|
|
|
|
|
| | Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of viewPage 4 of 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) | Tealwood, I think their point was that we all have to struggle and fight to receive our rights. Those quotes you offered are all recent. Women didn't start out with rights or grants or any other type of fortune, in fact quite the opposite. Remember the first suffragettes were often jailed for speaking out in public. If a marriage failed, the man kept the children and the woman was tossed out on her ear with nothing. Things have gone to the opposite extreme now. We need to come to some middle ground of reasonability.
Nutt | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/11/2010 12:47:53 PM | Actually men are screwed either way. If your cs is channeled through a gov collection agency they cannot change the monthly amount until a court dictates they do. So if a man feels that he can still make and opts not to go to court and falls behind the arrears builds up.
There is nothing wrong with hard work and paying cs, it is when those numbers don't reflect the time or allow for father to get 50 50 custody. Appalling that a court would award an ncp cs regardless.
There are many ladies here that boast that they earned or earn more than their deadbeat ex's but I'll bet you everything I own that not one of them is collecting cs from the woman regardless of percentage.
That would be an outrage!!!!! What about what is best for the children!!!! (sarcasm -lol)
Trust me as men unless we fund it ourselves there will be no lobby group.
And based on the reply letters I get from the politicians I write to that they will not commit political suicide by touching this or any other issue that would jeopardize votes from females.
As far as the judges themselves go, they pursue seats in family courts because they tend to have a personal agenda to be there and the ones who get stuck there tend to just go with the flow. Although an incident occurred to me during one of my trips to 393 University Ave. ( Superior Court - Toronto).
I was waiting for a session with the duty council and made a quick trip to the boys room and came upon a judge who was standing at the urinal with his head against the wall crying as he was relieving himself. At first I thought - pretty strange but it wasn't until months later that it made sense. He was being interviewed on Global news about a book he authored about family court and how devastating it was to rule over these cases and decided to help by giving some real advice about how to prepare and approach your impending separation.
He was noticeably gay (not to say that there is anything wrong with that or that real men don't cry) and I guess he was more in touch with his feminine side then the majority of female judges I've had the (dis)pleasure to meet.
My experiences with family law is that of a pool of sharks and men are the chum that start the feeding frenzy for money. | |
|
My I
| | Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 78 | |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/11/2010 1:40:04 PM |
She was receiving Child support from the bio-dad to0, the paltry sum of $100 and month.......The Mom made a point of saying that she didn't want to punish the dad, because she was the one who wanted out of the relationship
Ironically, in her 2nd relationship:
Fast forward to the end........which she initiated for her personal reasons....He ended up paying 4 times the CS that Bio dad was paying.
^^It's this kind of stuff that has to stop.
If a woman is not accountable for the child's financial welfare by having pitty on the bio-father, she should not have the right or expectation for someone to be more responsible for a child she voluntarily neglected, financially speaking, in the past.
I don't care how sweet a woman claims she is. If she's not collecting the recognized, standard support from the ex, she's off-limits as far as I am concerned.
RED FLAG! | |
|
| |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/11/2010 4:39:38 PM | I guess maybe we could edamicate ya on that one lynn.
Why would our charter of "human " rights have the need to state that it if fact applies to sex? Are we not all human? Seeing as how you "women" were once considered non citizens at one point the statement as read ensures that your rights are in fact recognized.
Do you feel like a second class citizen that is need of an insurance of rights?
Perhaps maybe you're reference about comprehension and attitude was a self realization. Pretty sure there must be a government funded help group for that. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/11/2010 5:15:31 PM |
Well, actually, women ARE given special rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
What this means, is that under law, a group which has not yet attained equality in the society cannot be prevented from reaching that equality by the majority group claiming that it is not "equal" to help them achieve this equality.
This is why, for instance, it is acceptable to have a gay-only bar in the gay village in Montreal, for instance. Having a straight-only bar would be discriminating, because the minority is excluded from the majority. But having a gay-only bar is not discriminating, because it's the only way gay people can at least go somewhere, where they are protected and respected. When the minority is trying to protect themselves, it's not discrimination against the majority! It's protection. This is what this law is about.
In the same way, some business where woman would typically be sexually harassed can decide to exclude men in order to protect the woman clientele. The contrary is not valid because men will be not threatened by woman. Woman, for a long time, have been protected by this side of the law; and it is a GOOD thing they were. Today, they achieved at least partially the equality on many levels, but certainly not on all levels, despite what many male posters are claiming here.
On the other hand, there are a (few) areas in which men are a minority group, and child rearing / parenting is one of these areas. In this area, their right to work together to achieve equality is just as protected by that subsection of the law than woman are when it comes to salary or vote.
To claim that "woman are given more rights" under the law as "blanket" claim is ridiculous. It's like claiming that black people display "inverted racism". Someone claiming this has no understanding of how diversity works. Minority groups don't have "more rights". They have the same rights. It's just that, to the majority, "same right" often sounds like they are the one who get less rights. But that's only because they don't even realize how lucky they are to be in the majority, and what privileges they already enjoy, that the minority isn't enjoying. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/11/2010 5:31:26 PM | Yes erasersedge, there was a time when women were disadvantaged, but my mother's generation fought that battle. Now we are equal.
Maybe the reason it was written without referencing a particular gender, was with the hope that some day we would all accept gender equality.
Dare to dream. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/11/2010 5:34:45 PM |
I don't care how sweet a woman claims she is. If she's not collecting the recognized, standard support from the ex, she's off-limits as far as I am concerned.
So let me get this right a woman who collects no child support is a threat? A woman who isn't dependent on her ex for cs is a red flag? Wait let me guess its just our devious way of luring a new man into our clutches by stating "I don't collect child support from my ex" the man has nothing to worry about lets down his guard and then we can take the new sucker for all he's worth.
How is it financially neglecting your child if you don't go after your ex for CS when you pay for everything on your own? My daughter is not being neglected financially just means I have to do more because she is my responsibility and I need to make sure that she doesn't go without. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/11/2010 5:37:09 PM | To claim that "woman are given more rights" under the law as "blanket" claim is ridiculous.
Fair enough... I suppose I should have phrased it as "Women's rights are more diligently protected than are those of men".... 
And, thanks for clarifying and pointing out why it's important to maintain the preception of "women as victims" in order that they can continue to benefit from affirmative actions.
 | |
|
My I
| | Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 85 | |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/11/2010 10:22:37 PM |
So let me get this right a woman who collects no child support is a threat? A woman who isn't dependent on her ex for cs is a red flag?
Threat? Absolutely not.
But, given the vast amount of non-bio fathers who are paying more child support and alimony than the bio father, just because the mother "chose not to" pursue the money, is a red flag. These moms usually learn the second time around not to be so nice and understanding...... and guess who pays?
How is it financially neglecting your child if you don't go after your ex for CS when you pay for everything on your own?
If that's the case, that surplus (child support you turn your back on), should be invested for the child's future (education, house, etc). Why women don't do that for the children is beyond me.... that's not looking after the child's best interest.
My daughter is not being neglected financially just means I have to do more because she is my responsibility and I need to make sure that she doesn't go without.
You wouldn't have to "do more" if you had the support payments, would you? Your absence is an emotional vacancy - I guess that's different because that's what you prefer.
If you're turning your back on money for your child then yes, she is being neglected... be it in the short term or in the long term. Either way, that's financial neglect.
In most cases where I've heard women not pursue support from the bio-father, it usually boils down to fear. When the non-bio father is involved in the next relationship(s), it becomes anger.
There may be a few (very few) exceptions. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 9:13:50 AM |
If that's the case, that surplus (child support you turn your back on), should be invested for the child's future (education, house, etc). Why women don't do that for the children is beyond me.... that's not looking after the child's best interest.
