Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Desperate_Dad · #1 08-01-2016, 10:31 PM

Everyone should take a look at this link specifically the first paper in section 4 titled "6 errors you could make using the SSAG (but shouldn't and now won't)" This Law Professor has the gaul to complain that most judges order the midpoint for spousal support. Well my retort is that you set it up that way and of course everyone will focus on the midpoint because that is perceived to be fair. The reality is that the midpoint means the non custodial parent (usually the woman) gets 55% of the income and the non custodial parent (usually the man) gets 45%. Hmmm how about the midpoint being 50/50 and then we deviate from that based on circumstances? The only way the custodial parent should get 55% of the income is if they work full time to the best of their ability AND take care of the children. We all know that isn't the reality in most cases. Compounding the problem is all the errors lawyers make entering financial information plus the Divorcemate program is severely flawed itself. I've analyzed cases where its not surprising to see the custodial parent getting 60%, 70% or even 80% of the income due to lawyer incompetence. He had trouble getting it to only 6 errors. I had trouble getting it to less than 100 errors. Of course what do you expect from law professors, lawyers and judges all of whom have zero financial background and zero financial knowledge? Here is the link.

Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines | Bora Laskin Law Library

MS Mom · #2 08-02-2016, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desperate_Dad

Hmmm how about the midpoint being 50/50 and then we deviate from that based on circumstances? The only way the custodial parent should get 55% of the income is if they work full time to the best of their ability AND take care of the children. We all know that isn't the reality in most cases.

So not true.

I've always worked full-time - didn't eve take a full 12 month mat leave and I've always taken care of the kids.

Come to think of it, so did my mother and her mother.

Where do these outlandish generalizations come from?

I know ZERO stay-at-home moms. ZERO.

Desperate_Dad · #3 08-02-2016, 07:54 PM

So are you saying your ex doesn't take the children at all? No every other week? nothing? The reality is that at the bare minimum, usually (but not always) the non custodial parent sees the children at least every other week which makes 55% already too high.

Links17 · #4 08-02-2016, 10:04 PM

almost all my friend's wives are sahm and all my family too - but i come from an ethnic background

Links17 · #5 08-02-2016, 10:05 PM

SS is a scam, its privatizing welfare because the state couldn't afford the cost of feeding all these single mothers

arabian · #6 08-03-2016, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Links17

almost all my friend's wives are sahm and all my family too - but i come from an ethnic background

Welcome to Canada.

Good thing your wife broke away from her subservient role. So you enjoyed many years of having a slave and now you are paying for your wife's independence?

arabian · #7 08-03-2016, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Links17

SS is a scam, its privatizing welfare because the state couldn't afford the cost of feeding all these single mothers

"the state" should not be paying for support when ex spouses can afford to pay.

I think the answer is to a) pay SAH spouse a basic salary with full benefits. That way they can pay into CPP and, b) purchase marriage/divorce insurance.

mafia007 · #8 08-03-2016, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian

Welcome to Canada.

Good thing your wife broke away from her subservient role. So you enjoyed many years of having a slave and now you are paying for your wife's independence?

Hummmm.... I was a slave to her for the 15 years we've been together. I was doing all the housework ( cooking, groceries, laundry, dishes, shoveling, grass cutting, sewing, homework, etc....) while she was going out late with friends. I was even picking up the dogs poops outside the backyard (her dog)!

But now she wants to be "Super Mom" and wants to take over the job at 100% leaving the father behind as she thinks he's now useless. Super Mom can handle everything and can decide alone what is good for the children.

I don't think it's for the good of the children. It's really and only because it's for her own good... the full table CS in her pocket. One day, it will backfire and I know. Super Mom can do it now but after a while, after things had settled a bit, when the regular routine is going to kick in, the reality will show up and Super Mom will be exhausted and tired.

Thank god her request for SS was dismissed at the last hearing.

Today, I look at it and say that I was a slave to "my kids". It's easier to accept the hell I went through when I know it was for the sake of my children.

arabian · #9 08-03-2016, 08:03 AM

Mafia007 - my comments "welcome to Canada..." were directed at Links not at you.

mafia007 · #10 08-03-2016, 09:00 AM

I know Arabian. Just wanted to point out that in today's world, the males are doing a lot for their partner at home. Slavery can affect either side. Not a chance we would get compensate the same way.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Children's bennefits	Wiser2008	Financial Issues	21	05-03-2019 06:21 AM
Spousal Support - Why It Matters	Divorcemanagement	Political Issues	83	11-28-2013 10:38 AM
Spousal Support ruling	OB1	Divorce & Family Law	2	07-18-2008 05:48 PM
What Were They Thinking........	FL_Needs_To_Change	Divorce & Family Law	6	05-25-2007 09:47 PM
The Concept: Standard of living	gooddadgoingmad	Divorce & Family Law	7	02-20-2006 10:59 PM

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

User CP

New posts

Advertising

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name
Password