Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada


  • Please log in to reply
276 replies to this topic

#211 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,783 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:37 PM

There is all kinds of stupid in this thread. Just mindblowingly retarded thinking.

At least there's people for you to feel superior to... that's the most important thing here.
  • 0

#212 :D

:D

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,784 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 07:11 PM

Ban sex? Let's not get crazy.

Edited by :D, 22 February 2013 - 07:12 PM.

  • 0

#213 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 02:58 AM

The support continues because the parent has provided such support in the past.

In the case of a biological parent the obligation of support arises due to being the biological parent.

In the case of other situations it arises due to the existence of a past parental relationship, as here.

At law it is the obligation of a parent to provide for children - in the absence of an ability to do so the government may step in to provide a basic level of support. However that obligation on the parent continues. If Social Services pays money to support a child when there is an existing support order, that order is assigned to the government and becomes enforceable in the hands of Social Services.


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.

he has, it's called the LAW


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

I hope you can see the inherent fault in such reasoning.
  • 1
“Hi Nigel, just a quick note to say that I am always ready to do exactly what is asked but it would have been a great help to know in advance what the strategy was.”

- Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Conservative Senator.

#214 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:40 AM

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.


The Divorce Act determines who the children of the marriage are using criteria based not just on the biological lineage, but also on the relationship that the children and parents have. s.2(2) of the Divorce Act has this to say about the definition of "child of the marriage":

(2)For the purposes of the definition “child of the marriage” in subsection (1), a child of two spouses or former spouses includes
(a)any child for whom they both stand in the place of parents; and
(b)any child of whom one is the parent and for whom the other stands in the place of a parent.


As you can see, biological connection is not part of the test. As Wetcoaster has said earlier (in slightly more archaic language ;) ), since the dad has been standing in the place of a parent (in loco parentis), that satisfies the test as per s.(2). Or, to use your own language, "filling the parent role".

So, there's your legal explanation.
  • 0

#215 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 09:47 AM

The children should not be punished because of the mother. ]


So then reward the mother.

Yes, totally logical.

I don't understand it, I see a lot of guys go through this in my profession in the oil and gas industry

Wife sends man to work while she spends all the money then has sex with everyone and gets knocked up.
Because she is knocked they better get married!!!

now she must stay at home and raise the kids. Because the husband makes enough for both She continues to rack up debt and notches on her belt.

This goes on for years until he finally catches her in the act, he is devistated and can no longer trust her.

They get a divorce
she gets the kids that may or may not be his
the house, cause the kids need a house
the car, cause you gotta drive the kids
child support cause that's the only "dad" the kids have
alimony cause the wife has raised the kids and is financially dependent on the husband
last but not least
the comfort of knowing some other dude is banging your x-wife, sitting in your chair, and disciplining the kids in the house you are paying for.

Bravo

Edited by Noheart, 23 February 2013 - 10:04 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#216 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:08 AM

The Divorce Act determines who the children of the marriage are using criteria based not just on the biological lineage, but also on the relationship that the children and parents have. s.2(2) of the Divorce Act has this to say about the definition of "child of the marriage":

(2)For the purposes of the definition “child of the marriage” in subsection (1), a child of two spouses or former spouses includes
(a)any child for whom they both stand in the place of parents; and
(b)any child of whom one is the parent and for whom the other stands in the place of a parent.


As you can see, biological connection is not part of the test. As Wetcoaster has said earlier (in slightly more archaic language ;) ), since the dad has been standing in the place of a parent (in loco parentis), that satisfies the test as per s.(2). Or, to use your own language, "filling the parent role".

So, there's your legal explanation.


You do not present a legal argument in defense of the law being argued. What you just stated is similar to "the bible is right because part 2, section 3 of the bible says it is". It is nonsense.

There has not been a single argument that did not have basis in either law or was not based on someone's personal definition of what a "man" is (e.i. takes care of kids not his because he did for years). Neither of these arguments explain why a man pays for a child not his and not the government. Wetcoaster has laid out why the child must be financially supported, but not why the burden must fall to the man and not the state.

Furthermore, the situation being argued is over fairly grown kids, not once has it been considered if the child is a 2 year old, where bonds aren't as strong, dependence isn't as pronounced, and the real father may not be far away. Yet the man by law will still pay for 16 years to raise someone else's kid, and be hampered in having his own kids and family. The law disregards the man's overall interests in order to fulfill a single role - financial support. This role can and should be filled by the state in order to 1) Support a child financially, and 2) Avoid burdening either of the innocent parties. Wetcoaster does not appear very keen on paying to raise someone else's child via his tax money, but seems to have no problem in forcing an single male to bear the burden.

