Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 106
view profile
History
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)

Well, you are entitled to that opinion, but you'll need to support the statement that are forced to do anything. Many CHOOSE to be single parents and because of their CHOICES have to do what they can, difficult as life may be, but that is NOT the same as being forced by another party.


I guess it depends on your definition of choice. I guess it is a choice to remove one's children from an abusive situation, and I suppose it could be called a choice to continue to care for them & make sacrifices in the name of their welfare. Of course, there are those whose co-parent simply disappeared, and I suppose you could call it a choice that they keep those children, put a roof over their heads, and feed them. Still, I think my point was obvious. It is, after all, a choice to become involved with children who are not yours, as well. It is also a choice to abandon them as well, but that doesn't mean that the consequences of doing so need be borne solely by those kids.

Don't get me wrong, I am far from convinced that this Canadian law is right, but I AM convinced that those who post here evidence bitterness & general disdain for the opposite gender. Truth is, I have too much on my plate to research it, but I am venturing a guess that is not nearly as prevalent as is suggested here.

MePlusTwo., while my head agrees with you, at least to an extent, I am reminded of the newsreels of several children who were torn from their "parents", for one reason or another, after it was determined that biology overrode years of a parent/child relationship. For a parent, and often a step parent, there is far more to this issue than charging cs.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 107
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 8:38:23 PM

But in the absence of that, how on earth does anyone justify this philosophy?

Actually, they can't justify it.
Those who think they are justifying it, use the child's emotions as their excuse. However, in the next breath, they claim he's not the bio-father so he has no rights except for the right to pay.
You'll also hear empty reasoning like this:

there is far more to this issue than charging cs.

But the end result is still the same = non-bio-father pays... doesn't have any rights.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 108
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 10:05:08 PM
That is unfair! I haven't read the entire thread, but I have read, and have posted, comments that is does NOT seem fair, and further that it would at least make some sense if the ex "step" had some right to continue a relationship with the child. To quote a portion of a post, completely ignoring just that point is self serving & disingenuous. This is supposed to be a discussion, not an opportunity to bash & start an argument. There IS far more to this issue, and there are plenty of us who question this end result, if it is the end result, and it is only if that is an untruth that it makes any sense at all.
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/15/2010 8:18:42 AM

****BTW capitano...just as a footnote for you personally...my cousin (a girl) was the first girl to challenge the supreme court about the rules and regulations that intitiallt disqualified her to play on a "boys" rep hockey team.....google her...Justine Blainey....
I come from the same stock....and don't accept the men in this forum spouting the men's victimhood theories....

OK, I remember this case very well. My daughter benefited from the ruling some ten years later in that she had the choice to play in boys or girls hockey. (Actually, when she started hockey, a number of girls were playing in both but now you can play in one or the other but not both).

However, you can't possibly be using this without realizing it is an example of discrimination that benefits females but not males. Girls now have the choice to play on a boys' team or a girls team while boys cannot cross over the gender line. There's reasons for it, but it IS discrimination based on sex. The only reason it is allowed is the point Capitano was making about the special status of women under the Charter.
 anonymouslyme
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 112
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/15/2010 9:33:31 AM

you women are the tool

No, sir, I believe YOU are the tool, as evidenced by every post you make to these forums.
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 115
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:39:47 PM
^^^^^ You buy your clothes in the mens wear department?????
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 116
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/15/2010 4:16:16 PM
Discrimination is when a group with the power attempts to exlude or deny a minority group because they are what they are.


Right, but, like why are women, who have the power of a governmental stamp of approval, resulting in MORE power than men, able to exclude men from their clubs, enjoy affirmative action job hiring priority while maintaining their Victim Label?

HEY! Wait a second.... besides that, aren't men the minority? Don't women make up something like 51% of the population?


Even more interesting: for the CS and parenting roles, where men are actually the minority / powerless group, mostmen will still biach against the equality sub law, not realizing it is actually in their favor this time.


Nice of you to acknowledge that men DO, in fact, have no power when it comes to family law, CS, but you seem to forget that you, like most feminists, constantly point at men as the privileged, power-hungry, power-controlling, neanderthal, oppressive, card-holding members of the mythical Patriarchy.

The bit you don't seem to realize is that courts are afraid to go against what women want or be seen as anti-female while being anti-male is good, though it's nice to see that you can at least come close to understanding something from a male perspective.

Frankly, I'm surprised.

 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 118
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/15/2010 7:22:24 PM
Geez....

... just when I thought we were getting somewhere and maybe you and I could share a nice, warm, fuzzy man-hug, you have to go and post one of the stupidest fvcking things that's ever been seen here in the fora or anywhere in any public place....

... 10-15-20 years ago, there may have been some merit and validity to the shit you posted but it just ain't relevant anymore but....

... the WORST thing is that I actually took the time to respond to each of those stupid, outdated, mamby-pamby items....

... I really need to get a life....



The Male Privilege Checklist
# 1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.


Nope.

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/term+visible+minority+become+totally+obsolete/2767856/story.html



# 2. I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true.


Nope, not at all. See #1



# 3. If I am never promoted, it's not because of my sex.


Nope. See #1.




# 4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won't be seen as a black mark against my entire sex's capabilities.


Nope. I work in a profession where you get slapped if you fvck up no matter which sex you are, though men have to keep their mouths shut and be very careful about what they say and to whom they say it. Women can do what they want and pretty well say what they want.



# 5. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.


Nope. Sexual harrassement, as defined by law, is rampant on the part of women because it's seen as "cute" and harmless. Men have to be very careful.



# 6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.


Nope.



# 7. If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.


Yup, though far more of my sex will end up in prison and be raped or killed. I WILL experience sexual harrassement at work or in my personal life.



# 8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.


I learn to fear it unless I'm the baddest motherfvcker in the neighbourhood because I'm more likely to have the shit kicked out of me because I'm male.



