Renegade

You will save yourself a lot of money and aggravation if you can work out a mutually accpetable arrangement. Brining in lawyers just invites confrontation. The judge is not obligated to accept your petition, regardless if the divorcing parties agree, if the judge feels it violates guidelines. If you go this route, KNOW THE LAW AND KNOW THE GUIDELINES. For example if you structure your custody arrangment as shared custody and each parent has at least 40% physical custody, then the child support calculations guidelines do not apply. I've gone this route, and thankfully had a amicable agreement so the main hurdle was the logistics involved after we came to terms.

yes she does. The law only specifies that the non-costodial parent has to pay.

I think you are quite wrong in the % of men who would fulfill their responsibilites if they were given a choice in their fatherhood. Divorced Fathers I think you can extend the question to women just as much as you can to men. No doubt in any group there will always be some who don't live up to their responsibilities. It would be unfair to characterize an entire group because of the actions of a few. Why do we have laws against child abuse? Is it because ALL parents abuse their children? Do you have a link to any story or article describing this? As far as I remember Mike Harris' government passed a law trying to track down deadbeat dads. You may be just seeing one side. There are just as many women who use access or custody of the children as weapons against men.

Since you are only 14 I'll cut you some slack. Abortion is more complex a question than murder, because it is about conflicting rights. In murder it is only the victim who has their rights to security violated. With abortion the fetus has rights for preservation, however those rigthts are superceded by the right of the woman to decide what she will do with her body. We live in a free society and we beleive that we cannot force a woman to host a pregnancy against her will even if the consequences are dire for the fetus. Further while it is clear that the fetus is life, it far from clear that the fetus is a 'human' while early term? BTW, please stop with the oversize colour posts. We can read the normal size, b & w font just fine.

We actually discussed a similar topic before Discrimmination It may surprise people to know that the Charter only prohibits discrimination against "disadvantaged grouips" (women, racial minorities, aboriginals, older people, etc). Discrimination against "advantaged" groups (ie mostly white males) is permitted, even encouraged.

geoffery, let me give you another analogy which hopefully will reinforce the point which is trying to be made. Let's say person 'A' needed a kidney transplant or he would die. Let's say person 'B' had two compatible functioning kidneys. Would you force person 'B' to submit to an operation to donate their kidney if they were unwilling to do so? Would you consider it murder if person 'A' died because person 'B' did not donate their kidney. Sure both the mother and the father have a stake in the unborn fetus, however only the mother has a right to decide what to do with her body. If she decides that she doesn't want her body to be use as host, she has that right. Science has not advanced to the point where it can sustain the development of an extreme early term fetus outside the mother's womb. So regardless of what the father wishes for that fetus, once the mother decides to withold her body as a host for that fetus, that fetus will die.

Put yourself in a pregnant woman's shoes in the current environment. All you have to think about is "do I want to be a mother? yes or no"...and someone else will pony up the cash if you do. Must be a nice coloured sky in that world. IMV, fathers should not be paying the FULL child support bill. They should only be responsible for 50% of the child rearing cost. The mother should be responsible for the other 50%. Yes, I too would like to see a measure of accountability in how the money is spent. Perhaps the recipient parent should have to submit reciepts, just like a company recieves reciepts to process and expense claim.

Thats a good point, and I never really thought of that. I suppose it is a little unfair for people to pay taxes and not use a service, but what about the NDP? They want more money for services for the poor (afordable housing, ect.) that doesnt help me, yet I have to pay into that. Its a lose-lose situation when it comes to taxes. I think more things should be privatized so we only pay for the services we use, and we dont have high taxes. Yes, my sentiments as well. I understand and sympatize with what you are feeling. If I can paraphrase, you pay lots of money in taxes for benefits and services which end up benefiting others and not yourself. You are finally feeling a sense of relief that a program is introduced for which you too can benefit (even if only in a small way). Personally I agree with the sentiment you have expressed above. Except for those on welfare, I'd like to see that most services funded on a "pay-by-use" system and the level of income taxes reduced correspondingly.

