No Child Support, 50/50 Automatic as Law?

[Doctor Martins]

Based on discussions on here I wanted to propose something and see how it plays out. So feel free to challenge the idea or agree. This is a hypothetical.

There has been moves to pass 50/50 shared parenting, joint custody legally as the default.. and I think unless there is abuse, and as long as both parents want involvement this would be a way to reduce legal conflict.

Another incentive I notice for conflict is child support. Now I am a man who pays child support, but my girlfriend pays child support as she had a high income compared to her ex. So this is something I have discussed with her and is not a "man issue". Say there was no child support, and given the above 50/50 expenses just paid equally.. how much would this reduce conflict in court.

As far as lifestyle children are used to, thats going to change as a result of a split in marriage and third going to lawyers. In fact there would be more net money within the family if no court conflict so the financial would likely be better for children. I think its crazy to think an involved parent wouldn't pay for things for their child. I think it would be natural and if 50/50 wouldn't need to be forced..

There seems to be a massive incentive to be the Sole custody parent and then try and get as much child support as possible. This results in an expensive mud slinging contest that destroys families and hurts children.

Thoughts?

 

[Rioe]

The main problem with no child support for a 50-50 arrangement is that the houses end up very unequal if the parents' incomes have quite the disparity. When the kids are teens and can choose where they live, they're going to pick the house where they have their own bedroom instead of sharing, and eat better food and have better toys. And why should kids suffer disproportionately at one house simply because the other parent has a much greater income?

And it's very hard to make the 50-50 shared extraordinary expenses work out equally, too. You'll end up with one parent who is greedier and/or poorer, who winds up manipulating things so that the other parent pays more.

I've always thought a more sliding scale for money based on access would reduce a lot of conflict, instead of there being a huge jump at 40/60.

But there will always be people who fight for majority access for many evil reasons that aren't at all financial. The mom who believes the children are an extension of her or a possession, the dad who wants to take the kids away from mom to punish her for ending the marriage, etc.

I do agree that making 50-50 a well-known default that everybody has internalized long before marriage is a good idea. It puts the burden of proof on the person who wants majority time to justify it, instead of it being case-by-case huge drawn out fights every time.

 

[Doctor Martins]

The main problem with no child support for a 50-50 arrangement is that the houses end up very unequal if the parents' incomes have quite the disparity. When the kids are teens and can choose where they live, they're going to pick the house where they have their own bedroom instead of sharing, and eat better food and have better toys. And why should kids suffer disproportionately at one house simply because the other parent has a much greater income?

And it's very hard to make the 50-50 shared extraordinary expenses work out equally, too. You'll end up with one parent who is greedier and/or poorer, who winds up manipulating things so that the other parent pays more.

I've always thought a more sliding scale for money based on access would reduce a lot of conflict, instead of there being a huge jump at 40/60.

But there will always be people who fight for majority access for many evil reasons that aren't at all financial. The mom who believes the children are an extension of her or a possession, the dad who wants to take the kids away from mom to punish her for ending the marriage, etc.

I do agree that making 50-50 a well-known default that everybody has internalized long before marriage is a good idea. It puts the burden of proof on the person who wants majority time to justify it, instead of it being case-by-case huge drawn out fights every time.

Interesting take. Let me give you a counter position. It's really impossible to make things fair or equal. No two parents are equal on any dimension and the idea that equalizing the financial aspect would be fair does not take into account that all other aspects can not be equalized. For example, lets say one parent has more income because they work more hours while the other parent spends more time playing with the kids and being the fun parent. The child may very well want to be with the fun parent who has time for them rather than the one who is working all the time. Another example would be that one parent may be more strict than the other, and so the child wants to be with the more permissive parent. Do we want equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? If you want equality of opportunity than both parents can chose how to spend their time, be it with the child, be it earning money, be it taking them on more trips, be it playing games with the child. Equality of outcome is trying to normalize a situation artificially so that both parents are equal. And that simply is impossible.

My dad made more money but traveled all of the time when I was younger so id have chosen my mom at that stage. Later i needed a father figure and he was more the cool parent who I got to travel with and that brought me into new levels of development.

Unless you can find a way to equalize all aspects of parents, which is impossible, equalizing one aspect is going to create an artificial reality that does not allow people to make life choices.

Government has a tough time running itself, now we are going to allow it into every family relationship and have it dictate what is fair and equal? Its going to micromanage the individual finances? What if one parent earns more because he/she insured more school debt in the process?

And how about the unintended consequences of this where maybe if we didnt have this intrusion then people would make the choice of more responsible partners to mate with? And what does this teach children? Im sorry little Johnny, you spent your free time delivering papers and making money but your brother Alan sat around playing video games and having fun so we decided to take half from Johnny's piggy bank and give it to Alan? Because its unfair Johnny gets to buy more candy than Alan. We wanted to equalize it.

 

[Tayken]

There has been moves to pass 50/50 shared parenting, joint custody legally as the default.. and I think unless there is abuse, and as long as both parents want involvement this would be a way to reduce legal conflict.

You should read the studies. What you are wishing to discuss has been studied in depth:

https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/em_0.pdf

https://aifs.gov.au/ is a trove of information. But, it doesn't apply to Canada.

Although the presumption of "equal shared residency" (50-50 access) is not explicitly stated in the various jurisdictional laws (for example the CLRA in Ontario) jurisprudence (case law) has evolved to better establish a routine of courts ordering "equal shared residence" on the onset of a matter. (First motions now more often than not end in shared residency.)

So, without totally understanding how the "law" works in your specific jurisdiction and how the system of jurisprudence works... It is a hard discussion to have with most people.

Case law suggests that equal residency should be established even in the event of an "emergency".

For example, this case law that I have reviewed on this site is a prime example of a justice working to establish in jurisprudence the requirements to award "sole custody" and "majority access" on a first appearance.

Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 (CanLII)

Date: 2014-07-03
Docket: 2839/14
Citation: Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/g7w9n

Furthermore, it has 9 direct citations in CanLII. To give you an idea... If a case has 9 citings (which is a lot!) it means that about 60% of those people practicing law with a specialty in Family Law has probably read it.

As well, if you combine that with the "set" of case law this one is commonly cited with it nets you a spiderweb of connected cases that is 1,032 large. Which means, that VAST MAJORITY of legal professionals are informed about the requirements to establish "sole custody" and "equal access" on a first motion.

The challenge that most people face is that the general population of people does not know the requirements the court NOW requires for establishing "sole custody" and "majority access" on a motion. Most parents who get the "e-o-w shaft" have, unfortunately, "agreed to this on consent" without having sought proper legal advice.

The "tender years doctrine" is dead... But, people still talk to the principals of "mother knows best" for young children. Even though the court system in Canada has denounced this doctrine!

What needs to change is that people in Canada need to "assume" they understand custody and access law. That they should retain a lawyer or at least get advice from one prior to doing anything! If this were what happened 90% of the people who come here lamenting about Canada and how it works would stop coming. Because, well, they would have gotten proper legal advice, not agreed to an EOW-screwjob and pressed to settle on joint custody and equal access.

All the presumption of equal residency and joint custody does is make it so people don't have to inform themselves of how things work. It is simply a safety net for the cheap, lazy and uninformed...

To this I say: Ignorantia juris non excusat!!!!!!!!!!!

Another incentive I notice for conflict is child support.

Child Support is federally mandated under the FCSG. It is a law! There is little to debate. What people are jockying for in the conflict is not about child support but, again "access".

People are often trying to break the 60/40 split where the rules for the off-set "shared parenting" calculations can possibly get applied. So, although you may think it is about "child support" it is the binding that CS is based on the amount of time a child spends in a particular home.

The offset method works ok. It isn't the best way to do it but, it is an easy way to calculate it.

Say there was no child support, and given the above 50/50 expenses just paid equally.. how much would this reduce conflict in court.

It would only shift the burden of the courts to when children turn 12, 13 and leave millions of parents hopeless to have a relationship with their children at age 14 when they are listened to by the court and 14+ can ultimately make the decision.

Little known fact is that the majority of children end up by the age of 13/14 end up spending the majority of their time with the higher earning parent if the matter has previously been 50-50 for a number of years.

You can search my threads for the Stats Can study where that info is hidden.

Child support is the right of the child. They have a right to be supported by BOTH of their parents no matter where they reside. Just because the parents can't get along and live under the same roof DOES NOT MEAN they shouldn't benefit only from their parents when they live under that specific parent's roof.

A parent supports their child under all roofs at all times! -- The principal being applied in child support!

Not "only my roof" and on "my time". (where the my is a parent!)