# 9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.


Yeah, whatever. Women constantly judge men on whether or not they've been in a long-term relationship and have kids.



# 10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.


Women do this all the time, especially when men don't pay enough money...

...do you READ the fora?



# 11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.


Oh, Christ, do you SEE women standing around praising, ooing and cooing over a new mother and giving her pats on the bum? The Mutual Admiration Society LOVES to welcome new members....




# 12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home.


Blaugh, blaugh, blaugh.... how often do women even WANT to work full-time and how often do they use kids as an excuse NOT to work full-time?



# 13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.


That's just a fvcking stupid assertion.



# 14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.


So what? Politicians, male or female, KNOW they have to kiss female ass to stay in power.

Besides that, given that 51% of the electorate is FEMALE, why the fvck don't they vote more women into power?



# 15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.


Nope.



# 16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.


I didn't have sisters, but if I had, my mom would have kicked their asses if they weren't as tough as she was.



# 17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male heroes were the default.


Have you watched TV in the past decade? It's MOSTLY geared towards females.



# 18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.


Maybe when *I* was a child, but my sons have asked me many, many times why the girls in their school are allowed to do pretty well whatever they want while the boys can't even go to the gym to shoot hoops or play floor hockey.



# 19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.


?? That just makes no sense whatsoever.



# 20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.


Are you kidding me? Newspapers and most media are all about women, their lives and how marvelous they are.



# 21. If I'm careless with my financial affairs it won't be attributed to my sex.


Are you kidding? Men are constantly vilified for their financial choices.



# 22. If I'm careless with my driving it won't be attributed to my sex.


Well, let's face it, women are scary drivers... though they are better when the put down the cell phone...



# 23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.


Gimme a break. Women LOVE standing up so everyone has to listen to what they are saying.



# 24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won't make me an object of contempt or derision.


You haven't been hanging out on fora other than the Single Parents forum, have you? Women CONSTANTLY slag men as "dog","players" etc despite finding those guys the most desireable.



# 25. There are value-neutral clothing choices available to me; it is possible for me to choose clothing that doesn't send any particular message to the world.


What a stupid fvcking thing to include. It's called Supply and Demand. If women didn't demand new and improved stuff, they wouldn't have to pay a premium for it.



# 26. My wardrobe and grooming are relatively cheap and consume little time.


Refer to #25



# 27. If I buy a new car, chances are I'll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.


There are MORE cars made for women that there are for men these days....

.... not to mention that there is inverse coorelation between the size of the woman to the size/sportiness/cost of the car....




# 28. If I'm not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.


Women are the most competitive creatures on the face of the earth. If they stopped competing with each other about how good they look, men wouldn't give a shit.



# 29. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a biatch.


Nope. Obnoxious is obnoxious whatever the sex of the person.



# 30. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called "crime" and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called "domestic violence" or "acquaintance rape," and is seen as a special interest issue.)


Give me a fvkcing break. Obviously, you aren't paying attention to domestic violence facts and stats.




# 31. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. "All men are created equal…," mailman, chairman, freshman, he.


Again.... this is fvcking ridiculous. Pay attention.



# 32. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.


Well, then labour unions need to stop looking at ways to give women extra days off each year BECAUSE of their menstual cycles and courts need to stop allowing PMS as an excuse for bad behaviour.



# 33. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if i don't change my name.


It is no longer expected.



# 34. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.


I don't see why the fvck an employer should be expected to pay for a woman's CHOICE. Men don't have that luxury, why should women?



# 35. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is usually pictured as being male.


So what? Most people in Canada don't even go to church, ever....



# 36. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.


And? So what? The vast majority of people in Canada don't even go to church or consider themselves "religious". Stupid point to bring up.



# 37. If I have a wife or girlfriend, chances are we'll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.


Well, apparently this still happens, but the men I know do at least as much in every way plus bring in most of the money.

Besides that, women love to biatch about this and I really believe they go out of their way to make sure they do more just so they can stay pissed off.



# 38. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she'll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.


Well, I can only speak for me an the people I know, but this is bullshit.

I worked one job full-time and one part-time while she stayed home. I did as much at home as she did, blaugh, blaugh, blaugh....



# 39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we'll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.


Nope, as many men find, she chooses (insists) to work part-time or not at all, or at something that ìs "fullfilling" and "meaningful" rather than something that brings money into the household.



# 40. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.


Sure, but women are the ones who are the targets of most of these adverts. WOMEN are the ones who need to stop buying into that sort of bullshit. Stop making men the villains.



# 41. I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight.


No, but I AM expected to spend my entire life bringing in 20-40% more money that my S.O. is expected to bring in....

... it's amazing how $$$ tend to reduce a man's weight and age in the eyes of many women....



# 42. If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.


Again, you don't pay attention to stats and facts that don't put women in the superior light, do you?

Have you ever met a guy who has been emotionally shit-kicked by his S.O.? It ain't pretty and it is very common.



# 43. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.


I'd contend that WOMEN LOVE to consciously and actively avoid acknowledging their "Poor me, I'm a woman so I'm a Victim" attitude than the reverse.

 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/15/2010 9:11:56 PM

Anyway - this is useless. Your lack of opening to even TRY to understand this is so flagrant it's not even worth discussing.
And then you wonder why terms like "neanderthal" comes up? Your reaction to this list of what woman must go through every day - it makes me angry, because it degrades the image of men. It is because of men like you than our ENTIRE gender is seen as so retarded and backward. You can keep your "male hug" for yourself, thank you very much.


I agree with C.S., and I would extend his comment to "what primary caregivers go through every day". I find it sad that parenting is so devalued by so many, and the evidence abounds, in our public schools & the level of violence seen among our youth.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 122
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/15/2010 9:41:03 PM


Geez... ... just when I thought we were getting somewhere and maybe you and I could share a nice, warm, fuzzy man-hug, you have to go and post one of the stupidest fvcking things that's ever been seen here in the fora or anywhere in any public place...


See, that's the problem right there. You are part of the majority in power in the North American society. It's easy to say that these are "shit" and aren't true. But it's not because you are in denial of it that it is not true. Worst, by denying this, you hinder the process of men's equality battle. You can't claim equality while not recognizing your own privileges.

I mean, seriously? Are you really THAT MUCH in denial that you can go through the 43 points and deny it ALL ?! wow. Just wow. Are you simply disingenuous, genuinely blind, or simply too dumb to look around you?


Or, maybe, just MAYBE, you and the other feminists are just so self-absorbed, myopic and self-righteous, that it's impossible for you to see that there are realities and experiences other than the ones YOU, and your ilk, have created and live...

.. I realize that some folks of the feminist persuasion feel they need to cling desperately to a reality that maintains their victimhood, but I'd really think that most of you need to step out into the world to feel truly empowered rather than keep blaming men for keeping you in the box labelled "VICTIM" that YOU choose to live in.

And, I did NOT deny all of the goofy points of your outdated list of reasons feminists feel they need to assert their victimhood. I merely pointed out how fvcking weak most of them are....

... YOU and your coffee klatch may sit around and comtemplate the superior nature of your vaginas and how herstory has portrayed the fabricated plight of womankind, but most men have been shit on at least as bad as you broads for as long as you have....

... though, I realize that's just not even possible for you to acknowledge.

Believe or not, I've known quite a number of reprobates in my life. You and women like you always make me think of the First Law of those who live less-than-honourable
lives......

... deny, deny, deny.....

Cheers.

 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 123
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/16/2010 4:49:09 AM

And it will, when men effectively stop to earn 20-40% more of $ in our society.


CS......like many other times it seems you have a very biased view yourself.

But I am in a rush as I have to get going to work....but answer me this.

Custodial fathers are more inclined to work full time as opposed to custodial mothers as the statistics show a minority of custodial mothers settling for part time work.

So are you suggesting that custodial fathers also work less to reach this utopia of equality that you seem to advocate for?

No where have I ever seen you talking about all custodial parents being finacially responsible and being required to earn their own way in life.
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 124
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/16/2010 5:31:10 AM
Why is it that women outnumber men who are graduating from universtiy.
Could it be based on the total revamping of our public schools at the expense of boys.
The sheer increase of pharmaceuticals used on boys shows just how far the "power" pendulum has swung. Is this an attempt to rid our society of men?
Based on the many female profiles, many women are a tad disapointed.
Not only has the attempt failed but it beginning to backfire.
The rates of overall violence may not have risen but the severity sure has in both boys and girls.
For the boys it is the disapearance of father due to divorce and the increase of unwed women who relagate men to funtime weekend babysitters. There is an increase in the inner cities of gang mentality as someone who understands a little about developmental psyche it is them reaching out for some semblance of family in lieu of getting that attachment at home.
Seems to me you have no idea what it's like to be a white male, all you know is what your books and fellow feminzis have told you.
Have you been married?
Been laid off?
Been divorced?
It's not that the men here don't like you, never met you. It is that from all your postings it is doubtful you have the right to call yourself a man and proceed to tell us how to be one.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 125
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/16/2010 8:16:22 AM

The article you cited only discuss the use of the term "visible minority". It does not prove ANYTHING related to how woman must work harder to reach high-powered positions in large corporations.


Geez... I made a mistake. It's very rare because I'm pretty well perfect, but even those, like me, who are close to perfection do slip.

So, here's the article that got my attention the other day.

http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Preferential+hiring+women+called+into+question/2904733/story.html

I really think it is a harbinger of things to come as more people realize that men aren't quite getting a fair shake in things....

... and, CS, while I understand you believe that females deserve special treatment, I have sons. I DO believe females should have EQUAL opportunities but, I'm concerned that my sons will never have equal opportunities because they are male, which is clearly the trend, currently....

.. I know that doesn't concern many feminists out there, but it does concern those of us who have sons.

 *MidniteBlue*
Joined: 2/28/2010
Msg: 128
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 129
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/16/2010 10:12:19 AM
Actually all grammar mistakes aside it is one of the first posts from exiled that made some sense.

It clearly states the obvious that in order for women to be successful in the corporate world they must behave much like men to achieve.
It has been proven that the approaches between the sexes is different in how they attain raises and promotions.
Squeeky wheels get the grease and men tend to be more apt to jump the gun whilst women just think someone will notice them and give them that raise/promotion.
Men know that only happens in chick flicks but women do get squeekier after the fact usually at the watercooler or at lunch.
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/16/2010 11:36:02 AM
OK, I was going to ignore this as a sidebar, but decided examining it is a useful exercise:


To prevent woman from joining the REGULAR hockey team would be discriminatory. If it had not been sexist and harassing in the FIRST place, woman would not have had to create their own woman-only team at all.

You DO realize how incredibly sexist this statement is, don’t you? LOL, girl’s can’t play hockey, eh? A girl’s hockey team is not REGULAR hockey?? I’ll get to this later.


This is *NOT* discrimination! Discrimination is when a group with the power attempts to exlude or deny a minority group because they are what they are. On the other hand, when the powerless / minority group establishes an exclysion of the power / majority group, it's a measure of PROTECTION. Not discrimination. Eventually, after a few decades, the difference in power cease to exist and then the minority group no longer needs a division for protection. It takes time.

In the first place, it IS discrimination. Discrimination to achieve a result people have decided is sufficiently positive or worthwhile to justify applying unequal measures. But let us never lose sight that "Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, not equality. For example, in Canada under employment equity, employers are permitted to discriminate against groups of people in order to bring their total number of employees into line with population norms. This is being practiced in many fields in order to increase the employment of people with disabilities.

In terms of the hockey example you've taken exception to, I am going to assume you have little knowledge of minor hockey. How much time do you figure is necessary before we declare protection is no longer necessary? Have we EVER decided protection is no longer necessary? I can't think of an example off hand - Capitano’s newspaper article is an encouraging sign. How do we balance individual rights with collective rights? I *suspect* we have been trained to go off half-cocked about discriminatory practices with the automatic assumption women need to be protected without examining if the need is still there.

THIRTY years ago, when this important case went to the Supreme Court, girls with sufficient skills were blocked from playing on boys' teams because it was written in their by-laws that it was a boy's only league. There were girl's hockey teams they could play on, but girl's hockey was not as well developed or as competitive as boys at the time and was essentially houseleague level play. This left talented girls marooned. The counter argument to that at the time was how were they going to improve the female leagues if the best players were going to ditch them for the boy's leagues? (I don't envy the crap Justine and her parents must have gone through from *both* sides of the issue thirty years ago; I imagine she was viewed as a traitor to girls hockey and an unwanted interloper in boys hockey).


For instance, women who attempted to play hockey a decade ago were harassed, sexually assaulted, and verbally degraded. And you'd find it "discriminatory" that they'd want to create their own, safe, woman-only hockey teams??? Can you see how the law subsection protects the woman who, for instance, would rather join a woman-only harassment-free hockey team?

A decade ago? Really? Times have changed and women's sport has changed in the last thirty years. We're a long ways away from when 10 year old Justine went to the Supreme Court to be allowed to play on a competitive team that *happened* to be a boys team. Unlike Justine's experience THIRTY years ago, a decade ago, boy's teams were falling all over themselves to RECRUIT my daughter. Unlike boys, she had the option to play in a co-ed environment or in a girls only environment. That my daughter opted to continue in the girls leagues was more about the social aspects of a team - it is lonely dressing by yourself in the ref's room or a washroom down the hall. Harassment, verbal or sexual abuse was *not* part of the consideration. She has gone to co-ed special skills camps without incident for over a decade.

This court issue was NEVER about creating their own safe, female only hockey teams; it was about the opportunity to play competitive hockey. Female hockey has been around for ages. Good heavens, Brampton ran their 43rd annual women's tournament with over 400 teams from multiple countries a few weeks ago. Fueled by interest in the Olympics, the numbers in women's hockey has exploded over the last decade; it is the fastest growing sport in Canada.

There ARE people in *female* hockey who will tell you the leagues have matured and developed to the point where we ought to revisit the ruling. They feel allowing girls to play on boy's teams is hurting the overall development of competitive girl's hockey. Playing on boy's teams becomes a moot point once kids hit puberty but until then it has other implications, including ice time allocation and resources. For example, if more girls were registered in girls hockey, girls teams would receive a higher proportion of ice time.

If the measure was put in place to assist talented girls when there *wasn't* a competitive female alternative, now that there are sufficiently strong girl's teams, should girls continue to have the option? Or, should a team be able to declare themselves a co-ed, boys or girls team? That is one reason why, about a decade ago, the rules changed and girl's could no longer play in both boy's and girl's hockey at the same time and had to choose one or the other.

Protection is important - it is EQUALLY important to revisit it in the future and see if continuing the protectionist discrimination is necessary.

At one time men were automatically granted custody of their children. That’s evolved and now women gain custody about 90% of the time. That’s out of whack. At one time, women who divorced were left destitute. At one time, we didn’t have the issue of blended families and 2nd and 3rd and 4th marriages. What we have now is out of whack.

Time to revisit the protectionist discrimination and see if it is still necessary or if it needs to be revised to fit the CURRENT times we live in - not what was the norm THIRTY years ago.
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 131
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/16/2010 12:14:39 PM
Great post it's margo.

Just to add to it when men were automatically awarded the children it wasn't based on who was the better parent. The fact that as stated above that women are awarded the children 90% of the time IMO isn't based on who the better parent is either.

My nephew and I were just talking a few minutes ago and he is going through a divorce. So far they are working towards an agreement that will keep them away from court and the FRO. He asked me if he got awarded the child would she have to pay me.

My answer was technically yes but in reality not likely to happen.

I wonder who is abusing a new found power.
Like margo said, it is sad that women will cling to this victim mentality.
I was born in the early sixties and I was never raised to think girls are just that girls in that they were less than boys. I've had plenty of women superiors/bosses most likely because of my industry but never gave them less respect because they were female.
While applying for jobs in my field it was never a shoe in for me to land a job merely because I was a man and that applies to retail, hospitality and customer service.
I could see maybe an advantage if perhaps I was applying for a construction job but as a white male I can tell you that many of those jobs went relatives or skilled labour from other countries.
I 've had many a female coworker that were paid the same as me, for the same job but as a male it wasn't unnatural to be a man and offer to walk them to their car or wait with them at a bus stop. As a manager it was part of my responsibility to see that the female members of my staff got home safe after closing late in the evening.

Margo is so on the money that perhaps we need to rethink and revamp our current set of laws to see if they still reflect our current state.

Just wanted to that although my mom has passed I would imagine that she would be envious of the lives that women lead now but I suspect disgusted also in how some have chosen to abuse that freedom and so-called equality.

One more thing about the FRO. My nephew also had mentioned how it was that he was brought into dealing with them in the first place. He had an agreement with baby momma two (long ugly story ) in which he paid her directly. He switched jobs and could make a payment for three weeks due to switching jobs.
There was no notice or court date just a simple filing of some papers and whammo he was in the system. There was no one in the FRO that tried to get her to wait, they merely accepted her pleas for justice and the team of provincially paid lawyers did the rest.
Try being on the other side as a payor and see just how little support or caring there is. No federally funded anything for men.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 133
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/16/2010 5:54:24 PM
The part about custodial fathers more likely to work full time is true. I am not sure what you mean about the second part about a minority of custodial mothers working part time. Are you saying a majority of custodial mothers work full time and a minority part time then? What's your point?


I earn the income because I work full time. So the earning power of men is greater because they are more willing to work full time as opposed to part time. So the point is men make more as custodial parents than custodial woman because we work longer or harder....but you want income parity between men and woman and based on this simple statistic, it seems not willing to put in the same effort?

