While this is summarized in a completely biased manner on this site, the comments that are notable are the following:
"Where the parent with secondary custodial responsibilities (usually the father) attempts to have his child support obligations reduced, claiming simply that the child is with him 40% of the time, the mother can argue, based on this case, that he needs to prove that reducing child support is in the best interests of the child and is reflective of the actual spending patterns of both parents."
"Where a father seeks shared custody with the stated or unstated goal of reducing his child support obligations, his lawyer can advise him that this is not a certain outcome, and that child support will be calculated so as to ensure an appropriate standard of living for the children in both parents' homes."
My perspective on these two statements is that the first demonstrates that there is an acknowledged bias against men in custody, and bias has no place in the courts. It also places the responsibility on the father, a guilty until proven innocent presumption, on the father to establish that the reduction in support is fair. There's a problem here with the idea that one parent has a higher responsibility to earn a living and this is the real problem.
The laws as they stand, and the lawmakers themselves, have a bias that suggests that the father is expected to provide lion's share of the funding for the children. The mother who would have a reduced burden on her time, if nothing else, has the ability to provide a good home for the child in her own manner. The court's decision implies that a father remains the key breadwinner and leaves the door open for the mother to be a burden on society, the family, and the father. There are laws for alimony, this is CHILD SUPPORT!
The second statement underlines that some men are out to change the custody arrangements to save money. This is wrong. If your intent when pursuing a change to custody is predominantly financial, don't even start. Be a good father, thing of what's best for your children, NOT YOURSELF!
I find it entertaining that there is so much concern for ensuring the mother's situation is ideal for the child, yet the father can be force unto the street by the actions of the FRO. How does this help the child?
Judges are idiots, unqualified moronic fools, that get off on their power without any comprehension of real world problems and the life of those not on a legal pedestal.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Friday, September 22, 2006
Responsibilities of Child Support
Whether you are custodial or non-custodial, a parent or a sperm-donor, if you have a Child Support Order you have a responsibility to pay your support and the FRO will do nasty things to ensure you do. Actually, they may do nasty thing even if you don't want them too, but that's another issue.
The argument that the responsibilty of an individual who was never interested in being a parent and after an momentary lapse in judgement, control, and possible structural integrity, is for another time. This is what I refer to as being a sperm-donor. For the rest of the population that are affected by Child Support laws, where there's an active interest in being a parent, or at the very least you were married and had children, the laws and the necessity of Child Support cannot be argued. The parents are mutually culpable for the creation of a child and are mutually responsible for the burdens of parenthood.
Some people, seem to feel they are not worthy of this burden. They, stereotypically men, are prone to evasion of support or disregarding the parental responsibilities. These people are more than willing to completely discard their social position and career, or hide it, in a manner that will allow them to remain affluent through evasion of Child Support.
While the premise of Child Support is financial and the government's only area of responsibility, there's quite a bit to be said against those who walk away from the role of parent. Some suggest it's because they don't want to be reminded of the relationship, others do it out of spite for their ex-whatever. While it's more common for men, there's no shortage of women who have done the same.
This is tragic, a real loss to the child, and frankly an act of cowardice. They can't face facts so they dump responsibility of parenting on the remaining parent. along with that relatively complicated role, they dump the child's trauma and the resulting psychological effects on the remaining parent and walk away. This is unfair to say the least but better than the mixed solution where the non-custodial parent is a user, abuser, and absolute ass. This sort of parent is the worst sort, they remain an influence in the worst way and have nothing more than revenge and hatred mixed in with the desire to stay in the child's life for teh sole reason of harassing their former spouse. It's all bad.
Oh, those guys that walked away, they often lean on family to support them. They rely on protection from Mommy and are tragic wastes of societal space. Suitably, they go back to leach of the parent(s) that created them and the process continues.
Be Responsible, be a parent. Pay your Child Support and Stay Involved.
The argument that the responsibilty of an individual who was never interested in being a parent and after an momentary lapse in judgement, control, and possible structural integrity, is for another time. This is what I refer to as being a sperm-donor. For the rest of the population that are affected by Child Support laws, where there's an active interest in being a parent, or at the very least you were married and had children, the laws and the necessity of Child Support cannot be argued. The parents are mutually culpable for the creation of a child and are mutually responsible for the burdens of parenthood.
Some people, seem to feel they are not worthy of this burden. They, stereotypically men, are prone to evasion of support or disregarding the parental responsibilities. These people are more than willing to completely discard their social position and career, or hide it, in a manner that will allow them to remain affluent through evasion of Child Support.
While the premise of Child Support is financial and the government's only area of responsibility, there's quite a bit to be said against those who walk away from the role of parent. Some suggest it's because they don't want to be reminded of the relationship, others do it out of spite for their ex-whatever. While it's more common for men, there's no shortage of women who have done the same.
This is tragic, a real loss to the child, and frankly an act of cowardice. They can't face facts so they dump responsibility of parenting on the remaining parent. along with that relatively complicated role, they dump the child's trauma and the resulting psychological effects on the remaining parent and walk away. This is unfair to say the least but better than the mixed solution where the non-custodial parent is a user, abuser, and absolute ass. This sort of parent is the worst sort, they remain an influence in the worst way and have nothing more than revenge and hatred mixed in with the desire to stay in the child's life for teh sole reason of harassing their former spouse. It's all bad.
Oh, those guys that walked away, they often lean on family to support them. They rely on protection from Mommy and are tragic wastes of societal space. Suitably, they go back to leach of the parent(s) that created them and the process continues.
Be Responsible, be a parent. Pay your Child Support and Stay Involved.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Concensus: The FRO is a pit of despair
It seems that while custodial parents have some gains from this organisation, the general concensus is that they are a machine-like organisation that operates with complete authority and not an ounce of empathy. Lawyers, clerks, non-custodial parents, and custodial parents are affected daily by the ineptitude of these govenrment employees and their job-for-life level of responsibility.
They messed up the cheque delivery system last month and many custodial parents were put out by the alck of funds. They had a lame and inexcusable reason for the problems, but have made no headway into designing an electronic system that would make the process less painful and much more managable.
IT TAKES TWO WEEKS FOR A SUBMITTED (FAXED) DOCUMENT TO BE ATTACHED TO YOUR FILE! DON'T EXPECT A FAX TO BE FILED, CALL THEM BACK IN TWO WEEKS AND ENSURE IT HAS BEEN.
Inviting the FRO to the proverbial table in a child support dispute will often do more harm than good, leaving the claimant to do the leg-work and the payor at the mercy of a careless, faceless organisation that cannot comprehend that there are GOOD people out there so they treat all payors as criminals.
They messed up the cheque delivery system last month and many custodial parents were put out by the alck of funds. They had a lame and inexcusable reason for the problems, but have made no headway into designing an electronic system that would make the process less painful and much more managable.
IT TAKES TWO WEEKS FOR A SUBMITTED (FAXED) DOCUMENT TO BE ATTACHED TO YOUR FILE! DON'T EXPECT A FAX TO BE FILED, CALL THEM BACK IN TWO WEEKS AND ENSURE IT HAS BEEN.
Inviting the FRO to the proverbial table in a child support dispute will often do more harm than good, leaving the claimant to do the leg-work and the payor at the mercy of a careless, faceless organisation that cannot comprehend that there are GOOD people out there so they treat all payors as criminals.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Court delivers tough child-support ruling
Court delivers tough child-support ruling: "The Supreme Court of Canada sent a warning to divorced parents on Monday that they better come clean when their income goes up, or they could face sizable retroactive child support bills."
This may be stating the obvious, but some non-custodial parents are rather evasive with this income disclosure. This is a stern warning of the future for parents on both sides of the battle.
The biggest hurdle I've found to amending the CS amount is the filingin involved when dealing with the FRO. There's no capacity for electronic filing or even filing by mail. The filee is forced into getting to the court, taking time off in most cases, to wait in line and file the documents. My only advice, get to court early.
This may be stating the obvious, but some non-custodial parents are rather evasive with this income disclosure. This is a stern warning of the future for parents on both sides of the battle.
The biggest hurdle I've found to amending the CS amount is the filingin involved when dealing with the FRO. There's no capacity for electronic filing or even filing by mail. The filee is forced into getting to the court, taking time off in most cases, to wait in line and file the documents. My only advice, get to court early.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)