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
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 184
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of viewPage 8 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

BUT, if the mother meets a man and the three live together as a family, then the man should have the same rights and obligations as though he were the biological father, for the best interests of the child.


As I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread, single mothers should not have it both ways. While they were single mothers, they were saying loud and clear the following:

- I am NOT looking for a father for my kid(s)
- I am NOT looking for a father for my kid(s) because they already HAVE a father
- I am NOT looking for a man to pay for me OR my kids
- I AM independent, I make my own money

... so, at the end of the relationship, WHY should the guy be obligated in any way, shape or form? Mother was clearly, by her firm assertion, ALREADY looking after the "best interests of the child".

I don't think it's right to have it both ways.

 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 185
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 7:53:15 PM
Nutt

Please define what you view as oddities?

And how many awarded cs cases to step parents would you require before it is not deemed an oddity?
 ChocolateNutt
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 186
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 8:19:07 PM
well I can't imagine that being hard to understand, tealwood, but since you're having trouble: Oddities are things that do not occur often or on a regular basis, in other words they are odd, not the norm.

Of course it's unfair for a stepparent to have responsibilities but not rights. However, it's not a regular occurrence for a biological parent and a stepparent to both pay child support.

You people have become so consumed by debating irregular "issues," that you've forgot there's a whole real life actually waiting outside your computer for you. Yes, perhaps you'll end up being screwed over by a b i t c h. Lots of women get screwed over by men, too, in case you didn't already know. Welcome to life where no one's perfect and some people are downright bad.

There are no guarantees of happiness or wellness. Maybe you'll have a glass of wine and take an aspirin and be the one of the slight percentage who end up in a coma. Maybe you'll get hit by a car crossing the street at a crosswalk. Maybe lightning will strike you. Maybe you'll lose your job and suffer fear and financial stress. Maybe you'll have the fight of your life against some disease or accident.

I work in a long-term care facility where the average age is 51. Some of the residents are just elderly, some have acquired brain injuries due to alcohol or drug abuse, but MANY are my age (give or take a decade) and have been left paraplegics or quadriplegics by various accidents. There's one man in his 40s who played major league ball for Australia as well as a variety of other sports recreationally. He fell on the ice and is now operating a wheelchair using his mouth and a remote. He doesn't regret playing any of those sports even though they have directly contributed to his current life state and he's not sitting at his computer complaining about his fate.

My point is if you let fear of the negative aspects of life things deter you from being a positive person and enjoying LIFE, sure you might avoid that unpleasant situation, but there's not going to be any joy for you either. And painting every person of a gender, culture, religion, country, etc with the same brush as ONE person you've had the misfortune to encounter (or hear about) is just as unreasonable as the law you're debating.

If you want to change unfairness, get out there and lobby for equity--nothing changes by sitting at your computer bashing the female gender as all evil and out to get you. Encourage other people to join you. You have a petition to sign asking for only one parent to be sued for support at any given time or for step parents to have rights to see and care for their non-biological children, send it to me. I'd be happy to sign or even to write the letter for you as I'm quite good with words. I'm sure there are MANY other people both men and women who are willing to sign a petition or to give you a letter to send to the government as well.

Nutt
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 187
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 8:43:24 PM
I've seen the light, Hallelujah!


All I have to say, capitano, is that I understand why your wife left you.

I admit, I tend to agree with the poster who said they are happy not to live in Canada as a man, however, given the fact that the first three blurbs on the site which was referred by another poster as evidence to the fact that men are treated unfairly by Canada's system lists cases where women were required to repay undeserved cs. I believe that Nutt is correct. In America, the family court system takes each case on its merits, rightly so, even if not without error. I suspect that Canada does the same. Still, I have a problem with not providing rights hand in hand with obligations, where a parent-child relationship has been established. That defines the difference between benefiting the children & being slanted toward one gender. Are women who marry, then divorce, men with children held responsible for cs in Canada as well? Who the hell runs that country, anyway? No disrespect intended, but there seems to be no logic at all.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 188
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 8:55:27 PM
All I have to say, capitano, is that I understand why your wife left you


Absolutely....

... 'cause you, as was with her, know all, have all the answers and will brook no disagreement.

 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 190
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/24/2010 5:02:09 AM

Bottom line is I'm glad I'm not a man living in Canada.


Suggests a woman living outside of the country and a different woman replies...


Oh get a grip on yourselves. These extreme situations that are causing so much contention in these forums are oddities not the norm.



well I can't imagine that being hard to understand, tealwood, but since you're having trouble: Oddities are things that do not occur often or on a regular basis, in other words they are odd, not the norm.

Of course it's unfair for a stepparent to have responsibilities but not rights. However, it's not a regular occurrence for a biological parent and a stepparent to both pay child support.


I was just interested in understanding your interpretation as oddity? Now when you look at those who have ventured into court one must realize the others who realize the futility of going where there is already established case law established and understand they see little to no reason to pay the $25,000 ++ legal fee's to your lawyer and the fee's of your ex's lawyer after the court case determines what has been determined many times in the past.

So why not look at Saskatchewan:

Cook v. Kilduff, 2000 SKQB 347
Father pays spousal and child support..3 children one loco parentis

Engstrom v. Schmitz, 1995 CanLII 5735 (SK Q.B.)
loco parentis mother agree's in written agreement after very attractive division of family assets never to seek support for herself or the children as she would be relocating to Montana. She sells a Ranch and moves to Montana and fathers stays in touch with children. Seems she did not plan well and was unable to work while her papers were being processed and she went back looking for loco parentis...and despite the agreement...that was entered into and accepted as part of a divorce judgement...the guy is now paying

P. (F.D.) v. P. (A.J.), 1997 CanLII 11254 (SK Q.B.)
guy is paying and all he does is shoot blanks

Hysuick v. Rutledge, 2007 SKQB 244
pre trial and no mention of going to court again as he/she unable to prove loco parentis but the guy did lose and is paying spousal..so perhaps he realized the futility of further court action?


Nutt in Sask alone I can see 105 court cases? Now for Ontario I loved this one..

Goldring v. Lococo, 2002 where a gift/loan to adults was deemed loco parentis and also cited in the case

How does a person place himself in loco parentis to another? This is answered by our Court of Appeal. A father will place himself in loco parentis to his son-in-law if he acts in relationship to the son-in-law as if he were the parent, or possessed a fatherly interest in the son-in-law, and he helped in financing the son-in-law out of love or caring. If that is shown, then the advancement by the father will be presumed to be a gift to the son-in-law. Young v. Young (1958), 15 D.L.R. (2d) 138 at 139 (B.C.C.A.), (father and step-son).



So how many court cases where a step parent is paying child support...and often the relationship is fractured between the step parent and the child as part of the relationship breakdown...or it seemingly was never that close.....

How many Nutt would you like to see to suggest it is not an " oddity "....or is it just both paying child support which you suggest an oddity...which then begs the question why is the step parent paying and not the biological parent??? Or are you suggesting it okay that the mother chooses who is most likely to be required to pay the highest payment and then go after that person?

It happens more often than one would realize....not mentioning the fact that most should realize the futility of fighting a legally established principle.

Nutt....why would somone then fight since it is seemingly established as an accepted component of the family court system in Canada and knowing court costs are often assesed againts the losing particpant making him pay child support and both legal fee's?

But then I often have troubles understanding many of the issues and how the legal liabilities have been created?

Now i also would not suggest that not all woman in Canada accept the premsie that step parents should be paying child support either...but there are plenty who are there looking for what is best for the children and perhaps finacial retribution againts the ex?

As suggested by a mother seeking employment.....

BUT, if the mother meets a man and the three live together as a family, then the man should have the same rights and obligations as though he were the biological father, for the best interests of the child.


No mention of the child support that should be paid by the biological father....or the obligation of the mother to be working herself......
 ChocolateNutt
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 191
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/24/2010 7:57:37 AM
Keep crying, Tealwood, it works so well for you. Especially on a chat site that has no connection to any entity that would actually change the issues that you're crying about. Do you bring all this on potential dates with you? Now, that would be a heck of a good time.

You've entirely missed the point of all my posts.

Also, 105 cases? That is STILL peanuts. It's a small fraction of the cases where parents have split and only one has the children. There are THOUSANDS of split families or Moms that had the children by themselves in the first place. The rarity is parents staying married or in that stable relationship for life, not the people who separate.