But your simple and useless income shortfall is either corrupt or simply an extension of the grandstanding that some feminists like to use. Last time i check the union worker was paid based on the job.....but then there is the US union that got caught bending that one? CS being a staunch feminist I am sure you know that one????


Yes, men are often expected to bring more money. Well... it's because they usually do! See my #1, that you denied of course. But you are right that this is not equal and that this expectation should stop. And it will, when men effectively stop to earn 20-40% more of $ in our society.


Love a world that pays the same without having a requirement of working the same hours! Or the same income is paid for doing the same job?


I am well aware of the need for all custodial parents to be financially responsible. I am ALSO aware that when they do, often, they are stuck doing it at the expense of their children's psychological well being. I wish it wasn't the case, and this is why social programs are created, so that families in low socio-economic levels can still both be present with their kids while still manage financially.



Advantages of father custody and contact for the psychological well-being of school-age children
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 239-270
K.Clarke-Stewart


i think this is the article that might question your hasty assertion?

Really? Are you sure about that one? Now if I am not mistaken there are studies which show that children raised by custodial fathers have a more favourable or more successful result in school? Now there was in one or two studies a suggestion of why that might be based on the demographics of the majority of custodial fathers.

CS both of my children are honours.....and one has also garnered a full ride athletic scholarship. In fact over the last 2 years on the showcasing university tours i had the pleasure of meeting a few custodial fathers whose child was seemingly doing very well academically while also playing various sports at a high level?


The study also found that:


Children who live in two-parent families are more likely to get mostly A's, regardless of the level of the mothers' involvement. Children who live in single-parent families headed by fathers are twice as likely to get mostly A's if their fathers are highly involved at school, compared with those whose fathers have little (none or only one school activity) involvement.

While non-custodial fathers are less likely (only 31 percent participate in any school activity) to participate at school than custodial fathers, when they are involved, they make a difference, particularly for children in grades six and above. Their children are much more likely to get A's , enjoy school, participate in extracurricular activities and are less likely to repeat a grade.

http://nces.ed.gov/Pressrelease/father.asp

or Meyer and Garasky 1993 where research found single fathers have greater finacial resources and more likely to be employed than single mothers.





Women need MORE diplomas and studies to reach the same level in corporations and jobs than men. They may be strongly motivated to do better in studies because they are more likely to be promoted with studies; this is less the case for men. Which is, by the way, an ADVANTAGE for men, not a negative.


LOL...you must be kidding. Woman are entering universities at a higher number than men but what courses are they entering? That is the crux of the problem. My eldest was given a tour of the universities and often there were specialized tours that would not be available for men...."woman in engineering" or "woman in science and engineering" all looking for woman to enter and not stick to the traditional roles that might be less physically taxing? But the engineering careers also perhaps pay higher...so society is promoting careers to entice woman to that career choice....but being equal....I do not remember any attempt to entice the men into those same career programs? So the career choice that limits the earning power of woman is also the fault of men?

But then woman studies and woman empowerment studies are something that is very personally rewarding isn't it CS...even if it does little in terms of earning an income?

Woman entitlement is also perhaps the expectation of earning income the same as men when not having the same numbers in the finacially rewarding careers.


am also suggesting that, as a whole and in working couples, men should just as often as woman decide to be the one staying home. Or that sometimes, ideally just as often, it might be that the woman wants to keep her high-powered job (for which she has most likely worked even harder and longer than the average man)


You really need to get out in the business world or out of your academic feminist rose glasses and see some of the reality in the last 20 years. The numbers are changing and will change more as more woman make a choice to forgo family life to choose their career over a family. I made that choice myself passing on higher earnings to continue my role as a full time custodial parent.

Now a sense of privilege or entitlement....Cappy??? you still sharing custodial parenting 50/50 with your ex wife.....while paying cs...while she either is not employed or not working a full time job? Am I correct in assuming you are to start earning less to fall into line with CS ideas of men and woman earning the same overall income?

Now I realize this a little cheap in terms of an argument....but CS is equally cheap with his 40% without delving a little deeper...into why or what the degrees are in comparison to the men's degrees and the resulting income potential?


Anyway - this is useless. Your lack of opening to even TRY to understand this is so flagrant it's not even worth discussing.
And then you wonder why terms like "neanderthal" comes up? Your reaction to this list of what woman must go through every day - it makes me angry, because it degrades the image of men. It is because of men like you than our ENTIRE gender is seen as so retarded and backward. You can keep your "male hug" for yourself, thank you very much.


CS.....you on the other-hand are such an apologist towards woman. I have attempted to raise my daughters that there is nothing they cannot do if they are prepared to do what is required in terms of education and work effort. I also have suggested that never expect or look at someone else to provide for them that they are not willing to do for themselves.

 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 134
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/16/2010 6:12:53 PM
One day CS...you may experience the pain a bad relationship and having the reality of being a part time parent or every other weekend...and not having a damn thing to say or do about it. Tealwood

This made me laugh because according to a thread in the dating over thirty forum a man who is approaching forty and never been married or had kids is a little suspect.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/16/2010 9:12:24 PM
Tealwood, much of what you say is true, and I have no basis on which to judge either the effect of your parenting or your skills, but.. it is true that most often the income percentages don't change simply because a couple splits (unless, of course, one parent who didn't work enters the workforce; either way, it is very likely that that parent earns the lower percentage of total income).

What isn't true is that earning more money makes one a better parent. The more hours one works, the less hours one's children have of parenting. That's not grandstanding, it is a fact, and a logical conclusion. I work 45 hours or more each week, and I earn less than my ex, about half as much, in fact, and he works 30 hrs/wk (actually, I am certain he works 40hrs/wk, but he cut his hrs. once cs was applicable, and I have not challenged this, as, well, it isn't worth it in the long run). I accept this in order to be closer to home & able to drive my kids to school, pick my youngest up each day, attend school functions, and arrive home in time to make dinner, do homework with her, take them to their various activities & spend some time with my kids in general. Does that make me unequal, or a bad parent?

All of my kid excel in school as well, but I will readily admit that the result of not having as much time with me (or any more accessible parent, were there one) is evident in my youngest, as I was at home with others until they were her age or older. In short, she misses out, and she misses me! I miss her as well, and life is more difficult for the older ones, in many ways. To deny this effect is to do a disservice to our children. We make up for it the best we can, but to deny that it exists is foolhardy & selfish, imo. I am glad to see that you admit the impact of demographics, and I suspect there are many reasons why this study may have shown the results you mention. Still, I don't rely on studies to guage the effects on my children of having only one parent, and one who is less available than in the past, I see it every day.

You people can argue all you want, but I know, in my heart, and my daily experience that kids are better off when they have more time to spend with parents (preferably) or a parent who is available. I also know that, despite my degree and capability, I would earn more had I a penis; your stats are meaningless, I see it every single day, and have for most of my life. "Quality time" is a cop out, as far as I am concerned, simply a way to avoid guilt. Still, they must be fed. Difficult issue, but when one focuses on what's important, while remaining grounded in reality, the kids should be okay.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 136
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/16/2010 9:43:53 PM
Not to jump on the exiled "wagon", but the truly sad thing that he has a grasp on what some of us do recognize. We have lost our sense of community, the value of being content, faith in each other. Hell bent on finding someone to blame, we assault each others gender as if were a threat. We choose to close our eyes to what is right in front of us, and we have ceased to be thankful for it.

Yet, exiled, you seem to have been scarred to the point where you are more ignorant of your own words than any of us. You profess to be a nonjudgmental advocate/educator of the masses, yet you are unable to refrain from presenting yourself as a pompous azz, then sign out with a "good buddy" closing, deeming your imagined adversaries as dummies and fools. I feel for you.
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 138
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/17/2010 7:41:26 AM


(CB) Geez... ... just when I thought we were getting somewhere and maybe you and I could share a nice, warm, fuzzy man-hug, you have to go and post one of the stupidest fvcking things that's ever been seen here in the fora or anywhere in any public place...


(CS) See, that's the problem right there. You are part of the majority in power in the North American society. It's easy to say that these are "shit" and aren't true. But it's not because you are in denial of it that it is not true. Worst, by denying this, you hinder the process of men's equality battle. You can't claim equality while not recognizing your own privileges.

I mean, seriously? Are you really THAT MUCH in denial that you can go through the 43 points and deny it ALL ?! wow. Just wow. Are you simply disingenuous, genuinely blind, or simply too dumb to look around you?



(CB) Or, maybe, just MAYBE, you and the other feminists are just so self-absorbed, myopic and self-righteous, that it's impossible for you to see that there are realities and experiences other than the ones YOU, and your ilk, have created and live...


My money's on, he's just yankin' your tail...

Jack
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 139
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/17/2010 10:20:27 AM
Tealwood, much of what you say is true, and I have no basis on which to judge either the effect of your parenting or your skills, but.. it is true that most often the income percentages don't change simply because a couple splits (unless, of course, one parent who didn't work enters the workforce; either way, it is very likely that that parent earns the lower percentage of total income).


You are probably right that the income percentages do not change. One of the suggestions I have often had with my children which is opposite of my family and extended family is using a higher education for the pursuit or investment in yourself for your future earning capability...as opposed to the old philosophy of education as pursuit of knowledge or greater understanding of society which may lead to a lower ability to earn finacial rewards. Now like CS is talking about woman having degrees but not able to realize the finacial benefit what is also important is the choice of degree and choice of career orientation which he adroitly avoided or simply refused to address.

Now when you enable a segment of society to have a free pass on accepting responsibility for their choices and then expect step parents and biological parents to be paying finacial resources to support the choices the custodial parent made there seem to be something wrong or missing in terms of individual self responsibility.

Now CS talks about special rights for men in the family courts. I am not interested and would never advocate for special rights. You earn your way in life on your own merit and your own effort. I suggest simply the same expectations and responsibility from day 1 of the breakdown of the relationship. 50//50 joint parenting where both parents are required to be active and involved and no one being given leverage or manipulative powers...which was something CS was so concerned about in respect to primary custodial parents....and strangely silent about in terms of non custodial parents....hands up if anyone other than myself see his concern as always one sided?

Now when a step parent becomes involved or simply a additional adult dating the parent I would hope that being a decent and positive individual he would accept my children as his own and not treat them any different than any other child would be. But i would never expect them to become finacially responsible for them if the marriage/relationship faltered....

But say we have a consensus in society that financial responsibility should be there...CS I asked you this before...and again it seems went unanswered..

How is a step child deemed to be a finacial responsibility...as you seem to advocate...after the relationship breaks down...but never when the marriage relationship is working....instead woman indignantly suggest it is not the responsibility of the bf or new husband to be finacially responsible for the children of the first marriage!! They just change their tune after wards....??? is there not something about selective morality when you change your views in this manner?

So...CS..since you define and are supportive of

On the other hand, it seems to me that if a parent is going after child support from a step parent, then that parent implicitly recognize that this child is a "child of marriage", as in the case exposed by TW.


Is the child also a child of the marriage when they are together for the purpose of redistributing cs or finacial resources between households?


What isn't true is that earning more money makes one a better parent.


Depends on how you define being a good parent. But there are studies that show socio-economic impact of the parents in how they succeed in school and life skills. Which would and have suggested children with parents doing better which is a result of their higher education or appreciation of the importance of education and the ability to provide the support have the opportunity to succeed and do better...which then suggests that a parents earning capability does have an impact or correlation in providing for the children.

Hilton (2001) suggested that children living with single fathers exhibit fewer behavioral problems...Downy (1994) suggested that children from single father homes score higher on tests than children from single-mother homes.

Now i am not and would never suggest that fathers are capable of doing a better job....because another study showed if you removed the financial resources from the equation the numbers evened out...suggesting that finacial resources enable you to be a better parent.

But then we also have studies that have demonstrated that involved parents...fathers and mothers interact differently with their children which perhaps also have an effect on the children and their achievements or lack of achievement...

But the role of the step parent also can be influential in how children perform but the courts and society do not accept the finacial role until after the marriage fails...which I have never been able to see how the income is never allowable for consideration prior...but woman have no problem...CS included in accepting after?

Questionable or selective choice of responsibility.

45 hr work week or 9hrs a day.....school is what? 6.5hrs a day? So they are missing 2.5 hrs per day? LOL there are days my kids prefer to not see me as much as they do?

But like anything in life there is always means of doing something better.


I miss her as well
Not important and frankly who cares!


In short, she misses out, and she misses me!
Now this is important but i wonder how much the 2.5hrs really impacts the child as opposed to your perception or your belief?
There is after all 24 hrs in day less 9 hrs for sleeping...15hrs less your 9hrs of work or 6hrs per day....and your weekends....

I prefer my children also spend time with their peers? But then some parents have a need to be the central figure in their childrens lives at all times. When i was growing up I rarely saw my parents even when they were home...as i was always busy doing my own thing.


You people can argue all you want, but I know, in my heart, and my daily experience that kids are better off when they have more time to spend with parents (preferably) or a parent who is available.


Sorry but I do not agree. i suggest being active and involved with the children and being there to support them in school and their extra curricular activities is most important. I suggest your use of "know in my heart" spending time as much as possible is perhaps more for yourself than for the children.


I also know that, despite my degree and capability, I would earn more had I a penis; your stats are meaningless, I see it every single day, and have for most of my life.


I would never be so blind as to suggest that never occurs....nor would i ever suggest it does not occur because you were the wrong colour....and would never suggest that some achievements were brought about by not merit but by sexual favours.

I also have seen many in bitter comments or whines suggest the reason they were passed over was for any of the above reasons when I would never have advocated for them to be capable of doing the job. One often is grossly unable to recognize their own shortcomings or lack of ability to perform the job as opposed to perhaps the one given the job.

But to wrap this around the OP the reality is addressing the role and the position of parents both in the marriage and after the marriage. The role of custodial parent should never be weighted in any genders favour and both parents should be from day one be expected to share finacially and emotionally from day 1....and not used as a tool to block a son from changing the primary residence because of the resulting loss of cs and the parent being faced with having to actually go back to working full time.

And if you are going to support finacial responsibility for step parents you have to do it both before and after the marriage/relationship breakdown...not just when it is advantageous to you!...sorry the child...like anyone really believes that one!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 140
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/17/2010 11:11:20 PM

Now when you enable a segment of society to have a free pass on accepting responsibility for their choices and then expect step parents and biological parents to be paying finacial resources to support the choices the custodial parent made there seem to be something wrong or missing in terms of individual self responsibility.


I can only assume that the segment to which you are referring is the mom. In reality, however, the segment that shared(s) responsibility is the couple, who decided as a couple that the woman would forfeit income, years of career experience, contributions to a retirement fund, etc. Of course, they didn't call it forfeiture, they called it "best for the children", until the relationship dissolved, of course. Then you expect them to be able to earn an equal amount, while still being available to parent? Even if it were true that 50/50 parenting existed, post breakup, that doesn't happen for he majority. What is missing is the recognition of the opportunity cost (most often) to the resulting cp. It seems to be thrown to the wayside, and deemed avoidance of financial responsibility.


Depends on how you define being a good parent. But there are studies that show socio-economic impact of the parents in how they succeed in school and life skills. Which would and have suggested children with parents doing better which is a result of their higher education or appreciation of the importance of education and the ability to provide the support have the opportunity to succeed and do better...which then suggests that a parents earning capability does have an impact or correlation in providing for the children.


Absolutely agreed that all depends upon one's definition of a good parent. Most certainly, though, dollars earned do NOT define parenting in any way shape or form. Socio economic impacts stand alone as, for example, those who live in poverty are less educated, including in regards to parenting skills. They are also more likely to have children young, outside of a relationship & evidence greater likelihood of drug/alcohol problems, which result in deficient parenting skills. Still, that doesn't make the one who makes the most money a better parent, especially if they aren't around to parent in the first place! Pretty hard to be involved when you're not home.

Your citation of references isn't saying much, either. Given that it is still a minority of men who are awarded primary custody (without arguing why, as it is immaterial to this discussion), it is difficult to make accurate comparisons. More accurate to compare behavioral issues of children with two parents in the same household to those with only one. More important to ascertain why that is, than that it seems to be.

You need not think it's important that I miss my daughter, but of course it matters. There are dangers to be aware of when you miss parenting a child, and feel guilty for doing so. Extra care need be taken not to spoil them, or get so used to not being around, that you choose not to be around. I am sorry if you don't understand that, but I see it in far too many single parent households.

As far as your calculation of hours, you forgot the summer, fairly significant. I also believe that a 9 yr-old need more than 9 hours of sleep. In any case, my youngest was not yet in school at all when I returned to work. Not only that, I & many other single parents, have other children as well, and time is divided between them, including weekends, and with housework, yardwork, & other responsibilities. I even shower! Of course, my kids spend much time with their peers, as do I. I will never undervalue the importance of the time spent with my kids, nor its impact on them & their future. I am not raising my kids to believe that success is determined solely by the amount of money one's makes.

You can suspect whatever you want, but I know what I see, both in my family & in others. The age of the child matters, but there is much more to life than the cerebral. In any case, you can't give as much support to your children, in school or otherwise, if you are not there.

I agree that using a child for financial gain is wrong, and I have not supported the notion of imposing financial responsibility on a step parent. I do, however, acknowledge that it can be argued both ways, depending on the specific instance. It may be more fair to say that the role that resulted from the step parenting should continue, to the same extent. That role is not merely financial. In the US, this is not an issue, and I have no experience upon which to form an opinion. I do, however, have a stepdad, although he has passed, I was 10 when he came into my life, and he was the only father I ever knew. I do believe that he would have continued to help us out financially, had he & my mom split up, and I certainly believe that we would have continued a relationship with him. I don't think involving the courts would have been necessary, even if it were an option. He was a good man who genuinely cared for, and about us. If that seems reasonable & just, then I could agree with cs for the stepparent, but knowing how often a ncp justifies not supporting their own child to the same extent they did when they lived with them, I don't expect there will be much backing for that.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 141
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/18/2010 5:14:35 AM

I can only assume that the segment to which you are referring is the mom. In reality, however, the segment that shared(s) responsibility is the couple, who decided as a couple that the woman would forfeit income, years of career experience, contributions to a retirement fund, etc. Of course, they didn't call it forfeiture, they called it "best for the children", until the relationship dissolved, of course. Then you expect them to be able to earn an equal amount, while still being available to parent? Even if it were true that 50/50 parenting existed, post breakup, that doesn't happen for he majority. What is missing is the recognition of the opportunity cost (most often) to the resulting cp. It seems to be thrown to the wayside, and deemed avoidance of financial responsibility.


I also understand and have no issue with the process of division of assets here the pension plan is restructured or adjusted to compensate for the time that one was not contributing. Now even with my ex who was working but not working in her occupation but an occupation with animals where she derived personal satisfaction but far fewer dollars than she was capable in the career that she was capable of.

I think that for non custodial men that choice is called working below their capability and their income for cs is imputed. Why are custodial parent never accorded the same consideration and their income potential is equally required for maintaining themselves and their children.....and if not working full time...aka Lizzie...then impute their income??? Review and include in Canada the step parent's income since they are viewed and considered a family at least after marriage...aka CS who is very willing to have cs drawn from step parents after a marriage disolves lets now do it when they are married...and also since per CS he wants to have custodial time given to step parents...the cs for both non custodial parents drop since the custodial parent has the children less affording more time to work and less costs....LOL...doubt you will see much support here from the woman already not working very much as I doubt they want that to change!

Since it is all about supporting the children?


Your citation of references isn't saying much, either. Given that it is still a minority of men who are awarded primary custody (without arguing why, as it is immaterial to this discussion), it is difficult to make accurate comparisons.


LOL...actually making comparisons is very unfair....but then we have a social science academic who will probably tell you the problem in terms of the demographics of single custodial fathers....



In the US, this is not an issue,


Are we sure?




Christensen v. Christensen
In the 1991 case of JWP v. WW 255 NJS 1 (App Div 1991) the Court used the doctrine of estoppel to impose a child support obligation upon a step parent.

In an interesting side note, the Court stated that it was not ruling on the obligation of the biological father, and may well find, under appropriate circumstances, that both a biological and a step parent have concurrent child support obligations.

or

Miller v. Miller, 97 N.J. 154 (1984),

or

In Pennsylvania
Having heard the court in Clevenger, Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth ex rel Gonzalez v. Andreas, 245 Pa. Super. Ct. 307 (1976), used the legal doctrine of estoppel against a husband who accepted his wife's false statement that he had fathered a child born to her out-of wedlock, and who then supported the child.

In Johnson v. Johnson, 93 Mich. App. 415 (1970), the court ruled that since the husband-in-waiting knew the woman to be pregnant, he assumed responsibility for triggering the state's statutory presumption of paternity, theoretically cutting off recourse against the father.

In Wiese v. Wiese, 699 P. 2d 700,702 (Utah 1985), the mother never attempted to collect from the natural father, therefore estoppel was not appropriate.



One wonders if with Wiese had the mother then been collecting cs from the biological parent would they then have allowed or deemed it appropriate?


As far as your calculation of hours, you forgot the summer, fairly significant. I also believe that a 9 yr-old need more than 9 hours of sleep. In any case, my youngest was not yet in school at all when I returned to work. Not only that, I & many other single parents, have other children as well, and time is divided between them, including weekends, and with housework, yardwork, & other responsibilities.


So who suggested parenting is easy? But then advancement in the working world is also not easy and should only come to those who put in the extra effort and the extra time....not just to those who have seniority or have adorned a desk the longest.

My first few years were very difficult managing the summer and attempting to insure they spent the least amount of time in a summer program.

But assisting or doing the homework is part of being involved with your children....again nothing is easy...and nothing is perfect.

But I did all those things...as well as driving both to extra curricular activities ...which is geographically challenged due to living in a small centre.

Again I never understood it was to be easy or accommodating....it was challenging and a choice i made willingly without issue. And one actually was actually playing 3 sports at a Provincial level before I had to mandate cutting it back because I could not manage the driving and her school work was starting to suffer.


You can suspect whatever you want, but I know what I see, both in my family & in others. The age of the child matters, but there is much more to life than the cerebral. In any case, you can't give as much support to your children, in school or otherwise, if you are not there.


You also have problems giving support and finacial resources to your children if you are not working. But then that is where you expect or demand the child support? So if the father wants to move on and assist in supporting a new family...he can be hobbled by your need to be there for the children....even if you have the benefit of a new husband....

But yes having children can be daunting and it can be a challenge balancing choices.

And I made a choice to do those things...and with that choice is an easily understood reality that I am not good material for advancement beyond where i am at this time....but i could have demanded my ex step up and co parent allowing me or enabling me to be more advancement material....but i was not interested...and truth be told...without really knowing you...I doubt it was a lack of a penis....it was a lack or required commitment to the job that would have held you back that would have enabled you to work and be there for your company as well as balance or occasionally miss things with/for your children.

Career choice and personal choice ....I made mine and have no problem and do not blame others for the results.
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >