babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Men's rights in child custody

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Men's rights in child custody
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 08 February 2005 01:25 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am taking my ex to court on Valentine's Day (some irony there) in an application to vary the child support and to ask the court to order him to pay his share of at least some of our daughter's university expenses. I am self-representing as I cannot ask my family to absorb the costs of hiring a lawyer when we have been absorbing all of the increasing costs of raising them over the past 5 years.

This has been quite the learning process. I am terrified of going into court, frankly, but other options are not available to me.

Here's the question: He and I have joint custody and guardianship of our three children. We have been apart for 7 years and, after the first 6 months, he pretty much removed himself from any kind of active parenting. Does anyone have any knowledge of how the courts treat this? I know that they cannot/will not order visitation and/or interaction upon an unwilling parent but do the courts recognize, in any way, the responsibilities of a parent in a joint custody/guardianship agreement? Or, is it only the rights that the legal system recognizes?


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 08 February 2005 01:28 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WOuld the BC legal aid system not cover the cost of a lawyer for this court session?

The idea of self representing always worries me.

Just a question from across the country.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 08 February 2005 01:31 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, they don't. The only legal aid available in family matters is where there is known violence.
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 08 February 2005 02:39 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Loretta:
I am taking my ex to court on Valentine's Day (some irony there) in an application to vary the child support and to ask the court to order him to pay his share of at least some of our daughter's university expenses.

That should be straightforward, The child support "Guidelines" are in fact binding. The only real issue is the daughter's share: how much did she save from her summer job? should she be required to take out a student loan? is this just a loan and not income, or is it fair that she should pay part of the cost by deferred payment (the student loan)? What would have happened if her parents had never separated?

quote:
Originally posted by Loretta:
Here's the question: He and I have joint custody and guardianship of our three children. We have been apart for 7 years and, after the first 6 months, he pretty much removed himself from any kind of active parenting. Does anyone have any knowledge of how the courts treat this? I know that they cannot/will not order visitation and/or interaction upon an unwilling parent but do the courts recognize, in any way, the responsibilities of a parent in a joint custody/guardianship agreement? Or, is it only the rights that the legal system recognizes?

So-called "Joint custody," and the extent of access, are irrelevant to child support, as long as they have been with you more than 60% of the time. "Shared custody" would be different, but that's not your issue.

If he wants more access he has to apply for it, or the issue will not be before the court. If the younger ones are over 10, and especially if they are over 12, the court will not normally order them to go if they don't want to.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 08 February 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The increase in child support is, indeed, straight forward. The extraordinary expenses, over and above her income, are not since they are awarded based on proportionality.

I want to know why the fact that I do 100% of the parenting doesn't factor in? Seems like it could be treated as an "in kind" contribution. I am not working so have no income (in part, due to the needs of another of our children) and thus, the court has the ability to impute an income.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 08 February 2005 10:05 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Loretta:
I am not working so have no income (in part, due to the needs of another of our children) and thus, the court has the ability to impute an income.

I doubt the court would do that if you can show you need to stay home with another child. However, if one reason you are staying home is because your new partner makes $100,000 per year and has told you "you were only making $40,000 per year, we don't need it, stay home and have my martini ready for me when I get home" then why shouldn't the court impute the $40,000 income to you, and let Mr. Martini pay it? But otherwise, why are you worried about it?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 08 February 2005 10:52 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My new partner makes enough for us to live on, if my ex pays his share and we are frugal. We have contributed to my daughter's education for 2 1/2 years and he has contributed nothing. He even went so far as to withhold a birthday gift to our daughter (even though both of the other children received money) since it fell after I initiated the application to vary. (No, gifts are not obligatory but how is she going to interpret an empty card?)

What has happened here is that I do all of the parenting and our family foots most of the bills. My ex makes considerably more than my current husband and when you add in that his new wife makes half of that again, his family (sans children) is the one making over $100,000 per year.

Lest you continue to perceive of me as a whiner, let me assure you that there is much more than I have shared on a public board. But, my underlying question remains the same. Where is the court recognition of a non-custodial parent's reponsibilities toward his/her children (most often fathers)? If I was neglectful to even one-tenth of the degree he is, I would lose all access to my children through the ministry of children and families. This neglect has created great hardship for my children and often involves more intensive parenting on my part. What the hell?

[ 08 February 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sark
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5705

posted 08 February 2005 11:09 PM      Profile for sark        Edit/Delete Post
Loretta, I just read that an Alberta judge came down with a decision that says a non-custodial parent is responsible to increase child support as soon as they know they are able to.

Check out the National Post. I just scanned the headlines.

quote:
Court to dads: pay up
Alberta case may lead to flood of retroactive obligations

Cristin Schmitz
CanWest News Service


February 8, 2005

OTTAWA - Children of divorced parents should no longer bear the burden of judges' leniency towards people who pay child support, Alberta's highest court has said in a landmark judgment that paves the way for thousands of retroactive support awards.

The Alberta Court of Appeal's unanimous ruling holds, in essence, that when the income of a person paying child support (usually a father) goes up, his obligation to pay higher support for his offspring normally kicks in at that time -- not weeks, months or years later when he either discloses his higher income to the custodial parent (usually a mother) or she finds out about it and demands more child support or applies to court for an increase.


The important consideration in your case might be that your ex's income increased but support payments did not.


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 08 February 2005 11:16 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Loretta:
Lest you continue to perceive of me as a whiner

I didn't see anyone implying that. I was trying to tell you not to worry. Although you haven't said enough for anyone to know whether your ex might have an arguable case for imputing income.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 08 February 2005 11:33 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Here's the question: He and I have joint custody and guardianship of our three children. We have been apart for 7 years and, after the first 6 months, he pretty much removed himself from any kind of active parenting. Does anyone have any knowledge of how the courts treat this? I know that they cannot/will not order visitation and/or interaction upon an unwilling parent but do the courts recognize, in any way, the responsibilities of a parent in a joint custody/guardianship agreement? Or, is it only the rights that the legal system recognizes?

If your daughter is over 18, he might not have anymore financial obligations in the matter. If your daughter applies for student loans, do they take account of his income in determining their eligibility?

I'm also afraid that even if he was found to be responsible, enforcing responsibilities are another matter.

Sorry for the depressing speculation.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 09 February 2005 12:37 AM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In order to be successful at obtaining support for an adult child, you will have to convince the court that your adult child still maintains the status of "child of the marriage" - that is Section 9 of the Child Support legislation.

There is a precedent setting case in Calgary where a father is required to pay the university costs of his 23 year old adult daughter.

This is one part of the legislation (among many) that is blatantly unfair. Nowhere in Canadian law OTHER than that for divorced parents are parents legally required to support their adult children.

As someone who worked three jobs to get her degree, I find it patently offensive that this provision even exists - your kid should support him/herself - 18 years of age means that you are an adult in this country, that is, of course, if you are an adult child of divorce.

Let the heckling begin.


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 09 February 2005 02:28 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At a recent Continuing Legal Education event in Toronto, one speaker began by waxing poetic.

He offered the following, in classic haiku format:

"My son is 30
studying astrophysics.
How long must I pay?"


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 02:31 AM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, Wilfred Day, in my emotional state, I misread your posting. I apologize.

Sillygoil, your response doesn't cut it because when my ex signed our separation agreement 5 years ago (it was not court ordered, in other words), it included a clause that he would pay support to me for the children until age 19 (the age of majority in BC) or up to age 25 if they were in full-time post-secondary education. He also signed saying that he agreed to contribute (as needed, in proportion) to their post-secondary education.

Included as well is a clause that he signed saying that he was signing the agreement of his own free will and had been given legal advice by the same lawyer that is now representing him in opposing the application. (He has hired two lawyers, in fact, rather than live up to his obligations.)