As far as lifestyle children are used to, thats going to change as a result of a split in marriage and third going to lawyers. In fact there would be more net money within the family if no court conflict so the financial would likely be better for children. I think its crazy to think an involved parent wouldn't pay for things for their child. I think it would be natural and if 50/50 wouldn't need to be forced..

There are many logical fallacies in your argument and position which is ok really. They are happening because you are going through this experience and trying to find solutions that suit your need. Might I suggest that your scope is way to large and that trying to solve for the systemic issues is not going to get your matter resolved and only going to make it more complex and conflicted.

You are better off laser focusing on your matter and leave the social justice warrior stuff until you have actually resolved your own issues on your file.

There seems to be a massive incentive to be the Sole custody parent and then try and get as much child support as possible. This results in an expensive mud slinging contest that destroys families and hurts children.

Thoughts?

I disagree. It is a legal strategy that gets applied in court cases often yes... But, ultimately, if someone has a proper lawyer who knows what they are doing... It rarely becomes the reality these days.

A very qualified lawyer can quickly disarm mud slinging. Mostly, mud slinging happens when:

1. You have one or both parties unrepresented.
2. You have a stupid lawyer representing both or one parties.
3. You have a crooked lawyer representing one or both parties.

Stupid lawyers are different from crooked lawyers. With a crooked lawyer I know what they are going to do. They have an easy to figure out pattern of behaviour. You can pull it out of CanLII and their past cases. All their pleadings and allegations are the same on every file. Stupid lawyers are the dangerous ones... They are unpredictable because they are stupid. They do stuff even a crooked lawyer would scratch their heads over. Because they are stupid. A crooked lawyer will never put their client in a bad position. A stupid one will.

Worse than a stupid lawyer is a "justice warrior I read everything on the interweb self-represented know-it-all nutjob".

Don't be a justice warrior. Be a parent. The court will respect you more if you present as a parent trying their best... Rather than a social justice warrior trying to right all the wrongs of family law.

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[Tayken]

It's really impossible to make things fair or equal.

It isn't hard to make things fair. But, it is hard to make them fair and equal. You can get close but, family law is not about "perfection". It is about resolving matters for children ... Not parents.

No two parents are equal on any dimension and the idea that equalizing the financial aspect would be fair does not take into account that all other aspects can not be equalized.

That is why they use the offset method to calculate child support in shared residency matters when the access split is around the 60/40 mark.

"Parent A" income = 100,000
"Parent B" income = 35,000

1. Parent B majority access support from Parent A is: $880/month
2. Parent A majority access support from Parent B is: $303/month

Now, let's see how fair this is...

In 1. Parent A is paying 10.56% of income in CS. In 2. Parent B is paying 10.38%! Gasp the inequality!

Now, lets apply the offset to this where the parents share residency at minimum to a 60/40.

$880 - $303 = Parent A pays Parent B $577

((577*12)/100,000)*100 = 6.92% of 100,000

Feel free to make a spreadsheet and put incomes of all types and you will get an average that produces the same %s roughly. Well, for anything 149,000 or less. 150,000+ changes the rules and game.

For example, lets say one parent has more income because they work more hours while the other parent spends more time playing with the kids and being the fun parent.

Then, the non-fun over working parent should work less and spend more quality time with the children.

The child may very well want to be with the fun parent who has time for them rather than the one who is working all the time.

Work less, spend more time with the children. Equality is not limited to income or time. Courts will often tell you that the QUALITY of time is more important than the AMOUNT of time. This is something you need to truly understand.

Another example would be that one parent may be more strict than the other, and so the child wants to be with the more permissive parent.

Again, you will have to evaluate things accordingly and in your unique situation. Children can voice an opinion age 12-14... After 14 it is hard to force. It is just a reality you have to deal with.

Do we want equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Court doesn't care about either. They want what is best for the child in accordance with Rule 24 of the CLRA.

Government has a tough time running itself, now we are going to allow it into every family relationship and have it dictate what is fair and equal? Its going to micromanage the individual finances? What if one parent earns more because he/she insured more school debt in the process?

Government (legal system) doesn't want to do this either. They want parents to figure it out all by themselves. The only time they get involved is when someone involves them. Then the law applies. Parents can do whatever they want... The courts won't interfere unless asked to.

Settle your matter. But, to settle you and the other parent will need to make compromises to come to an agreement. If you cannot the court will order something in the absence of an agreement if asked...

And how about the unintended consequences of this where maybe if we didnt have this intrusion then people would make the choice of more responsible partners to mate with?

Again, the court system hasn't intruded on you. An adult parent ASKED the court to become involved. You may not have been the person who asked the court for assistance because you can't resolve this matter privately and how 90% of people do...

And what does this teach children? Im sorry little Johnny, you spent your free time delivering papers and making money but your brother Alan sat around playing video games and having fun so we decided to take half from Johnny's piggy bank and give it to Alan?

Huh? Really? Didn't you see how Trump Jr. got eaten alive with his stupid halloween candy stupidity. I won't unleash this on you... Go search for it and see the total silliness of your comment.

Because its unfair Johnny gets to buy more candy than Alan. We wanted to equalize it.

We live in a society where we take care of each other. We contribute to the greater good. If you don't want to contribute to the greater good of YOUR CHILD then, that will reflect very poorly on you in court and custody and access will be ordered accordingly.

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[Doctor Martins]

You should read the studies. What you are wishing to discuss has been studied in depth:

https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/em_0.pdf

https://aifs.gov.au/ is a trove of information. But, it doesn't apply to Canada.

Although the presumption of "equal shared residency" (50-50 access) is not explicitly stated in the various jurisdictional laws (for example the CLRA in Ontario) jurisprudence (case law) has evolved to better establish a routine of courts ordering "equal shared residence" on the onset of a matter. (First motions now more often than not end in shared residency.)

So, without totally understanding how the "law" works in your specific jurisdiction and how the system of jurisprudence works... It is a hard discussion to have with most people.

Case law suggests that equal residency should be established even in the event of an "emergency".

For example, this case law that I have reviewed on this site is a prime example of a justice working to establish in jurisprudence the requirements to award "sole custody" and "majority access" on a first appearance.

Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 (CanLII)

Date: 2014-07-03
Docket: 2839/14
Citation: Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/g7w9n

Furthermore, it has 9 direct citations in CanLII. To give you an idea... If a case has 9 citings (which is a lot!) it means that about 60% of those people practicing law with a specialty in Family Law has probably read it.

As well, if you combine that with the "set" of case law this one is commonly cited with it nets you a spiderweb of connected cases that is 1,032 large. Which means, that VAST MAJORITY of legal professionals are informed about the requirements to establish "sole custody" and "equal access" on a first motion.

The challenge that most people face is that the general population of people does not know the requirements the court NOW requires for establishing "sole custody" and "majority access" on a motion. Most parents who get the "e-o-w shaft" have, unfortunately, "agreed to this on consent" without having sought proper legal advice.

The "tender years doctrine" is dead... But, people still talk to the principals of "mother knows best" for young children. Even though the court system in Canada has denounced this doctrine!

What needs to change is that people in Canada need to "assume" they understand custody and access law. That they should retain a lawyer or at least get advice from one prior to doing anything! If this were what happened 90% of the people who come here lamenting about Canada and how it works would stop coming. Because, well, they would have gotten proper legal advice, not agreed to an EOW-screwjob and pressed to settle on joint custody and equal access.

All the presumption of equal residency and joint custody does is make it so people don't have to inform themselves of how things work. It is simply a safety net for the cheap, lazy and uninformed...

To this I say: Ignorantia juris non excusat!!!!!!!!!!!



Child Support is federally mandated under the FCSG. It is a law! There is little to debate. What people are jockying for in the conflict is not about child support but, again "access".

People are often trying to break the 60/40 split where the rules for the off-set "shared parenting" calculations can possibly get applied. So, although you may think it is about "child support" it is the binding that CS is based on the amount of time a child spends in a particular home.

The offset method works ok. It isn't the best way to do it but, it is an easy way to calculate it.



It would only shift the burden of the courts to when children turn 12, 13 and leave millions of parents hopeless to have a relationship with their children at age 14 when they are listened to by the court and 14+ can ultimately make the decision.

Little known fact is that the majority of children end up by the age of 13/14 end up spending the majority of their time with the higher earning parent if the matter has previously been 50-50 for a number of years.

You can search my threads for the Stats Can study where that info is hidden.

Child support is the right of the child. They have a right to be supported by BOTH of their parents no matter where they reside. Just because the parents can't get along and live under the same roof DOES NOT MEAN they shouldn't benefit only from their parents when they live under that specific parent's roof.

A parent supports their child under all roofs at all times! -- The principal being applied in child support!

Not "only my roof" and on "my time". (where the my is a parent!)



There are many logical fallacies in your argument and position which is ok really. They are happening because you are going through this experience and trying to find solutions that suit your need. Might I suggest that your scope is way to large and that trying to solve for the systemic issues is not going to get your matter resolved and only going to make it more complex and conflicted.

You are better off laser focusing on your matter and leave the social justice warrior stuff until you have actually resolved your own issues on your file.



I disagree. It is a legal strategy that gets applied in court cases often yes... But, ultimately, if someone has a proper lawyer who knows what they are doing... It rarely becomes the reality these days.

A very qualified lawyer can quickly disarm mud slinging. Mostly, mud slinging happens when:

1. You have one or both parties unrepresented.
2. You have a stupid lawyer representing both or one parties.
3. You have a crooked lawyer representing one or both parties.

Stupid lawyers are different from crooked lawyers. With a crooked lawyer I know what they are going to do. They have an easy to figure out pattern of behaviour. You can pull it out of CanLII and their past cases. All their pleadings and allegations are the same on every file. Stupid lawyers are the dangerous ones... They are unpredictable because they are stupid. They do stuff even a crooked lawyer would scratch their heads over. Because they are stupid. A crooked lawyer will never put their client in a bad position. A stupid one will.

Worse than a stupid lawyer is a "justice warrior I read everything on the interweb self-represented know-it-all nutjob".

Don't be a justice warrior. Be a parent. The court will respect you more if you present as a parent trying their best... Rather than a social justice warrior trying to right all the wrongs of family law.

Good Luck!
Tayken

You do realize that suggesting proposes to law is hypothetical? It's like suggesting universal income. It has nothing to do with the laws as they exist and is purely a philosophical debate.

As always you have great insight but don't confuse my personal case with a philosophical debate. This isnt something I would argue at trial. This is something that I enjoy discussing theoretically.

I appreciate the case law and background!

As far as child support I do see it as a motive, especially if there is a huge income disparity.. Also there are financial motives such as child benefits .. especially for low income homes.

 

[Janus]

There has been moves to pass 50/50 shared parenting, joint custody legally as the default.. and I think unless there is abuse, and as long as both parents want involvement this would be a way to reduce legal conflict.

Agreed, the onus should be on the parent who wants more than 50% to show why it is in the best interests of the child to do so. Note however, the legislation to this effect was completely shot down quite recently. Women's groups and lawyers were very much opposed, for obvious reasons.

Say there was no child support, and given the above 50/50 expenses just paid equally.. how much would this reduce conflict in court.

Currently, even at 50%, the lower income earner still gets some child support. Your proposal is that at 50%, the lower income earner would get no child support. Is it seriously your belief that this would reduce conflict?

The lower income earner in your situation is almost forced to fight for 61%.

I think its crazy to think an involved parent wouldn't pay for things for their child. I think it would be natural and if 50/50 wouldn't need to be forced.

So parents who can't get along when married will be able to get along naturally once they are divorced if only we got rid of child support?

FRO exists for a reason. Hint: It isn't because people pay money to their ex voluntarily.

Thoughts?

Dump the child support argument for now. Offset support is unfair, for different reasons than what you have stated, but that's not the correct first step. First argue for a presumption of shared custody. That is reasonable and attainable. There are almost no reasonable arguments against presumption of shared custody. That is where we need to hammer. I bring it up with people all the time, letting them in on the "shocking secret" that shared custody is not a default in Canada.


Also, this should be in the politics subforum.

 

[Tayken]

You do realize that suggesting proposes to law is hypothetical?

Why deal in a hypothetical world when we live in the real world. You have an actual matter to attend to. These hypotheticals are a waste of time for you and the child in that matter. Furthermore, they serve no purpose as you are dealing with a real-world problem and not a hypothetical one.

It's like suggesting universal income. It has nothing to do with the laws as they exist and is purely a philosophical debate.

Philosophy is best left to a form not called "OttawaDivorce.com" and to OttawaHypotheticalDivorce.com in my humble opinion.

As always you have great insight but don't confuse my personal case with a philosophical debate.

That is the advice I am giving to you. If you allow the hypothetical to cloud your mind it will eventually cloud your arguments in your very REAL and non-hypothetical situation!

This isnt something I would argue at trial. This is something that I enjoy discussing theoretically.

I am doubtful that you can seperate the two. 99.324584738457% of unrepresented litigants cannot do this. The only person I have ever met that can do this is WorkingDad.

I appreciate the case law and background!

But, do you understand the system of jurisprudence and how it works in Canada?

As far as child support I do see it as a motive, especially if there is a huge income disparity.. Also there are financial motives such as child benefits .. especially for low income homes.

Note the names of these things are:

Child Support
Child Benefits

They are not:

Parent Support
Parent Benefits

You need to separate the two. If you see how it all supports the child then you will accept it as something that is good. Until then... you will wax poetic (hypothetical arguments) about why the legal system is unjust.

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[Tayken]

Offset support is unfair, for different reasons than what you have stated, but that's not the correct first step.

I agree... To be fair it should have a /2 in the equation to reflect the balance of the two homes.

Parent A: 100/2=50
Parent B: 50/2=25

Offset would be: 50-25... $25 going to Parent B... Not 50.

We have seen case law to this effect but, it hasn't stuck.

 

[Doctor Martins]

But, do you understand the system of jurisprudence and how it works in Canada?



-About 1% as well as you do, but thats why I'm a humble person and enjoy these exchanges. I am learning every step of the way. Do I wish I had learned faster? Yes. And yes I did speak to a lawyer upfront but in reality the information was not as good as on this forum and my exes first lawyer, which she got a certificate for. That lawyer was horrible.

I know what a good lawyer is as I've been in a ton of legal situations in business, which doesn't translate well to family law. And yes good or great lawyers are concise and also see resolution IMO.

In everything I have done in my life I started as a novice.. now not saying I want to do this with my kids future, but I do enjoy learning and the experience. I do wish I knew some things early on as I wouldnt have settled for access agreement. That said, that was after 5 months of no access so I probably would have agreed to anything at that point to see my daughter. I had one motion go very well for me, and one go very bad. The bad one though it wasn't the right forum to seek what I was seeking. I don't plan to do law full time but even if I was fully represented I would want to learn as much as I can.

I had a case in federal court in the US.. and paid that lawyer 30k and the lawyer wasn't representing myself well at motion. One downside of lawyers is they tend to not want to assert themselves against judges who they frequently appear before.. but of course there are many benefits to lawyers.. Its just unfortunate that almost nobody can afford to go to trial with a lawyer in family court.

I enjoy you kicking the shit out of me with arguments because it forces me to learn and listen.

How is the best way to include jurisprudence in pleadings? Just site the case or provide it as an exhibit?

 

[Rioe]

Then, the non-fun over working parent should work less and spend more quality time with the children.

Work less, spend more time with the children. Equality is not limited to income or time. Courts will often tell you that the QUALITY of time is more important than the AMOUNT of time. This is something you need to truly understand.

It's nice to say that, but what are some good ways to avoid having the higher income being imputed back to you in response to this reduction of work hours?

I still believe having a sliding scale for support based on access, which would eliminate the huge jump point at 40/60, would reduce a lot of fighting over access. In addition to the default presumption of 50-50 unless and until the parent wanting majority access proves it to be in the child's best interests, of course.

 

[Tayken]

I know what a good lawyer is as I've been in a ton of legal situations in business, which doesn't translate well to family law. And yes good or great lawyers are concise and also see resolution IMO.

You are correct, it doesn't translate well at all. That is why you need to go vertical when choosing a family law lawyer. You need one that specializes in the very complex and often overly emotional situation of family law. It is not like any other area of law when being applied in my humble opinion.

That is why you don't want a lawyer that does it on the side. There are lots in Southern Ontario. You just need to go to a court house and watch a few motions and see who they are.

In everything I have done in my life I started as a novice.. now not saying I want to do this with my kids future, but I do enjoy learning and the experience. I do wish I knew some things early on as I wouldnt have settled for access agreement. That said, that was after 5 months of no access so I probably would have agreed to anything at that point to see my daughter.

But, you didn't have to wait that long. A good FAMILY LAW LAWYER could have put the resolution in motion much sooner and negated issues you are dealing with now.

I had one motion go very well for me, and one go very bad. The bad one though it wasn't the right forum to seek what I was seeking. I don't plan to do law full time but even if I was fully represented I would want to learn as much as I can.

