Remiel Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 We're not talking about parents. We're talking about step-parents, which despite the name, are not always treated as parents by the children in question. Why do you think the device is so common in television and film, "You're not my real dad!" ? Besides, I am not saying that teachers are the same. My point was just that some of the arguments forwarded so far are not good because they rely on assumptions that hold equally true for people in other positions. Quote
Peter F Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 We're not talking about parents. We're talking about step-parents, which despite the name, are not always treated as parents by the children in question. Why do you think the device is so common in television and film, "You're not my real dad!" ? We are talking about parental obligations to thier children. There are no obligations of children to parents. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
TimG Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) We are talking about parental obligations to thier children. There are no obligations of children to parents.We are talking about legally imposing parental obligations to random people with no biological relationship with the children. The question is how to separate the poor suckers that get saddled with these legal obligations from other adults who have meaningful supervisory/nuturing roles in a child's life. So far, the answer we seem to getting is that if someone sleeps with the mother, lives in the same home and acts like a civilized adult then one gets stuck with the obligations. The complaint that I and others have is these criteria are arbitrary and unfair to the people who get stuck with the obligations. Edited June 4, 2014 by TimG Quote
Peter F Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 So far, the answer we seem to getting is that if someone sleeps with the mother, lives in the same home and acts like a civilized adult then one gets stuck with the obligations. Precisely! Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
TimG Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 Precisely!So you think it is a good thing to impose legal obligations on people for irrelevant and arbitrary reasons? Sort of like an anti-lottery? Such a system is offensive to anyone that wants to live is a society where fairness and justice are ideals that are upheld. Quote
Peter F Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 We are talking about legally imposing parental obligations to random people with no biological relationship with the children. The question is how to separate the poor suckers that get saddled with these legal obligations from other adults who have meaningful supervisory/nuturing roles in a child's life. ... The complaint that I and others have is these criteria are arbitrary and unfair to the people who get stuck with the obligations. No, You are talking about legally imposing parental obligations on random people. I'm not; Cybercoma's not; Jcee's not. Just you. I understand that we can talk endlessly about how living with the parent of the children in a conjugal relationship will inevitably result in a parental relationship with the children. I understand that you think thats a bunky reason to be considered a parent. I understand that you think a written agreement is necessary to assume the parental position. I say you are wrong. I say I hope that what you think should be the way never comes about. I say your view of how things should be in this regard is twisted, immoral and detrimental to the children involved. Personally I could not care less about the financial detriment in the co-habitating person who does not want to be parent but co-habitates anyways. Too bad for them. All Power to the Children! Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Peter F Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 So you think it is a good thing to impose legal obligations on people for irrelevant and arbitrary reasons? Sort of like an anti-lottery? Such a system is offensive to anyone that wants to live is a society where fairness and justice are ideals that are upheld. It is you who considers co-habitation with the parent and the children of that parent as meaningless pap. You think such co-habitation does not in anyway at anytime involve any parental obligation. Your wrong. The courts are right. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
TimG Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) It is you who considers co-habitation with the parent and the children of that parent as meaningless pap.If your argument had any merit then any adult (grandparent, uncle/aunt, nanny) living in the house would have the same obligations. They do not. The only difference between a step parent and a nanny living in the house is sex with the mother. This use of sexual activity to determine legal obligations is arbitrary and quite ridiculous. The courts are wrong. Edited June 4, 2014 by TimG Quote
TimG Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) I say your view of how things should be in this regard is twisted, immoral and detrimental to the children involved. Children raised in a house by a live in nanny bond with that nanny. The nanny becomes a surrogate parent for all intents and purposes but no sane person would suggest that the nanny be required to pay child support if she is fired because she annoyed the mother. This example demonstrates that your "its detrimental to the kids" platitude is BS and It is really a nonsensical rationalization for an arbitrary cash grab. If anyone has twisted morality is the people who think that the courts should make people financially liable for the care of other people's children. Edited June 4, 2014 by TimG Quote
overthere Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 So far, the answer we seem to getting is that if someone sleeps with the mother, lives in the same home and acts like a civilized adult then one gets stuck with the obligations. The term used for that relationship in pretty much the entire First World is 'marriage'. You may have heard of it, often called 'common law marriage' also. But here is a revelation: not only does it come with obligations, it comes with legal rights for both parties!!! Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
monty16 Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 Decent Canadians understand the issue completely. It's about giving women the right to abortions if they consider it necessary. We also understand that abortion is not the desirable outcome and therefore we need to take the socially responsible position of attempting to minimize the need for abortions before the fact. Let's not let the Americans slither into our politics and attempt to make it some other way. If we could trade Alberta for Washington or California then we would probably have less problems in my opinion. Quote
TimG Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) not only does it come with obligations, it comes with legal rights for both parties!!!Except step parents often do not want the rights (who wants to have custody of children that do not see you as a dad). This makes marriage a poisoned chalice. People should be free to set out what rights/obligations they wish to have prior to the marriage and have those contracts upheld by the courts. The problem is there is no choice in our system. You either get married and (often unknowingly) get saddled with obligations imposed by state or you avoid those relationships all together. The latter is obviously a choice but it is wrong for the courts to make it the only choice. Edited June 4, 2014 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 If you don't want the responsibility of children and you don't want to be a parent, maybe you should think twice about marrying a single parent. What kind of moron gets into a marriage with a single mother and expects NOT to be a parent to her kids? Quote
monty16 Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 Except step parents often do not want the rights (who wants to have custody of children that do not see you as a dad). This makes marriage a poisoned chalice. People should be free to set out what rights/obligations they wish to have prior to the marriage and have those contracts upheld by the courts. The problem is there is no choice in our system. You either get married and (often unknowingly) get saddled with obligations imposed by state or you avoid those relationships all together. The latter is obviously a choice but it is wrong for the courts to make it the only choice. You're very good at conjuring up imaginary situations aren't you Tim! Always look for some USBS extreme and never look for the norm. If Canadians follow that lead we can turn our country into the hating cesspool of racism and hate for women that the US has become. How about some more good advice Tim? Quote
Argus Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 You're very good at conjuring up imaginary situations aren't you Tim! Always look for some USBS extreme and never look for the norm. If Canadians follow that lead we can turn our country into the hating cesspool of racism and hate for women that the US has become. How about some more good advice Tim? The frontrunner for next president -- to replace the current Black president -- is a woman. Odd, that... in a hating cesspool of racism and hate for women. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
monty16 Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 The frontrunner for next president -- to replace the current Black president -- is a woman. Odd, that... in a hating cesspool of racism and hate for women. No, it's not odd at all. It's just that you choose to not understand and accept the truth. For example, a nation that is a hating cesspool of racism would not be a nation that is 100% racist. In fact, it could be labelled that if as little as 25% of the people were hating racists. The US easily qualifies in my opinion but you could differ with that and give an explanation. Likewise, a nation that could be labelled a nation that hates women could consist of as little as 25% frothing at the mouth, rabid righties. There's no need to be anywhere near 100% woman haters. Why is there a need to explain something so simple to Americans? Would anybody say that India gives women equal rights, yet be cognizant of the fact they elected Indira Ghandhi many years ago? I would suggest that your Americnan style politics is what leads you to come to such ridiculous conclusions. Your flagwaving is convincing you to defend your country's evil instead of thinking rationally. You only need to understand that Canadians in general would prefer to not do that too. Quote
TimG Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) If you don't want the responsibility of children and you don't want to be a parent, maybe you should think twice about marrying a single parent. What kind of moron gets into a marriage with a single mother and expects NOT to be a parent to her kids?Sorry - you can't keep moving the goal posts. Many people can develop positive relationships with kids without incurring permanent financial obligations. i.e. teachers, nannies, grandparents et. al. So it is a strawman to suggest that someone would marry a single parent without wanting to develop a positive relationship. The problem are the courts that punish fathers who choose to develop this positive relationship with financial obligations. This poisons the well and forces fathers who are aware of the regressive court system to either refuse to marry a woman with kids or to explicitly refuse to develop any relationship with the kids. If the courts really cared about what is best for the kids they would not impose financial obligations on step parents. Edited June 4, 2014 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 The frontrunner for next president -- to replace the current Black president -- is a woman. Odd, that... in a hating cesspool of racism and hate for women. And racism ended when Lincoln freed the slaves. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 Sorry - you can't keep moving the goal posts. Many people can develop positive relationships with kids without incurring permanent financial obligations. i.e. teachers, nannies, grandparents et. al. So it is a strawman to suggest that someone would marry a single parent without wanting to develop a positive relationship. The problem are the courts that punish fathers who choose to develop this positive relationship with financial obligations. This poisons the well and forces fathers who are aware of the regressive court system to either refuse to marry a woman with kids or to explicitly refuse to develop any relationship with the kids. If the courts really cared about what is best for the kids they would not impose financial obligations on step parents. No. The strawman is bringing up the ludicrous comparison to teachers and extended family to somehow suggest that those roles are the same as a parent living in the home and raising the child. It doesn't matter what the relationship is like with the child. Natural parents don't have positive relationships with their children sometimes and that doesn't relieve them of their obligations either. Quote
TimG Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) Natural parents don't have positive relationships with their children sometimes and that doesn't relieve them of their obligations either.Except there is a rational reason to impose obligations on natural parents. There is no rational reason to impose such obligations on step parents and the courts already agree that if a step parent is an ass that refuses to develop a positive relationship then they are off the hook. The only step parents that get screwed by the courts are the ones that make an effort. Punishing people who do the right thing is perverse. Edited June 4, 2014 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 Did you ever think that maybe someone doesn't have to be an ass to not be considered a "stand in parent"? Just maybe the child has an ongoing joint relationship with both their natural parents, despite their separation, and that the step parent is not actively involved as a "stand in parent" and doesn't need to be. The way you describe having a relationship with someone who already has kids is pretty disgusting. You have extremely egotistical, self-centred descriptions of being a step-parent. Hopefully most single mothers are a better judge of character than you give them credit for. Quote
TimG Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) Did you ever think that maybe someone doesn't have to be an ass to not be considered a "stand in parent"?Not according to the courts. If the step parent provides baby sitting services he is a stand-in. If he drives the kids anywhere without the mother he is a "stand-in". It is impossible for anyone who is not an ass to avoid the "stand-in parent" designation if their life is put under a microscope. The only reason some step parents get away without paying support is because some mothers have moral integrity and know it is wrong to ask. Unfortunately, there are many mothers with no moral integrity and the courts are more than willing to help them extort money. Edited June 4, 2014 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 Actually the law states clearly that it just assess intent. Did you even read the judicial reasoning in Chartier v Chartier, or are you just going to continue making stuff up and pretend that your fantasies are law? Quote
Bob Macadoo Posted June 4, 2014 Author Report Posted June 4, 2014 Actually the law states clearly that it just assess intent. Did you even read the judicial reasoning in Chartier v Chartier, or are you just going to continue making stuff up and pretend that your fantasies are law?What does "it just assess intent" mean.......let me guess its too subjective to discuss? I've read stacks of case law on this, the bar is quite low; contribute to common household expenses, provide any string of decision making without the proponent, and/or show a positive relationship with the child.My query would be to those who say "well you should expect these things when moving in with someone", how many people get married before living together to assess the relationship first nowadays? So there are different expectations for relationships when children are involved? Is that the consensus? Quote
overthere Posted June 4, 2014 Report Posted June 4, 2014 One thing for sure: if you are entering a second marriage(common law or actual) and there are children on either or both sides, you better be damned sure you have both a will and a pre nuptial or everybody can end up disenfranchised. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.