Divorce. Is a deal a deal?

[Nemo]

deleted

[takeanumber]

Let's go through Yaro's replies to find examples of victimization:

The divorce laws ARE 30 years old and are incredibly outdated, even before this you would be hard pressed to find many circumstances where divorced women were treated unfairly except rural Alberta.

I'm sure you can find thousands of instances outside of rural Alberta prior to 1975.

I don't see how a law that is 30 years old is 'incredibly outdated'.

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.

This case was the catalyst that changed divorce laws. In fact, it was one of the first instances of 'judicial activism' by the Supreme Court. Recall that this was before the Charter...in fact, the S.C. was becoming actvist as early as 1972. Morton and Knopff have written quite a few books on this subject, check them out.

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

There's an evidence gap there. Most of the records are sealed, so I really can't judge.

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.

Divorce rates began to take off in the early 1960's.

irst 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.

Did I read this right?

LOL

You're not priveledged and aboriginals ARE priveledged??!?!??!?!?!

You don't get grants for your race/sex?

What about farm subsidies, corporate welfare, sweat-heart golden parachute deals, stock options, preferential employment treatment, preferential consideration for promotion.

There are plenty of all-white minority groups: the Mormons don't recruit minorities (I've had plenty of Mormons approach me but not none of my minority friends, even when I'm walking with them.). There are a number of other churches which are completely white.

There are plenty of law firms and medical practices that entirely white. There are plenty of restaurants that are 99% white, with one token minority on purpose (Earl's Restaurants, Cowboys, Chicago ChopHouse, Coyote's.)

Are you complaining about family owned businesses that are all Chinese or Muslim?

Well, I can name a number of other family owned businesses that are ALL WHITE.

So, don't try to portray yourself as somekind of 'victim' here.

Moreover, there are no quota's for white people because most white owned companies have no problem filling seats with white people. That said, I don't agree with quota's either, but I know of no mandatory regulation that demands quotas.

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.

You claim that:

Men get paid more because they're genetically superior.

Men SHOULD dominate families because they're genetically superior.

Yet in spite of this genetic superiorty, women still enjoy massive advantages....

Then you say something telling: society doesn ot owe equality of outcome, just equality of opportunity.

I agree.

To equalize opportunity, certain practices need to be abolished:

Women continue to be discriminated in the workforce..they get paid a lot less for equal work, they get promoted less often over these fears of 'getting sick' and 'having children'.

Certain minorities are discriminated against during the hiring process. I know it happens. We all know that it happens.

Equalization of opportunity doesn't mean that so long as everybody gets a good education it's alright to go back and discriminate...it means that the playing field is levelled so everybody has a fair chance to compete.

Moreover, to advocate discrimination based on gender because of 'child bearing' and 'getting sick' is just wrong.

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.

Men take maternity leave too.

But lets take your arguement here and lay it out for everybody to see:

So, why don't employers go in and look at family medical history to decide who gets hired and who doesn't?

Oh, what about overweight people? They get sick too. Oh, and smokers...

Hell, how about to get equal treatment during the hiring practice, we subject everybody to a physical exam?

You know, your arguement about health/costs would be almost convincing exept that there are so many fat, overweight white male smokers who get employed over a younger, healthy woman that your assertion just doesn't hold water.

I thank god we have privacy laws to prevent people like you from digging into our genetic profiles.

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.

More white male priveldged bullplop.

As a white male, I'm privy to a lot of white male chatter when minorities and women arn't around.

I know how first hand how we talk, and how we behave in the workplace.

Double standard indeed to decry equalization laws while simultaneously undermining them, and then justsify the undermining by upholding equalization.

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.

Prostitution laws are overwhelmingly skewed towards the Johns.

There's one legal mechanism.

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.

Yes, they are.

The progress made during a marriage that continues after is a perpetuity. A woman might not be entitled to 50% of ALL of a man's income after the divorce, but entitled to 50% of the perpetuity.

So, if a wife invested 100 grand plus in a husbands' law degree, the white man would argue she should only get 50 grand, however, that 50 grand investment is going to pay out 500 grand over 20 years, and as such, she's entitled to at least 250 grand.

Make sense?

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.

The abscense of intelligent people who make pre-nup's means that the justice system must become involved.

So, which way would you have it?

Let the courts decide after the fact, or mandate that everybody get a pre-nup before they get a marriage liscense?

Which one to you means that the 'government will have no intervention' whatsoever?

[Yaro]

This case was the catalyst that changed divorce laws. In fact, it was one of the first instances of 'judicial activism' by the Supreme Court. Recall that this was before the Charter...in fact, the S.C. was becoming actvist as early as 1972. Morton and Knopff have written quite a few books on this subject, check them out.

I am aware of the case and I know most of the pertinent facts surrounding it. Yes there needed to be changes but the current situation is almost as inequitable.

There's an evidence gap there. Most of the records are sealed, so I really can't judge.

No there isn't

Child Custody

Mothers are still more likely to be granted custody of their children than father are. Among the 21,448 divorce cases with a custody order, the wife received custody in 60% of these cases, joint custody to both husband and wife was awarded in 30% of cases, and the husband received custody in only 10% of the cases. These numbers may be slightly misleading, however, because they don't take into account cases in which residential arrangements are negotiated by parents outside of the divorce proceedings (these cases do not involve a custody order).

Clearly Biased Link but references relevent studies and has a great number of them.

The fact of the matter is that Canadian family court is extremely anti male. The statistics are very very lopsided in this regard.

What about farm subsidies, corporate welfare, sweat-heart golden parachute deals, stock options, preferential employment treatment, preferential consideration for promotion.

What the hell do any of these have to do with race or sex? are you saying that black female can't get stock options? This is just sad.

There are plenty of all-white minority groups: the Mormons don't recruit minorities (I've had plenty of Mormons approach me but not none of my minority friends, even when I'm walking with them.). There are a number of other churches which are completely white.

So you’re saying that the Mormons are racist? Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence of this? Because I would love to hear it. Same with any other religious groups.

There are plenty of law firms and medical practices that entirely white. There are plenty of restaurants that are 99% white, with one token minority on purpose (Earl's Restaurants, Cowboys, Chicago ChopHouse, Coyote's.)

This is funny indeed, maybe it’s the fact that I live in Vancouver but I don't think I have been to an all white restaurant in years. As for the notion of token minorities what a ludicrous statement, there are still many parts of the country that are upwards of 95% white, do you understand the statistical connotations of that? How often have you seen a white person working in a sushi house? You know I eat sushi at least twice a week and I don't think I have ever seen one.

Are you complaining about family owned businesses that are all Chinese or Muslim?

Well, I can name a number of other family owned businesses that are ALL WHITE.

No I’m not talking about family owned businesses, I am talking about corporations that have upwards of 200 employees that are uniformly Chinese or Indian.

Men get paid more because they're genetically superior.

Men SHOULD dominate families because they're genetically superior.

Men get paid more because there more valuable employees, they work more hours, more days and breakdown less. It’s not superiority its difference.

Men dominate families because there more aggressive, again not superior just different.

Let the courts decide after the fact, or mandate that everybody get a pre-nup before they get a marriage liscense?

Which one to you means that the 'government will have no intervention' whatsoever?

Your once again misrepresenting my position, I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage. If people want to get married then they should make whatever legal contract they want and have whatever civil ceremony they want, but there should be no special laws governing marriage.

[Riverwind]

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.

Actually that is part of the problem: pre-nups are frequently overturned by the courts because 'circumstances change'. Making pre-nups completely binding would go a long way to resolving the problems I originally brought up.

[PocketRocket]

I haven't decided yet where I stand on the main question, but here's a scenario which I'm going to preface with a set-up...

It has been discussed that something like an education obtained during the marriage continues to appreciate in value after the divorce, so if a man gets a job with a phenomenally high income AS A RESULT OF THIS EDUCATION, then he should have to share a greater portion of this income with his ex.

So, what if a man gets lucky, wins a lottery, should he then have to pay higher support payments???

Same scene, part two; what if that lottery ticket was bought for him by his new girlfriend??? Should he then still have to pay higher support???

After all, the lottery winning were in no way related to any education or other benefit acquired during the marriage.

Thoughts, please.

Another scenario, one which I know of firsthand....

Let's say the man buys a house, during the marriage.

The marriage has been on the rocks for quite some time, and the man does not want to buy a house as he thinks that if they do divorce, he may end up with 25 years of mortgage payments an a house he can't live in.

Wife is desperate to get out of an apartment and into a house, and so agrees both verbally and in writing that the house shall be sole property of the man.

The wife enjoys amateur carpentry and renovations.

Wife starts several projects, finishes none of them.

Divorce happens.

House has been de-valued by about $30,000.00 because it's now in a state of complete and utter disrepair throughout the interior.

Who keeps the house???

If the man gets to keep it, who is on the hook for the loss of value???

And yet another, which again, I know of firsthand....

Couple divorces.

Man pays support for 2 children, one his, the other from the woman's previous marriage, which she is already receiving support for from the genetic father.

Woman want to move to Ottawa to be with her parents.

Judge tells her she must stay in Sudbury so father can have visiting rights.

Mother moves anyway.

Man is told by judge when he appeals, to basically shut up.

Same case, same friend.....

During divorce proceedings, mother does not want friend to be able to see kids.

She starts accusing friend of sexually abusing the children.

Kids deny it.

Friends deny it.

Character witnesses deny it.

Child psychologists brought in, one of which says "It never happed", the other swears "The kids have been abused but they're repressing it".

Conflicting opinions, both by "experts".

Later, woman is found to be lying in this, and in many other instances with different accusations against father, all of which end up being false, by HER OWN ADMISSION.

Meanwhile, man has nearly gone bankrupt defending himself, while woman's millionaire father is footing her legal bill.

She still gets custody.

She still moves to Ottawa, against the court's ruling. Moves in with her folks.

Man STILL pays support.

Man goes to Ottawa to visit kids, is denied access BY HER PARENTS.

Files for injunction.

Gets it.

Goes to Ottawa again.

SAME THING HAPPENS AGAIN

No charges are pressed against the mother, or her parents, AT ANY TIME.

Woman not charged with perjury for false accusations.

Not charged for taking the kids out of town.

Not charged for denying access to visit.

Not so much as given a dirty look by the judge.

When she finally admitted to lying about the "abuse", the judge said "I see".

And that was the sum total of the chastisement she received.

Thoughts on this as well, please.

(Finally, after SEVEN drives to Ottawa (takes about 8 hours from Sudbury), he got to visit the kids.

But not at his convenience, not by a long shot. He often had to wait in a hotel room for as long as 2 full days before they would say "Oh, I guess you can come over and visit for an hour" What a fair deal)

But, being that this happened to my best friend, the house scenario happened to me, and the lottery scenario happened to another close friend.

For now I'll keep secret who kept the house I bought, and what happened with the lottery winnings, at least until we have some replies or speculation on this.

Personally, when it comes to divorce and/or anything to do with sexual harrassment/assault/etc, men are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and even after being exonerated, the stench of suspicion still remains.

If any such case becomes public, he may as well change his name and move to a new city because as soon as teh word "abuse" goes out, he is pre-judged in the court of public opinion, and may as well kiss a normal life goodbye from that point onward.

Sorry, long rant, but I've seen a few of my closest friends have their lives totally shattered by scenarios like these, and it makes me bloody sick.

[BHS]

Thank you for your kind response.

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.

No doubt you are aware that in America there has recently been a movement to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman in response to recognition by several states of same-sex unions.  However, while the states have an interest in the incidents of the marriage, the federal government has no interest in any of these things. 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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've recently been reading about cases involving the 14th amendment and how it has been used to implement federal law in areas normally reserved for state lawmakers. Do you see this in any way affecting your argument? I don't think so personally, but since it's freshly in my mind I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

[crazymf]

I think those girls should have went to visit Jimmy Hoffa. End of story.

[BHS]

Pocketrocket:

Those stories are horrifying. I'd like to play along and make guesses about the outcomes, but I really don't want to think about those situations anymore. From my perspective, you might as well just tell us what happened.l

[Guest eureka]

I believe that a man (or woman) should be made to pay higher support for his genetic children where circomstances change. Why not? They are his children and, I would think that any man would want to see them provided for to the best of his ability.

BHS, have you read the "Slaughterhouse" cases with respect to the 14th. Amendment and due process? Off topic but they reveal much about the American SCC and the politics of law.

[BHS]

I just read a short review of the Slaughterhouse case and it's legal aftermath. Interesting. I'll keep my eyes open for further references to the case.

[Renegade]

I believe that a man (or woman) should be made to pay higher support for his genetic children where circomstances change. Why not? They are his children and, I would think that any man would want to see them provided for to the best of his ability.

The law does not mandate that parents spend ANY fixed amount for their genetic or adopted children while a couple is married. Why then do so after a divorce?

Let's take this example. A single mother wins a million dollar lottery, yet is still frugal and saves the money and doesn't spend it either on herself or her children.

Are her minor children entitled to a share of the winnings? Can they sue her for it?

If the answer is no, then why are the children entitled to a share of earnings of the non-custodial parent?

I can see that there should be a set amount tied to the cost-of-living which EACH parent ough to contribute to the cost of the kids, but anything over and beyond that should be at the discretion of the parent.

[Guest eureka]

There is obvious reason for the set amount on divorce. There cannot be prior for obvious reasons, again.

However, when a parent leaves his children, I would suggest that the determination of support should be socially made and not left to what the parent claims his behaviour towards the children would have been.

A societal benefit in helping to produce productive children and to deal with misers who are probably showing the reasons for the divorce.

[Renegade]

There is obvious reason for the set amount on divorce. There cannot be prior for obvious reasons, again.

Actually while the the amount cannot be fixed. the obligation CAN be fixed, even while married. For example, is it unreasonable to state that a parent has an obligation to provide shelter to a certain standard for his child, is it unreasonable to state that a parent has a responsiblity to provide nutrition for his child? If stated as a parental obligation, the obligation continues after the marriage has dissolved. The only issue on divorce is costing the obligation.

However, when a parent leaves his children, I would suggest that the determination of support should be socially made and not left to what the parent claims his behaviour towards the children would have been.

I would agree, and I am not advocating it be set by the parent. However I fail to see why it should be set based upon income. Surely a yearly figure based upon the cost of living on how much it takes to bring up a child is possible.

A societal benefit in helping to produce productive children and to deal with misers who are probably showing the reasons for the divorce.

It may be a societal benefit, but it is not soceity who funds the divorce settlement.

[Nemo]

deleted

[Yaro]

Such hard cases make for bad law. Both Bush v. Gore and the Schiavo decision are examples of the “law of the case”; which authority is limited to the matter sub judice, and not binding precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis.

Is the principle decision making process in such a case the same? How and to what extent does presedence and common law play a role?

[BHS]

BHS:

I don't think so either.

As you know, the provisions for due process and equal protection under Fourteenth Amendment are a curb on state action infringing individual rights and freedoms protected under the Constitution, and would not be a proper means of expanding federal jurisdiction.  The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to cases involving questions of federal law, and substantial controversies where there is diversity of citizenship, and to use the Fourteenth Amendment to go beyond that would be to intrude upon states’ rights in violation of the Tenth Amendment as well as long-standing provisions for federal abstention, and (more recently) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

The only recent instance that comes to mind was when the Supreme Court took jurisdiction of the recount controversy in Florida in Bush v. Gore, and declined to do so in the case of Theresa Schiavo (notwithstanding the intervention of the Congress to make a federal case out of the matter).  Such hard cases make for bad law.  Both Bush v. Gore and the Schiavo decision are examples of the “law of the case”; which authority is limited to the matter sub judice, and not binding precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting. I'd not heard of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine before. Also interesting that you bring up Bush v. Gore. I understand how the 14th amendment is not an above-board excuse for the Supreme Court's intrusion on the matter. But since the heart of the matter is the election of a federal official (indeed, the highest federal official) doesn't it follow that the federal courts should have some jurisdiction over the process, to ensure that their interpretation of due process is being followed?

[Nemo]

deleted

[Yaro]

Actually it was equal protection that was the basis for the Supreme Court granting certiorari. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). It was a make-weight argument, but a masterstroke of James A. Baker, III, who was George W. Bush’s chief advisor in the post-election litigation. The effect of the unsigned per curium decision was to deny the Florida voters due process by cutting off the recount. I have pasted a copy of the decision (including the one concurring opinion and four dissenting opinions) for your reading pleasure.

So it was under voter rights that the Supreme Court interviened? I thought that this right didn't extend to actual interference in cases only to review? or are you saying that they used this as the opening to interfere? because I don't see how thats possible. Certs (if Im not mistaken, and I am not a lawyer) don't provide for the certification of fact only for review on legality?

Not that Im a lawyer mind you.

[BHS]

The effect of the unsigned per curium  decision was to deny the Florida voters due process by cutting off the recount.  I have pasted a copy of the decision  (including the one concurring opinion and four dissenting opinions) for your reading pleasure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting reading. I suppose I could take a pro or contra stance on the court's reasoning in that case. It was my understanding that the Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the counting would have violated pre-determined deadlines for selecting electors, and that the US Supreme court held that those deadlines were still in effect, and that was why the recounting was cut off.

[Nemo]

deleted

[Yaro]

ahhhh, clearly I misunderstood the the definition of a cent. Thanks

[Renegade]

Let's hope that the Supreme Court finally puts some sanity back into the system:

Supreme Court to rule on child support