You say it's futile to FIGHT the system in place. Well I guess that black folks in the States should have lay down to die instead of fighting for freedom and rights. I guess women shouldn't have bothered to seek the vote and to be recognized as PEOPLE rather than chattel. Oh wait, those fights did eventually pay off.

FIGHTING the system is how you change the system. Yes it is hard and usually doesn't yield immediate results. Newsflash, nothing WORTH anything is ever simple or easy. That's why you're here complaining and bashing the female gender rather than out in the real world starting petitions and writing letters and encouraging people like me and the others who've agreed the laws aren't fair to help you! You're taking the easy route rather than the productive one.

Nutt
 ChocolateNutt
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 193
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/24/2010 8:52:56 AM
Tealwood, I've been thinking about your posts and others that quote different sources you've found on the internet. It must take you quite a bit of time and forethought, and yet, the work to lobby for change doesn't appeal to you. Why is that? Is it that the potential results of hurting or embarrassing someone on a dating site is more appealing?
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 194
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/24/2010 8:57:43 AM

(ChocolateNutt) Oh get a grip on yourselves. These extreme situations that are causing so much contention in these forums are oddities not the norm.


You don't have to experience negative consequences personally to know something's a bad idea.

I've never golfed in a lightning storm, but I've heard about what's happened to those that have.

Jack
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 195
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/24/2010 10:16:37 AM
Keep crying, Tealwood, it works so well for you. Especially on a chat site that has no connection to any entity that would actually change the issues that you're crying about. Do you bring all this on potential dates with you? Now, that would be a heck of a good time.
A Nutt

Actually the same could be said for you Nutt (job) , are you to be the voice of reason here amongst the heathens. I for one truly appreciate his posts and are usually packed with evidence that make many an emotional outburst of lies look ridiculous.

This is a relatively public domain and can be referenced to by a simple hypertext link so that anyone can send any of these posts to whomever might find them of interest.

I try to reach out to my politicians to seek change and I guess the only thing you and I could agree on is that he use his powers for good instead of easily making posters here look feeble.
I think that politicians would find the forums here very informative and do not be all too surprised if someone connected to them peruses these threads.
 ChocolateNutt
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 196
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/24/2010 11:38:50 AM

I've never golfed in a lightning storm, but I've heard about what's happened to those that have


So do you avoid golfing altogether for your whole life just in case a lightning storm might come up unexpectedly -- which happens in many locations. Do you sit around ****ing about all lightning storms being bad and evil and out-to-get-you because someone was struck golfing during one?
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 197
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/24/2010 12:09:51 PM

I am suspecting the reason why most of your cases, Tealwood, are cases in which step fathers paid and had no acces, might be because all they cared was to fight so that they wouldn't have to pay; but they didn't even TRY to get acces, perhaps because they didn't feel attached to the child (which would also explain why they are so angry at the idea of paying).


While I think it's great to know that men who want access can legally gain it, I really don't see anything wrong with a guy who chooses NOT to see the kids especially if he didn't have a good relationship with them.

And, yeah, why wouldn't some guys fight in order not to pay C.S., CS? Here in BC, a guy can be found to be in an in loco parentis situation in as little a 1 year, which could mean that for that one year of "relationship", the guy could be on the hook for C.S. until the kid is 25. That just doesn't seem like such a good deal to me.

Besides that, there ARE many situations where the kids and the guy don't get along at all. As I've said earlier, women keep saying they aren't looking for fathers for their kids and don't need a man's money. I think the courts should listen to the mothers and act accordingly.

I think it's great if guys want to continue to spend time with the kids. I still see my stepson regularly. In fact, he's here more than at his mother's. But I AM glad that I only had to pay C.S. for him for a few years, especially since his mom already had a C.S. order with the bio-dad.

 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 198
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/24/2010 12:12:21 PM


(JM) I've never golfed in a lightning storm, but I've heard about what's happened to those that have


(ChocolateNutt) So do you avoid golfing altogether for your whole life just in case a lightning storm might come up unexpectedly -- which happens in many locations. Do you sit around ****ing about all lightning storms being bad and evil and out-to-get-you because someone was struck golfing during one?


Argue the point, not the metaphor; which is, that a misstep in dating a single parent can have DEVASTATING consequences.

Jack
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 201
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/25/2010 7:14:09 AM

I am suspecting the reason why most of your cases, Tealwood, are cases in which step fathers paid and had no acces, might be because all they cared was to fight so that they wouldn't have to pay; but they didn't even TRY to get acces, perhaps because they didn't feel attached to the child (which would also explain why they are so angry at the idea of paying).


That would not surprise me either. But when the child is seeing the biological father already....the every other weekend the additional time with the step parent might for the custodial parent seem a little questionable. How many of the weekends do you advocate splitting up? Biological mother is given one...biological father one and the step parent? Sounds reasonable but the biological father just lost 9 weekends because of a choice the mother made? Sounds like a great way to stay in your childs life? If that was me i would be suggesting that was unfair...but just wait,....lets suppose the fathers re-marriage also breakdown and the step mother also had a good relationship with the child....now the child is supposed to go to 4 different homes every forth weekend? CS...how are you suggesting splitting up weekends...but your scenario is simply that well worn stretch that the feminists always use that fathers abandon their children.

But perhaps you are right CS...the only reason they might want that is lower the cs....and the only reason custodial mothers fight so hard for primary custody is the child support they receive....because CS...if you want to use that as an arguement then equally the same can be suggested. And even the reason woman want to include child support for step parents is so they can double dip and collect child support from not one but two non custodial parents...as opposed to actually earning their own finacial responsibilities for their children.

So the question is how far do you slice and dice the the schedule? The reality is not every father is uninvolved in his children lives. And if the rules were different and there was no control or manipulative power granted to the a primary custodial parent i would suggest there would be fewer estranged fathers.

Also I suspect that in blended families often a large part of the problems in the breakdown of the marriage was the interaction or dynamics between the step child and the step parent.

But then I base that more on talking with individuals who have had blended families or had breakdown in blended families and overwhelmingly the reason or central factor is the step children or inability of the parents to agree on how the children from previous marriages are to be dealt with. And that problem seems to be on both sides with children from the father and or children from the mother.


It must take you quite a bit of time and forethought, and yet, the work to lobby for change doesn't appeal to you. Why is that? Is it that the potential results of hurting or embarrassing someone on a dating site is more appealing?


Early morning and the children are not yet awake. A number of the articles I have already read and or have access to. Fail to see how I have embarrassed anyone? If questioning someone arguement is the issue then you perhaps fall in line with my ex wifes reasoning in that I was to agree with everything she suggested just because that is what men do for woman.

I enjoy a little honest debate or throwing in of ideas or concepts. Would it not be a little boring if one was allowed to say or parrot outdated or feminist indoctrinated myths without being challenged on it?

Please feel free to illustrate the lack of credibility in my posts! I know Conscious Soul as little to know problem doing that as he has demonstrated in the past. I have no problem or issue with him debating or arguing points. I just feel his heavily feminist agenda is a little one sided and does not ever address or accept the womans own responsibility to accept they also have a part in where they are and cannot always blame society or the men for their plight.....but then when they fall back on the arguement where woman were 50--60 or even he has taken it back 100 years for explaining the problem.....as it relates to today.

Could one suggest that the desperate can grasp at straws?



Also, 105 cases? That is STILL peanuts. It's a small fraction of the cases where parents have split and only one has the children. There are THOUSANDS of split families or Moms that had the children by themselves in the first place. The rarity is parents staying married or in that stable relationship for life, not the people who separate.


105 cases is peanuts? In the province of Saskatechan alone....I would suggest that is a heavy statement or established level of case law. The potential of having a judge decide a case againts established legal principles is remote. So the guy gets to pay his legal fee's of $20,000 to $40,000 plus in all probability his ex's as well as he would probably get hit with costs....

Something more than a few fathers groups warn or inform newly separated fathers about.

The reality is most men do not have the finacial resources to fight for what they feel is right or what is equal. The courts are a very expensive place to venture and even if doing it on your own you face the potential of still paying legal costs when you lose...and you get your ex wifes legal bill. I would suggest that is why most men are councilled not to go to court but to try and settle. Not because it is fair or equitable but simply the overall costs and potential uphill hill battle when you are faced with a competent ex wife who has few problems to use or demonstrate she is incapable....no matter how involved you might have been as a father....you meekly go and accept joint custody and your every other weekend and every Wednesday...or 28% time with your children and pay your child support.


