Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada


smokes

Recommended Posts

I know a guy that blew his head off in this situation which wasn't in the best interest of the children either.

By the time he got his pay cheque nearly 70% was taken off. His wife his 5 kids and her boyfriend all lived in his house.

He paid for the lawyer that took him too the cleaners, like wow.

This was all because she lied to him over 14 years and he finally caught her.

His world fell apart, he started smoking crack, lost his job and blew his brains out in his dad's garage. All within 8 months of finding out

Just a wicked nice guy that thought the world of his wife and was totally shattered and hung out to dry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked why the man is responsible for paying child support. The non-custodial parent is responsible for paying child support to support a child of the marriage. The children are "of the marriage" pursuant to s.2(2) of the Divorce Act. In other words, as far as the Divorce Act - the governing legislation - is concerned, the children are his, for the purposes of the divorce and its corollaries (namely child support and spousal support, since property division is dealt with by provincial legislation).

What is the point of offering arguments that aren't based in law? Wetcoaster and myself, who make our livings working with the law, are simply trying to explain to you and other posters why the man will likely be legally liable for child support. Not to take the law into account when making those arguments would be strange and pointless.

As for the government argument - I don't see how the government has any relevance here. Absent neglect, abuse, or any other reason relating to child welfare (not the conduct between the spouses themselves) for the government to step in pursuant to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the government is not involved. This is a private issue of divorce and its corollaries. The children must be financially supported by one of the spouses because this is what the Divorce Act stipulates.

This brings up another important point: the Divorce Act uses the language of "spouse", not parent, in its child support provision (s.15.1). See s.15.1(1):

(1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses, make an order requiring a spouse to pay for the support of any or all children of the marriage.

Notice the language: a spouse may be required to pay support for any or all children of the marriage. This is important: spouse, not parent. I've given you the definition of "child of the marriage" in my previous post, and noted that the children meet the definition with regard to both spouses, including the man. So, the children are children of the marriage pursuant to the Divorce Act, thus making s.15.1, the child support provision, apply in this case. So, the wife can apply to get child support from the husband.

As argued above (repeatedly...), the government is of absolutely no relevance here. This isn't a taxpayer issue. I hope my explanation of the Divorce Act clears this up for you. There's just no legal basis for government interference here. The main legal issue is the divorce - child support is a corollary of the divorce. Thus the Divorce Act governs, which does not say anything about government support (nor should it).

Also, to address your question about the age of the children: the Divorce Act defines a child of the marriage as being either under the age of majority (19 in BC), or over the age of majority but with an illness or disability that prevents them from being independent. So the 16 year-old is still a child of the marriage.

You can't force a divorce spouse to visit children. You can't make an order for forced access. There's just no legal basis for it. But you can make an order for child support.

Finally, I'll break down the legal analysis into a simple series of questions for you:

  1. What legislation governs the breakdown of the marriage? The Divorce Act, because the man and the woman are spouses severing their legal marriage in Canada.

  2. Does the Divorce Act govern child support? Yes, pursuant to s.15.

  3. Are the children "children of the marriage" for the purposes of s.15? Yes, given the definition of "child of the marriage" in s.2(2).

  4. Therefore, can the wife apply for a child support order against the husband per s.15? Yes, since the husband is the spouse (or former spouse) of the wife, and the children are children of the marriage for the purposes of the Divorce Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post can be summed up as "the law is the way it is because that's the way the law is". I think I'm learning that lawyers can only argue within the confines of law, even when arguing the merits of said law. Needless to say, I find this to be an exercise in futility.

For the record, I have fully grasped the laws since Wetcoaster laid them out, and I did not contradict him once because I'm not arguing a court case. I am not presenting a legal argument. I am presenting a position that opposes the current law, and am arguing the merits of the current law vs. the alternative. I do not need to be explained the law over and over again. Either argue why the current law benefits the child more than my proposed alternative, or continue to paste the law as if it is the only way things can be.

Not all laws are good, not all laws are right, and not all laws should remain on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post can be summed up as "the law is the way it is because that's the way the law is". I think I'm learning that lawyers can only argue within the confines of law, even when arguing the merits of said law. Needless to say, I find this to be an exercise in futility.

For the record, I have fully grasped the laws since Wetcoaster laid them out, and I did not contradict him once because I'm not arguing a court case. I am not presenting a legal argument. I am presenting a position that opposes the current law, and am arguing the merits of the current law vs. the alternative. I do not need to be explained the law over and over again. Either argue why the current law benefits the child more than my proposed alternative, or continue to paste the law as if it is the only way things can be.

Not all laws are good, not all laws are right, and not all laws should remain on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post can be summed up as "the law is the way it is because that's the way the law is". I think I'm learning that lawyers can only argue within the confines of law, even when arguing the merits of said law. Needless to say, I find this to be an exercise in futility.

For the record, I have fully grasped the laws since Wetcoaster laid them out, and I did not contradict him once because I'm not arguing a court case. I am not presenting a legal argument. I am presenting a position that opposes the current law, and am arguing the merits of the current law vs. the alternative. I do not need to be explained the law over and over again. Either argue why the current law benefits the child more than my proposed alternative, or continue to paste the law as if it is the only way things can be.

Not all laws are good, not all laws are right, and not all laws should remain on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we've already argued the merits. Somebody (unfortunately) needs to suffer, and neither I nor Wetcoaster (nor the Parliament of Canada) think that it should be the children. Your only response to that is to make the government pay, which makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to oppose a certain law or set of laws, then you need to present a legal basis for that opposition. Otherwise, you'll never get it changed. For example: why don't you explain to us why the law is unconstitutional? Or, why don't you present research that says that no, the children actually should suffer? Or, why don't you find the money in the government budget to allocate to paying child support in situations like this? All you're doing is spouting moral rhetoric and it's getting you nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we agree that it is about financial responsibility? There is nothing mandated by law except financial support. So a male acts as a parent based on false premises, finds out the truth, and is forced to continue playing the part because of already being cast as such?

You once again fail to explain why the male is responsible in the eyes of the law. Yes, in law it is the obligation of a parent, but a male who did not father children is not a parent (or should not be considered as such), merely filling the parent role. Your entire argument rests on what's best for the child when it comes to financial support. There is nothing about the "father" taking an actual part in being a parent. Arguments such as stawns' bear no significance, as what he thinks a man "should do" is as irrelevant as the mother's actions.

If the main concern is the child's financial well being (and you did a phenomenal job showing as much in this thread) , there is no reason a man should bear the responsibility and not the state. The law does not reflect what is right, nor what is best, but merely what the law is.

"The reason pot smokers go to jail is because it's the law."

I hope you can see the inherent fault in such reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality has entered the equation already, the morality that an individual must pay instead of government for government rulings and laws. It's reasonable that this morality make sense and best represent and balance all things in the equation, which it clearly doesn't here. Father figure gets no representation by such implementation, only moral implications that he is financially responsible despite finding out the children he is now still financially responsible for weren't even his.

Devoid of logic and very one-sided. If government is so keen on someone paying, either make government do it, or make the mother be responsible for all of it. If father wants nothing to do with children that aren't even his, he should be given an opt-out of any financial burden in the matter. Let the lying mother find the real dads to make them pay, she's the one that lied and screwed around, someone else should not pay for her stupidity, even though the children kind of are already. Forcing the guy to pay simply because he was responsible and acted as a dad when he thought he was the dad is asinine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he was lied to, which seems the case here, then what you said makes no sense. He was lied to, cheated on, and wanted nothing to do with kids that weren't his.. but should be taken to the cleaners for this.. yeah okay there. Nothing to do with morals my ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we agree that it is about financial responsibility? There is nothing mandated by law except financial support. So a male acts as a parent based on false premises, finds out the truth, and is forced to continue playing the part because of already being cast as such?

You once again fail to explain why the male is responsible in the eyes of the law. Yes, in law it is the obligation of a parent, but a male who did not father children is not a parent (or should not be considered as such), merely filling the parent role. Your entire argument rests on what's best for the child when it comes to financial support. There is nothing about the "father" taking an actual part in being a parent. Arguments such as stawns' bear no significance, as what he thinks a man "should do" is as irrelevant as the mother's actions.

If the main concern is the child's financial well being (and you did a phenomenal job showing as much in this thread) , there is no reason a man should bear the responsibility and not the state. The law does not reflect what is right, nor what is best, but merely what the law is.

"The reason pot smokers go to jail is because it's the law."

I hope you can see the inherent fault in such reasoning.

Here's what you're missing: the man is not (solely) responsible....if you think child support covers everything, it does not. It is generally supplemental and the woman doesn't sit back and live off the proceeds....it simply means that the kids won't change their standard of living (much) if both parents continue to chip in.

My ex paid child support and it barely covered the grocery bill each month (actually, it didn't). Let alone put a roof over the kids' heads or pay for any extras for them - I did that (working 3 jobs at one point to make ends meet). So child support is just that - a means to continue to HELP support the children. It isn't a windfall by any means but the talk of "taking to the cleaners" etc. makes it sound as such. If the guy wants nothing further to do with the kids based on paternity, then he should not have been involved in their lives in the first place. It takes a level of maturity and selflessness and that decision indicates neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what you're missing: the man is not (solely) responsible....if you think child support covers everything, it does not. It is generally supplement and the woman doesn't sit back and live off the proceeds....it simply means that the kids won't change their standard of living (much) if both parents continue to chip in.

My ex paid child support and it barely covered the grocery bill each month (actually, it didn't). Let alone put a roof over the kids' heads or pay for any extras for them - I did that (working 3 jobs at one point to make ends meet). So child support is just that - a means to continue to HELP support the children. It isn't a windfall by any means but the talk of "taking to the cleaners" etc. makes it sound as such. If the guy wants nothing further to do with the kids based on paternity, then he should not have been involved in their lives in the first place. It takes a level of maturity and selflessness and that decision indicates neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...