Please, explain why a man is obligated to pay financial support only, and is not obligated to be a parent - visit, help with homework, talk about birds and bees, etc.; the "best interests of the child" have been repeatedly laid out as financial only. I do not think a child cares who pays for his school clothes, as long as he's warm and fed.
  • 0
“Hi Nigel, just a quick note to say that I am always ready to do exactly what is asked but it would have been a great help to know in advance what the strategy was.”

- Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Conservative Senator.

#217 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:28 AM

So then reward the mother.

Yes, totally logical.

I don't understand it, I see a lot of guys go through this in my profession in the oil and gas industry

Wife sends man to work while she spends all the money then has sex with everyone and gets knocked up.
Because she is knocked they better get married!!!

now she must stay at home and raise the kids. Because the husband makes enough for both She continues to rack up debt and notches on her belt.

This goes on for years until he finally catches her in the act, he is devistated and can no longer trust her.

They get a divorce
she gets the kids that may or may not be his
the house, cause the kids need a house
the car, cause you gotta drive the kids
child support cause that's the only "dad" the kids have
alimony cause the wife has raised the kids and is financially dependent on the husband
last but not least
the comfort of knowing some other dude is banging your x-wife, sitting in your chair, and disciplining the kids in the house you are paying for.

Bravo

No fault divorce as I set out above.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#218 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:44 AM

You do not present a legal argument in defense of the law being argued. What you just stated is similar to "the bible is right because part 2, section 3 of the bible says it is". It is nonsense.


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).

There has not been a single argument that did not have basis in either law or was not based on someone's personal definition of what a "man" is (e.i. takes care of kids not his because he did for years). Neither of these arguments explain why a man pays for a child not his and not the government. Wetcoaster has laid out why the child must be financially supported, but not why the burden must fall to the man and not the state.


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.

Furthermore, the situation being argued is over fairly grown kids, not once has it been considered if the child is a 2 year old, where bonds aren't as strong, dependence isn't as pronounced, and the real father may not be far away. Yet the man by law will still pay for 16 years to raise someone else's kid, and be hampered in having his own kids and family. The law disregards the man's overall interests in order to fulfill a single role - financial support. This role can and should be filled by the state in order to 1) Support a child financially, and 2) Avoid burdening either of the innocent parties. Wetcoaster does not appear very keen on paying to raise someone else's child via his tax money, but seems to have no problem in forcing an single male to bear the burden.


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.

Please, explain why a man is obligated to pay financial support only, and is not obligated to be a parent - visit, help with homework, talk about birds and bees, etc.; the "best interests of the child" have been repeatedly laid out as financial only. I do not think a child cares who pays for his school clothes, as long as he's warm and fed.


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:
  • 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.
  • Does the Divorce Act govern child support? Yes, pursuant to s.15.
  • 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).
  • 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.

  • 0

#219 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:49 AM

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.

As far as child support orders involve money, yes it is about financial responsibility. That seems obvious.

The reason why? There are basic principles at work upon which the specifics of the law are based:
  • The overarching concern is the best interests of the child or children.
  • Being a parent is not dependent upon biology.
  • Divorce and its ancilliary orders are not based upon fault so the wife's actions are irrelevant vis a vis herself and even more so in respect of the children of the marriage .
  • The goal is to place the children in as close to the same position re: their living standards and activities as is possible in the individual circumstances.
  • The law does not tell a parent how to actually parent the child - that is left up to them.

If there is law passed by the relevant legislature under its lawful jurisdiction then unless it is unconstitutional it binds all residents of Canada that fall under its purview until such time as it is amended or repealed. You do not get to pick and choose which laws apply to you personally. If you do not like the law then you work to have it amended or repealed, you do not get to simply disregard it because you do not like it. That is part and parcel of the Rule of Law under which our society operates and which is declared as a basic constitutional principle under which we function.

There is no "inherent fault" in insisting the law as written applies universally. That is basic to our system.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#220 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:49 AM

No fault divorce as I set out above.


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.

  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#221 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,783 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:51 AM

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.

"Strawberries and silverbacks"

Edited by zaibatsu, 23 February 2013 - 10:52 AM.

  • 0

#222 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:55 AM

"Strawberries and silverbacks"


Me no understand

I even tried to google it, way over my head bro

Edited by Noheart, 23 February 2013 - 10:58 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#223 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:03 AM

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:

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


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.
  • 0
“Hi Nigel, just a quick note to say that I am always ready to do exactly what is asked but it would have been a great help to know in advance what the strategy was.”

- Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Conservative Senator.

#224 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:07 AM

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.

And if you believe that to be so, then you work to change the laws.

