Do you think that woman receive preferential treatment
- Thread starter Jupitor
- Start date
- Status
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT
(Based on personal experience, experiences of relatives/friends, and experiences of acquaintances who have had dealings with the Ontario family court system... and - not surprisingly - any family court system. Some have called it the "golden uterus syndrome" where women/mothers get preferential treatment because they are just that... women/mothers. We still live in a society that associates femininity with mothering/parenting and masculinity with being the $$$ provider.)
Yes
Yes
Women get preferential treatment. They get physical custody over 90% of the time automatically. If the father wants "shared" custody, he has to "prove" himself. The most likely result of a divorce is the mom having custody and the dad being reduced to a visitor in his children's lives every 2nd weekend, and one weeknight. And he gets to pay the mother for the "priviledge" of having custody of their kids. The money, taxes and benefits are COMPLETELY lop-sided to the custodial parent (90% of time a woman).
See NEXT POST for how the money "really" works in divorce cases. Even though CS is quoted as a % of gross income, having custody means ALOT more cash to custodial parents than just CS.
Yes
Women get preferential treatment. They get physical custody over 90% of the time automatically. If the father wants "shared" custody, he has to "prove" himself. The most likely result of a divorce is the mom having custody and the dad being reduced to a visitor in his children's lives every 2nd weekend, and one weeknight. And he gets to pay the mother for the "priviledge" of having custody of their kids. The money, taxes and benefits are COMPLETELY lop-sided to the custodial parent (90% of time a woman).
See NEXT POST for how the money "really" works in divorce cases. Even though CS is quoted as a % of gross income, having custody means ALOT more cash to custodial parents than just CS.
How much $$$ do custodial parents REALLY get for the "kids"
How much $$$ do custodial parents REALLY get for the "kids"
When the government made taxes on CS payable to the payor, and not the recipient, the intent was to lower the amounts by about 30%. Unfortunately, they never did do that, even though they "claim" to. When you look at the numbers, they did not. Then in 2006 they increased the table amounts again, by another 30%. This is why so many payors are in severe financial distress these days and why the Guidelines do need to be modified. The current guidelines are not at all fair.
If you make $50,000 and have 2 kids, you pay $719, which at first glance doesn't seem like too large an amount, which is only what alot of CP's see.
But if you reverse the situation for them, and assume they also make $50K and are now PAYING child support at $719 (assume to the ex-husband for ease of example), they start to see it differently when they are faced with the actual math and details. Assume your at 35% tax bracket, your net pay is now $32,500. You also have additional items taken off your pay stub (as we all do) usually around $200/month (for EI, CPP etc). You would be left with $1789/month. Now, that is before "extra-ordinary" things are added on. Assume another $100/month for this, so now the NCP mom has $1689/month. Because the kids come and visit you alot you keep a home with a room for them, and have a bigger car to transport them around. You don't get to claim the child as a dependent (worth $9K in reducing your taxes) and you cannot collect the CCTB or other credits in relation to the support you provide to your child.
You look at the ex-husband, who now KEEPS the $719/month he WOULD have been paying you (if you had custody) and gets another $719 from you. He gets to claim the child as a dependent, worth 9K, which probably gives him a tax break of 3,000 - 4,000/K per year. He also gets the CCTB (assume $150/month) and maybe other credits etc. So the true "value" of the children for his household is around $1838/month (719 + 719 + (3000/12) + 150) MORE money that STAYS or COMES into his household because the children are there most of the time. And the biggest BONUS, he gets to have his children with him.
You, on the other hand, will be struggling to support yourself and your kids when they visit, based on a seemingly good income of $50k/year.
It is hugely un-balanced and unfair for all CS payors, no matter how small the original CS number "looks" on paper.
How much $$$ do custodial parents REALLY get for the "kids"
When the government made taxes on CS payable to the payor, and not the recipient, the intent was to lower the amounts by about 30%. Unfortunately, they never did do that, even though they "claim" to. When you look at the numbers, they did not. Then in 2006 they increased the table amounts again, by another 30%. This is why so many payors are in severe financial distress these days and why the Guidelines do need to be modified. The current guidelines are not at all fair.
If you make $50,000 and have 2 kids, you pay $719, which at first glance doesn't seem like too large an amount, which is only what alot of CP's see.
But if you reverse the situation for them, and assume they also make $50K and are now PAYING child support at $719 (assume to the ex-husband for ease of example), they start to see it differently when they are faced with the actual math and details. Assume your at 35% tax bracket, your net pay is now $32,500. You also have additional items taken off your pay stub (as we all do) usually around $200/month (for EI, CPP etc). You would be left with $1789/month. Now, that is before "extra-ordinary" things are added on. Assume another $100/month for this, so now the NCP mom has $1689/month. Because the kids come and visit you alot you keep a home with a room for them, and have a bigger car to transport them around. You don't get to claim the child as a dependent (worth $9K in reducing your taxes) and you cannot collect the CCTB or other credits in relation to the support you provide to your child.