I have two education bonds for my 2 year old they total over $4000 right now and will continue to grow. I put money into them every month. So yes some women do invest for their child's future. Some married people don't have education bonds for their children because they can't afford them or don't think education is important. I realize the importance of an education. I was the first of 20 some grandchildren (both sides of my family) to get my BA. The only other one to get their degree was my brother.
You wouldn't have to "do more" if you had the support payments, would you? Your absence is an emotional vacancy - I guess that's different because that's what you prefer.
You know what I perfer. I perfer being safe so yeah you do have a point about part of it boiling down to fear. I perfer not having a man hate my guts because I seperate him from some of his precious money. I perfer not having the man resent his child because he has to pay cs. My ex is free to contribute what he wants to our daughter's well-being and right now that is nothing. Will that always be the case I don't know.
I do not want to fight with him over what he should be paying. I personally don't feel like poking a bear. There are some things that are just not worth it. Plus he gets paid under the table even if I did report him he will always lie. So why waist my energy when I can use it for more positive things. I have one child so I can manage taking care of her. I'm not going to take a man's money for a child that isn't his because that would be like stealing.
Look at how many male posters on here hate their exs and view them as money grubbing hoes and just because they pay cs? And then the women are also accused of misusing the cs. I don't need that hostile stuff in my life.
Do you think a man is neglecting his financial responsibility to his child if he doesn't recieve child support? Because apparently there are a lot of single dad's who don't recieve a dime in child support yet they manage so why is it any different if a woman does it?
I have a happy, healthy, beautiful child that's all that matters. Except for on here people never assume I'm a single mother. I've never been accused of "neglecting my daughter" well I do get accused of a lot of things on these forums but oh well. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 11:15:20 AM |
given the vast amount of non-bio fathers who are paying more child support and alimony than the bio father
Do you have some stats to back up this claim?
These moms usually learn the second time around not to be so nice and understanding...... and guess who pays?
Again, do you have any proof to support this assertion or are you simply stating your low opinion of all women?
In most cases where I've heard women not pursue support from the bio-father, it usually boils down to fear. When the non-bio father is involved in the next relationship(s), it becomes anger.
or the woman decided to let sleeping dogs lie and was willing to forego cs in order to not have to deal with him. There are some men who will willingly abandon their child but if they think they are going to have to pay, they will make the mom and child's life miserable by choosing instead to seek visitation and then ignore the child, knowing it drives the mom who actually loves the child insane with anger/worry......
That is the other half of the bad apple in gender that pairs well with vengeful biatches who seek to punish/destroy a man financially.....
There may be a few (very few) exceptions.
Again, do you have proof to back that up or is it simply a restatement of your low opinion of women? | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 11:46:39 AM |
As far as she is concerned, that step-dad IS her real dad, And this is where the problem comes in. "As far as SHE is concerned" does not make the kid HIS. The kid has a bio dad that she should have gone after years ago for support.
I have heard of women collecting support from multiple men for the same child. How do you feel about that?
Have you checked into that "visitation" angle? Because in the US, child support and visitation are not mutually inclusive, they are separate court orders. I don't think that paying support entitles the non-parent any "rights" to the child that he or she doesn't fight for in court.
IMO the only time a non-bio parent should be paying any kind of forced support is if he DID legally adopt the child.
I think this law kicks in if a guy takes any kind of parenting role in a kids life for as little as 6 months. I think it's wrong to force someone to pay support for a kid that they've only known for such a short amount of time.
Of course, I'm only getting this info from what I have read from different Canadians in the forums, so a lot of it might not be factual...it's just what I see over and over here. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 6:18:14 PM | My I: Your entire message 88 is a load of baloney
In most cases where I've heard women not pursue support from the bio-father, it usually boils down to fear. When the non-bio father is involved in the next relationship(s), it becomes anger.
I clearly indicated the reason I didn't pursue support was out of respect for the father's decision not to be a parent. I'm not angry, and I didn't
learn the second time around not to be so nice and understanding...... and guess who pays?