In this case, the laws as derived from the basic principles set out above make eminent sense to me.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#225 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:08 AM

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.


In most cases it's a good thing don't get me wrong it's just sometimes

My gawd does buddy get bent over,
like alimony
the no fault makes this possible.

Edited by Noheart, 23 February 2013 - 11:09 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#226 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:09 AM

And if you believe that to be so, then you work to change the laws.

In this case, the laws as derived from the basic principles set out above make eminent sense to me.


I am happy for you. My alternative makes eminent sense to me.

Seems we're at an impasse once again.
  • 0
“Hi Nigel, just a quick note to say that I am always ready to do exactly what is asked but it would have been a great help to know in advance what the strategy was.”

- Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Conservative Senator.

#227 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:09 AM

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.


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.
  • 1

#228 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:11 AM

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.


I'm sorry, I am not a lawyer.

Please explain where you get this from: " why don't you present research that says that no, the children actually should suffer".

Anyway, I must take my leave now. I'll return to this when I have more time.
  • 0
“Hi Nigel, just a quick note to say that I am always ready to do exactly what is asked but it would have been a great help to know in advance what the strategy was.”

- Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Conservative Senator.

#229 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:15 AM

I'm sorry, I am not a lawyer.

Please explain where you get this from: " why don't you present research that says that no, the children actually should suffer".


You don't need to be a lawyer. By wanting to absolve the man from paying child support you're essentially arguing that the children should suffer from the lack of income that the man has provided for their entire lives. I'd like to understand your basis for that. If you think that the government should instead pay, then you should at least have an argument to support that - but you don't.
  • 0

#230 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:25 AM

I am happy for you. My alternative makes eminent sense to me.

Seems we're at an impasse once again.

No impasse.

All you have to do is persuade Parliament and the provincial legislatures to adopt different basic principles and change the law.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#231 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:39 AM

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.


Morality is not relevant in this case......the law is. I'm also not sure why you're comparing a criminal offense to a financial parental obligation
  • 0

#232 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:48 AM

In most cases it's a good thing don't get me wrong it's just sometimes

My gawd does buddy get bent over,
like alimony
the no fault makes this possible.


On the fence on this one.........on one hand it protects women who give up careers to raise families, on the other hand, it's a bit of a punishment tool
  • 0

#233 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,783 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 23 February 2013 - 02:51 PM

Morality is not relevant in this case......the law is. I'm also not sure why you're comparing a criminal offense to a financial parental obligation

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.

Edited by zaibatsu, 23 February 2013 - 03:00 PM.

  • 0

#234 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 23 February 2013 - 03:19 PM

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.


If he raised and loved those kids as his own up to that point, and then turned his back on them, he deserves to get taken to the cleaners.
  • 1

#235 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 23 February 2013 - 03:42 PM

A reason its awesome to be a man in Canada......































Canadian Women
Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#236 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,783 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 23 February 2013 - 04:22 PM

If he raised and loved those kids as his own up to that point, and then turned his back on them, he deserves to get taken to the cleaners.

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.

Edited by zaibatsu, 23 February 2013 - 04:25 PM.

  • 0

#237 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 23 February 2013 - 04:36 PM

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.


makes no sense? If he turns his back on kids he loved as his own, then yes, he deserves it. Not the kid's fault is it?
  • 1

#238 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,783 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 23 February 2013 - 04:44 PM

makes no sense? If he turns his back on kids he loved as his own, then yes, he deserves it. Not the kid's fault is it?

You make it sound as if he adopted them, a vastly different scenario to believing children are your own and, through being lied to and cheated on, finding out they aren't yours. Not the guy's fault the mother pulled those stunts, why must he have your moral obligation to financially support children that aren't his? I doubt he agreed to an adoption.

This is a forced adoption, in the sense of financial responsibility/liability, on the party who did nothing wrong. Yep, let's make the douchebag pay. That'll teach him to be responsible for children he thought were his. :sadno:

Edited by zaibatsu, 23 February 2013 - 04:47 PM.

  • 0

#239 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,781 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 23 February 2013 - 04:51 PM

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.
  • 1

Posted Image


#240 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:12 PM

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.


For the most part it's a no brain, child support is a good thing, the kids are completely innocent.

But in the rare cases where the wife is living a double life behind the guys back is what I don't agree with.

He raised the kids thinking they where his and his wife was faithful.

Imagine if you found out your wife was doing all this and those kids that you raised and loved since they where born are not your flesh and blood. That is earth shattering.

In this case the no fault divorce is pretty unfair.

I would not want this law changed because it serves a good purpose the majority of the time.
It would just be nice to have some type of protection for the poor bastard that ends up blowing his head off.
  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.