FIGHTING the system is how you change the system. Yes it is hard and usually doesn't yield immediate results. Newsflash, nothing WORTH anything is ever simple or easy. That's why you're here complaining and bashing the female gender rather than out in the real world starting petitions and writing letters and encouraging people like me and the others who've agreed the laws aren't fair to help you! You're taking the easy route rather than the productive one.


So why assume that "we" are not working to change the system.

At one point there was even as part of the Conservative party's platform a suggestion of shared joint custody prior to their being elected to the government but at the last minute they dropped any mention of it. Not wanting to perhaps create a lightening rod for the Liberals or the NDP jack Layton and his wife Olivia Chow a strong feminist who see the woman as always the victims...or is it they know it is the only way they might get their vote?

Now part of the problem with segments of the mens movement are the ones who whine about the breakdown of the family and woman///gays///woman///abortion///gays///lesbian////woman////

They seem to lose their focus on the thing most important. The children.

So as it happens...I do engage the MP and MPP. When there is a sponsored event there are individuals who are active and involved in trying to be heard and listened to from University professors to Senator Anne Cools. But without the funding there is a lack of recognition.

The difference perhaps is the mens groups are all simple volunteers asking to be heard and they have to go up againts the Federally funded and sponsored womans groups....
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 202
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/25/2010 11:15:53 AM

(CS) Read post #214.


D'OH!!! As of this reading, there IS no post #214 in this thread! Why don't you just stick me in a round room and tell me to sit in the corner?

Jack

(fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice... yeah, you can probably pull that one off too...)
 ChocolateNutt
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 204
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/25/2010 12:58:10 PM

While I think it's great to know that men who want access can legally gain it, I really don't see anything wrong with a guy who chooses NOT to see the kids especially if he didn't have a good relationship with them.


I agree with you totally in the case that they weren't close or didn't get along and that equally the man in the case (or woman) should no longer be financially responsible for that family.

Nutt
 ChocolateNutt
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 205
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/25/2010 1:00:09 PM

I notice you didn't bother addressing the rest of my post, about women who have chosen the single parenthood path on purpose...you also didn't address the part about how there are many men paying support, but have no "rights" to the kids in question. I find your inability to comment on either of those very telling. So maybe you should get a grip on yourself.


I already have in several past posts, dear. Go back and read them. There's no point in retyping the same information multiple times. It's a waste of my time and the other readers who have read the posts from the beginning. If anyone wants a refresher, the posts remain forever and nothing's stopping anyone from going back through all the pages.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 207
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/25/2010 7:05:30 PM

So the bottom line is this: this law was created, first and foremost, to protect the child. When it is applied, the step parent is recognized to stand in place of the parent. This, according to the law, is only supposed to happen when there is no real parent, or when the real parents "fail to provide reasonably" for child support.


Well, that may be "the bottom line" of how you interpret it, but it's not how the courts will put it into practice. The bio-dad of my stepson was and always has been very much in the picture. There was a court order in place that required him to pay C.S., but when my relationship with the ex ended, the courts had no problem with me paying as well.

The bottom line is this: I was not standing in place of a parent. I simply made more money than the other guy, so the best practice is for women to always upgrade when they get a new guy.....

.... erm... sorry... when the PARENT gets a new partner.....

 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 209
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/26/2010 3:27:32 PM
Note that this judgment was in 1984, while the jurisprudence I found regarding how this also enforces a step-parents visitation rights is from 2001. Therefore, today, this law has effective jurisprudence to grant step-fathers rights, and not only obligations.


Hmmm.... on second look, though, I notice that the link you posted brought up a Miller v Miller case from New Jersey, while your link says Chistiansen v Christiansen.

... not sure if that's a quirk of google or not....

.... but, both cases are from New Jersey. What does that have to do with Canadian Family Law or how the law is applied in Canada?

 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 211
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/26/2010 6:30:48 PM

But it's an excellent remark. Seems like Tealwood was quoting a case from New Jersey to attempt to argue with me about Canadian law. I should have seen this! Good point.

As for the Beaudry v Gillcash's case, the one I researched and exposed here as a proof that this Canadian law is, indeed, implicating both obligations and rights; it is from Winnipeg, and it applies to Canadian law.


Well, don't go patting yourself on the back too much, 'cause your citation doesn't go anywhere near explaining why it's ok to multiple dip or how C.S. can be ordered for decades after only having been found in loco parentis for months.

 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 213
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/27/2010 5:07:54 PM

Since each case is very specific, why not provide the exact case and we can look it up?


Well, I already know it happens and why it happens....

... how about YOU do a bit of searching to prove it DOESN'T happen?

Come on, prove it's a great thing.... not a money grab... I dare ya... I double dare ya...

 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 215
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/27/2010 6:11:01 PM

Why would I do this? I am not here to prove it never happens; I am not into binary thinking.


Why? Simply that you keep saying that you look for balance. That you are able to see both sides of the issue....

... and I agree that you aren't into binary thinking. You seem clearly to be into thinking in a very singular, unilateral, blindered, perhaps even myopic way.


All I am saying is that it's complicated and far from back and white.


It can be a complicated issue depending on the individual case, but the way it is applied is pretty black and white....

If you make money, if you live with someone with a child from a previous marriage for a relatively short time, if the guidelines say that what you should pay is more than what is already being paid, you will pay.

I defy you to find a published case where this is not true where some extra-ordinary circumstance does not come into play.

And, do they publish EVERY court case, or just the ones that go through the Supreme Court of a province or of Canada? I don't know. Do you know? I suspect that there are many cases that go through courts without the decisions ever being published. I certainly couldn't find mine or other people who have been to court.


You sound like an 8 years old throwing a tantrum.


... or, perhaps I have a child-like enjoyment of life and find humour in ways that you are not able. You've probably never watched "A Christmas Story", have you? Do you EVER have fun, enjoy banter, take a chance and laugh when it's inappropriate?


You have something to prove and you say you have the information?


I do have the information. I also have experience with how in loco parentis is applied because of legal precedent. I've cited some of my sources earlier in this very thread.

Furthermore, I've never in my life muddled water....

.... I've quaffed it, drunk, inhaled, puked, pissed in, squirted, swirled, slurped and even muddied it, but I've never muddled it....

 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 216
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/27/2010 8:12:19 PM

I only researched the case provided by Tealwood.
But it's an excellent remark. Seems like Tealwood was quoting a case from New Jersey to attempt to argue with me about Canadian law. I should have seen this! Good point.


I actually was responding to someone who suggested...



In the US, this is not an issue


I erroneously figured that the geography lessons in Quebec would have given one the understanding that NJ was not a Canadian Provincial court...clearly identified or Utah or even Michigan....all US based courts that have seen step parents being required to pay child support for children not biologically their own...

But i did get home late from doing duties for the children...so I will have fun later in the week.

Christensen v. Christensen
In the 1991 case of JWP v. WW 255 NJS 1

Miller v. Miller, 97 N.J.

CS.....no Canadian Provinces are identified as N.J.

http://www.saskschools.ca/~gregory/canada/facts.html
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 217
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 2/16/2012 12:43:59 PM
Yea, this is a very informational thread and these laws are certainly starting to mold society and relationships in general.

Governments and the legal system here in Canada have put forth legistlation that will ensure:

A). The government will do everything possible to ensure children of split or single parents are NOT the financial responsibility of the Government (even if that means legislation is not fair and equitable to both parties).

B). That the legal system uses this legislation as a revenue generation mechanism for the legal industry.

In my opinion, these laws go well beyond the best interests of the child and embed themselves in the very fabric of society.

It is for these kinds of laws that I do NOT consider living with my long term GF because she has kids that are under 18. The risk is simply too great. I've worked too hard to overcome the financial hit I took with my first divorce, and I simply cannot afford to endure a situation where I may have to pay again if something should go sideways with my current relationship.

Honestly, I think awareness of these kinds of laws should be brought up to anyone considering marriage or living together. I think people would certainly think twice about co-habitation if they knew what they might be in for should a relationship not work out.........
 MisterRiiight
Joined: 8/3/2011
Msg: 218
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 2/16/2012 10:25:58 PM
Since I am looking for a long-term relationship possibly leading to marriage, these laws make any woman with a child under 18 years old undateable in my book. Just another case of unintended consequences.
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >