Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are your thoughts?....

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

  • What are your thoughts?....

    I would like to hear from the outspoken women activists on hear (you know who you are) regarding the attached article below. Those that have spoken strongly and defiantly for spousal support, child benefits, child support, dead beat dads etc.... you know who you are....

    In short the article covers a father who:
    1) lost custody of his children (not as a problem today but still reduced custody prevails)
    2) declared bankruptcy (inline with most debt bondage fathers they have little money and no additional time to earn more)
    3) faced depression (as with a large majority of debt bondage fathers who also lose 50% or more of the access to their children)
    4) faced alienation (again is a norm for fathers)
    5) committed suicide ) 75% of all suicides today are men. 3000 a year
    6) loved his children but the depression got him first...

    NOTE: That is real blood in the photo within the link....so if you can't stand the sight you may not want to click.

    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chri...him-to-suicide

    Open to comments....hopefully they are respectful. Its just frustrating to read arrogant posts on this forum beating up fathers for not paying more...when they already have paid what they can, but yet because the court says they must pay more DOES NOT MEAN there is more. Shameful to read many of the comments on this forum from mainly women.... its basic logic...a little morality and some basic ethics. Not difficult.....but no, I only read pure evil and arrogance. I guess I'm predicting the responses...

  • #2
    I’d like to hear your thoughts on the amount of deadbeat fathers who skip out on their children? You know the ones forcing moms to get two jobs, not see their children, try to get FRO after the deadbeat father, having their children go without because they can’t afford it, all because their deadbeat father skipped out on his responsibilities.

    Goes both ways there pal. And like I said in the other post, I am a mother who is with the father but I do have two step children that their father pays full support for, plus S7 expenses and now paying for braces. I am all for fathers rights but I’d be damned if my husband was going to skip out on his responsibilities to his children or allow them to go without braces because there “wasn’t enough”...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
      I’d like to hear your thoughts on the amount of deadbeat fathers who skip out on their children? You know the ones forcing moms to get two jobs, not see their children, try to get FRO after the deadbeat father, having their children go without because they can’t afford it, all because their deadbeat father skipped out on his responsibilities.

      Goes both ways there pal. And like I said in the other post, I am a mother who is with the father but I do have two step children that their father pays full support for, plus S7 expenses and now paying for braces. I am all for fathers rights but I’d be damned if my husband was going to skip out on his responsibilities to his children or allow them to go without braces because there “wasn’t enough”...


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
      Are you saying this man was a deadbeat father? seriously? his blood is on that letter and you broughtout the deadbeat father comment!!!! you are low...

      do some research and come back....Compare how many mothers are out there receiving CS/SS and are underemployed or not employed TO how many fathers REFUSE to pay CS.

      Your true numbers will show you that the number of deadbeat mothers near triples that of deadbeat fathers.....


      Really shameful by the way....disrespectful...

      And a deadbeat father is not one that cant not pay, but one that wont pay. There is a difference.

      Comment


      • #4
        I would like to read the actual court case(s) instead of some hack journalist's interpretation.

        Construction of microwave towers was an extremely lucrative business resulting in many multi-millionaires. Hack journalist indicates he lost his home(s) ? I note the amount of money paid to lawyers was huge. People are put into jail who refuse to pay court-ordered support. You can be sure that he was given plenty of opportunity to "purge" his contempt but chose not to.

        My thoughts? Man was a coward. He took the easy way out. His actions will effect his children for the rest of their lives.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Newfie76 View Post
          Are you saying this man was a deadbeat father? seriously? his blood is on that letter and you broughtout the deadbeat father comment!!!! you are low...



          do some research and come back....Compare how many mothers are out there receiving CS/SS and are underemployed or not employed TO how many fathers REFUSE to pay CS.



          Your true numbers will show you that the number of deadbeat mothers near triples that of deadbeat fathers.....





          Really shameful by the way....disrespectful...



          And a deadbeat father is not one that cant not pay, but one that wont pay. There is a difference.


          Nah I’m not going to bother reading your article. Please point out where I said that father was a deadbeat? You can harp all you want about paying parents not being able to afford CS all you want but some how there are millions of people affording their support without trouble? Maybe if one can’t afford support they should take a look at their own financial situation and see where they are wasting their money?


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #6
            hahaha I found the case:

            https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/do...6bcsc1286.html

            guy was a liar about his income and judge called him on it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Wow. What a divergence from the truth! From Christie’s article it sounds like this man had a long standing trauma history from childhood. Although he was able to overcome it in part by becoming a successful entrepreneur. By reading the Canlii account it is evident that this man was making very poor choices when it came to providing disclosure or complying with court orders. His childhood trauma history would likely have played a huge role in how he perceived and reacted to stressful life events. Add to this the cognitive distortions associated with depression...

              Too bad his lawyer didn’t recognize by his client’s reactions, responses and perceptions of the legal proceedings, that something was wrong.

              It’s also a shame that this man’s current wife was so blinded and one sided in her support of him that she missed the boat entirely and was unable to help him. Had she been able to see and acknowledge that he himself was making things worse by lying in court and not co-operating—— perhaps she could have lovingly pointed out to him that he was making some poor choices that were resulting in poor consequences.

              To the OP of this thread. This is not as black and white a case as the article makes it sound. It has multiple layers. The family court system is one layer. Ms. Blanchard did a disservice to this man and all the other human beings affected by his suicide to exclusively blame family court in these tragic circumstances
              Last edited by Stillbreathing; 03-30-2018, 11:05 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Twilight zone I must be in.....

                A judge says he is lying with little evidence to the notion...and thats it the man is guilty? The man was fighting for his kids and he lost everything. Insanity...you all are. Zero logic. Zero compassion, No morals, no ethics, Lots of hate, and ALL hide behind the falsity of "the best interest of the children".... Biggest fraud to date. Lazy dead beat mothers praying on the hard work of men.

                Can't fight insanity.... cause that what most of you are....

                Comment


                • #9
                  You asked for opinions so that you could disparage those who disagree with you?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Then fight back at the system, organize together like minded people and then convince others to get the 50/50 default custody to be written into Law to start with. Think of the majority you will have; Fathers & Second Wives. Us Deadbeat Lazy Moms will be in the minority.

                    This forum has over 31,000 members, its a great place to start to form a grass roots organization with members from across the country, all your target audience since they are going through a separation and/or divorce. Take it too the streets, in front of all the Court Houses. Alert the media, you already have Ms. Blatchfords attention.

                    I'd like to know how you would answer 2 questions I have.

                    1) Why has the Fathers Rights Movement failed?

                    2) Why is it that so many Mothers are left on Social Assistance? Shouldn't they be living off ex's paychecks instead?

                    Your passion can be put to better use then wining about who should pay for braces, look at the bigger picture your trying to achieve. Do it for Jeramey.
                    Last edited by kate331; 03-30-2018, 09:45 PM. Reason: spelling

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As always the author fails to expose the reality of the situation and case law reveals the reality. The author hasn't figured out that you can use the direct quotes to find the case law on anything when writing about reported cases.

                      The case law (of which there are two cases BTW) doesn't reflect at all in the article. This author does a disservice to all readers in the way cases are represented.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by arabian View Post
                        Man was a coward. He took the easy way out. His actions will effect his children for the rest of their lives.
                        I disagree with labeling him a coward. Taking your life is not the easy way out; it's a sad reality when a person feels it's their only way out of painful situation.

                        Like StillBreathing mentioned, someone along the way should have realized he needed help and attempted to get him the help. Counselling should be made available to all and especially during separation / family law.

                        Many men and women can't get help because on paper they make too much yearly to qualify, and due to SS and CS they are left with with barely enough income to survive let alone pay for help.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Seems like a fairly open-shut case of going to great lengths to hide income for which the judge took great pains to prove.

                          If the judge was making shit up he could have gone to appeal.

                          I'm sorry a person committed suicide but he had a lot of options including thailand...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            To start off, I feel very sad that a person felt that they needed to end their life. Regardless of the 'real' story... when someone is capable of ending their own life, it's a pretty dark time for them.


                            Now, on the subject at hand.. I think we need to step away from mother / father and talk about the person paying CS versus the one receiving CS. Yes, statistics provide information that most cases it's the mother that is the one receiving the CS... and that starts with society where many jobs that are occupied by woman are paid at a lower rate.. (teacher, early childhood educator, etc..) but, nothing today prevents a woman from choosing a career that will provide her with a good salary. I have a problem with people who complain about not making enough money and then not doing anything to change it... Unless you have a disability - and even then - every human being is capable of choosing a career path that will suit their needs. If during your marriage you were lucky enough to have a job that paid 'less' because your spouse was the one who had a job that paid more.. and yet you still benefited from it.. well be thankful!


                            Now that you are separated... you need to realize that that time is over... your job now is to make sure that you provide to your children... and if you don't want to 'reduce' YOUR standard of living well, this should not mean that your EX should pay for it. Cause as it has been demonstrated many times, the amount of CS (when not in a situation of OFF-SET) is not accurate... why? because it does not take into account the amount that the custodial parent makes...


                            Here are 2 examples:
                            1-Custodial parent makes $40,000 Non Custodial makes $ 100,000 CS for 2 children in Ontario would be $1,471.00 a month
                            2-Custodial parent makes $200,000 Non Custodial makes $ 100,000 CS for 2 children in Ontario would be $1,471.00 a month


                            So, how can this be right? the CS is to make the living conditions or the child similar in each household.. ALL cases should take into consideration the income of BOTH parents to show that even if you are the custodial parent, you have a responsibility to provide to your children from your own income... Also, as Quebec does, it should take into consideration scenarios were the non custodial parent has at least the children 20% of the time.. most likely those cases are every other weekend, extended long weekends, some overnights, half/half summer, holidays like march break, Xmas.. etc... While the children reside mostly with the other parent, the non custodial parent still has to provide shelter, food, some clothing.. etc..


                            Another thing that is not fair...


                            Same custody arrangement meaning that the 40% has not been met...


                            Custodial parent last year made $40,000 and non-custodial parent made $100,000 .. CS for 2 kids in Ontario is again $1,471.00 per month...


                            Custodial parent gets a 2nd job to pay for vacations ... now makes $60,000.. non-custodial parent still makes $100,000.. CS again $1,471.00 per month


                            So the custodial parent has no 'obligation' to 'give any extra money to the children... BUT if the non-custodial parent decides to get another job because they struggle to pay for their things monthly... well THEY will be obligated to give some for more child support... how is that fair?


                            That is why BOTH parent's income need to count... and parents SHOULD be allowed to earn extra income with overtime or other job without having to pay even more...


                            To me, it's about fairness... and the children... As much as Québec is something 'out there' ... I think that they have a much better approach to CS than the federal guidelines...


                            And spousal.. don't get me started on that... if you studied to be a lawyer and gave up your practices to care for the children and support the other person in their career choice .. it's one thing... If YOU decided to start a certain career.. even before you had children.. and it was a lower salary... well your career choice had nothing to do with the fact that you had children... and you enjoyed the life you had while you were with someone who made more... now that it's over.. assume the choices you made, find another job, follow courses online..


                            All that to say that we need to start looking at this not woman versus man.. but at this point, the 'calculation' are wrong.. the 'purpose' and the actual effects of the guidelines along with the CCB stuff is not working.. children DON'T have the same living of standard in both houses...


                            Different people, different scenarios.. guidelines should be guidelines, not rules.. and if a case is well presented in court explaining why they are stating X amount of CS .. and it makes sense.. and it's factual... and the children are first in mind.. things would work out.. but at this moment, the GOV doesn't care.. they want to make sure that they get the most tax (since the payor who is mostly higher income is the one being taxed on that money) and as soon as you are common law, they cut CCB BUT that doesn't apply for CS... not saying that it should.. but just to show how the gov always thinks of them first...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kate331 View Post

                              I'd like to know how you would answer 2 questions I have.

                              1) Why has the Fathers Rights Movement failed?

                              2) Why is it that so many Mothers are left on Social Assistance? Shouldn't they be living off ex's paychecks instead?
                              (To answer question #1) The Fathers Rights Movement has failed simply because no politician is willing to throw themselves on that landmine to have changes made! Like the saying goes "Hell hath no fury like a women scorned". What possible incentive would a politician have to scorn millions of women (for the most part) across this country.

                              (To answer question #2) There are many reasons why mothers are on social assistance (and a great number of them are also "living off ex's paychecks at the same time". Deadbeat dads, unfairly payed, out of the work force too long, under educated, lack of motivation, better posturing for court battles, access to more social assistance programs, better posturing for SS.

                              I would like to pose a question to the members.

                              1) Wouldn't there be a lot of less deadbeat parents if the system was on level ground for both parties?

                              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