How come Family Law makers won't...

From the top down politicians and lawmakers have known the Divorce Process is broken, Reports like "for the sake of the children" by and for the government 10 years ago has been ignored.

The child support guidelines formula for calculating child support was proven flawed yet the formula has never been changed. A fair calculation would mean there would be little need for Court. (the present system encourages court)

The government in it's infinite wisdom forces a support payer to continue child support and even increases it to pay tuition for Adult children...where married couples can decide on there own (more needless court)

The serial relationships with multiple partners some people have and the courts ease to pointing to any ex partner with money to force him/her to be responsible for other peoples kids (more needless court)

It's clear "that people divorcing must bear the responsibility of a lower standard of living" but the Government has decided to try and maintain the same standard of living for a custodial parent.....even when the custodial parent earns more or gets into another relationship. (more needless court)

I'll leave it on one last note....A over thirty woman had sex with a "minor boy" and got pregnant, the boy was later ordered to pay child support.
 
thefunone said:
I don't know if there would end up being 9...once the 40% is reached it would result in the CS offset and then if it continued it would just reverse the other way...
Still frustrated.....arrrrgh...

LOL
Click to expand...

Change CS dramatically at 40% and at 60% access
Three different CS allocations, for two divide points. People fight about getting from <39% to 40%, and about going from >60% to 59%. Big fights sometimes.

Change CS more gradually every 10% access
Ten different ratios of CS allocation, for nine divide points. Would people fight about changing smaller increments of money? Who knows.

MrToronto said:
I'll leave it on one last note....A over thirty woman had sex with a "minor boy" and got pregnant, the boy was later ordered to pay child support.
Click to expand...

I think we've discussed that one before:

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/...ping-15-y-o-boy-wins-child-support-him-16718/

US case in the 1990s. Not sure how it's relevant to anything here and now.
 
standing on the sidelines said:
where is your proof that its a billion dollar industry?? Its not a business.
Click to expand...
Don't be so naive - The complete and utter opposition of the law society to having "A Rebuttable presumption of shared custody" is the root of this house of cards.


For Quebec

Custody time of an (ACCESS) parent is determined by the # of hours they have access including school/daycare etc....

That is then converted to days and then take over a year to determine if it is "shared custody"

In Quebec:
~0 - No access rights - you can be ordered to pay an additional 20% child suppot
<20 - Regular Access rights; you pay full suppot
20-40 - Extended Access Rights - you get a 20% reduction in CS
40% - CS is pro-rated AND you can now collect half the child benefits
 
Links17 said:
Don't be so naive - The complete and utter opposition of the law society to having "A Rebuttable presumption of shared custody" is the root of this house of cards.


For Quebec

Custody time of an (ACCESS) parent is determined by the # of hours they have access including school/daycare etc....

That is then converted to days and then take over a year to determine if it is "shared custody"

In Quebec:
~0 - No access rights - you can be ordered to pay an additional 20% child suppot
<20 - Regular Access rights; you pay full support
20-40 - Extended Access Rights - you get a 20% reduction in CS
40% - CS is pro-rated AND you can now collect half the child benefits
Click to expand...

That makes sense, as the more you have the kids the more income you require for additional food, increase utilities, etc. Most parents would fall in the 20-40% range and that 20% reduction would be useful towards food and such. Problem being, people will still fight over 40% because of the further reductions.

50-50 equal access from the beginning, unless there are extreme reasons why it can't happen. Extreme doesn't mean because one person was the "primary" caregiver while the other parent was out working, but in cases of child abuse or the like, then sway from 50-50. It has been said before, that those who really are only fighting for 50-50 for CS purposes will fall flat on their face when it actually happens, but everyone owes it to their children to try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top