You look at the ex-husband, who now KEEPS the $719/month he WOULD have been paying you (if you had custody) and gets another $719 from you. He gets to claim the child as a dependent, worth 9K, which probably gives him a tax break of 3,000 - 4,000/K per year. He also gets the CCTB (assume $150/month) and maybe other credits etc. So the true "value" of the children for his household is around $1838/month (719 + 719 + (3000/12) + 150) MORE money that STAYS or COMES into his household because the children are there most of the time. And the biggest BONUS, he gets to have his children with him.
You, on the other hand, will be struggling to support yourself and your kids when they visit, based on a seemingly good income of $50k/year.
It is hugely un-balanced and unfair for all CS payors, no matter how small the original CS number "looks" on paper.
The government KNEW what they were doing ...
The government KNEW what they were doing ...
Don't kid yourself. The gov't knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they changed the CS laws in 96/97.
Think about it. With the "old" system, payors (usually fathers), were allowed to claim CS as a deduction. While the recipient (usually mothers) were required to claim it as income.
Q: Who's income is usually higher, the father or the mother?
A: fathers.
Pre-guidelines and tax changes, Revenue Canada allowed the deduction by the payor. The deduction esentially returned the taxes paid on the CS to the payor at the tax-rate (tax-bracket) based on his employment income.
While sumultaniously, the recipient had to claim the amount she received as income. The tax-rate on that amount was determined by her emplooyment income, which generally is lower than his.
Sometimes both payor and recipient are in the same tax bracket, in those cases, no loss - no gain from the Govt's perspective.
However what if her employment income is substantially lower? Then her CS is taxed at the rate as determined by her employment income. If she's considered "low income", than the tax she will pay will be substantially lower than the amount he will receive as a refund.
So, by adopting the new guidelines and accompanying income tax legislation and not allowing the payor to claim a deduction. The Gov't now "keeps" the tax paid on the CS by the payor, while the recipient is "exempt" from paying the tax on that amount.
By making this move ... The Gov't generated millions in revenue!
... and you thought they were doing it for the CHILDREN?
My 2cents
B00kW0rm
The government KNEW what they were doing ...
Don't kid yourself. The gov't knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they changed the CS laws in 96/97.
Think about it. With the "old" system, payors (usually fathers), were allowed to claim CS as a deduction. While the recipient (usually mothers) were required to claim it as income.
Q: Who's income is usually higher, the father or the mother?
A: fathers.
Pre-guidelines and tax changes, Revenue Canada allowed the deduction by the payor. The deduction esentially returned the taxes paid on the CS to the payor at the tax-rate (tax-bracket) based on his employment income.
While sumultaniously, the recipient had to claim the amount she received as income. The tax-rate on that amount was determined by her emplooyment income, which generally is lower than his.
Sometimes both payor and recipient are in the same tax bracket, in those cases, no loss - no gain from the Govt's perspective.
However what if her employment income is substantially lower? Then her CS is taxed at the rate as determined by her employment income. If she's considered "low income", than the tax she will pay will be substantially lower than the amount he will receive as a refund.
So, by adopting the new guidelines and accompanying income tax legislation and not allowing the payor to claim a deduction. The Gov't now "keeps" the tax paid on the CS by the payor, while the recipient is "exempt" from paying the tax on that amount.
By making this move ... The Gov't generated millions in revenue!
... and you thought they were doing it for the CHILDREN?
My 2cents
B00kW0rm
wretchedotis
New member
I had a Legal-Aid lawyer in the Court House tell me on the VERY FIRST DAY that I started getting my ducks in a row over my seperation that "If you don't believe there is a bias in the system towards women, you are sadly mistaken".
How do you like them apples?
Don't kid yourself. The gov't knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they changed the CS laws in 96/97.
Think about it. With the "old" system, payors (usually fathers), were allowed to claim CS as a deduction. While the recipient (usually mothers) were required to claim it as income.
Q: Who's income is usually higher, the father or the mother?
A: fathers.
Pre-guidelines and tax changes, Revenue Canada allowed the deduction by the payor. The deduction esentially returned the taxes paid on the CS to the payor at the tax-rate (tax-bracket) based on his employment income.
While sumultaniously, the recipient had to claim the amount she received as income. The tax-rate on that amount was determined by her emplooyment income, which generally is lower than his.
Sometimes both payor and recipient are in the same tax bracket, in those cases, no loss - no gain from the Govt's perspective.
