Grandparents sued for child support


Hoid
#1
the daughter wants $760 a month for the grandparents to continue to see their grand child.(plus $47,000 in back pay)

I wish I had of thought of this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbur...port-1.4445981
Last edited by Hoid; Dec 15th, 2017 at 10:39 AM..
 
Cannuck
+1
#2
With rights come responsibility, so they say
 
captain morgan
+1
#3
Mom and Dad should tell the daughter to go piss up a rope.

When sh'e short on cash, she'll come along pissing and moaning about her needs... Then, the grandparents can dictate the terms of a hard contractual agreement.... Seeing how this flaky snowflake, entitled millenial is so quick to call down the law, she'll get her payback with a formal contract fully enforceable under the law
 
TenPenny
#4
There's a lot more to this story than a simple headline.


"
Grandparents are very occasionally required by court to make child support payments when they are determined to "stand in for a parent," which in most cases occurs because they have custody of the child.
Hunter and Deforge did have emergency custody of their granddaughter for eight months about seven years ago by order of the Children's Aid Society.
They were also officially made parties to a custody dispute between their son and the girl's mother, even though they say they weren't present in court when a judge made that decision."
 
EagleSmack
+3
#5  Top Rated Post
So they had emergency custody for 8 months, seven years ago which means they should pay child support until the child is emancipated?
 
taxslave
+3
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

So they had emergency custody for 8 months, seven years ago which means they should pay child support until the child is emancipated?

Seems to me the grandparents are the ones that are owed. Maybe they should try for sole custody since the mother obviously has severe mental problems.
 
TenPenny
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

So they had emergency custody for 8 months, seven years ago which means they should pay child support until the child is emancipated?



I don't know all the facts, do you?
 
EagleSmack
+2
#8
Ok... lets close the thread.

Good f*ing grief
 
Cannuck
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

So they had emergency custody for 8 months, seven years ago which means they should pay child support until the child is emancipated?



Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

....
They were also officially made parties to a custody dispute between their son and the girl's mother..


Do your best to try and keep up ES
 
EagleSmack
+1
#10
yawn... I am sorry you do not understand the full article.

*snicker*
 
TenPenny
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Ok... lets close the thread.

Good f*ing grief



Okay, if you're unable to read and think, then I guess it's time for you to go. Enjoy.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#12
So you know all the facts?

Lets hear them.
 
Angstrom
+1
#13
Way to hold a kid as ransom. Communist are getting desperate
 
DaSleeper
+3
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

So you know all the facts?

Lets hear them.

Don't you know by now that you're not allowed to have an opinion contrary to snowflake millennials?
 
EagleSmack
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Don't you know by now that you're not allowed to have an opinion contrary to snowflake millennials?

I know, I know. Man, Clintonians are so sensitive.
 
Corduroy
#16
Reading the article it seems like this a simple case of a court looking at the implications of the legal hoops surrounding custody and the changing rights of grandparents, not the total collapse of civilization.

It won't mean that all grandparents will have pay child support, just in particular cases like this.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#17
If the parent have any kind of money, Lawyer will argue anything to make a buck!
The fact that the grandparents didn't testify to anything in the original custody case, should show "arms length only involvement"
(Hope I have the term In proper context since I'm not a lawyer)
 
mentalfloss
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

Reading the article it seems like this a simple case of a court looking at the implications of the legal hoops surrounding custody and the changing rights of grandparents, not the total collapse of civilization.

It won't mean that all grandparents will have pay child support, just in particular cases like this.

It's nice to hope the general public would entertain a rational explanation.


In the meantime, just enjoy the knee jerk, senile conservatives who are up in arms.
 
Danbones
#19
LOL, we don't usually think of you as conservative

but for this one time OK!

PS you should actually have had your arms up a little higher...

Might have blocked that shot!
 
DaSleeper
#20
He not a Conservative.......but certainly knee jerk applies....well...at least "JERK"