The Globe and Mail Reports that Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, said that Canada is going to have substantial job losses this year. The question becomes, will the judges understand when there's a definate and pressing need to reduct support payments quickly to ensure the payor does not lose his or her house, vehicle, etc. and can ride out this economic storm?
The courts are notorious for laying all of the responsibility on the payor to find new work of equal value when there may be none to be had. Maybe the payor was promoted to a higher pay and has focused skills, maybe the pay-scale has dropped and scrambling to keep a home for his or her kids is (and should be) the first priority. "In the best interest of the child(ren)" should understand that the father can afford accomodation for all of them.
Praying for understanding in 2009.
The courts are notorious for laying all of the responsibility on the payor to find new work of equal value when there may be none to be had. Maybe the payor was promoted to a higher pay and has focused skills, maybe the pay-scale has dropped and scrambling to keep a home for his or her kids is (and should be) the first priority. "In the best interest of the child(ren)" should understand that the father can afford accomodation for all of them.
Praying for understanding in 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment