Divorce. Is a deal a deal?

[Renegade]

Divorce deals never final: court

1994 settlement reopened: 'It means a lot of litigation in the family law arena'

Cristin Schmitz

Southam News

TORONTO - Tens of thousands of people who believed they had agreed to a "final" divorce settlement could face more financial demands from former spouses following a new legal ruling.

The Ontario Court of Appeal says courts may override final divorce settlements if a former spouse's financial circumstances change "materially" after divorce.

Family law lawyers predict a surge of legal attacks on separation agreements and marriage contracts as a result of the ruling.

Divorce deals never final: court

A recent ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal seems to allow divorce settlements to be altered. Is this not going to cause a problem for all involved in a divorce?

[Riverwind]

Family law lawyers predict a surge of legal attacks on separation agreements and marriage contracts as a result of the ruling.

The current divorce and child support laws are so abusive to men now that I would strongly recommend that men forget about getting married. This case is just one example others incude:

1) A man who went on to make millions _after_ the divorce is forced to make $6000/month in child support payments even though this amount is way more than is necessary to ensure the kids have a descent lifestyle. The court ruled this way because it decided that ex-wives caring for children are entitled to enjoy a lifestyle equivalent to what it would have been if the marriage stayed together.

2) A woman after a 3 year marriage with some dubious disability that had nothing to do with marriage is entitled to a life time pension from her former spouse.

3) Countless men are denied access to their children yet the court system does nothing except threaten to throw them in jail if they withhold support payments in order to pressure his their ex-wives to stop blocking access.

4) Woman who marry several times are entitled to receive multiple child support payments from each ex-husband for the same child. Non-biological fathers are not given a break even if the biological fathers are making support payments. This one floored me: if a man marries a woman with children from another marriage he is automatically financially responsible for those kids even if the marriage breaks down because he is the 'father' figure. Message to anyone thinking of remarrying a divorced woman with underage kids: don't do it.

I could go on. But it disgusts me how these abuses are allowed to go on and get so little press.

[Nemo]

deleted

[Renegade]

The current divorce and child support laws are so abusive to men now that I would strongly recommend that men forget about getting married.

Sparhawk, I agree with you. Despite many people claiming otherwise, the law and courts are ridiciously one-sided against men.

I doubt that when people get married, they really know what they are financially comitting themselves to. I for one am against government interference in almost everything, but in this case at the very least, the law should be amended to FORCE each party of the couples to mandatory separate pre-marital legal counseling prior to being issued a license. At least then they would have a better shot of walking in with their eyes open.

[takeanumber]

I don't trust most of those stories. I'm sure there are many, many mitigating circumstances.

[BHS]

Here's an interesting and newly added twist - what if two gay men who've adopted split? How do you go about determining which of them is the "mother" figure, other than their word? Do all of the stereotypes mentioned above still hold?

[Riverwind]

I don't trust most of those stories.  I'm sure there are many, many mitigating circumstances.

I have read articles that cover the specific cases I mentioned that went into a lot of detail regarding the law that applied and reasons for the decision. In each case, I am fairly sure there were no significant mitigating circumstances. The only case where I think there could be something more was the one regarding 'dubious disability' - the material I read did not say what the disability was or why it prevented her from working. However, even if the was some fault on part of the man, the idea that a 3 year marriage should translate into a right to a life time pension is rediculous.

Your attitude is actually the part of the problem. Too many people do not realize that the current laws are aburdly unfair because the law presumes that a woman has a right to be supported by her ex-husband unless the husband can prove otherwise. The laws also take 'best interest of the children' to aburd extremes and completely ignore the interests of the non-custodial parent - or, for that matter, the interests of other children that the same father may have.

[Riverwind]

Here's an interesting and newly added twist - what if two gay men who've adopted split? How do you go about determining which of them is the "mother" figure, other than their word? Do all of the stereotypes mentioned above still hold?

For the most part, the stereotypes are imposed by judges so you would likely see that judges are forced to discard their stereotypes and actually try to be fair to both parties if they are confronted with same sex cases that include children.

[takeanumber]

Your attitude is actually the part of the problem.

I'd say that your attitude is actually part of the problem.

A woman works full time to put her husband through business school.

He graduates. Cheats with his associate. He dumps his wife and goes onto make millions.

Now, where's the justice in that. Should she get nothing?

Give me a break.

There are common mitigating circumstances. A big part of the problem is that both men and women think that a marriage isn't for the rest of their lives, and that somehow a divorce is like a bankrupcy...they should be scott free for the rest of their lives...just like you said.

Wrong attitude buddy.

Be a man. Take your responsibility to your kids and wife seriously.

[Riverwind]

A woman works full time to put her husband through business school.

He graduates.  Cheats with his associate.  He dumps his wife and goes onto make million's, where's the justice in that.  Should she get nothing?

Look at the other side buddy: woman cheats and gets pregnant with her lover's children but does not tell her husband. Years later the affair is discovered and the duped guy is on the hook for child support for children that aren't even his and spousal support for the woman. To add insult to injury, the woman is also legally entitled to collect additional child support from her lover because he is the biological father. Where is the justice in that?

The current law presumes that the woman is always the victim and therefore deserves everything. In the many cases where the man is, in fact, the victim, the law explicitly prevents him from asking that his support obligations be adjusted accordingly.

A big part of the problem is that both men and women think that a marriage isn't for the rest of their lives, and that somehow a divorce is like a bankruptcy...they should be Scott free for the rest of their lives...just like you said.

I agree with your point about to0 many people thinking that marriage is something that can be discarded easily, unfortunately, the law does not take into account that the spouse that get stuck paying for the support is not necessarily the one who wants the divorce. A woman who is 'bored' with a marriage and just wants to try something different is entitled to support even if the man is willing to bend over backwards to work things out. So, in many ways, no-fault divorce has cheapened marriage and led to many people taking the easy way out instead of sitting down with their spouse and figuring out a way to work things out.

[Canuck E Stan]

After all these years being married,now I know where I went wrong,I should have gone to business school. I could have been a millionaire.Damn, sometimes I don't see the forest for the love of it.

[takeanumber]

The current law presumes that the woman is always the victim and therefore deserves everything.

I wonder where that stereotype came from.

Any ideas?

It's never black and white. I wonder if there are instances where the woman was beated and she got a lot of money?

[RB]

Men are usually the ones who get shafted in the screwy divorce affair. In the end it usually boils down to the ideal of what is self sufficient - and women usually take this to mean the house, cars and all the wealth.

But, I think the divorce forms do mention renegotiation of support payments where the party paying spousal support be able to renegotiate this obligation upon a showing of a substantial, adverse, and involuntary change of financial circumstances and ask whether the parties cannot agree to a renegotiated spousal support obligation, will arbitration be required before they can take the issue to court plus there is spousal support revisited - these lines are so broad that if contested it spells all sorts of headaches for men usually.

I feel that society have permitted others such as wives, lovers, mothers, children to become financially burden and dependant on men while men are more or less forbidden to be dependant on any person and are tabooed if less than able bodied male and not employable - it must be a difficult contemplate for any man to be "less than a man".

There is the presumption that men have to take care of others and themselves and the view of society is that men is unworthy of assistance. For example more men are on the streets than women - I mean a young man would more readily be put on the streets while young women are kept closely at home, the social sytem is set-up to protect women and even in a broader scope women have shelters

Men are systemtically denied and deprived a lot compared to women. Look, men are usually the ones more depressed in failed relationships than women - and yet I hardly see any centres catering their needs. All I can say is women very vocal about their oppression and thank heavens things are changing even if it slow.

What I want to say is that men can surely step up and confront these prejudice practices against them - I for one don't deny they exist.

[Guest eureka]

It has always been possible to renegotiate agreements. This just seems to widen the scope and to make the change easier than convincing a judge.

[Riverwind]

It has always been possible to renegotiate agreements. This just seems to widen the scope and to make the change easier than convincing a judge.

I am sure Newfoundland would love to go to court and renogotiate certain deals with Hydro Quebec - but a deal is a deal unless you are a woman who used to be married to man with more income.

[Guest eureka]

That woman could always go to Court to change the deal. It is just a matter of filling in a few forms and convincing a judge. I have helped many to prepare for that.

[Yaro]

Unfortunately our divorce laws are rather archaic, what we need to do is update them.

For those that don't know or don't understand why our divorce laws are so insanely slanted towards women (which they are) it’s rather simple. There was a time when males were the bread winners and women kept house, that was the reality and it wasn't that long ago. It simply wasn't realistic in any way to expect a woman, 50 years ago, to support herself after 25 years of keeping house.

Unfortunately the bias in child custody has combined with the fact that our laws on the subject haven't been updated in generations to form one of the worst countries in the world to be a man in.

The government simply has no place in marriage, if people want to make a marriage contract then that’s there business and these contracts should stipulate the terms of there agreement. In the absence of a contract then the same laws that rule in the case of any other legal division of partnership should rule.

[Nemo]

deleted

[BHS]

Marriage is generally defined as a contract between a man and a woman (although in America some state laws use the term “persons capable of contracting” which would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex), and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license.  Few person realize the predominant interest of the state until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense.  In this regard, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, viz. marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the state based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but how is the state's interest "legitimate" and "compelling"? I don't understand your choice of words. The state's role is to supply reliable arbitration and ensure that the final agreement is upheld.

[Nemo]

deleted

[crazymf]

The difference between straight and gay marriages is that in a straight marriage, the man takes it in the *** after the divorce. hehe

The problem is people thinking marriage is easy come easy go. It's a general downslide of society and peoples values. I have no problem with the government making divorce difficult. Maybe it would be easier for some to stay together and work things out.

I think government should fine each partner in a divorce a sizable sum of money to ease the burden on society and social programs that they may incur after a divorce. That would go hand in hand with giving married people tax incentives to stay married.

People may think twice then.

[Yaro]

The problem is people thinking marriage is easy come easy go. It's a general downslide of society and peoples values. I have no problem with the government making divorce difficult. Maybe it would be easier for some to stay together and work things out.

Do you have any evidence that marriage produces a better society? Even a hypothesis, I have heard this a great many times but have yet to see even a half assed bit of reasoning behind it?

I think government should fine each partner in a divorce a sizable sum of money to ease the burden on society and social programs that they may incur after a divorce. That would go hand in hand with giving married people tax incentives to stay married.

Again what burden on society? Your opinion is predicated on a rather specious bit of reasoning.

The state exists to serve the interests of the people. In this capacity, the state has jurisdiction over the persons and property within its territory, and acts in parens patriae as guardian of minors and incompetents. In the exercise of this power, the state has both a legitimate and compelling interest in seeing that spouses and children are not left abandoned without support as wards of the public charge; as well as determining the interests of marital parties to property within its borders.

An opinion is demi- legalize is still just an opinion, this opinion is based on the notion that we don't live in a society that is based on personal responsibility. Your interpretation of the reason the state exists is also interesting, the state exists to serve the WILL of the people, not for the good of the people which are not always the same thing.

Children should not be left wards of the state, which says nothing about the nature of the division of the child’s time nor the nature of the best interests of the child. I don't think anyone is suggesting that children be abandoned because they there is a divorce but the notion that a custodial parent deserves "pay" to raise a child which is what spousal support amounts to is ludicrous. We no longer live in a patriarchal society and our divorce agreements and laws should reflect that.

There is no express provision in the Constitution for regulation of marriage by the federal government - not that the drafters of the Constitution thought marriage unimportant to the pursuit of happiness - but rather it is a power reserved the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment. Such an amendment would be an intrusion on states’ rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

I agree that it is certainly not in the spirit of the constitution for there to be a gay marriage amendment but since the constitution is the ultimate law of the land pretty much anything stuck in there is constitutional. I think what you should be railing against is the methodology for changing the constitution which imo should be a 70% national referendum. I think this would be more in keeping with the nature of the constitution. I also think it would have been wise to create a super-constitutional legal document that outlines the nature of what belongs in the constitution, noting certain criteria, such as no language referring to ethnic/racial/sexual etc... Groups. This type of a document could have a higher standard to help prevent any kind of hypocritical BS from entering the constitution.

[takeanumber]

Yaro has it wrong.

Current divorce laws were rewritten in 1975 following a very nasty divorce in Alberta.

Prior to 1975, this scenario was standard:

A wife helped her husband on the ranch. The ranch became worth many millions of dollars because of both of their efforts. Everything was in his name though. When they divorced, the judge ruled that since all the property belonged to him, he would get all of it (which was standard at the time) and she got something like 300 dollars total.

This specific case outraged many people, and as a result, the divorce laws were changed to give her an equitable amount of the effort she put in...hence the entire notion of "50/50".

Prior to 1975, women were treated incredibly poorly by divorce laws. Since 1975, I feel as though a vasts majority of cases have been settled equitably. Incidentally, people in Southern Alberta who are old enough to remember this case still resent it (yet another chip for the white anglo-saxon males to brood about).

I'll take today's system over the pre-1975 one.

-------------

Men are usually the ones who get shafted in the screwy divorce affair. In the end it usually boils down to the ideal of what is self sufficient - and women usually take this to mean the house, cars and all the wealth.

But, I think the divorce forms do mention renegotiation of support payments where the party paying spousal support be able to renegotiate this obligation upon a showing of a substantial, adverse, and involuntary change of financial circumstances and ask whether the parties cannot agree to a renegotiated spousal support obligation, will arbitration be required before they can take the issue to court plus there is spousal support revisited - these lines are so broad that if contested it spells all sorts of headaches for men usually.

I feel that society have permitted others such as wives, lovers, mothers, children to become financially burden and dependant on men while men are more or less forbidden to be dependant on any person and are tabooed if less than able bodied male and not employable - it must be a difficult contemplate for any man to be "less than a man".

There is the presumption that men have to take care of others and themselves and the view of society is that men is unworthy of assistance. For example more men are on the streets than women - I mean a young man would more readily be put on the streets while young women are kept closely at home, the social sytem is set-up to protect women and even in a broader scope women have shelters

Men are systemtically denied and deprived a lot compared to women. Look, men are usually the ones more depressed in failed relationships than women - and yet I hardly see any centres catering their needs. All I can say is women very vocal about their oppression and thank heavens things are changing even if it slow.

What I want to say is that men can surely step up and confront these prejudice practices against them - I for one don't deny they exist.

It never ceases to amaze me how any Canadian, even one in an incredibly dominant and priveledged position in society, can still make themselves out to be a victim.

I suppose, it is a fairly Canadian trait, this entire theme of being a victim.

Men, specifically white men, get paid more, promoted more often, often have the best jobs reserved-by-right for them, and often, by tradition, have superior positions in their families. We dominate politics. We dominate business.

As a white-male, I know this. I'm a beneficiary of the fact that not many women enter my field, and when they do, end up getting stuck with a specific firm that pays them inferior wages because no other firm will hire them.

Why do you think we have a large body of laws to protect women?

Sexual harassment (which now defends men as well), divorce laws, prostitution laws (Alberta), equity laws..., and hate laws (which protect women as a subset).

Why do you think those laws had to be brought in?

I'll let you think about that one yourself, I know you'll eventually get it.

Men, especially white men, but also visible minority men, have it soooo incredibly good in society that they figure that they're entitled to everything.

You see this reflected in this post: "Hay, I earned the millions of dollars, and now I have to give my wife 6 grand a month! (72K a year)"

Wow...you're SO RIGHT, you are SUCH A VICTIM of the system. Truly.

Sorry, I'm tearing up right now.

God dammit, be a man. Seriously. Morally women are privy to 50% of everything in the marriage, and guess what? Assets in a marriage such as education can continue to appreciate AFTER the marriage, and EITHER spouse in entitled to go after such appreciating assets as well. A marriage was supposed to be for life.

Don't want to pay out 50%? Get a lawyer, work out a pre-nup. See how she reacts to your demand that it be unequal.

[Yaro]

Yaro has it wrong.

If you’re going to say I am wrong please point out where I am wrong.

The divorce laws ARE 30 years old and are incredibly outdated, even before this you would be hard pressed to find many circumstances where divorced women were treated unfairly except rural Alberta.

Prior to 1975, this scenario was standard:

A wife helped her husband on the ranch. The ranch became worth many millions of dollars because of both of their efforts. Everything was in his name though. When they divorced, the judge ruled that since all the property belonged to him, he would get all of it (which was standard at the time) and she got something like 300 dollars total.

This specific case outraged many people, and as a result, the divorce laws were changed to give her an equitable amount of the effort she put in...hence the entire notion of "50/50".

This was not the standard as this case was severe enough to have overhauled the whole system. Furthermore this woman was clearly an idiot for allowing her husband to maintain the entire estate in his own name. This was however a different time and clearly she deserved a significant settlement.

Prior to 1975, women were treated incredibly poorly by divorce laws. Since 1975, I feel as though a vasts majority of cases have been settled equitably. Incidentally, people in Southern Alberta who are old enough to remember this case still resent it (yet another chip for the white anglo-saxon males to brood about).

Again this is your opinion, I have never been married, and I have never been divorced but I don't think that there is any real doubt at this time that divorce laws are slanted heavily towards women and you have shown absolutely nothing to refute this.

I'll take today's system over the pre-1975 one.

So will I, what is your point? Prior to 1975 there weren't a significant number of divorces, there wasn't a significant need for any kind of real divorce legislation.

It never ceases to amaze me how any Canadian, even one in an incredibly dominant and priveledged position in society, can still make themselves out to be a victim.

I suppose, it is a fairly Canadian trait, this entire theme of being a victim.

First off, you know nothing about me. Incredibly dominant and privileged? I am not native, I don't get grants for my race/sex, I don't have bursaries for my race/sex and companies don't have quota's to fill for my race and sex. No minority group calls me there own and is happy to provide me with work at a place of employment which is almost exclusively made up of my own race. Such demographics at an establishment of white males could be legally sued.

I have no privilege, in fact my position is the antithesis of privileged.

Men, specifically white men, get paid more, promoted more often, often have the best jobs reserved-by-right for them, and often, by tradition, have superior positions in their families. We dominate politics. We dominate business.

I see now, you just hate white men. Men get paid more then women because they are an imperically more valuable asset, they don't take sick or stress leave as often as men, they don't get pregnant and they do more work. Men dominate the positions in there family because they are genetically built for it, have a problem with it? Go beat on Darwin for a while. As for white men in politics and business, bullshit. The Equal rights movement achieved equality on most fronts by the late 80's, you pointing to a pair if institutions full of 45-60 year olds and saying that they should reflect the current reality shows poor math skills.

At the end of the day women have massive advantages over men in modern society, they are encouraged both socially and financially to achieve more. That is not justifiable, the same can be said of other races and white people.

Society owes to each individual the opportunity to make of themselves what they wish and are capable of. Society does not owe equality of outcome just equality of opportunity.

As a white-male, I know this. I'm a beneficiary of the fact that not many women enter my field, and when they do, end up getting stuck with a specific firm that pays them inferior wages because no other firm will hire them.

You don't know dick, as someone who has hired many people; the reason men are hired before women is simple, reasonable and obvious. Hiring women is more expensive then hiring men, this is life. Again women get pregnant, women take more stress and sick leave, and women do less work. I am all for equal pay for equal work. However the statistics show that you are more likely to get more work out of a man.

Why do you think we have a large body of laws to protect women?

Because there was a time when men ran the world, and women were treated unfairly. What does this have to do with current reality?

Sexual harassment (which now defends men as well), divorce laws, prostitution laws (Alberta), equity laws..., and hate laws (which protect women as a subset).

Again what does this have to do with current reality?

Why do you think those laws had to be brought in?

I'll let you think about that one yourself, I know you'll eventually get it.

Are you this simple that you’re comparing 40 years ago to today? It’s completely asinine, there isn't a segment of society where there isn't a double standard against white males. That’s the current reality as opposed to the fact that women and minority groups experienced similar realities in the past.

Men, especially white men, but also visible minority men, have it soooo incredibly good in society that they figure that they're entitled to everything.

You see this reflected in this post: "Hay, I earned the millions of dollars, and now I have to give my wife 6 grand a month! (72K a year)"

Wow...you're SO RIGHT, you are SUCH A VICTIM of the system. Truly.

Sorry, I'm tearing up right now.

Could you please actually show me by what legal mechanism white men have it so good? Until then you’re just spouting off with little to no actual information to back you up.

God dammit, be a man. Seriously. Morally women are privy to 50% of everything in the marriage, and guess what? A marriage was supposed to be for life.

There is no such thing as be a man. Women wanted, fought for, and got equality (with my full support). No a woman is not entitled to 50% of everything in a marriage morally, they are entitled to 50% of the amount earned in the confines of the marriage.

Assets in a marriage such as education can continue to appreciate AFTER the marriage, and EITHER spouse in entitled to go after such appreciating assets as well.

What does this have to do with anything? Either partner is entitled to the opportunity to gain the same education, at the expense of other if that is deemed fair. Saying that you deserve a chunk of compensation for the work of your long divorced partner instead of saying that you have the right to the opportunity to build the same practice is ludicrous.

Don't want to pay out 50%? Get a lawyer, work out a pre-nup. See how she reacts to your demand that it be unequal.

Of course this is exactly what I have been saying since the beginning, each person is responsible for the deals they make. The government should have absolutely nothing to do with it, it’s a useless 3rd wheel. However this is of course pretending that courts don't tear up pre-nups they consider unfair (which is something they do with some regularity right now).

As an aside its clearly you that doesn't view women as equals as you seem to be spending allot of time simply arguing on the basis of being a man, what exactly is a man to you? Because by the definition that you seem to hold it’s clear that you believe a man is superior to a woman.

[Renegade]

The state exists to serve the interests of the people. In this capacity, the state has jurisdiction over the persons and property within its territory, and acts in parens patriae as guardian of minors and incompetents. In the exercise of this power, the state has both a legitimate and compelling interest in seeing that spouses and children are not left abandoned without support as wards of the public charge; as well as determining the interests of marital parties to property within its borders.

Based upon the current state of divorce laws, it does seem that the state has ignored any sense of fairness or equality. Despite the fact that divorces deemed "no-fault" it is the higher wage earner (usually the man) who is economically penalized upon divorce. If it is an obligation of the state to protect the incompetent, it should be protecting the higher wage earner, because that wage earner must truly be incompetent to agree to a marriage when the rules are so one-sided.