You are so right -- we were terribly disappointed (as were her parents) when she got pregnant with the 2nd one. But what can you do? Abortion was not an option for her. No sense being angry with her -- what's done is done. Now, 7 years later, she has the older boy in hockey and the younger one in soccer. She never parties, she never has "strange" men over (that I've ever seen), she's quiet, she pays the rent. What more could a landlord want? My niece had a kid at age 17. She is now almost 20 and lives with her parents. She parties like there's no tomorrow because she knows gramma and granpa will look after her child. (They really have no choice when she simply leaves the house after the baby is asleep -- even when my sister and her husband say no -- she talks her 16 year old sister into looking after the baby -- for free) She doesn't have a job and she refuses to go on welfare. IMO, I would rather see her go on welfare and learn what looking after a baby is really like, instead of being a "free and wild teenager", collecting the child tax credit and living off her parents (all the glory of being a mom without the responsibility). Our tenant at least has to raise the children herself. The neice simply believes her parents "owe" her. I have much more respect for our tenant than this spoiled brat. Well despite your tenant second mistake, at least she seems to have got her life together. For that she shoudl be proud, and you of her. I apologize if I seemed judgmental, but it is borne out of frustration. I sometimes feel as a taxpayer to support some of these programs and have people not learn from their mistakes, that we are enablers for this behaviour. Your neice's behaviour demonstrates the kind of attitude which dismays me the most. Not only is she not living up to her responsibilites as a mother, she has no sense of self-reliance, and has a sense of entitlement from her parents. No doubt that sense of entitlement will transfer in her attitude toward society as well. Her parents are in a difficult situation and I sympatize for them. Unfortunately to move her from her parents support system to a public support system would only transfer the mechanism of support and would nothing to address her attitude. Was there a specific event or moment of truth which caused your tenant to turn her life around? Maybe your neice should be forced to spend some time with other single mothers who are making it on their own so she can learn some of life's lessons.

15 days is way to short for such a difficult decision. You are possibly right, and 15 days was somewhat an arbritary choice, however there needs to be some finite time limit to make a decision. About 10 years ago a case went to the supreme court about a man who tried to get a court injuction to stop a woman from getting an abortion. Evidence came out during the trial that the man started becoming abusive once she was pregnant - in other words, she changed her mind about carrying the baby because the nature of the relationship changed. Abuse is an extreme example but I think all relationships are changed by the prospect of a child and many times these changes are not good. For this reason a woman should be able to change her mind at any time since she is the one that pays the heaviest price. Yes I would revise the above to state that the woman should be able to opt for an abortion at any time** however if she decides to have an abortion, and suddenly changes her mind, to balance the rigths of the father he should not be forced to accept fatherhood. **by "abortion at any time" I mean any time within the permissable period to get an abortion. I am fully aware that there is no abortion law in Canada which in theory means that an abortion can be legally performed anytime before birth, however no reputable doctor will perform a late-term abortion unless the woman's health is in danger. The timelimits I proposed above are intended to induce a state of urgency, because in fact the situation is urgent. Sometimes life and death decisions must be made within seconds. A couple of weeks give or take seems like plenty. In many cases a longer decision period actually prolongs the agony of the decision period.

The choice to abort is the women's alone because it is her body and she alone can decide if she wants to host a pregnancy. A man has no more right to force a pregnancy on a woman, than he has the right to force sex on a woman. Her body, her choice.

Jerry, I agree with your assessement however I would say the choices need to be explicit from both the father and mother, probably something like this: 1. The mother has 15 days from when she finds she is pregnant to decide if she wants an abortion. If she does, she gets one. End of story. The father need not be involved. 2. If she decides she wants to have the kid, she would need to formally notify the father within 15 days of her knowing she is pregnant. The notice should allow the option of either accpeting or rejecting fatherhood within 15 days. 3. If he accepts fatherhood, both he and the mother have accepted all the responsibiliites and privilidges of parenthood (including support obligations). 4. If he rejects fatherhood, the onus now falls again to the mother. She can decide she lacks the will or resources to have the baby and can decide to have an abortion. End of story. 5. She can also decide that she will have the baby regardless. In this case, the father is freed of any parental priviledges or obligations.

Granted, I probably don't know all the facts, so forgive me if I jump to conclusions, but based upon what you said, I gather that the tenant, of whom you are so proud, got pregnant a SECOND time while on taxpayer-funded welfare. Does that demonstrate her level of responsibility?

You are quite right, the situations above will occur. I'm not at all suggesting we should be coercive and preventing them from occuring, but people should be made to take responsibility when they do occur. Women and girls are free to bear kids "out of wedlock" as long as they don't expect society to support them. Men who abandon women with their children should be forced to pay their share of the child rearing costs. We already have systems in place to collect everything from loan defaults to parking fines, so it is hard for me to believe we can't enforce parents stepping up to their responsibilites. Whether a women is abused or not she may choose to leave a relationship. That choice frees neither parent from their parental support obligations. You an evil, lazy, feminist? Not at all. The decision you took required courage and perseverence, but still, it was YOUR decision. By your own words you chose not to terminate the pregnancy, you chose to leave the biological father, you chose to keep the baby. I commend you for stepping up to your parental responsibilites. I don't have an issue with welfare being used as a temporary income support mechanism, nor do I object to subsidized daycare being used to allow welfare parents to support themselves while they pull themselves up by their bootstraps. What I object to is the lack of controls. There is no timelimit on welfare. It can be just as frequently used as a permanant or semi-permanant source of income. There is no measure of responsibility on the part of the recipient. All too frequently mothers on welfare will get themselves pregnant AGAIN!! How does this show they are responsible and getting themselves on their feet? Other measures of control should be no drugs or illegal activity while on welfare. For those not bettering themselves through schooling, Work for Welfare programs should be mandatory. Some may consider this harsh, but to me it is just common sense. If you want me to support you with my tax dollars, you need to do it on my terms. Back to the topic at hand, neither the Liberal daycare plan not the Conservative one is about providing subsidized spaces to welfare mothers. It a direct or indirect subsidy of parents by the taxpaying public. The story above does not lend support to either plan. BTW, thank-you for sharing your story. It is always great to hear of people who have picked themselves through the hardest times and bettered their lives and those of others. Best wishes to you and your family.

The moratorium on cod fishing in 1992 also "destroyed whole communities" yet it was common sense. Yes sometimes doing the right thing causes upheaval, yet it should be done because it is the right thing to do.

Sam, please calm down. Do not let some over-the-top posters taunt you into retaliating in kind. I have a question for you, since you seem to believe that the level of taxes you pay entitles you to $100 a month back. Do you not agree then that other childless income earners and those who's children are over 6 are also entitled to $100 a month back if they pay the same level of taxes as you do?

Interesting thought, however I don't think the criteria would simply be "makes enough money". Assumiing we had the ability to control who was a parent, just as important is the emotional, physical, and psychological prepardness for the task. Assuming there was some way to temporarily sterilize people until they are deemed ready, I for one would NEVER want that used. Why? Because to do so would deny people freedom to choose. People should be free to choose to be a parent or not be a parent without government or societal intervention. However that freedom must come at a price. That price is responsibility. If you are free to choose to be a parent, you must accept TOTAL responsibility for the care, feeding, and cost of the offspring you create.

I think we need a solid Libertarian type party here in Canada. Not the current Libertarian Party which believes in such extreme things as abolishing the bank of Canada and allowing people to buy drugs without a prescription, but a Libertarian Party that has common sense. To be honest there were a couple of questions I was tempted to say "Maybe". I agree with you. In an ideal world people would be free to do what they wanted including buying drugs without controls. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and not everyone will or is capable of being responsible for their actions, and so libertarian ideals must be tempered with common sense.

[rant on] Some have brought up that not all pregnancies are planned, and as such the parents didn't "choose" to have kids, so they shouldn't be responsible for the costs (or complete costs) of the kids. In my view, a parent may get pregnant unintentionally, but they CHOOSE to keep the kid. In doing so they ACCEPT the responsibility (emotional, financial, and otherwise) of being the parent. To my dismay, many couples do more financial planning when they purchase a house then they ever do before they have a child. The consequences of improper financial planning with a house mean they lose the house and possibly impact their credit rating. The consequences of improper financial planning for a child are much more disasterous. [/rant off]

Perhaps $750 is fair, but perhaps $1000 is fair, how do we decide. In my view fair is whatever is the market price for that service. We're 100% in agreement here, and that is precisely my point. I don't think you should pay me $100/per child, not even $10/per child. If I decided to have 4 kids, I should pay the full cost of the daycare or suffer the loss of income by staying home to look after those kids. Whatever I decide to do, it should be my issue to deal with. You keep saying it is ridiculous to price people out of the market. Do you not see that the market is self-balancing? As you state, if you had a child and it cost $40000 to put your child in daycare, you would quit your job and open a daycare and take on additional kids and make pretty good money. Well you wouldn't be alone. Thousands of others would do the same, and pretty soon the market woudl be flooded with daycare providers driving down prices to sustainable levels. The other benefit is that based on market prices people determine the number of kids they can afford. If it cost $10000/year in daycare for each kid, it somewhat induces me to control the number of offspring I've have to levels I can afford to sustain.

Ridiculous, Why? People will simply need to make a personal evaluation on whether it makes economic sense for them to work or to have one parent stay home in the role of caregiver. If I have 4 kids and it cost $800 in childcare for each one in order to work so I decide that both from an economic standpoint and inorder for me to be with my kids, I decide to stay home as caregiver, why is that ridiculous? Is that not simply my choice as parent? There is no problem with this, however you have not defined what you mean by "fair". What you may consider fair, I may not, so please define what you mean by fair and we can discuss further. Well I appreciate that it is preferable that daycare providers love children, but that is a criteria for parents to determine when they place their children. You can't make it a criteria for daycare providers, any more than you can make it a critieia for parents to love children, or teachers to love children, or doctors, and nurses to love people. People have different motivations for taking on roles, some do it for the money, some for the lack of other choices, others because they love the job. In the end all that really matters is that they perform in the job regardless of thir individual motivations. BTW, I have yet to find one person who has first hand experience of not being able to find daycare space IF they were willing to pay the cost. Sure I hear stories, such as third hand accounts or one off newspaper accounts, however I'm drawing the conslusion that either these are isolated cases or its more a question of the parents being unwilling to pay the true costs.

Greg, for whatever reason I missed this thread before. Regardless please accept my very belated congratulations and best wishes to you and your family.

Well daycare costs have been high in GTA as long back as I can remember. By your own admission $400 per child is too low to provide a decent income for the provider. What exactly does it mean to be fair to the parents? In my view paying the market cost of childcare IS fair to parents, just as it is fair to chldcare providers. Your statement that you "want it both ways" illustrates the problem. Parents want to have quality childcare with trained providers, but then don't want to pay the cost, further, they have an expectation that everyone else foots the bill. When parents complain there are no available daycare spaces, this is code for "We don't want to pay what the daycare actually cost" The argument you propose can be extended to every facet of life. If it is too expensive, why shouldn't I expect that the rest of taxpayers subsidize my house, my food, my car, and my vacations?

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS, The political description that fits you best is... . LIBERTARIAN Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%. Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%. No surprise here

Drea, For you reference: Source: CANADIAN RELOCATION SYSTEMS DAY CARE & CHILD CARE