Well, being unrepresented means you need to be as experienced and knowledgeable as a lawyer. It will take you years (5+) to get to a point you can properly represent yourself. But, the emotional factor of you being in the situation will cloud it. So even if you are smart as a whip and have a law degree... You more than likely won't be successful.

A person who is their own lawyer has a fool for a client. A lawyer who represents themselves has a client who is an even bigger fool.

How is the best way to include jurisprudence in pleadings? Just site the case or provide it as an exhibit?

In a Factum or Book of Authorities depending on the situation. This is where a lawyer can help. You should never use case law in your pleadings.

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[Links17]

I think no child support when children are 50/50 i the next bridge that needs to be crossed in family law.

I can see a lot of people supporting it.

(In)directly, child support in these cases has the effect of continuing to allow the former spouse benefit from the other. It's totally contrary to the principle of divorce and as long as the the children have the minimums how a parent chooses to train, work, educate, spend on their children is their choice - getting divorced should also means I'm taking care of the kids alone half the time. When parents get divorced they take the responsibility to raise the children a lone half the time emotionally, with their time etc.... why it doesn't extend to financially is beyond me.

 

[Links17]

@ Doctor Martens - I self represented myself and I won at the court of appeal at least 3 times overturning incompetent crooked judges decisions.

It can be done.

 

[trinton]

@ Doctor Martens - I self represented myself and I won at the court of appeal at least 3 times overturning incompetent crooked judges decisions.

It can be done.

it's not for everybody. I wouldn't be able to do it. I would if I had to but the first hand emotions would make it difficult for me to remain focused.

Self-represented parties are a nuisance to the courts. That's how judges view them.

That being said, judges can't pull decisions out of their ass. They must be supported by the facts and by our laws.

 

[Doctor Martins]

it's not for everybody. I wouldn't be able to do it. I would if I had to but the first hand emotions would make it difficult for me to remain focused.

Self-represented parties are a nuisance to the courts. That's how judges view them.

That being said, judges can't pull decisions out of their ass. They must be supported by the facts and by our laws.

Regardless of if they like it or not the trend is going to go in that direction because of the increasing cost and how drown out the system is. Most people can't spare 100k to go to trail. It's kind of turning the way of small claims court.

 

[sahibjee]

Child Support is federally mandated under the FCSG. It is a law! There is little to debate.

I beg to differ here, Laws can and have been wrong, I am not saying CS should not be mandated, it absolutly should; but to say because it is the law therefore it is correct is a fallible argument.

You can search my threads for the Stats Can study where that info is hidden.

I'll look for the study but Stats & studies can be skewed any which way - just take all the stats that had put Hillary in a winning position, the results were different. we do need to rely on the stats, but very cautiously.

 

[sahibjee]

It isn't hard to make things fair. But, it is hard to make them fair and equal. You can get close but, family law is not about "perfection". It is about resolving matters for children ... Not parents.



That is why they use the offset method to calculate child support in shared residency matters when the access split is around the 60/40 mark.

"Parent A" income = 100,000
"Parent B" income = 35,000

1. Parent B majority access support from Parent A is: $880/month
2. Parent A majority access support from Parent B is: $303/month

Now, let's see how fair this is...

In 1. Parent A is paying 10.56% of income in CS. In 2. Parent B is paying 10.38%! Gasp the inequality!

Now, lets apply the offset to this where the parents share residency at minimum to a 60/40.

$880 - $303 = Parent A pays Parent B $577

((577*12)/100,000)*100 = 6.92% of 100,000

Feel free to make a spreadsheet and put incomes of all types and you will get an average that produces the same %s roughly. Well, for anything 149,000 or less. 150,000+ changes the rules and game.

again, the above argument isnt very solid, the percentage calculation method dictates that 10.xx% of income is sufficent for a 3 year old child, as well as a 15 year old child. A normal 3 year old child does not have many needs, all a three year old needs is clothing, food and shelter etc; whereas a 15 year old has substiantialy more needs.

The law needs to change to take into account the child's needs and what that couple would actually spend on the child in comparison with the current one-size-fits-all yard stick.

Also the suggestion that the child support is the "right of the child" is correct, however there is NO way to ensure that the money being given as the "child's right" is actually being spent on the child. the law here is incorrect in assuming that a honest parent who's submissions are truthful is equally honest to an untruthful parent who has primary care of the child (remember, you don't lose custody for lying or swearing false financial statements etc) and will have equal accountability and ethics and will ethically spend the "child's right" on the child.