Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.

[CDNBear]

I think the day a court looks at a child and says your parent has no obligation to you because you could've been aborted or given away is the day hell starts thawing out. That wouldn't even happen while hell was freezing over.

And I would agree with you.

But you are applying that the court addresses the child, it does not, it addresses the needs of the child. I these laws were inacted in the 50's they would be as Draconian on the other side of the spectrum.

But they weren't, so they are leaning way to the apeasement side of things.

I understand your point of view.

If everyone was as cautious as possible and as intellegent as you or I, this would likely not be an issue.

FYI, and I only make mention of this again, because it has now calmed down. My oldest was a surprise, that was created while on leave. With my now wife. The letter I recieved while overseas, struck me hard. I did not think I was ready to be a father. I had a lot of growing up to do. Some of which wasn't done until he was old enough to recognise my fualts. My first reaction was to deny he was mine, cut and run. Her reply was, "Fine, I do not need your support to be a mother". It wasn't until I came home that it all hit home. My son calling some else Daddy, my son being not a part of my life. Not an option. I sot out my ex and made ammends. Her and my lil guy are the reason I left the forces. I went into mining, perhaps I sot out contract work that kept me away, because I wasn't ready. That made me miss the formative years of his life. A mistake I am correcting daily. Luckly I had the skills and/or drive to provide. But unfortunetly, this rule does not apply to all. That is where the present system fails men.

Perhaps if the social safety blanket would cover the expences while the man finished his schooling or attempted to build a lifethat was condusive to supporting his child, without being punitive in the end. The issue wouldn't so lop sided.

 

[selfactivated]

There are federal guidelines governing child support contributions by parents spending less than 40% parenting. If a parent spends more than 40% of the time being a parent, they don't pay child support. These rules were implemented in 1997 because so many parents didn't want to spend time with their children and didn't want to contribute financially so someone else could raise the child. These laws are not outdated. What was outdated was the absence of a law protecting the rights of children.

Perhaps you should share the 40% fact with those cheap dads ... they can contribute time instead of money if they like - that seems like a pretty good option, eh.

Maybe I should be clear.......Im 43 years old........the courts I dealt with are california courts that in the 1980's WERE out dated. With the girl's father I recieved 50! bucks a month for two girls!........again Im NOT a lawyer I go on what Ive lived and learned. I know guys living in cars because their pay checks are garnished so bad they cant afford a place to live. REALLY nice guys that made a mistake as a young man. Not ALLOWED to be in the childs life because SHE says no........thats fair? Dont think so. (and yes I know alot of people)

 

[CDNBear]

There are federal guidelines governing child support contributions by parents spending less than 40% parenting. If a parent spends more than 40% of the time being a parent, they don't pay child support. These rules were implemented in 1997 because so many parents didn't want to spend time with their children and didn't want to contribute financially so someone else could raise the child. These laws are not outdated. What was outdated was the absence of a law protecting the rights of children.

Perhaps you should share the 40% fact with those cheap dads ... they can contribute time instead of money if they like - that seems like a pretty good option, eh.

They can continue going to school, they don't have to work at burger king, they don't have to ruin their lives (or should we say they don't have someone to blame for making nothing of their lives).

Odd that you would know that, seeing as you have shown a diregard for the mans perspective from the get go. Where would you get such an opinion, or are you just making stuff up now.

 

[CDNBear]

There are federal guidelines governing child support contributions by parents spending less than 40% parenting. If a parent spends more than 40% of the time being a parent, they don't pay child support. These rules were implemented in 1997 because so many parents didn't want to spend time with their children and didn't want to contribute financially so someone else could raise the child. These laws are not outdated. What was outdated was the absence of a law protecting the rights of children.

Perhaps you should share the 40% fact with those cheap dads ... they can contribute time instead of money if they like - that seems like a pretty good option, eh.

They can continue going to school, they don't have to work at burger king, they don't have to ruin their lives (or should we say they don't have someone to blame for making nothing of their lives).

Yes and that is enough for so many woman.

Could you please explain this story for us then(there are som many just like it out there, not that you woulds care, it's just some dirty sperm doner getting his just deserts),,,

"On December 22,1999, at the Abbotsford Courthouse, I was given legal visitation rights to see my son, and was required to pay a monthly child maintenance. Since then, in breach of the law, his mother has taken him and disappeared, denying me the right to see my boy, Austin. With the aid of a private investigator, I have searched for my son's mother and grandmother with no success. I continue to pay monthly maintenance. Family Maintenance Program (which I volunteered to pay her through) knows where they are but doesn't have authorization to tell me."