However what if her employment income is substantially lower? Then her CS is taxed at the rate as determined by her employment income. If she's considered "low income", than the tax she will pay will be substantially lower than the amount he will receive as a refund.
So, by adopting the new guidelines and accompanying income tax legislation and not allowing the payor to claim a deduction. The Gov't now "keeps" the tax paid on the CS by the payor, while the recipient is "exempt" from paying the tax on that amount.
By making this move ... The Gov't generated millions in revenue!
... and you thought they were doing it for the CHILDREN?
My 2cents
B00kW0rm
Precisely!
representingself
New member
Yes... women most definitely get preferrential treatment in the family court system. Especially if the children involved are very young.
And that preference is based on historical and statistical information.
The gap is closing, but in some situations, men not only make more money, they also get more promotions then women.
In business, women are still seen as a liability. There is always the chance that a female employee with get pregnant, which costs the company $$$$....time off for morning sickness, pregnancy complications, maternity leave, parental leave and medical benefits.
In addition, women with children are unable to work flexible shifts, often have to take time off work to care for sick children, deal with "family issues"... yadda, yadda, yadda.
Women are viewed as 'unreliable', so therefore, they are often passed over for the big promotions.
In a lot of families, when the decision to have children is made, SOMEONE has to step back from their career paths to be there for the kids, that's just the way it is, we can't all afford live-in nannies and daycares aren't open 24/7.
And while in some cases it is the father who takes the role... in most, it is still the mother.
So when you take into account the inequity in employment, plus the care taking role that most mothers assume, it is only reasonable to presume that in most families, when a divorce happens...the mother keeps the children, while the man becomes a weekend parent.
As such, he must pay spousal and child support, while the woman continues in her caretaking role, hopefully working in a field which allows her to be home in the mornings to get the kids off to school, and home in time to make dinner.
Historically speaking, since the dawn of mankind, men were the protectors, hunters and gatherers, they provide for their families.....whereas women are child bearers, nurturers, home makers, who birth and take care of the children and the home.
That is still today... the picture of the nuclear family.
It is going to take a LONG time to change this general perception... if ever.
And that preference is based on historical and statistical information.
The gap is closing, but in some situations, men not only make more money, they also get more promotions then women.
In business, women are still seen as a liability. There is always the chance that a female employee with get pregnant, which costs the company $$$$....time off for morning sickness, pregnancy complications, maternity leave, parental leave and medical benefits.
In addition, women with children are unable to work flexible shifts, often have to take time off work to care for sick children, deal with "family issues"... yadda, yadda, yadda.
Women are viewed as 'unreliable', so therefore, they are often passed over for the big promotions.
In a lot of families, when the decision to have children is made, SOMEONE has to step back from their career paths to be there for the kids, that's just the way it is, we can't all afford live-in nannies and daycares aren't open 24/7.
And while in some cases it is the father who takes the role... in most, it is still the mother.
So when you take into account the inequity in employment, plus the care taking role that most mothers assume, it is only reasonable to presume that in most families, when a divorce happens...the mother keeps the children, while the man becomes a weekend parent.
As such, he must pay spousal and child support, while the woman continues in her caretaking role, hopefully working in a field which allows her to be home in the mornings to get the kids off to school, and home in time to make dinner.
Historically speaking, since the dawn of mankind, men were the protectors, hunters and gatherers, they provide for their families.....whereas women are child bearers, nurturers, home makers, who birth and take care of the children and the home.
That is still today... the picture of the nuclear family.
It is going to take a LONG time to change this general perception... if ever.
billiechic
New member
I agree with Represtingself's answer. I think it's important to look though at the roles that each parent has played in the family prior to separation. In cases where the mother provides substantially more of the parenting and nurturing, it makes sense to award more time with the kids to her, as they are more reliant on her for this care. In cases where the parenting is more balanced, then shared custody makes sense. (now don't jump all over me yet...)
And then there are cases like mine, where I provided 90% of the care and work full-time and make a comparable wage to my ex. Luckily for him he has had 2 months now to establish a good parenting role that would swing the courts back towards shared parenting. While I would love to have Sole custody of my child, in the long run shared parenting is best for her. Part of the reason we are trying to settle this ourselves. He can't chance that he would not get her 50/50. I don't know how I would live with it if he was only given visitation. It would be devastating for both of them, and I would feel guilty that they were both suffereing because of it.
yes, the courts do favour women, but in many cases it is justified.
(ok, you can have at it now)
And then there are cases like mine, where I provided 90% of the care and work full-time and make a comparable wage to my ex. Luckily for him he has had 2 months now to establish a good parenting role that would swing the courts back towards shared parenting. While I would love to have Sole custody of my child, in the long run shared parenting is best for her. Part of the reason we are trying to settle this ourselves. He can't chance that he would not get her 50/50. I don't know how I would live with it if he was only given visitation. It would be devastating for both of them, and I would feel guilty that they were both suffereing because of it.
yes, the courts do favour women, but in many cases it is justified.
(ok, you can have at it now)
sufferer
New member
I think each case should be seen separately.When both parents are ready to take their responsibility shared custody should be given preferance.There are case where either parent is happy to be a weekend visit.
In such situations most of the times it is the dad who wants to run away from their responsibilities.And then women do receive preferential treatment which is fair enough.I went through a legal battle for more than 3 years and i did get lots of emotional support but nothing out of the system.
In such situations most of the times it is the dad who wants to run away from their responsibilities.And then women do receive preferential treatment which is fair enough.I went through a legal battle for more than 3 years and i did get lots of emotional support but nothing out of the system.
The question for this thread was "Do you think woman receive preferential treatment?" which has little to nothing to do with what's best for the kids as some responses allude to. The fact is that the Courts are indeed preferential to women even if the women are not the primary caregivers for the children during the marriage. Judges continue to display their bias towards women based on their gender and not always on actual facts.
representingself
New member
I believe that women receive preferential treatment... but in my answer, I made no mention at what was best for the children...
However, what is best for the mother is directly related to what is best for the children and vice versa.....in most circumstances..
The gender bias is due to the historical and statistical fact that women are most often the primary caregivers of children.
It is also due to the fact that there are more men out there who either skip town, hide, quit jobs and shirk their responsibility to their children... then there are men who take a primary role in their children's lives.
The laws reflect the truth of society.
Even if men DO take an active/primary role in child rearing during the marriage the Courts will ignore this fact and render their decision in favor of the woman. Hence, women receive preferential treatment even given the facts.
representingself
New member
Once again, I agree....
All I am saying is that there are very real and valid reasons why that is the case.
Judges base their decisions on historical truths (case laws)... and while every situation is different, it is often impossible to decipher fact from fiction in family court.
People lie....
Some women use thier children as a means of financial gain and vengence...
Some men claim to be primary caregivers and demand joint/sole custody to get out of paying child support.
Those are also facts!
billiechic
New member
I DID answer your question. I said yes, they do get preferential treatment. And in most cases it IS what is best for the kids.
For thousands of years women have been the primary caregivers for children and men have been the providers. It is only in the last century that both sexes have been able to do both jobs at once. And not everyone can do a good job of it. It's going to take more than a few years to change society's idea of what is "best". And right now there are too many dead beats out there for the courts to take a risk on every dad simply because he is a dad. It's sad that a father has to "prove" he can be a good dad, but women have had to "prove" they can be providers. it's not fair, but it's life.
dadtotheend
New member
I got sole custody of our children, who were 18 mths and almost 4 yrs old when we separated.
Of course women are treated preferentially but a resourceful, persistent, child centred father who leaves no stone unturned can and will prevail when the circumstances warrant it.
BTW, mom's are awarded custody in 80% of cases, not over 90% as mentioned earlier. It's in the research if one takes the time to review it. This Dad did.
Of course women are treated preferentially but a resourceful, persistent, child centred father who leaves no stone unturned can and will prevail when the circumstances warrant it.
BTW, mom's are awarded custody in 80% of cases, not over 90% as mentioned earlier. It's in the research if one takes the time to review it. This Dad did.
representingself
New member
There must have been something seriously wrong with your ex that would bring a Judge to take an 18 month old baby away from its mother.
wretchedotis
New member
A couple of comments on the below:
a) women have received the benefit of government legislation to equilize the playing field when it comes to equal opportunity in employment and rights. I don't see anything similar occuring for Dad's in Ontario.
b) I think you are using false logic predicated on stereo-types and annecdotal evidence that it is "reasonablë to assume" that Dad's should be relegated to the sidelines in the access and raising of their own children. I'm against either parent taking sole custody of their children. Both parents have the duty, the obligation to their children, to be as involved in their day to day life as they can possibly be. It would be nice to see some changes in the law to close this gap.
a) women have received the benefit of government legislation to equilize the playing field when it comes to equal opportunity in employment and rights. I don't see anything similar occuring for Dad's in Ontario.
b) I think you are using false logic predicated on stereo-types and annecdotal evidence that it is "reasonablë to assume" that Dad's should be relegated to the sidelines in the access and raising of their own children. I'm against either parent taking sole custody of their children. Both parents have the duty, the obligation to their children, to be as involved in their day to day life as they can possibly be. It would be nice to see some changes in the law to close this gap.
- Status