Brain likes to read the comments. He's a sensitive little guy, so please be civil.
What is it with parents and kids?
Why would anybody complain about turning the lot over to their children? Something better to do with it? Give me a break. Imagine fighting over what your children are worth as one moves to one set of responsiblities to another! Geez stop having kids. Woe is me!!! I want to take another vacation or get a car or even eat for god's sake...give it to the kids.
how obscene is the number of fathers driven to poverty from child support payments? is it 8% or 12%? higher? lower? do you have any real research to prove this or are you simply blowing steam? this isn't a ruling against fathers, it's a wake up call to dickheads who don't pay their fair share.
http://www.menstuff.org/issues/
b...ildsupport.html
Child Support Casualties
Randy Orville Brouse, 33, of Illinois, when jailed for felony failure to pay child support, hung himself on July 21, 2003. Prior to his death, he was one of 50 Hillsdale County's "Most Wanted". All are alleged to be dangerous and wanted "for serious and often violent crimes". In fact, more than 60% are wanted only for failure to pay child support. The Hillsdale's dangerous, "Most Wanted" list of those unable to pay the court ordered amount of child support consists of 32 people of the 51 Most Wanted. Randy is still on the list. How many of these dangerous felons will take Randy's place on the Hillsdale mortuary slab before these atrocities end?
According to the unConstitutional family court's rulings, that made the "Most Wanted" financially responsible for amounts they are unable to pay and visitors to their children, the public is to believe these 32 parents would rather, have their driver's license revoked, lose their voting rights, lose access to firearms for defense of home and self-protection, lose their job and ability to find a job, be incarcerated and even to be forced to the point of taking their own lives, than pay money to support their children. The problem is, even after their children have been stolen from them, most have paid all they can and are NOT ABLE to pay anymore.
Trevor Goddard, 37, of North Hollywood, California, committed suicide on June 8, 2003. Goddard was at the height of his career. His credits include, Mortal Kombat, Men of War, JAG, Deep Rising, Gone in 60 Seconds, and the recently released, Pirates of the Caribbean. Few know that Trevor was in the middle of a divorce and finding out just what that means to a loving father. There were many articles on his death, but, only one mentioned his pending divorce.
Unknown man, unknown age, of Kendallville, Indiana, committed possible suicide in the only article released on his death. There was no response, the typical media response, to the email sent by his close friend to the 22 email addresses at kpc news. When this article is pubished, the author will send them the address of this article, the name of the unknown man, the link to their story, the link to the email to them, ask them their secrets to sound sleep and ask them, again, to do a follow-up story on James Betzner. They must have some great remedies to sleep after ignoring the email sent to them and still not publishing another story. Will those remedies work for the next unknown man article?
Robert R Steadman, 33, of Sewickley Township, Pennsylvania, hung himself in April, 2003 during his second imprisonment for failure to pay child support. Since Robert was only one sentence of the story dealing with suicide watch policy changing for that prison, it is unknown if this second jailing was a 90 day recycle. The recycle is a jail term of 90 days. After 90 days, the prisoner is released, only to be greeted
As a hopefully future to be father I have to say that I fully recognize that if I have a child and then divorce my wife, I fully respect to be bound to provide for that child, with visiting rights or not, just as I would should I still live with that wife and child. Divorce does not eliminate the obligation to provide for that child as you would if you were still married to its mother. To me this only makes sense. If I was still married and got a raise, part of that increased earnings would probably go to making a better life for my child. Why would I expect otherwise in a divorce? The obligation to children is still the same which only makes sense. This is not an anti-male ruling but rather one that simply continues to apply the obligations of fatherhood. Kudos to the Supreme Court for making the right decision.
A contract, is a contract, is a contract.
Any previous court ruled payments, should be considered final.
Increases due to (inflation, increased income) should have been thought of and included in the initial ruling, if they weren't, then it's tough cookies.
Nowhere in our constitution does it say rulings can be changed at a later date without some kind of error being committed by a lower judge.
What was the mistake made in the previous ruling?????
I can't believe our supremes are so biased in their thinking to ignore such basic contract law practices.
The Supreme Court of Canada should be dis-banded or simply fired for allowing socialist engineering policies to dictate their rulings.
why doesn't MARK understand that this post is about Canadian law?
I've made it clear to my wife that in the event of a divorce, I would not contest custody, and would also not shirk my responsibility to support the children we brought into this world together. She can keep the house and the car because the kids need a home and the means to get around. I will also pay an initial lump sum to help her start over as well.
I have made it perfectly clear that my relenting on these matters works both ways. She makes excellent money; she doesn't need me to continuously support HER, especially since she would have the house uncontested. Therefore, any deal involving my future money going to the children's care would NOT be hers to control. Because if it comes from ME, I will decide how its spent in their best interests.
As long as she recognized that I need to have the means to move on with my life, I will hold up my end of the bargain to its fullest for her to move on with hers; more even.
But the second she attempts to hire a ballsqueezing, headhunting lawyer to threaten my future ability to start my life over or deny me visitation rights, I swore I would go nuclear and bend all of my will to thwarting her. I've watched too many of my friends get their lives destroyed in court that I swear that will NOT happen to me.
1) This applies to either spouse; it isn't specific to men only.
2) Often, child support payment amounts are linked to total income; they pay a percentage rather than a flat figure. Therefore, it would make sense that when that number rises, so too would the percentage.
I think Sue and Davidson are totally out to lunch. We're not all dickheads who don't pay our fair share, and you can quantify how much it takes to raise a child.
Furthermore, how is someone a dickhead when they've paid according to their court order? Men just can't win. We're either deadbeats or dickheads. I think the dickheads are in the Supreme Court.
Once again, the assumption is being made that men don't contribute to their children's upbringing with time, finances and emotional support. Go back to the 1950s where you belong.
We support our children in more ways than just finances. As I've said in my blog, the biased Canadian court system sees men as nothing more than wallets with balls.
I don't expect it to change.
Mark: There was also a man in Prince George, BC who committed suicide after the courts awarded his ex-wife an amount greater than his gross income.
Its funny how the judges keep attacking non custodial dads and yet the real dead beat dads are allowed to run free and get away without paying. Seems to me the Supreme Court of Canada are the real criminals by lining there pockets with the cash crop sure to come from this ruling.
In my situation, we may need to rid our car sooner than expected and my visits to the kids who could drastically reduce to almost nil. I get a 2% raise each year, that will be gobbled up by my lawyer expenses by reporting my increases not to mention the high cost of living in Alberta and maintaining an already established child support. This ruling like so many others by the supreme court of Canada is a money grab for the lucrative and highly profitable law industry. (The Elite Criminals in Canada)
This new ruling no doubt will create more negative effects on kids, and non custodial dads.. It surprises me more that a Conservative Harper government sat on there thumbs while these liberal judges had there greedy way again.
I'll except this ruling as I'm a law abiding fool .
FOOTNOTE: I always look through my new yellow pages when it arrives at my door each year, The first thing I compare are the two largest listings within and note: How many more lawyer listings there are compared to the also lucrative escort business. Both being in the business of fucking people.
Commenting by HaloScan
