legal advice at your fingertips?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by youngdad91 View Post
                                Well, I thought she was a good person too for encouraging expanded access to the father of her kids, and I sort of felt bad for her for her situation so I was just giving her some suggestions (and I meant it in the most positive way possible) then she turns around, get's this tantrum out of nowhere, and insults me for being unemployed.

                                I understand how hard it must be for her (or others in her situation) to get up on their feet career wise after having being a stay at home mom for so long, but to turn around and attack/insult me for being unemployed.. that was completely uncalled for.

                                If my EX ever made such a comment about me being unemployed, I would think the same thing about her. I would nudge my lawyer about it as well. To insult someone who has lost their job not to a fault on their own, is well, in all honesty, really low class standards.
                                Please with all do respect, I DO NOT WANT your sympathy. Put me on your ignore list with my blessing.

                                Its November, many retailers and food establishments are desperate for employees. There is no excuse not to be employed. Fast food restaurants are always in need. There is subsidized daycare available before you use that excuse. If you are choosing to be a stay at home Dad, then go for that.

                                It wasn't hard at all for me to find a job, because it wasn't beneath me to take a "low class" job, until something in my field became available.

                                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