I also made it clear in my posts that my last serious relationship did not result in suing him for child support for MY child, and that I did make every effort for him to continue a relationship with her. I don't believe I'm the only person out there who has reasonable values.
I guess that's different because that's what you prefer.
If you're turning your back on money for your child then yes, she is being neglected... be it in the short term or in the long term
If that's the case, that surplus (child support you turn your back on), should be invested for the child's future (education, house, etc). Why women don't do that for the children is beyond me.... that's not looking after the child's best interest.
I'm sick and tired of hearing that it's in any child's best interests for the parents to be giving children a free ride for the rest of the child's life. CHILDREN should be paying for their educations and their homes because THAT'S what's in their best interest. My parents were poor (and I had TWO not one), and they sure didn't help with my education, we didn't have any fancy trips to Disneyland or anywhere else growing up. You know what resulted of that? I'm a responsible adult of my own without mommy and daddy looking after me in my twenties and thirties!
Half the problem with kids these days is that mommy and daddy overdo everything giving the children luxuries that they should have to earn rather than get handed on a platter! I'm sure you watch the reality shows about the rich and famous and note how the majority of their children are suffering from having too much, but here you are advocating for the same thing!
Nutt | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 6:21:46 PM |
I'm sick and tired of hearing this crap that we should be paying for the rest of the child's life. CHILDREN should be paying for their educations and their homes because THAT'S what's in their best interest. My parents were poor (and I had TWO not one), and they sure didn't help with my education, we didn't have any fancy trips to Disneyland or anywhere else. You know what resulted of that? I'm a responsible adult of my own without mommy and daddy looking after me in my twenties and thirties! Half the problem with kids these days is that mommy and daddy overdo everything giving the children luxuries that they should have to earn rather than get handed on a platter! I'm sure you watch the reality shows about the rich and famous and note how the majority of their children are suffering from having too much, but here you are advocating for the same thing!
Well said Nutt!!!!!!!! | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 6:23:57 PM | It does seem wrong to force someone who is not a parent to pay to support someone else's child. The only issues here that bother me are the assumption that that is what a single woman with a child is looking for, and I have read that attitude from the same posters, over & over, about women the world over. Perhaps your pickers are defective, because a user is a user, and was likely a user prior to giving birth. Further, there is many a man who, having loved the children borne by his lover to another, continues to care for them, financially & otherwise, despite legality.
I have no knowledge of how those laws in Canada came into effect, but as far as making things equal & mens rights, well, the truth is that it hasn't, historically speaking, been a very long time at all since women had rights. Change doesn't come overnight, and it comes in small steps. Women still earn about 25% less than men, but that is, relatively speaking, an "accomplishment" for women. We can't really talk about equal rights until things are equal, can we?
In any case, vehement statements against either gender are not conducive to change, and vehement statements, broad generalizations & characterizations are indicative of much of what I am reading here. Kinda sad. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 6:31:56 PM | ohwhynot: just a couple things
I wonder if, perhaps, the law has something to do with cases where the non-bio parent has assumed responsibility for a child, leaving the bio parent free, and then that second relationship didn't work out, leaving mom up the proverbial river. It may have been intended to ensure that SOMEONE would be helping with the child's welfare.
Also, I wanted to comment additionally that I don't think it's unreasonable for a non-bio parent to be expected to pay child support in certain situations (I've already been clear that it's not reasonable for two men or to women to be paying support for the same child). If the bio parent is not involved and the stepparent (even without adoption) has accepted being a parent, then why wouldn't he/she be expected to continue being a parent. Do you stop loving that child when you walk out the door? I don't consider that "love" if it's so fairweather.
Adopted parents aren't biological, but they are considered legal parents. Should they be able to walk out the door and say "wasn't my sperm"? "wasn't my ovum"?
I think if you've assumed, accepted, enjoyed being a parent, you should consider that a lifetime commitment.
