Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FRO - Please can I get the good vs well, bad???

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

  • #31
    Thanks girls......Hadenough.....we need to talk......xoxo
    Last edited by cynthia10; 12-21-2012, 11:02 PM. Reason: new post

    Comment


    • #32
      again no common sense in the Family Court System.....everything is and I agree in the BEST INTEREST of the children

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by hadenough View Post
        Janus: I'm not sure what you mean-- that CS hurts your children - those may not be your exact words, but it was something you said above to that effect.
        I have shared custody (50/50). CS moves money from my household to my ex's substantially wealthier household. As such, it directly hurts my children. Family law's refusal to consider the real situation of paying parents makes a mockery of its claim to be child-centered.

        It might get worse, ex might get laid off. If so, my CS could skyrocket, probably forcing me out of my house. Ex would still be able to take twice yearly luxury cruise vacations though.

        Yup, that is my experience of CS, a parasitic parent who happily steals from a child to hurt an ex-spouse.

        You are taking a harsh line on SS/CS recipients. There may be some people who take advantage - but as I said before, there are a lot of different scenarios. CS is the right of any child, end of story. The courts decide (based on evidence) what the amount of that support is.
        For those parents who have less than 40%, the courts don't decide anything based on evidence. A parent who has the kid 35% of the time is, by legislative fiction (to quote the Contino case) considered to not spend a penny on their child. That is not justice, that is not evidence-based, that is not child-centered. No child would want one of their parents reduced to poverty, calling it a right of a child is, as far as I am concerned, exploiting those children that we are claiming we are trying to help.

        Given that (as you've said) you are not paying CS or SS through the nose, why is it that you have taken such a harsh and personal stance against recipients of CS/SS? Seriously, chill out. I don't know your story, but it sounds pretty tame/manageable compared to some others.
        There but for the grace of God go I?

        I have, hard as it may be to believe, a strongly empathetic personality. I probably should not, but I identify very strongly with those who are suffering a great injustice at the hands of our family law system. Reading case law sometimes brings me to tears. As a payor, I tend to identify strongly with paying parents.

        Also, my parents raised me to be very independent. I have no respect for those who live off the avails of somebody else, and even less respect for those recipients who denigrate the person who supports them. If you receive support, be thankful for the person who is forced to work to pay for your upkeep.

        So yeah, that is why I have been coming down hard on recipients lately.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by cynthia10 View Post
          Ya know what its breakfast lunch and dinner......and if you would like to see a menu of what I cook I can send you one...I can make a roast potatoes and a vegetable for less than 15 bucks....they have a proper breakfast every morning and I pack them lunch..a pizza night once a week.....

          15x7 = 105

          So, you are spending $195 every week on a packed lunch and breakfast.

          Hopefully you are not this inconsistent when it comes to court

          You are very sad and bitter do you pay spousal and CS
          Does it matter what my personal situation is? SS is wrong, even if I don't pay it. CS is wrong for any parent who sees their child more than 0% of the time, which is most paying parents.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by OhMy View Post
            I think you are enjoying this.
            Divorce, no. Internet discussions, yes

            If we paint everyone and everything with the same colored brush we will live very limited non fulfilling lives.
            I agree that it is often wrong to generalize. I do get legitimately annoyed though at the mantra of CS being for the good of the child. CS helps the recipient parent, that is all. The child may or may not be helped by the CS.

            CS is recipient support. The hope is that the recipient will use this lottery win to help the child, but there is no expectation or requirement on the part of the recipient to do so. If family law was truly child focused, then support would be tied to evidence of relevant expenditures, but it isn't.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by hadenough View Post
              Janus, it's never healthy to villify an entire group of people.
              And that is why I hate the term "trailer trash"

              Comment


              • #37
                Janus is right on in his analysis and explanation.

                First let me say when I was married I made every effort to raise my kids along with my ex. Through the separation and divorce she manipulated the time I had with the kids to ensure it was less than 40% so she could receive the max amount of CS. Yes I'm bitter about a system that lets this happen and then expects me to continue to provide the same lifestyle for my children when they are with my ex giving me the burden to support 2 households instead of 1.

                When I was married to my ex and had children with her it was my job to support our household. We had to live within our means and if we wanted more I had to go out and work more or seek employment with better pay. There was no one sending me checks to support my family. I made choices to earn the money we needed for the lifestyle we had. God forbid anything happened to their mother it would have been my obligation to raise and support my children on my own and likewise it would have fallen to her had anything happened to me.

                Now we have the situation in our lives where the ex and I are not together. The ex wanted the kids with her and with that comes the responsibility to make choices in her life to support that decision. If she wants more for them than she should make changes in her life to achieve those goals. She shouldn't be entitled to be financially supported by someone else. Stop looking at it as the other parent has more and therefore should be sharing what they have with the ex for the benifet of the children. IMO, when the kids are with the person that has more, they benifet from the decisions that person made in their life and what they have achieved. If they have less when with the other parent then I guess that parent needs to make better choices to give them more.

                The long and the short of it; you want more for your kids and yourself then do something to achieve that goal. Don't rely on the support of someone else.

                Just my 2 cent rant

                Comment


                • #38
                  My spouse has paid his support through FRO for 15 years now. Before that he paid cash weekly, and the phone was ringing before he came in the door from work on a Thursday. "Where's my money?... Can I have it early?... I need more this week..."

                  He hasn't worked for the last 4 years for various reasons, but he (I) makes the payments to FRO through online banking. We know he'll have a problem with FRO soon. His court order says he pays support until there is "no longer a child of the marriage". Youngest is now 18 and working part time. She took out a student loan for a 1 year pharmacy course. Our plan is to pay off her loan when she's finished. We haven't told her that yet because she is working hard and has a great attitude about it. Funny how using your own money makes you feel like that.

                  We haven't decided yet when to pursue ending the support. Youngest will finish her schooling and turn 19 in April. I expect that is probably when to start the process.

                  Thoughts?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I am thinking its 18 when ending support ends. Your situation though may be until she gets her certificate or whatever for the pharmacy course.

                    Always best to start early and get all the paper work ready to go so you can make sure you dont miss anything. I know there was a poster on here a while back who went thru hell trying to get support stopped.

                    http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...o-update-9724/
                    Last edited by standing on the sidelines; 12-22-2012, 12:58 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      CS is recipient support. The hope is that the recipient will use this lottery win to help the child, but there is no expectation or requirement on the part of the recipient to do so. If family law was truly child focused, then support would be tied to evidence of relevant expenditures, but it isn't.
                      If you paid no support at all you would not spend every penny of that money on the child either. You could spend all that money on hookers and blow. The government doesn't monitor what you spend your money on any more than what the recipient spends it on.

                      The money paid in support is not required or intended to be spent solely on the child. You are correct in that. The money is spent on the entire household. If a parent is thrifty and selfless, or if a parent is selfish and irresponsible, that is not monitored by the government or the courts, or by the ex spouse.

                      The child support laws aren't perfect, they are a compromise so that you don't spend an extra $30k in court arguing over how much support you should pay. The laws are there to provide a quick solution for two people who in most cases hate each other and can't come to an agreement.

                      Should they be tweeked? Absolutely. Do your comments make a lick of sense? No they don't.

                      In an intact family a couple may blow all of their money in casinos and bars and feed their kids hot dogs every night. If you want the government to control how your ex spends CS, then you can't argue against control over how you spend your paycheque, and all the rest of the country spends theirs.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Mess View Post
                        If you paid no support at all you would not spend every penny of that money on the child either. You could spend all that money on hookers and blow. The government doesn't monitor what you spend your money on any more than what the recipient spends it on.

                        The money paid in support is not required or intended to be spent solely on the child. You are correct in that. The money is spent on the entire household. If a parent is thrifty and selfless, or if a parent is selfish and irresponsible, that is not monitored by the government or the courts, or by the ex spouse.

                        The child support laws aren't perfect, they are a compromise so that you don't spend an extra $30k in court arguing over how much support you should pay. The laws are there to provide a quick solution for two people who in most cases hate each other and can't come to an agreement.

                        Should they be tweeked? Absolutely. Do your comments make a lick of sense? No they don't.

                        In an intact family a couple may blow all of their money in casinos and bars and feed their kids hot dogs every night. If you want the government to control how your ex spends CS, then you can't argue against control over how you spend your paycheque, and all the rest of the country spends theirs.
                        Cheers to the voice of reason

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Mess - thank you for reiterating the reason there is support paid at all.

                          Naturally there will always be exceptional cases where parents do not budget wisely and blow money on themselves. They are not, nor should be, accountable to their ex. Sometimes when people are married to a control freak they simply aren't used to budgeting (as this was the job of the control-freak ex). It stands to reason that some newly separated parents have to learn, and learn fast, how to budget. Getting a monthly support cheque, in a timely manner through FRO, is an important step.

                          In reading Janus's posts I am struck by the thought that his views represent nothing more than that of a very controlling and highly conflicted individual. He wants to continue to dictate to his ex how to spend money.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by madm82 View Post
                            You sound like such a bitter person. Many 'receivers' work. All of a sudden losing xx amount of dollars a month CAN be very traumatic- especially if you are the one providing mostly for the child(ren). They should it come first, not the person receiving or sending the money.
                            And who determines who is the one who pays 'mostly' for the children? The parent who denies access when the other parent wants equal time for the children with both parents? The court that makes it so painstakingly long for any 'justice'to actually take place in a reasonable time frame, causing so much hardship to a payor? And really, the 'other'parent doesn't deserve to provide equally for their children at their house? How is that in the children's best interests?

                            Bullshit.

                            I understand it's difficult for many, men and women alike. I'm just not impressed at certain arguments that favour certain people over others, there are many complexities and many situations are different as to be painted with such a broad brush in the name of the children's best interests.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Janus View Post
                              CS is wrong for any parent who sees their child more than 0% of the time, which is most paying parents.
                              This is a ridonkulous comment. Do you actually feel this? My ex sees our daughter once a month on average and that one visit is less than 48 hours and this is his own choice. You feel that since he is seeing her more than 0% of the time that he should not need to provide financial support? Why on earth not???

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Yes it is disgusting that people get so upset over paying support for children they helped to create.

                                Same goes for SS. People don't just become employable overnight. How much sense does it make to lecture people to become self-sufficient when person spent their life savings supporting their ex?

                                Fortunately judges make the decisions. Also fortunate we live in a democratic country. For those who don't agree then they should move to a 3rd world country where support payments don't exist and woman are treated like dogs. They'd fit right in.

                                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