Rue Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Tim I can only say this because I am trying to stay as neutral as I can on this discussion because I know you are expressing an opinion and I am only trying to explain the process of the legal reasoning the courts use. First off what Peter said in his latest responses is dead on as to how that process works. Secondly and I think this is where you Tim have the issue you stated, is that the Judge has discretion in ANY family court proceeding whether it be under the federal Divorce Act with custody/support issues flowing from divorces, or under provincial legislation for custody/support issues between non married couples, to ignore any or all of the contents of any kind of family contract, particularly where they think its unfair to a child. They will put that child's interest first yes. However I am not aware of any cases where a Judge will just simply demand a step parent be financially responsible for a child that is not their own unless there is some specific situation that has arisen where that step parent initiated the support and then wants to withdraw it. If you can show me a case like that I can try read it and explain it further but I am not aware of any. The few I know the step parent willing initiated the support and then there are questions as to why they withdraw it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) However I am not aware of any cases where a Judge will just simply demand a step parent be financially responsible for a child that is not their own unless there is some specific situation that has arisen where that step parent initiated the support and then wants to withdraw it.My issue is not with the wording of the law that requires that intent be shown but with the practical definition that makes it impossible for someone living in the same household to avoid "showing intent" at some point in time during a long relationship. The ruling on the hypothetical case above makes this conundrum clear when the court mused: Can it seriously be contended that he will ignore the child when it cries? When it needs to be fed? When it stumbles? When the soother needs to be replaced? When the diaper needs to be changed? In my opinion the "intent" of being a parent is not shown by caring for the child but by the representation to the child or others that you are the parent. The courts ruling in this case is so broad that any participation in childcare becomes "intent". This is what I think is wrong. Step parents should be able to assist with childcare without incurring obligations much like a sibiling/grandparent/nanny can assist with childcare without incurring obligation. Edited June 6, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) My issue is not with the wording of the law that requires that intent be shown but with the practical definition that makes it impossible for someone living in the same household to avoid "showing intent" at some point in time during a long relationship. The ruling on the hypothetical case above makes this conundrum clear when the court mused: In my opinion the "intent" of being a parent is not shown by caring for the child but by the representation to the child or others that you are the parent. The courts ruling in this case is so broad that any participation in childcare becomes "intent". This is what I think is wrong. Step parents should be able to assist with childcare without incurring obligations much like a sibiling/grandparent/nanny can assist with childcare without incurring obligation. Any parent with a prospective partner who refuses to parent would likely rethink their fitness as a partner anyway. You can have your say here: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/famil/cons/consdoc/obligat.html?pedisable=true I think these are good conversations to have for the education of young men. Sex isn't as simple and uncomplicated as some would like to believe. There are consequences and responsibilities that arise and affect both men and women. Edited June 6, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted June 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 First off Bob you are trying to turn this discussion into a personal attack against me. Knock it off. This post is not about me or being lucid. Which is what you normally do to Rue..... not OK? Understood. Apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 Tim just read your post/response. Yah I got you. Yes unfortunately if you are a step person the longer you are with the child, its true, the more stronger te argument gets as to assuming dependency. Its a sort of sliding scale kind of concept with that as one of many factors. I think you expressed a fair concern with your first opinion. What the law says in theory and then how it works in practice yes I am afraid in family law is not necessarily the same. I appreciated your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 Bob I dish out what I get. I hold my own. So do others. In this thread your baiting me is pointless. Move on to the issue not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Jacee I believe Tim's point is not the parenting but the financial responsibility a step parent might inherit in situations where the other parent skips out of supporting their own child. Its a specific issue. Edited June 8, 2014 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 Jacee I believe Tim's point is not the parenting but the financial responsibility a step parent might inherit in situations where the other parent skips out of supporting their own child. Its a specific issue. The step parent could inherit a financial responsibility to the child regardless of the natural parent's contributions. You can have more than 2 parties (natural mother and father) paying child support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) The step parent could inherit a financial responsibility to the child regardless of the natural parent's contributions. You can have more than 2 parties (natural mother and father) paying child support.Which is one of the more insane aspects of the law - a part which shows that the purpose of the laws is to maximize the transfer of money to paid to custodial parents (i.e. women) and not at all about the "needs" of the child (what child "needs" financial support from multiple fathers when most only get support from one?) Edited June 8, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Which is one of the more insane aspects of the law - a part which shows that the purpose of the laws is to maximize the transfer of money to paid to custodial parents (i.e. women) and not at all about the "needs" of the child (what child "needs" financial support from multiple fathers when most only get support from one?)More people paying doesn't mean more money allocated to the child. It's just divided further. It would help the discussion if you knew what you're arguing against, instead of posting incorrect and misleading information over and over again. Edited June 8, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) More people paying doesn't mean more money allocated to the child. It's just divided further.Wrong. Child support is calculated ONLY based on the parent's income. The only caveat which others have mentioned is if the payer has many children of different mothers then the support could exceed the available income and would be reduced only in that situation. That means two payers means double the money for the woman. Three means triple. You really need to stop being so naive. The purpose of the law in practice is transfer as much money as possible from as many people as possible. The idea that it is based on the "needs of the child" is a pathetic joke used to fool people. If it was based on need the court would determine the "need" and then reduce payments for the multiple payers to reflect the shared burden. Edited June 9, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted June 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Wrong. Child support is calculated ONLY based on the parent's income. The only caveat which others have mentioned is if the payer has many children of different mothers then the support could exceed the available income and would be reduced only in that situation. That means two payers means double the money for the woman. Three means triple. You really need to stop being so naive. The purpose of the law in practice is transfer as much money as possible from as many people as possible. The idea that it is based on the "needs of the child" is a pathetic joke used to fool people. If it was based on need the court would determine the "need" and then reduce payments for the multiple payers to reflect the shared burden. What is the definition of "need"? That is the problem. If step parent was richer than bio parent, then "need" (eg. Rep hockey) increases proportionately. Thats why its a maximum cash grab. Unless the courts define need at being a threshhold not one of those "too subjective" ( @ OGFT) thing to discuss rationally. Edited June 9, 2014 by Bob Macadoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) satire alert -men-s-rights-activists-demand-equal-sexual-harassment Apparently were good enough to pay child support, but not good enough to be leered at or get unwelcome comments regarding our butts, Dillon shouted, before going on to outline More Equality For Mens list of demands. These include: A fivefold increase in the amount of sexual harassment and catcalls directed at men A signed apology from Feminists, admitting that this is all somehow their fault Official recognition of the fact that most men would also be prettier if they smiled more A court-ordered increase in women hitting on men, including a "no fatties" subclause and (Dillon) not paying any more child support to that ho-bag, Melissa ... Asked where he was going with this, Dillon blurted, women get all the pap smears they want, but whenever I ask for one my doctor says that's literally impossible. So who's being discriminated against now? When asked if MEFMs efforts could extend to reducing sexual harassment that women face, Dillon proceeded to scream about, mens right to an abortion for the next half an hour. Oh I yearn for the day when men can truly be biologically equal ... when the seeds they sow grow in their own bellies, and they have to chase women for child support. 'What ... my egg? That wasn't my egg!! You said you were on birth control! Your fault! ... your baby! ... your problem! Or ... What? Drive YOUR kids to school? No way! I don't want any responsibility for your kids! You're just trying to sucker me into paying you child support when I break up with you, buster! Sign this paper, dude ... or I'm outta here! Oh yes ... I wish ... . Edited June 9, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 I heard a lawyer say on a the radio, that in Ontario, if a man lives with a woman with kids , and he financially supports those children, even if they are not his, if the couple breaks up, the woman can still get support for those kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 I heard a lawyer say on a the radio, that in Ontario, if a man lives with a woman with kids , and he financially supports those children, even if they are not his, if the couple breaks up, the woman can still get support for those kids. Well heck, based on the laws in Ontario, he can have consensual sex with them after age 16 too. Doesn't make any sense ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Well heck, based on the laws in Ontario, he can have consensual sex with them after age 16 too. Doesn't make any sense ! That would be the law in Canada, not just Ontario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Well heck, based on the laws in Ontario, he can have consensual sex with them after age 16 too. Doesn't make any sense ! That's also the law in the majority of US states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted June 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Well heck, based on the laws in Ontario, he can have consensual sex with them after age 16 too. Doesn't make any sense ! Reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Reported. Thank you...we can see where you stand on the ethics of such circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Thank you...we can see where you stand on the ethics of such circumstances. And we can also see your ethics allows destrying someones life with a 30 year jail sentence for people having consensual sex. Nothing ethical about that. Just right wing religious zealotry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Tim i see your piont, Cybercoma: Does the law take into account how many fathers her children have....from what i gather out of all the posts the answer is no....so there is nothing stopping a women with X amount of kids from collecting as many fathers as she wishes.....nothing in the law to prevent this from happening... One other question you said that the step parent has legal rights to the children...and could take mom to court for custody...has this happened , where step dad is given custody....and where would he stand in priorty to recieve custody or shared custody....after the orginal DAD, after mom,not sure....this could get very confusing.... And what ever was wrong with the old law.... orginal dad paid for the kids he fathered.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) One other question you said that the step parent has legal rights to the children...and could take mom to court for custody...has this happened , where step dad is given custody....and where would he stand in priorty to recieve custody or shared custody....after the orginal DAD, after mom,not sure....this could get very confusing..There are really two classes of step Dads: the ones which entered the picture when the kids were very young the kids never had another father as far as they know. And those which enter the picture later. In the former case I would expect that there are cases where a step dad gets custody. In the latter, hell would freeze over first but financial obligations are the same. This means cyber's argument is quite dishonest. Edited June 12, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Explaining the law to you isn't an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Explaining the law to you isn't an argument.You weren't explaining the law. You were trying to justify it by claiming the privileges came with the obligations. But your justifications were deceptive because there is no way that any step parent of older kids would actually win custody so in the real world it is only obligations for the cash cows/step parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 You weren't explaining the law. You were trying to justify it by claiming the privileges came with the obligations. But your justifications were deceptive because there is no way that any step parent of older kids would actually win custody so in the real world it is only obligations for the cash cows/step parents.The law says they have the right to request custody. That wasn't my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.