Editors note: The Family Maintenance Extortion Program SHOULD have the authorization to tell the payee where his debtor lives. As it stands, they appear to be accomplices to kidnapping. What next from FMEP? Anything goes I guess.

http://www.bein.com/fathers/index.html

 

[Kreskin]

Perhaps if the social safety blanket would cover the expences while the man finished his schooling or attempted to build a lifethat was condusive to supporting his child, without being punitive in the end. The issue wouldn't so lop sided.

Something like that could be helpful. It could even be like a student loan with perhaps more of a grace period.

I'm not against being reasonable.

Bear, I am very happy that you and your son are getting the chance to grow together.

 

[Ariadne]

Maybe I should be clear.......Im 43 years old........the courts I dealt with are california courts that in the 1980's WERE out dated. With the girl's father I recieved 50! bucks a month for two girls!........again Im NOT a lawyer I go on what Ive lived and learned. I know guys living in cars because their pay checks are garnished so bad they cant afford a place to live. REALLY nice guys that made a mistake as a young man. Not ALLOWED to be in the childs life because SHE says no........thats fair? Dont think so. (and yes I know alot of people)

Around here, every father has the right to be part of their child's life because every child has the right to have a relationship with both parents. If there is something off about one of the parents, there can be limited visitation. Government guidelines for child support do not leave people living in cars. There are government guidelines based on income and never does the entire income go to child support.

 

[CDNBear]

Something like that could be helpful. It could even be like a student loan with perhaps more of a grace period.

I'm not against being reasonable.

Bear, I am very happy that you and your son are getting the chance to grow together.

Hey we came to an accord, WOW. I can be more then reasonable. But in the current light of things, reason has been removed and replaced with a Draconian law that seems more infavour of over righting a wrong, then looking for a balance for all parties involved.

btw, thanx.

 

[CDNBear]

Around here, every father has the right to be part of their child's life because every child has the right to have a relationship with both parents. If there is something off about one of the parents, there can be limited visitation. Government guidelines for child support do not leave people living in cars. There are government guidelines based on income and never does the entire income go to child support.

"On December 22,1999, at the Abbotsford Courthouse, I was given legal visitation rights to see my son, and was required to pay a monthly child maintenance. Since then, in breach of the law, his mother has taken him and disappeared, denying me the right to see my boy, Austin. With the aid of a private investigator, I have searched for my son's mother and grandmother with no success. I continue to pay monthly maintenance. Family Maintenance Program (which I volunteered to pay her through) knows where they are but doesn't have authorization to tell me."

Editors note: The Family Maintenance Extortion Program SHOULD have the authorization to tell the payee where his debtor lives. As it stands, they appear to be accomplices to kidnapping. What next from FMEP? Anything goes I guess.

http://www.bein.com/fathers/index.html

What was that you were saying?

 

[selfactivated]

Around here, every father has the right to be part of their child's life because every child has the right to have a relationship with both parents. If there is something off about one of the parents, there can be limited visitation. Government guidelines for child support do not leave people living in cars. There are government guidelines based on income and never does the entire income go to child support.

Thank you for the enlightenment.......but "never" where? In Canada? In the States? In England? Im confused (nothing new)

 

[Kreskin]

Hey we came to an accord, WOW. I can be more then reasonable. But in the current light of things, reason has been removed and replaced with a Draconian law that seems more infavour of over righting a wrong, then looking for a balance for all parties involved.

btw, thanx.

I'm all for being fair and reasonable. I don't thinking washing one's hands of responsibility because a woman has reproductive rights is fair or reasonable. However, that does not mean the FMEP can't be improved or made more fair for everyone, and even some ideas outside of the box like you suggested couldn't be seriously looked at.

 

[selfactivated]

Very nice you two Im impressed

 

[Ariadne]

Odd that you would know that, seeing as you have shown a diregard for the mans perspective from the get go. Where would you get such an opinion, or are you just making stuff up now.

What opinion? Are you referring to the 40% law in child support? Come off it ... everyone that has ever been involved in child support should know that one.

"shared custody
The guidelines use the term “shared custody.” Shared custody can apply if both parents have the child in their care for at least 40 percent of the time over the course of the year. " http://www.canada-justice.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/glossary.html

Shared custody
9. Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account
(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses;
(b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and
(c) the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.
Undue hardship
10. (1) On either spouse’s application, a court may award an amount of child support that is different from the amount determined under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9 if the court finds that the spouse making the request, or a child in respect of whom the request is made, would otherwise suffer undue hardship.
http://www.canada-justice.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/ligfed.html

The bottom line is that if two parents are providing two separate homes for a child at least 40% of the time, than the child support money, which is obviously calculated based on the cost of room, board and other necessities of lie, needs to be calculated for two households rather than one and it usually works out to no child support. Any lawyer will tell you this the moment child support is an issue.

