Archived

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

smokes

A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada

277 posts in this topic

And Single moms across the world are rejoicing.

I for one am glad I didn't limit myself when I re-entered the dating scene.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are content to take on that much financial risk go ahead.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are content to take on that much financial risk go ahead.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "financial risk" is a check mark for someone looking for a relationship, then any relationship they pursue is probably already in jeopardy...

Basically, you're saying one should never get involved in a relationship because of finances.

Guess what happens when you get divorced - you lose half of everything you ever made (financially).

Which means, if you were to divorce a second time - you've lost everything.

Being in a relationship far outweighs any financial risk IMHO....after all, we were made for relationships.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um not quite true - it means you've lost 75% of everything. If you've lost 50% of everything in the first divorce that leaves you with 50% of your stuff. But if you now lose 50% of that due to another divorce technically you've only lost 25% of the original amount, so really a second divorce is a bargain.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of...I was thinking along the lines that you re-acquired more wealth in your second marriage...so I guess it's somewhere between 75% but not quite 100% (as you say that would be technically impossible). I guess you can't really "accumulate" it at all as several factors come into play, like cost of living. I guess it would be best to just say that it would suck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Being in a relationship far outweighs any financial risk IMHO....after all, we were made for relationships. "

we were made to procreate but I'm not so sure about the relationship point.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right - it's not the man's fault. Nor is it the children's fault. There are two innocent parties here who are suffering because of the mom. So the question is, which innocent party should bear most of the burden? The man, or the children? I would argue that the children should not bear the burden since the man is in a better position to replace his lost income.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Option 3: Make the mom find out who the dad is and give responsible dad an opt-out chance, making the mom pay both portions if she can't find out.

Kids are already taken care of with government benefits/programs.

Child support in this fashion being required for the father even though he really isn't the father (not his fault he didn't know) is a method of screwing a dad for being both lied to and being responsible. In no way, shape, or form is this the decent thing to do, and it encourages loser dads who skirt child support.

I'd suggest people consider the bigger picture here but a section of people only wish to obsessively look at the children rather than all in the equation. This is why such laws written are horrendous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actions of the mother are completely irrelevant, legally and morally. The welfare of the children are the priority, in both contexts, and the man was supporting the kids up to that point, he should do so, regardless of paternity.....he might not be their father, but he is their dad, and I'm sure he will continue on in that role.......he should if he's any kind of man anyway.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mom, and neither of the innocent parties. Or maybe the government for having such dumb ass rules like this.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm wondering is (and maybe I don't have all the facts) why does the mother get custody in the first place? She is the one who broke the wedding vows not once, but at least three times. On top of all that she lied to her husband AND children. That doesn't exactly seem like being a responsible parent to me.

EDIT: I'm also wondering if the father got custody, would the mother have to pay child support?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why oh why don't we hold women to the same standards of personal responsibility and accountability as men?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be cool with a law in such cases that had the stand-in father continue to provide for the kids until they're 18. After that, the mother pays the father back in equal payments over the same # of years that he provided with some slight alterations. Perhaps give the mother a bit of a grace period if the kids are still living at home and going to school.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm wondering is (and maybe I don't have all the facts) why does the mother get custody in the first place? She is the one who broke the wedding vows not once, but at least three times. On top of all that she lied to her husband AND children. That doesn't exactly seem like being a responsible parent to me.

EDIT: I'm also wondering if the father got custody, would the mother have to pay child support?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm wondering is (and maybe I don't have all the facts) why does the mother get custody in the first place? She is the one who broke the wedding vows not once, but at least three times. On top of all that she lied to her husband AND children. That doesn't exactly seem like being a responsible parent to me.

EDIT: I'm also wondering if the father got custody, would the mother have to pay child support?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.