Nutt | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 6:32:39 PM |
As far as she is concerned, that step-dad IS her real dad And this is where the problem comes in. "As far as SHE is concerned" does not make the kid HIS. The kid has a bio dad that she should have gone after years ago for support.
I am a bit confused about what you are trying to say here, Spoken_For.
In the situation I am describing here:
- The step-dad has always acted as the real dad for this kid, for nearly five years; the whole life of the kid
- Of course for the kid, that person IS her real dad, for pretty much all intense and purposes as far as attachment is concerned,
- And the bio-mom also sees it that way.
The Bio dad, on the other hand, was never there, has never acted as a dad (neither financially nor, more importantly, emotionally). So how important exactly is it, according to you, that the bio dad shares some of his genetics with this kid? Because frankly, I don't see anything else there that he has participated in? What would make this child "his child" for the step-dad? Are you implying that this child can never, or should never be his? Are you implying that a 15 seconds ejaculation is more important for a parent-child relationship than nearly five years of caring, loving, protecting, changing diapers, teaching the world, trusting and - to put it as bluntly as I can, five years of parenting?
I have heard of women collecting support from multiple men for the same child. How do you feel about that?
I have no problem with this, personally, as long as:
a) These men are PRESENT and WANT to stay emotionnaly present in the life of that kid, and
b) They act as co-parent fully, and not just as a cash cow, and
c) The cash is for the kid's well being, not only for the mother's well being, and finally
d) The reverse is also true, when the dad has the main custody in an opposite situation.
Now of course, I realize that this law seems flawed, and that conflict arises when one parent sees this as an opportunity to use the other as a cash cow for their own benefit and yet prevent the kids from seeing the adults with whom they attached. But I don't see a problem with the principle of it, if it follows the conditions above, because in the end, it's for the well being of the kid. And SO is the importance of not cutting contact between the child and the attached adults after the adults breakup.
Have you checked into that "visitation" angle? Because in the US, child support and visitation are not mutually inclusive, they are separate court orders
I am not a lawyer. So what I think of this law may well be irrelevant to it's true application in a court of law. Nonetheless, it seems to me that:
a) In order to claim child support, the spouse that is claiming it must prove that the child is a "child of marriage". In a step-dad situation, this would then recognize the child as a "child of marriage" with the step parent, even if the parent isn't the bio parent.
b) If (a) is won by the primary custody parent, the step parent could then go to court to require visitation, because the court decision in (a) has already proven that this kid is a "child of marriage" for him/her. I cannot see the primary custody parent claiming that the step parent is not really important in the child's life, while that parent has already filed the court a motion to have the child seen as a "child of marriage" with the step parent.
So in essence, I would imagine that step (a) will basically be used by step (b). Of course, they are two separate battle in court. But that's not to say they aren't related.
Maybe one of the reason this sort of situation isn't common is that - and this is only an unverified haunch - perhaps many step-parent only really care for their $$$ and not the child. So if they are sued for child support, they may yell and curse, but they are not interested to sue back in return for visitation right, see? Now I have no scientific fact to back this up, this is only a haunch. More research would have to be done to know more about this.
IMO the only time a non-bio parent should be paying any kind of forced support is if he DID legally adopt the child.
This would be reasonable. On the other hand, I already asked here on this thread: can a step parent legally adopt a child even when the bio-dad is still alive and known? Can a child have 3 legal parents?
I think this law kicks in if a guy takes any kind of parenting role in a kids life for as little as 6 months. I think it's wrong to force someone to pay support for a kid that they've only known for such a short amount of time.
On a financial aspect, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
On an emotional basis, however, six month may just be half a toddler's whole life. It's VERY meaningful. Yet it seems pretty much all of what is presented by the typical advocates of anti-CS positions is about money and cash. What about the emotional needs of children? | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 6:48:30 PM |
This would be reasonable. On the other hand, I already asked here on this thread: can a step parent legally adopt a child even when the bio-dad is still alive and known? Can a child have 3 legal parents?
Maybe what we need here is a 'surrogate adoption' of sorts... a level of legal adoption that recognizes that there is another parent but still enshrines some rights and obligations.... | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 6:53:32 PM | I agree with you, CS (as I often do, at least to a point!  ), but, really, the emotional needs of a child of any age aren't addressed by cs payments. Are men in Canada given visitation rights to these non biological children they support? If I may say so, those who look no further than the $$ tend to do so whether the child is theirs biologically or not, and will always find reasons to justify it, always entailing blame on the other party.
Once again, I am not knowledgeable on Canadian law, but it would seem that the application of income percentage, in totality (biological parent + "real" parent) would not seem unfair in many cases, and would prevent the "windfall" of the single mom, even though I am highly suspicious that there is a plethora of single parents, anywhere in the world, attaining financial gains from having a child . On the other hand, I acknowledge and even understand the reluctance of someone to get involved with a single parent. Then again, equating every relationship to $$ could logically result in all of us remaining uninvolved forever, children aside. The simple fact that we are here would seem to prove that that is not the case for most of us.
Bottom line, we agree, more research is necessary, although not likely productive, as most won't tell the truth, in order to keep the almighty dollar. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 7:21:20 PM |
This would be reasonable. On the other hand, I already asked here on this thread: can a step parent legally adopt a child even when the bio-dad is still alive and known? Can a child have 3 legal parents?
Nope, only two parents permitted on the birth certificate.
You can bump the bio-parent off in one of two ways: 1. they agree to it and give permission to have their name deleted to make way for the non-bio parent to adopt or 2. if they are not involved and can't be found, and you make attempts to find them and serve notice... after a period of time the courts can consent to have them removed from the birth certificate, clearing the way for adoption. | |
|
My I
| | Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 97 | |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 7:39:47 PM |
Once again, I am not knowledgeable on Canadian law, but it would seem that the application of income percentage, in totality (biological parent + "real" parent) would not seem unfair in many cases, and would prevent the "windfall" of the single mom, even though I am highly suspicious that there is a plethora of single parents, anywhere in the world, attaining financial gains from having a child
A few years ago there was a Canda Supreme COurt ruling that takes into account the "role" of the non-bio father relative to child support. The ruling stated that a non-bio parent is financially responsible if a certain criteria was matched. The criteria was so simple, so basic any child can be deemed a "child of the marriage" when speaking in terms of common-law or recognized marriage certificates.
What the law refuses to do, is to limit the number of ex's a woman can acquire support from. Apparently, dumping ex's for support payments has replaced the need to have many babies to get more welfare....... welfare isn't tax free in ontario. But support is. | |
|
| |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 8:16:40 PM | I am curious, now... what is the criteria? and is the biological parent sought as a matter of law, as far as support, (akin to the US, where one can have their driver's license revoked for nonpayment)? Assuming my position in regards to a maximum amount is valid, why would the number of men involved matter? Yes, I realize that it does matter, but as a matter of $$, where the total remains the same. Would such a "cap" result in men dating only single moms who have been married, say, more than three times? Weird! As always, buyer beware!
Comment: if Canadian women dump their ex's merely for the support payments, that doesn't say much for the women of your country, who, I firmly believe, are as varied as the women from anywhere. Your assumption that this speaks to the replacement of the need to collect welfare speaks more to your personal experience & opinion than it does to the motivation to bear children. Collecting welfare is not a much sought after accomplishment for the majority, nor is raising a child on your own. I have never known anyone to get rich off of welfare, or cs, for that matter. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/12/2010 8:18:11 PM |
welfare isn't tax free in ontario
How much money does the single parent of one child have to make before they have taxable income?
Canadian Tax (Provincial amounts tend to be a bit less, but only a bit)
Personal tax exemption $10,300
Equivalent to spousal exemption 10,300
Child amount 2,089
______
$ 22,689
divide by 12 months = $1890.75
I had no idea a single parent of one child collects that on social assistance. I guess it makes sense that no body wants to work any more.  | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