 

[CDNBear]

What opinion? Are you referring to the 40% law in child support? Come off it ... everyone that has ever been involved in child support should know that one.

"shared custody
The guidelines use the term “shared custody.” Shared custody can apply if both parents have the child in their care for at least 40 percent of the time over the course of the year. " http://www.canada-justice.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/glossary.html

Shared custody
9. Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account
(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses;
(b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and
(c) the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.
Undue hardship
10. (1) On either spouse’s application, a court may award an amount of child support that is different from the amount determined under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9 if the court finds that the spouse making the request, or a child in respect of whom the request is made, would otherwise suffer undue hardship.
http://www.canada-justice.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/ligfed.html

The bottom line is that if two parents are providing two separate homes for a child at least 40% of the time, than the child support money, which is obviously calculated based on the cost of room, board and other necessities of lie, needs to be calculated for two households rather than one and it usually works out to no child support. Any lawyer will tell you this the moment child support is an issue.

Wow, and you don't read into my words and only find what you want????????????????

I even hilited the section I was referring to.

Please go back and try again.

 

[Ariadne]

Yes and that is enough for so many woman.

Could you please explain this story for us then(there are som many just like it out there, not that you woulds care, it's just some dirty sperm doner getting his just deserts),,,

"On December 22,1999, at the Abbotsford Courthouse, I was given legal visitation rights to see my son, and was required to pay a monthly child maintenance. Since then, in breach of the law, his mother has taken him and disappeared, denying me the right to see my boy, Austin. With the aid of a private investigator, I have searched for my son's mother and grandmother with no success. I continue to pay monthly maintenance. Family Maintenance Program (which I volunteered to pay her through) knows where they are but doesn't have authorization to tell me."

Editors note: The Family Maintenance Extortion Program SHOULD have the authorization to tell the payee where his debtor lives. As it stands, they appear to be accomplices to kidnapping. What next from FMEP? Anything goes I guess.

http://www.bein.com/fathers/index.html

Maintenance enforcement is optional. Although a lawyer must inform a child support recipient of the program, women can choose not to be part of it. Maintenance Enforcement is only there because men don't want to voluntarily provide child support so if the guy is hooked into the program, there must have been some problem with the child support.

 

[Ariadne]

Wow, and you don't read into my words and only find what you want????????????????

I even hilited the section I was referring to.

Please go back and try again.

Silly me ... I suppose it's awfully convenient for a guy to sit around and waste the rest of his life because he got some girl pregnant and has to provide for his child. Sure, let him work at burger king ... he'd probably end up there anyway.

 

[CDNBear]

Maintenance enforcement is optional. Although a lawyer must inform a child support recipient of the program, women can choose not to be part of it. Maintenance Enforcement is only there because men don't want to voluntarily provide child support so if the guy is hooked into the program, there must have been some problem with the child support.

You reply like the IDF targets.

Once again you missed the point monumentaly.

 

[Ariadne]

Thank you for the enlightenment.......but "never" where? In Canada? In the States? In England? Im confused (nothing new)

Uhm, I guess since this is a Canadian forum, I just assumed that the discussion was about Canada. I suppose I might be discussing human rights in Africa, but then my links would probably have led to African laws, not Canadian laws.

 

[CDNBear]

Silly me ... I suppose it's awfully convenient for a guy to sit around and waste the rest of his life because he got some girl pregnant and has to provide for his child. Sure, let him work at burger king ... he'd probably end up there anyway.

And you want us to believe that you are not bias and have some form of hate for men.

I'm glad I'm not your beau, I'm glad I don't know your beau. I couldn't bear to watch him cower to you.

Still nothing relevant, constructive, to the point, intellegent, meaningful, important, etc.

Have you noticed that you still haven't addressed the arguement or questions at all?

 

[Ariadne]

You reply like the IDF targets.

Once again you missed the point monumentaly.

I didn't miss the point, I choose not to buy into the sad little victim stories that men throw around.

 

[CDNBear]

I didn't miss the point, I choose not to buy into the sad little victim stories that men throw around.

Nope you missed the point of that post all together, if you try reading with some reason. You might find that the gentlemen in question was paying support. Only to have his wife move out and awy from where they had lived. Totally negating his parental ablity to be a father.

But you don't hate men?

PUUULEEZE

We all see through you like a piece of crystal.

Get help.