You know nothing about the circumstances that form another part of this picture. You worked three jobs, I'm rather sad that you had to do that. That's not reasonable under these circumstances (or under any, frankly) nor would it be possible. And, if we were still married, I would have been advocating for "us" to assist all of them in a reasonable way, which is nothing different from that to which he has agreed.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 09 February 2005 04:11 AM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sillygoil:
In order to be successful at obtaining support for an adult child, you will have to convince the court that your adult child still maintains the status of "child of the marriage" - that is Section 9 of the Child Support legislation.

There is a precedent setting case in Calgary where a father is required to pay the university costs of his 23 year old adult daughter.

This is one part of the legislation (among many) that is blatantly unfair. Nowhere in Canadian law OTHER than that for divorced parents are parents legally required to support their adult children.

As someone who worked three jobs to get her degree, I find it patently offensive that this provision even exists - your kid should support him/herself - 18 years of age means that you are an adult in this country, that is, of course, if you are an adult child of divorce.

Let the heckling begin.


Oh, and it will. I don't know if I should be weighing in on this, as I am the child in question... but here goes. I am not capable of holding down a job and full-time school at the same time, for medical reasons, and I can't take less than that without being cut off from student loans. Just because you are capable of something doesn't mean that everyone is.

Even outside the separation agreement, my father promised me certain things and has since completely reneged... yet he expects me (and my family) to improvise financially. It would have been something entirely different had he given me no false impressions from the start. I would have planned differently, and made different choices, keeping in mind that he would have backed down from his promises.

So yeah, offended are we both, it seems.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 09 February 2005 07:35 AM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well then to both of you, if the father has signed something stating he would provide monetary support for an adult child beyond the age of 18 then it would be something to submit in full-blown litigation.

If you are disabled and unable to work, be prepared to produce evidence to show what your disability is and how it would keep you from obtaining a student loan or employment.

No, I don't know the factors in your case, but then again, neither of you posted the details until now and I suspect that the father in this case might have a different version of events. I was speaking of the fact that as a segment of society, divorced parents (non-custodial parents) have a legal requirement to support adult children, something that non-divorced parents don't have and that is discriminatory.

Either way, it sounds like you are going to court. If you are representing yourself, it would be best to balm up on the BC Rules of Civil Procedure so that you know how to handle yourself in the court, how to present your evidence, the judge can't tell you how to do it.


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2005 10:26 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Obviously if a parent has signed an agreement then that supercedes any recent court rulings. If they agreed, on paper, to provide you with a fresh fruit basket every morning then they're on the hook for that too.

But I do find the idea that even in the absence of such an agreement a parent may simply be ordered to continue supporting a fully grown child, simply because it's more convenient for that adult than supporting themself, a little perverse. Actually, a lot perverse.

Here's my bet: while being supported like a dependent child, they still retain all the rights of an adult. Nice gig if you can get it.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 09 February 2005 10:55 AM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's an even better gig when you are like the 23 year old med school student at the U of C whose father has never missed a child support payment and still has to pay her annual university fees.

Actually, those colleagues of mine who attended university and worked three jobs look at that experience as a rite of passage, I guess nearly half the young adults out there now can just expect to get free money from their fathers (mostly)... did I mention it is tax free money?


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2005 11:01 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does it ever extend to currently-employed 37 year olds?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 09 February 2005 11:37 AM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, in theory it would - what's the difference between a 23 year old ADULT and a 37 year old ADULT other than about 14 years?

It's a nasty provision and blatantly discriminatory. The young lady in question here apparently has a disability and that's unfortunate, but scores of other people with disabilities have gone through university without having to take one of their parents to court.

Meantime, a bit more about yesterday's Alberta Appeal Court Ruling news. The judge opened the doors for floods of litigation over retroactive child support if the payor's income has increased since 1997 - but strangely, and go figure, the judge didn't say anything about retroactive repayment for those who have experienced a decline in their income since 1997 and have been paying too much.

It would be wrong for the court to allow it to be one way and not the other. Child support still remains the most litigious area of family law because at the end of the day, there are major flaws in the legislation.

Even the guy who developed the guidelines in the first place, Ross Finnie from Carleton University has indicated that the guidelines weren't intended to function in the way that they currently function.

So yes, if the guy hasn't payed - go after him. But in too many cases, there are legitimate parents (fathers) who cannot afford to go to court to get an order reduced and the courts generally won't reduce an order for support if someone has lost their job or experienced a decline in their income. The court will, however, "impute" someone's income based on what the could be earning... a purely notional concept.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: sillygoil ]


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 09 February 2005 12:06 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's an even better gig when you are like the 23 year old med school student at the U of C whose father has never missed a child support payment and still has to pay her annual university fees.

Isn't it the case that the parent only has to pay for univeristy IF it can be shown that he would've done so had the marriage stayed together? If so, then it's not really an arbitrarily placed burden, is it?


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 09 February 2005 12:11 PM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Isn't it the case that the parent only has to pay for univeristy IF it can be shown that he would've done so had the marriage stayed together? If so, then it's not really an arbitrarily placed burden, is it?

First the person wanting the money has to prove they are still a child of the marriage, in other words, totally dependent on mum and dad. Second, having to show that the parent would have done so if the marriage hadn't ended in divorce is purely speculation because in an intact marriage, the parents still have no legal requirement to pay university costs for adult children - even if they planned it. They can change their mind. That's the difference here, parents in functional marriages can pay for university costs... but they don't HAVE to. Non-custodial parents on the other hand, have no choice at all.

It's a truly godawful situation where families are still divided for YEARS after the divorce has occurred. We have children taking their parents to court for child support when they are adults, child support recipients are now entitled to go after retroactive child support back to May 1, 1997 and presumably payors can go back to court to obtain retroactive reimbursement if they had paid too much in those years... it's depressing.

But the government generates revenue from all of this - as well as the family law industry.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: sillygoil ]


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 09 February 2005 12:15 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Obviously if a parent has signed an agreement then that supercedes any recent court rulings.

No, it doesn't. The Child Support Guidelines override separation agreements. Mind you, that will make no great difference in this case since separated or divorced parents are required by law to support their children while they are enrolled in a full-time program of education. The one interesting thing in your agreement is the 25-year-old limit, which I suspect a judge would take into account although not be bound by it, but it's a pretty common age anyway.

Why is this the law, when non-separated parents do not have this obligation? Because the law requires parents to do, after a family breakdown, what they would have done voluntarily if the family was still intact. So one defence by a support payor is to produce evidence that the parents would have cut the student off even if they were still together.

quote:
courts generally won't reduce an order for support if someone has lost their job or experienced a decline in their income.

Yes they will, I see it every week, usually retroactive to the date of the change.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2005 12:19 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, it doesn't.

Fair enough. You're saying that if a parent agreed in writing, say, to provide $20,000 a year but the courts say $5,000, the previous agreement would be null?

Obviously I understand that if a parent agreed to pay $5,000, but the courts say $20,000, the courts take precedence.

But of course IANAL.

quote:
So one defence by a support payor is to produce evidence that the parents would have cut the student off even if they were still together.

I find that interesting. Why is the onus not on the person wanting the big payoff to produce the proof that their parents would have?

How can a parent "prove" that in an alternate universe where they remained married, they would not be supporting an adult?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 February 2005 12:32 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isnt there also a clause that the child has to have stayed in school the entire time but tif they have a year off, the responsbility for payment is null?

I had heard that bandied about witha lawyer here but never anywhere else (my ex-wifes battle with her first husband was over this)


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 09 February 2005 01:07 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
Isn't there also a clause that the child has to have stayed in school the entire time but if they have a year off, the responsibility for payment is null?

The Child Support Guidelines have provided enough certainty to end a lot of child support disputes, but there are still a few gray areas. That's one. It depends on the circumstances and what the judge thinks is reasonable. But the law says the responsiblity continues, so it's up to the support payor to prove he shouldn't pay much. For example, maybe the student now qualifies for full student loan without consideration of parental income, so why can't the student's contribution be 100%?

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 01:08 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Sark, for the post. I heard something about this yesterday on CBC. I believe that the Alberta decision will reduce dramatically the numbers of people forced to go unrepresented into a courtroom situation. One assumes that it will also deal with payors whose income has gone down since it's fair that the child support should reflect that if the income has gone down for legitimate reasons.

Back payments may become something I raise although my main focus is towards this academic year. I'm not trying to "drain every drop of his blood" as he once put it when I asked him to contribute to another extraordinary expense -- childcare costs -- he told me I was the one working and they were my expense. He neglected to acknowledge that I am not a glorified babysitter. I did not take him to court on that one.

The fathers who cannot pay the support amount determined by either a court process or a separation agreement have recourse to the same process I am using -- they have the right to make an application to vary the amount of child support based on a change in circumstances. As in my situation, it is not easy but it is a route available to both parties. I have spent time in a family court and the assertion that judges won't drop the amount set for a payor is wrong. I saw several child support orders reduced due to a change in financial circumstances.

However, I'm still wondering where the responsibility part kicks in. Had my ex and I stayed together, he would have been participating in raising the children and he would have been contributing to the costs of raising them as his finanicial situation improved. He has done neither. His children have been negatively affected because of these choices. As it is, he has gone on several exotic holidays, purchased new cars and a new home. He does not provide any living space for the children in that new home nor, frankly is there much space in his life for them at all. He participated in bringing them into the world, they were all "planned"...huh?

As far as proving that the payer would have payed if the marriage stayed together, that is the exact purpose of a separation agreement. It is about reaching agreement as to what the parties will do even though the marriage has ended.

The reason that I posted this topic to the feminist board is that I'm hoping to hear from those who might offer some feminist analysis around this.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 09 February 2005 01:09 PM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why is this the law, when non-separated parents do not have this obligation? Because the law requires parents to do, after a family breakdown, what they would have done voluntarily if the family was still intact. So one defence by a support payor is to produce evidence that the parents would have cut the student off even if they were still together.

This provision is purely speculative at best and you are forgetting that nowhere in Canadian law is it written that parents from non-divorced families are required to pay university costs or support their adult children.

While your assertion is correct, it misses the fact that those in an intact marriage can decide not to pay those costs and they have every legal right to do so - if you are divorced, a completely different story all together.

As far as seeing undue hardship provisions occur and a reduction in support due to a decrease in annual income, I am speaking of a cumulative case similar to what the Alberta Court ruled on.

There are major problems with the child support guidelines, not the least of which is the fact that the guideline amount produces an artificially inflated child support amount because it relies on pre-tax income - yet the actual payment comes out of post tax income. Section 7 add-ons are the most litigated area of child support at present and further entrench the litigious nature of both parties.

Shifting the tax burden from the recipient to the payor flies in the face of the Thibadeault decision in which the SCC upeheld the constitutionality of taxing child support as an income source.

Finally, the federal government generates half a billion dollars each year from the tax changes to child support - free money for the feds... and folks, THAT is why the guidelines exist. It's a huge revenue source for government.


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 09 February 2005 01:22 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sillygoil:
the federal government generates half a billion dollars each year from the tax changes to child support - free money for the feds... and folks, THAT is why the guidelines exist. It's a huge revenue source for government.

You're confusing the Guidelines with the change in the tax regime, which happened to come at the same time. While the Guidelines were under development and in unofficial use, there were two tables, one for the tax-deductible regime, another for the proposed regime. If the tax changes had not happened, we would be using the first set of tables. The purpose of the Guidelines was to replace endless costly court battles over small amounts with a new system of "average justice" -- never mind how much rent she pays, the average parent with this income spends this amount on the child, and that's what you're going to pay.

The tax change was an interesting coalition between a few "carriage-trade" feminists and the tax man. A few women who earned more than their ex wanted to avoid paying tax on their child support payments. For most women, the tax they paid was less than the tax their ex saved, so it was a good deal all round. So the big winner was indeed the tax man. The new tables were lower amounts, because they were from after-tax income, so women lost again (unless they were in high tax brackets.)

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 09 February 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The tax change was an interesting coalition between a few "carriage-trade" feminists and the tax man.

I'm not familiar with the phrase "carriage-trade". Can someone fill me in?


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 01:41 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not sure that I share the analysis of the changes to the tax system. A good friend, who was under the old system, ended up having bills to Revenue Canada into the thousands of dollars which, while she and her children lived on income assistance and child support, she had no means to pay. Several years later, she was still paying them through wage guarnishees. In theory, it sounds great to have the lower income person paying the taxes but in practice, it was an incredible burden to her.
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 09 February 2005 01:51 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sillygoil:
It's an even better gig when you are like the 23 year old med school student at the U of C whose father has never missed a child support payment and still has to pay her annual university fees.

Actually, those colleagues of mine who attended university and worked three jobs look at that experience as a rite of passage, I guess nearly half the young adults out there now can just expect to get free money from their fathers (mostly)... did I mention it is tax free money?


I worked my way through university, too, sillygoil, often working three jobs at once. Because I did, and because macaroni and I became very well-acquainted, I know better than to romanticize it as a "rite of passage". Having to budget, sure, but no way in a thousand hells do I think anybody should have to work as hard as I did, nor will I see my children do so if it is within my power to prevent it.

I saw a lot of people in my situation give up. I wanted that degree badly enough not to -- I'm also particularly bloody-minded and stubborn.

I also know that if my parents hadn't been in a very bad financial situation at the time, they would have contributed. It was an incredible blow to my father to have to watch me struggle through university and not be in a position to help. Any reasonably caring parent would contribute to his/her child's education. I also sincerely doubt that a judge will force a parent to contribute if he/she is not in a position to do so. It comes down to what is reasonable, not necessarily a double standard.

edited to add:

quote:
I'm not familiar with the phrase "carriage-trade". Can someone fill me in?

Definition: Trade from upper class customers.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 February 2005 01:58 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
no way in a thousand hells do I think anybody should have to work as hard as I did, nor will I see my children do so if it is within my power to prevent it.

Ah. The voice of civilization, at last.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 02:15 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zoot and Skdadl:

Thanks -- I really didn't anticipate having to argue the immeasurable value of receiving an education.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where did you have to argue that??
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 09 February 2005 02:27 PM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nobody is arguing about a right to education - the point being made here is that when you are 18 you are an adult now - what's that old song by that band from Edmonton called... "I'm an adult now..."

Get a job, and work your way through. No pity from me on adult children who might actually have to work their way through university.

I would love to see the government legislate parents in functional marriages on this issue. Kinda makes ya wonder why they haven't yet - maybe because it would never fly in a thousand years. The outcry from the public would be deafening.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: sillygoil ]


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 02:32 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good suggestion -- point us in the direction of securing a job that will provide adequately for a young woman with Grade 12 (plus two years undergrad) education.
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 February 2005 02:44 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Waitressing!

Which Im hearing can pay handsomely in tips and is usually flexible enough to allow for school.

Several friends of mine paid their way and more that way


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2005 02:45 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A good place to start is the university itself. The pay is typically at least reasonable, and there is often an attempt made to ensure that work schedules don't cut into classes, or that shifts can be swapped at exam time, etc.

Without knowing what your daughter is studying, what her skills are, or where she's going to school, I can't really be any more specific than that.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 02:48 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe you missed the part where Amy herself said that she is struggling with an illness that prevents her from doing this. As well, she is attending university in another community so she has the increased expenses of having to live away. There are no degree granting institutions here.

I hardly think that "waitressing" will make a dent in the $13,500 that it costs her to attend. And she herself is already taking on the maximum student loan of $9,350 per year.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 09 February 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
Really ?? sillygoil, you simply couldn't be more mistaken
quote:
I would love to see the government legislate parents in functional marriages on this issue. Kinda makes ya wonder why they haven't yet - maybe because it would never fly in a thousand years. The outcry from the public would be deafening.

Ontario Family Law Act

Obligation of parent to support child

31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.

Idem

(2) The obligation under subsection (1) does not extend to a child who is sixteen years of age or older and has withdrawn from parental control. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (2).

Obligation of child to support parent

32. Every child who is not a minor has an obligation to provide support, in accordance with need, for his or her parent who has cared for or provided support for the child, to the extent that the child is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 32.

And you see, sec. 32.? what goes around comes around

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: James ]


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 February 2005 02:58 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dont knock waitressing Loretta, its a hard job and a honurable one with the average wage with tips working out to 40-45k a year

Some make 100k but thats hardly average.


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2005 03:03 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe you missed the part where Amy herself said that she is struggling with an illness that prevents her from doing this.

Well, in my case I guess I missed the part where she said she was the child in question. Oops.

Still though, if not something demanding like waitressing, maybe working in a call centre? A help desk? Data entry?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 03:04 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not knocking serving -- I've done it myself and know how hard it is. I do doubt the income figures you've presented however and even so, someone working part-time could not hope to come near them. It is irrelevant anyway.

Amy's doctor has recommended that she not combine work and studies because of her medical situation. She can do one or the other but not manage both at this time. Her father knows this and still refuses to help her.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 February 2005 03:08 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm I missed that post by Amy too

What is she looking for a degree in?


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 09 February 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With the amount that tuitions have gone up since I left university (12 yrs ago, now), it's next to impossible to fully support yourself and go to school at the same time. Most waitresses don't make $40-45K a year, and certainly students working part time don't.

I worked night shifts in a nursing home, ran a small business and did student assistant work at the university simultaneously. I didn't sleep much, and it was really hard to maintain a decent GPA.

And if it was easy to just work your way through university, there wouldn't be such a class divide in educational levels, would there?

I'm bordering on incoherent here. This kind of over-simplistic attitude makes me really angry.
I have to question what kind of parent thinks their offspring should have to go it alone when they are capable of helping financially. IMO, not a very good one.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 February 2005 03:16 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I actually worked 5 jobs included security which involved 12-24hr shifts on the weekend and overnite shifts with very little sleep. Worked security, the track, retail at several stores and did research for pay. Graduated without a loan or debt.

It wasnt easy and my mother could not afford to help at the time. You do what you have to and many did waitressing partime and made a lot of money doing so (Im not saying waitressing at your local diner but a real restaurant)

I also ask why she is taking because that can be a selling point to the judge. Not if shes getting a philosphy or art history degree but something witha real job application after graduation can be pointed to as a example of her desire to get ahead in the world and thuys, needs the support


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 03:17 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
She's currently working on her B.A. in philosophy and plans to take the year of education training (I don't know the technical term for the program) in order to teach.
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 February 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
James. You're kidding.

Is this for real?

quote:
32. Every child who is not a minor has an obligation to provide support, in accordance with need, for his or her parent who has cared for or provided support for the child, to the extent that the child is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 32.

I'm stunned.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 09 February 2005 03:24 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seriously! And this is from a guy who had great internships during the tech boom, plus scholarship, and made a net profit during his education: no one should have to work when they are full-time studying. It's simply not fair to let people with silver spoons get away with it.

When we live in the hypothetical world where admission is only on merit and not on finances, we can talk about parents withdrawing support. That should in fact be the case, but it is not. Until then...


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 February 2005 03:25 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its real Skdadl and in fact has been used a few times. I remember a case last year of 3 kids having to chip in for their mom's bills
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 03:27 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zoot:

I think that the key phrase here is "if they are capable of helping financially". It is not unreasonable to expect my ex to assist his daughter -- we are not suggesting that he pays the full shot. It is not unreasonable to expect him to assist her while she is working through this medical situation. He is completely capable -- I'm frustrated with his abandonment of them and I'm frustrated with being forced to go to court.

My ex is the living embodiment of the guy that does everything he can to evade/avoid responsibility to their children. He is the guy that gives divorced fathers their bad reputation. Whenever I hear of fathers' rights groups, I want to scream and ask them if there are fathers' responsibility groups.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
With the amount that tuitions have gone up since I left university (12 yrs ago, now), it's next to impossible to fully support yourself and go to school at the same time.

When I was in school, my tuition was in the neighbourhood of $3500. If that were cut in half, which is a pretty substantial cut, it would have saved me $1750. I won't call that insignificant, but the reality is that that was only a very small proportion of my overall expenses.

I'd have much rather seen the cost of rent slashed in half, or the cost of film, paper, chemicals, etc., cut in half.

Saying "I can't afford school because of tuition hikes" is akin to saying "I can't afford a car since tires went up in price".


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
catje
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7841

posted 09 February 2005 03:33 PM      Profile for catje     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Loretta, Amy- I'm really sorry to hear that you're in this situation, and I wish you the best of luck with your court case. I'm not in any position to offer legal advice, or even a relevant news story, but should the case be unsuccessful, may I suggest an option 2 for funding Amy's education?

Uvic has a co-op program for every discipline on campus. If you can't work and study full time simultaneously, what about taking a few semesters out to make some money? Some of Uvic co-op's major employers are the BC and federal governments, which pay better than most part time jobs do anyway (2500 a month seems about average)and if Amy has a disability she'll probably hit the top of most government shortlists thanks to their affirmative action policies. Yes, the work term fee is ridiculous, but because you remain a student while on a work term, it all comes back in taxes.


From: lotusland | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 09 February 2005 03:36 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And I actually worked 5 jobs included security which involved 12-24hr shifts on the weekend and overnite shifts with very little sleep. Worked security, the track, retail at several stores and did research for pay. Graduated without a loan or debt.

Good for you. Here's a hero cookie, and mine's in the cupboard. Now, the real question is: Would you want your kid to have to do that?

The other trap is this: You're working your ass off at multiple jobs and continuing to bust your butt on a full load of classes. You've got a really demanding semester coming up, and you're pretty sure you can't put in all the hours at work that you currently do. Can you take out a student loan instead?

Maybe I'm out of touch, and maybe things have changed, but when I tried the above, I was told I made too much money while taking my full load, and was therefore ineligible for a full student loan for that really tough semester coming up. So while I'm glad I got out with only a very small student debt, I probably would have done better in my classes if I'd had the ability to cut back on my working hours.

That's not even the point. The point is, it's harder than it used to be. Tuitions have increased much more than the cost of living has. If you or I had to work that many jobs to make ends meet, what are the chances of a student being able to do the same now? More and more, it's an unreasonable expectation, and university education is getting further and further out of reach for a lot of people. What kind of parent wants to see their kids struggle against the kind of financial obstacles some of us have dealt with when it's within his or her power to help?


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 09 February 2005 03:42 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

When I was in school, my tuition was in the neighbourhood of $3500. If that were cut in half, which is a pretty substantial cut, it would have saved me $1750. I won't call that insignificant, but the reality is that that was only a very small proportion of my overall expenses.

I'd have much rather seen the cost of rent slashed in half, or the cost of film, paper, chemicals, etc., cut in half.

Saying "I can't afford school because of tuition hikes" is akin to saying "I can't afford a car since tires went up in price".


I think that's a little simplistic.

Full time school is a lot like a full time job. Is it reasonable for someone to have to work 3 additional part-time jobs?

Does it matter what costs are "slashed"? When there's not enough money, there's not enough money.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2005 03:53 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, if someone had refunded me half of my tuition, I'd have certainly taken it, but realistically, of the many tens of thousands I'm currently paying back, only a small part is tuition itself. Discussion of the costs of an education seem to end up framed around the latest 10% increase in tuition, but for me at least that wasn't really the big part. Fact is, if tuition were $0, I still would have had to get student loans and work while in school. Eating, roof overhead, supplies, etc... I'd still be paying those off.

If my parents lived in TO, and if I lived at home with them, it might have been different I suppose.

Another thing to note perhaps: I went back to school as a 26 year old. I'm sure that if my father had some spare cash, and I asked for a loan, he'd have considered it, but there's no way he'd have been footing the freight for me lock, stock and barrel. You're welcome to criticize that without offending me, but to be honest I don't know that I'd disagree with him. He did his years of raising a child, but now I'm an adult. If I were fresh out of highschool it may have been different.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 February 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*laughs* when I decided to do what you suggested Zoot, I was told I qualified for a $300 maximum loan.

I would definitely help my child our in university, depending on their cirriculum and certain restrictions (like maintaining a certain grade, not dropping course and sticking to a specific term not 'indefinite' schooling)


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Catje, thanks for that suggestion. It's definitely something to consider, especially if the court decision is not in our favour. I appreciate the information.

Mr. Magoo, just as the price of tires doesn't go up in isolation, nor does the price of tuition. A full time course load at UVIC in Amy's program is $4800 per year. Rents, utilities, food and books have all gone up as well.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 February 2005 03:58 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
These two posts, from Mandos and Zoot, deserve our special attention, IMHO:

quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Seriously! And this is from a guy who had great internships during the tech boom, plus scholarship, and made a net profit during his education: no one should have to work when they are full-time studying. It's simply not fair to let people with silver spoons get away with it.

When we live in the hypothetical world where admission is only on merit and not on finances, we can talk about parents withdrawing support. That should in fact be the case, but it is not. Until then...


And Zoot wrote:

quote:
And if it was easy to just work your way through university, there wouldn't be such a class divide in educational levels, would there?

I'm bordering on incoherent here. This kind of over-simplistic attitude makes me really angry.
I have to question what kind of parent thinks their offspring should have to go it alone when they are capable of helping financially. IMO, not a very good one.


Mandos, I take your point that we're not yet there, or even in sight of there. But I like Zoot's expression of the logic we should all be following:

It is greatly to be hoped, I think, that university education will, among other things, help us to break down class barriers more and more, not to reinforce them. And however inspiring individual stories of heroic commitment from working-class kids may be, it remains obviously true that raising barriers so high that you have to be a hero to get over them means that we are raising class barriers.

I've had my share of troubles too, but I have never seen the world improved by people who say, "I suffered, so you can suffer too." To me, surviving the hard stuff is worth it because it teaches you how to make things better for the next guy.

I recognize the unfairness of leaving each family to cope, from their vastly different financial situations, with the same financial burden. As Mandos says, that's not the way we want it to be. But any more socialized support is still far in the future (and in Ontario, it looks as though it's receding even further into the distance).

And if a parent can, then why wouldn't he?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 09 February 2005 04:24 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
*laughs* when I decided to do what you suggested Zoot, I was told I qualified for a $300 maximum loan.

I was in about the same boat. Made for a hellish 4 months because I couldn't not take the classes, and I couldn't cut down on my working hours and still eat. It sucked.

quote:
Discussion of the costs of an education seem to end up framed around the latest 10% increase in tuition, but for me at least that wasn't really the big part. Fact is, if tuition were $0, I still would have had to get student loans and work while in school. Eating, roof overhead, supplies, etc... I'd still be paying those off.

Maybe so. I'm not talking about the latest 10% increase, though, I'm talking about the 400%+ increase since I started school, back in 1984. Costs rose significantly while I was in school (graduated in 1992, with just shy of credits for two BFAs), which meant my working hours did, too. And yes, I think there's a big difference between an adult child fresh out of high school going in, and a self-supporting adult in their 20s. If I return to school for a graduate degree, which I hope to do someday, I wouldn't consider asking my mother to contribute.

quote:
It is greatly to be hoped, I think, that university education will, among other things, help us to break down class barriers more and more, not to reinforce them. And however inspiring individual stories of heroic commitment from working-class kids may be, it remains obviously true that raising barriers so high that you have to be a hero to get over them means that we are raising class barriers.

I've had my share of troubles too, but I have never seen the world improved by people who say, "I suffered, so you can suffer too." To me, surviving the hard stuff is worth it because it teaches you how to make things better for the next guy.


Exactly. Thanks, skdadl.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 09 February 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
Zoot; your last post ! Not wanting to nitpick, but am super curious how you managed to graduate 2 years before you started school. Whatever your secret, no doubt it could make advanced education much easier for many.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 09 February 2005 04:39 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm a time bandit.

Actually, it should have read 1992, not 1982 -- edited the post to fix my typo.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 09 February 2005 05:20 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And if a parent can, then why wouldn't he?

Exactly.

About parental support... once I have a stable job, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to help him if he needs it. I can live on a very tight buddget, and if giving him some money so that he can pay the heating bill when he's on a pension means that I can't go out for dinner or something, so what? I think there's something to be said for community/family responsibility... and just because my dad is being a jerk about it right now doesn't mean he deserves the same treatment in the future.

To answer someone's question from above... when I applied for student loans originally, the student loans people didn't even ask for my father's information, only my stepdad's info, which they orginally considered high enough to give me 2000 bucks for an entire year, until I did a rather hellish appeal. He'd moved in a year prior to me graduating (high school), and apparantly they considered him on the hook for my education costs, no matter if he can afford it.

Also, I seriously doubt that I'd be considered "disabled" by the current government standards, nor do I really see it as appropriate... but I know from preivous experience that working and going to school (full time) at the same time has fairly disasterous effects on both parts of my life, not to mention my body.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 09 February 2005 05:39 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. Money shouldn't be an obstacle to a university education, that's gotta be the bottom line.

And I think to do it properly it's got to be treated full time like a job, so having to work at the same time is not a good idea, at the beginning at any rate.

And, even without fulltime study its hard enough to find work.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 09 February 2005 05:44 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1 comment for Bacchus: Choice of curriculum or degree is not a relevant distinction. Philosophy is equally valuable to many of the useless BSci. degrees I see out there, in fact more so.

Few employers actually give an arse what the degree is in, they just like to see a degree.

I went back to University in my later 20s, and aside from a small inheritance that helped with tuition, I paid my own way. I was very fortunate to have an extremely lucrative summer job, however (a product of the years previous to my schooling).

My parents were zeroing in on retirement at the time, so I didn't feel right asking them for money (so I didn't). That being said, I can't imagine not helping my kid through school - if I could afford it.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 February 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh Im not disputing it arborman, my degree is in History actually so Im aware of that. I was rather thinking of the 'perception' which can be manipulated in your favour. A judge may for example, think working for a law degree more deserving of help than a arts history degree.
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 February 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can one enrol in law school without a BA first?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 February 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, you can. If you have completed a minimum of the first two years of your BA with really good marks, and you get a good score on the LSAT, you can apply for law school, and you might be accepted.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 February 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmmn. It's a thought.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 09 February 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
James wrote:

quote:
Obligation of parent to support child

31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.


This section of the act is never invoked and at no time is it a matter of public policy anywhere in Canada for anyone other than divorced parents to compel them to support adult children.


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 09 February 2005 06:10 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't it sometimes hard to get financial assistance to go to school if one of your parents has money, even if they're not prepared to let you use any of that money?
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 09 February 2005 06:15 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Isn't it sometimes hard to get financial assistance to go to school if one of your parents has money, even if they're not prepared to let you use any of that money?

Yes. Also, if they live within a 20 km radius of your financial institution, your allowable living expenses are docked -- if they're that close and you've left home less than so many years ago (3, if I remember correctly), theoretically, you could live at home while you go to school, so you are eligible for a lesser amoun on your student loan.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 09 February 2005 06:18 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. In BC if your parents make above a certain amount (how much depends on the family, but typically in the neighborhood of 60,000$) then the student loan people designate you and your parents as the ones who should be providing. A friend of mine is constantly threatened by her parents... If you don't do [blank] then we won't pay your tuition! If her parents withhold money, she doesn't qualify for student loans because they make too much, AND even if she did qualify, they would have to sign the paperwork in order for her to get the money.

In other words, the BC Student Assistance Program uses that section as a guiding principle in how they hand out money.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 07:39 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was worried that getting into the details would obfuscate the original question and it has. Back to try again -- how is it OK for one parent (in this case and in most, the father) to abdicate, not just financially, without penalty?

Counsellors of all types and fathers' right groups argue that children need two parents. There are numerous reasons that this is argued but there seems to be some agreement. That doesn't mean that one parent can't be effective in raising children nor does it mean that same-sex families cannot be good parents. What it seems to indicate is that "it takes a village" - children need love and support from the adults that surround them. If a significant adult, i.e. a father with whom a child has spent many years, chooses to remove himself, what impact does that have on a child's well-being? Harm is being done but there is no way to make him (or her, should that be the case) accountable.

Second, my ex and I agreed to raise children together. The ending of our marriage does not undo the commitment we made to them, neither should it remove either parent from the commitment to each other in terms of raising children. This is a violation of an agreement, albeit tacit, as big in magnitude to any business contract but what can be done to address this?

I am not a free 24/7 babysitter and yet the current situation and social climate permit me to be treated as such by my ex. Don't get me wrong, I love my kids but this is not a reasonable expectation -- respite is a recognized need of all caregivers. Three and a half years went by without much in the way of hands-on support and I would still be in that situation (working full-time and single-handedly raising three children) were it not for the arrival of my present partner into my life.

How many women are stuck in this kind of cycle? I can tell all of you that if I was still doing what I did for three and a half years, I would have neither the money nor the energy to bring him into court concerning his financial obligations so he'd be getting away with that, too.

We are disposable people who are just getting in the way of wealth acquisition. I'd much rather see my children's father spending time with them than have the "opportunity" (because of his increased income made possible by abandoning his children) to sue for an increase in child support.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 09 February 2005 09:29 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
Loretta, while it is relatively easy for the courts and enforcement agencies to order and enforce child financial support oblibations, I know of no way that the more intangible aspects of parenthood can be "enforced". How do you dictate "emotional support" ?

As far as the 'access" thing being not only a "right" (which it is not), I have been involved in agreements and court orders that provided that if the non-custodial parent declined or "failed to show for an access period" they would be responsible for any child care costs incurred by the custodial parent during that time.

God, I hate family law.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 09 February 2005 09:49 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks James. I don't blame you for hating family law. It's so fraught with emotional issues and is so complex.

I realize that there is no way to "dictate" emotional support. I guess that with this situation pending, one that I do not want to deal with, it reminds me of the degree of powerlessness that I have. I watch my children get hurt time and time again and can do little to stop it.

It also serves me right in a way. Although I had engaged the services of a lawyer and that was her recommendation, if I knew then what I know now (about family law), I would never have agreed to joint custody. It implies some level of participation by both parties and that was something that was promised directly to my children and to me. It implies, to the uninitiated, that there is a reasonable expectation that both parties will do their best to respond to the best interests of the children. Joint custody is meaningless when one party does not engage.

Just had this thought although it's offered somewhat tongue in cheek: Perhaps just a those who abuse physically often are ordered to attend violence reduction groups (I don't know what they're called), those who abandon need to be ordered into counselling. Obviously, some old wounding is going on there...

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 09 February 2005 09:52 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Loretta:
I'd much rather see my children's father spending time with them

There are all kinds of parents. That's what makes it so interesting. At one extreme is a father who has quit seeing his children and asks their step-father to please adopt them, promising to pay all the legal costs and pay a termination settlement of a year's support, because his children mean nothing to him but a financial drain. At the other extreme is a single father whose ex-wife died, who is so possessive and bitter that he won't let the child see his grandmother or older siblings. Families come in all shapes and sizes. The remarkable thing is that most children survive quite well.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 09 February 2005 10:30 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And I actually worked 5 jobs included security which involved 12-24hr shifts on the weekend and overnite shifts with very little sleep. Worked security, the track, retail at several stores and did research for pay. Graduated without a loan or debt.

I worked 10 jobs, including the 46hr weekend shift (all nights!), arms in water full of dead fish jobs, prostitution, the slaughterhouse, and dietary assistant at a senior's centre.

i finished school with three million dollars in the bank and now i make 85 grand a year as a forger of "lost" poems by 10th century latvian master poets.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 February 2005 10:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Hmmn. It's a thought.

Oh sure, it's a thought. Don't think I don't think it every other day. I'd give just about anything to go to law school. I have the first and second year marks, and I could probably get the LSAT score. But law school tuition is about ten grand a year. And then there are living expenses on top of that. And you can't work full-time while you're in law school, contrary to the beliefs of a certain couple of superheroes in this thread.

And I can't afford NOT to work full-time. I can't afford to give up the job I have now, which has a pleasant work environment, a liveable although not very high wage, and benefits. I have student loans to pay off, child-support to pay, and a roof to keep over my head that's big enough for myself and my son when he is here for the summer and school breaks.

I just can't afford the living expenses and tuition, and keep up with my financial responsibilities as a supporting parent (which I'm not complaining about at all, btw - I am happy to pay child support, and I will be happy to contribute as much as I can towards my son's education when he gets to university age). I think law school will just have to wait for another 10-15 years, until the munchkin is grown up. I've known a couple of people who got law degrees during their middle age, as a second career. I can do that too, if I still want to by then.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 10 February 2005 12:03 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
Hey, at least write the LSAT and put in the apps. Nothing to lose, and if you do well enough on LSAT, you could get a "full ride" scholarship. We'd all come to visit you at Harvard.

And even though I have elsewhere here denigrated againt "LSAT Preparation", as a twice successful candidate, I'd be happy to provide some coaching.

You Go, Girl


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 10 February 2005 12:16 AM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The remarkable thing is that most children survive quite well.

I agree however I'd add that those who survive quite well when parents don't endeavour to engage in healthy ways (that covers a whole range of things), do so because there are other resource people upon whom they can draw. Children with more supports (friends, families, teachers, coaches, etc) within their sphere stand a better chance of dealing with adversity successfully than one with few.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 February 2005 10:14 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by thwap:

I worked 10 jobs, including the 46hr weekend shift (all nights!), arms in water full of dead fish jobs, prostitution, the slaughterhouse, and dietary assistant at a senior's centre.

i finished school with three million dollars in the bank and now i make 85 grand a year as a forger of "lost" poems by 10th century latvian master poets.



From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 February 2005 11:04 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I missed that post!

Add my


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 10 February 2005 11:06 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 February 2005 11:22 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Luxury!!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 February 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, dear -- that made me choke on my half a handful of freezing cold gravel.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 10 February 2005 11:43 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've got a lump of cold poison if you're still hungry.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 10 February 2005 11:44 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You think you've got problems--I'm in Yorkshire right now! They're all around me!
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 February 2005 11:44 AM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
thwap if that was a joke then

If that was one of your "oh a internet anecdote claim must be false" then fuck you


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 10 February 2005 12:07 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 10 February 2005 12:07 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
"Fuck Me"?? ... Fuck YOU!!!

Actually, I did doubt the truth of your claims, and being able to type out words conveying indignation is not proof of their veracity.

But if your claims are true, I have a number of things to say:

1.) Please accept my apologies for doubting, and my admiration for your achievement.

2.) I'm still leery of people using their individual triumphs over adversity as an apologia for any unfair status-quo.
I'm familiar with hundreds of rags-to-riches stories, and we can with no great difficulty, find thousands of hardworking poor people who have made something of themselves while others sank into despondent apathy, or dependence.

But such tales do not validate the social-economic system that was 19th-century capitalism, or what are 21st-century India, or Brazil, or South Korea, today.

There are some very talented people who are frustrated by adversity, not honed by it.

I think this is pertinent to this thread.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 February 2005 12:18 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why thank you Thwap. A well reasoned and thought out reply (well except for the first line)

My point was a response to those that say it cannot be done because it can but never did I state that everyone can and should be able to do it. I did and I was lucky to be able to do so. I prob should have added that I lived rent free at home at the time and that of course included food and other expenses like phone etc.

I can understand being leery when someone always seems to trot out some life experience that argues against a thread, but I dont do that and never have and was reacting to you because it is the second time I have related something from my life and you reacted in that way. Its hard to type a coherent response when i jsut see red and think "fuck you" so its a pretty adequate response


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 10 February 2005 12:41 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus: I prob should have added that I lived rent free at home at the time and that of course included food and other expenses like phone etc.
Hilarious! Really, bravo! Just a minor detail, eh? Do carry on...

From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 February 2005 12:45 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm well it was somewhat of a minor detail. All the money I made did not go solely to tution and books so I could have used it for living in residence, I jsut preferred not to and spent the extra money on a car
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 10 February 2005 01:00 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hoo! It gets better! Horatio Alger, step aside! Preferred not to live in residence! Extra money! A car! Maybe it's best to leave out all those minor details when you tell your tale to the young. They're so cynical these days.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 February 2005 01:02 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
uh yeah right bittersweet

I hardly think a old chevette was "rolling in dough" and I was very shy at that time and still in a depression so being in residence scared me to death. But I could have done it. At the time it was about 2k for residence and that included food (though at the time york really only had cafeterias, no fast food joints and stuff like they have now)


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 10 February 2005 01:16 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, it's been suggested that I wear pink and bring chocolate hearts to pass around in the courtroom. What do you think?

From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 10 February 2005 01:28 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
and was reacting to you because it is the second time I have related something from my life and you reacted in that way.

when was the first time? you can pm me if you wish.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 10 February 2005 02:14 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I prob should have added that I lived rent free at home at the time and that of course included food and other expenses like phone etc.

Not to denigrate your hard work, which is obvious, but it's not such a minor detail, really -- I didn't live at home after the first year of school. That meant a lot more work. I suppose I could have continued to live with my parents, but had I gone to university in another city and lived in residence, the cost of my wee bachelor apt. would have been about the same. Anyway, paying the overhead of roof, food and utilities makes a rather large difference in how manageable going to school is.

I won't cast stones about the car, though -- depending on where you are, a car can be a necessity. It's more of one here in Regina, for example, where the transit system is terrible, and was even worse 20 yrs ago as opposed to a city like Vancouver or Toronto, which has a well-developed transit system. Then again, I couldn't have afforded to live in either of those cities while I went to school, car notwithstanding.

Of course, licensing a beater in Sask. is fairly inexpensive. My car made it possible to get from one job to another to school, while the bus wouldn't have.

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 February 2005 02:24 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm still leery of people using their individual triumphs over adversity as an apologia for any unfair status-quo.

If nothing else, these anecdotes should at least soften the language from "It can't be done" to "It's difficult".

If you were to claim that "nobody could possibly swim across the English Channel", the inevitable response would be "Yes, it's possible, all these people have done it..."

That doesn't mean that any one of us, today, could go swim the English Channel, but it does suggest that if you really want to badly enough, it's possible. And it certainly proves it's not impossible, as the original claim may suggest.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 10 February 2005 02:41 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
it does suggest that if you really want to badly enough, it's possible.

No, what it suggests is that some people are able to overcome the obstacles, perhaps that some people have fewer to overcome, perhaps that some have more external supports than others. The strength of one's convictions can only carry one so far.

Sorry, but that statement is akin to someone being told that their prayers don't work because they don't have enough faith.

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 10 February 2005 02:52 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When someone says their "point was a response to those that say it cannot be done because it can," that point had first of all better be a response to anything actually said, and second, not owe its impact mainly to omitted context. 'Cause, you know, otherwise there's a chance it'll look slightly pompous.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 February 2005 03:06 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then someone should read it again since its 'context' was a response to a previous poster and was a " id did this but so waht, whats yer point" kind of post
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 10 February 2005 03:26 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That would be me, and what I said was this:

quote:
With the amount that tuitions have gone up since I left university (12 yrs ago, now), it's next to impossible to fully support yourself and go to school at the same time. Most waitresses don't make $40-45K a year, and certainly students working part time don't.
I worked night shifts in a nursing home, ran a small business and did student assistant work at the university simultaneously. I didn't sleep much, and it was really hard to maintain a decent GPA.

Note, please, that I prefaced my "I did it" with the fact that tuitions have gone up since I completed my degree, and that it is next to impossible NOW. I believe I also said "fully support yourself", which was NOT your situation -- hence bittersweet's quibble with context.

Boil my comment down to "I did it a long time ago, it was extremely hard then, and it's even harder now", and you'll be giving a more accurate picture of what you're responding to.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 February 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank zoot. amuch nicer way to put it without simply sweeping away everything because I left out a detail. I detail I will repeat I could still have made it without if I had too. Luckily I didnt

I was not trying to be pompous about it and letting me live rent free was my mothers way of supporting me as best as she was able. It was certainly more than a lot of people get and less than others.


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 10 February 2005 03:46 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't have a problem with that, Bacchus. It's just that old farts like you and I were facing a different reality back in the '80s -- it was cheaper to go to school then.

I'm teaching a university course right now, and I see students in my class who are struggling and some who aren't. I'd like to see a day where your academic ability, and not your ability to pay, is the primary reason you get to go to university.

Meanwhile, I've got RESPs started for both the wild grils.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 10 February 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I was one of those who wasn't able to overcome the obstacles that presented themselves when I wanted to attend post-secondary (late '70s). As such, I'm only too aware of the opportunities not available to me and will do my damnedest to ensure that any child of mine wanting to go beyond highschool will be able to do so. Hence, Monday...
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 February 2005 03:56 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*grins* good point. The golden days so to speak. When I was at York a full semester was about $1600 when I started and about $2100 when i finished in 88. With a few hundred more in books and supplies.
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 February 2005 03:57 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good luck on monday Loretta!
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 10 February 2005 04:02 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, best of luck, Loretta!

Bacchus, U of R was cheaper than York. One of four reasons I decided to stay here to go to school -- cheaper tuitions, lower rents/cost of living, connections for jobs through friends and family, and a decent fine arts faculty.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 February 2005 04:06 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, Loretta: do you have a little pink something you can toss on?

I like the chocolate idea, too. Knock 'em dead, gril.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 10 February 2005 06:16 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd love to have the nerve to do it. I don't have pink anything and I'd worry that the judge would consider me less than serious if I took chocolates into the courtroom. It's fun to imagine, though.

Thanks to all of you for the discussion and to those who expressed your encouragement.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 February 2005 08:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think you're right, Loretta. It's a gamble whether you'd pull it off, and this is too serious an issue to gamble over.

I wish you the best of luck, and you too, Amy.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 11 February 2005 03:14 AM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Michelle.

I've been thinking about the challenge presented by Sillygoil about the law requiring parents to assist financially with education costs. She suggested that the whole thing is discriminatory because the reality is that only divorced parents get hit with this.

You're right, Sillygoil, I'm not familiar with an "intact" family facing this issue, although I wouldn't rule out that an adult child has attempted to do so. However, I would say that has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with relationship. In a family that is living together, regardless of the state of it, there are still relationships at play where even when a child needs that kind of support, they probably aren't willing to alienate a parent to get it.

By contrast, in a divorced family where people are deeply estranged, there is no risk of losing a relationship that doesn't exist. My ex has already withdrawn from the kids -- there is nothing left to lose. He's responsible for the choices that led him there and thus, I guess, in a roundabout way, this has answered my initial question. What goes around, comes around, so to speak. The court process itself and whatever comes out of that will be where he faces his choices, unspoken or not.

Thanks, Sillygoil.

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 12 February 2005 10:34 AM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again, as I mentioned earlier, if the guy hasn't paid a cent then go after him. This might be the situation in your case and there is ample case law to support your daughter's claim for support.... consider it "compensatory" for when he wasn't paying.

That being said, the overwhelming majority of non-custodial parents pay support on time and in full. And as a matter of fairness, there is no national public policy requiring parents who are married to support adult children - there is, however, a policy as it relates to divorced parents and that creates two classes of parents. It is wrong, unfair and unjust.

Let me break it down further -

My husband is a non-custodial parent. He is legally required to support his adult child in her post secondary pursuits (when she turns 18 - she is only 7). We both have a son who is 2. Neither of us is required under law to pay for his post secondary education.

Quite the contradiction, wouldn't you agree?

So I wait with bated breath for an NDP member to introduce a private member's bill in the House of Commons that for legislation requiring married parents to support adult children in their post secondary educational pursuits. Better still, let's have ANY party introduce legislation and we will see how quickly the public responds.

I am inclined to think that any such legislation wouldn't get past the first vote in the house.

I also eagerly anticipate the NDP or another party or even the various Student's associations across Canada to begin vigorous lobbying for this kind of legislation. They are (and others on this board) quick to point out the high cost of tuition, well, here is an EXCELLENT opportunity for activists to lobby government. Yes, parents want to help their kids go to university, but MANY cannot afford the cost of it. Many non-custodial parents cannot afford the cost either, but there is a legal remedy for children of divorced parents. The law can force an NCP to pay for post secondary education.

So let's make married parents pay for their children's post secondary education. Let's enshrine this as a matter of public policy and enact legislation in the fall sitting of the house.

Any takers?

[ 12 February 2005: Message edited by: sillygoil ]

[ 12 February 2005: Message edited by: sillygoil ]


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 February 2005 10:47 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
MANY cannot afford the cost of it.

But surely, if this is the issue -- and I know it is -- then this is the issue that the NDP and student organizations should be addressing.

I am failing to see that it is constructive to get different sets of people, all of whom are struggling with scarcity, to fight amongst themselves.

Why don't we go after the root of the problem? For most working parents, paying for post-secondary education is crushing; and for most young individuals, putting themselves through school by working part-time is also so crushing that most will be or become discouraged and drop out.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 12 February 2005 11:50 AM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are many sources of the problem regarding access to post secondary education. I am speaking specifically of a discriminatory policy, one I might add, that was advocated for vigorously by women's organizations when they were pushing for new child support legislation.

The basis for this discrimination? A change in family status - that's it, and that's all.

I understand the challenges associated with accessing affordable post secondary education. I understand that it seems unfair that young people often have to work three jobs to get through university, but it has been that way for many moons. My mother and father who are in their late 60's put themselves through university back in the 1950's. They worked various jobs to do it. They did it because they were now legal adults.

Emphasis on the term "adult".

So, again, I waite with bated breath for a political party, various student's associations, etc, to vigorously lobby for the same legal requirement that divorced parents face to be extended to ALL parents.

I might even knit a pair of socks from the cobwebs that form around the newsclippings I will collect from the plethora of news stories about this new great intitiative that is about to be undertaken while I wait for the NDP, women's organizations, student's associations.....


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 February 2005 12:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry, but I'm still not grasping what you're after, sillygoil.

Even before we have managed to challenge current barriers to universal access, you still want to see poor people who can't afford to send their kids to university forced to send their kids to university?

I know that divorce impoverishes many people. Would a non-custodial parent earning a poverty-level income still be forced to pay for her/his child's university education?

I thought that these things were being done by ability to pay. Someone has said above that any student's eligibility for financial assistance will indeed be measured against parents' income. I happen to think that that is wrong, but it would appear to be a counter to your argument that intact families do not face these challenges too.

So I am still failing to grasp what you are aiming to change for the better.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 February 2005 12:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think she made herself pretty clear. She doesn't think rules should be different for divorced/married parents. Divorced parents who support their children are forced to pay for their adult children's post-secondary education. Married parents who support their children are not forced to do so.

Sure, there are lots of systemic problems with financial access to education, and I agree that needs work. But that's not what sillygoil is addressing. She's saying it's discriminatory to force divorced parents to pay for what married parents don't have to. I can see her point, and I agree with it.

Personally, I think tuition should be free. But until educational utopia comes, I think parents should be treated equally without regards to marital status. That includes the right to accept or refuse to pay for your adult child's post-secondary education. Of course, I think very poorly of any parent who can afford to pay for their child's education and refuses to do so, whether they are married or not. But this is a question of discrimination against divorced parents.

I personally don't think I should have to pay child support to my ex-husband when my son is 22 years old just because he's in university. If anything, once my son turns 18, I should be able to pay that money directly to my SON and support his education that way.

However, I think I should also have the right, which I would never exercise unless I couldn't afford it, to not pay for my adult child's education as an adult if I would have had that right had I stayed married. From the way I understand it (and I might be wrong), the supporting parent pays the money to the custodial parent even if the child is an adult, as long as the adult child is living at home. I don't agree with that.

Even if you COULD justify forcing a divorced parent to support an adult child (despite the fact that a married parent doesn't have to if they don't want to), I can't see how paying the support to the other parent once the child is an adult. The whole point of paying support to the custodial parent is that it is assumed that the money is the child's money, and that the custodial parent is accepting control of that money on behalf of their minor child, to use in any way they see fit to spend it. Once the child is no longer a minor, however, then I think that reasoning for giving it to the custodial parent becomes invalid.

[ 12 February 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 February 2005 12:22 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm still asking, sincerely: how, in practice, are there two different systems?

If a child applies for financial assistance and that assistance is tied to parents' income, intact or divorced or not, how are there two different systems? I don't see that.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 February 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't see how I can explain it more clearly. Parents who are divorced are forced to support their adult children as long as they're in school. Parents who are married are not forced to support their adult children as long as they're in school. That's all sillygoil is talking about.

The fact that financial assistance for adults is attached to parental income really sucks, I agree, and you're right, it's attached to parental income whether the child's parents are divorced or married. That has nothing to do with what sillygoil is talking about.

[ 12 February 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 February 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But it appears that married parents are, no? Or, if not forced, at least the kid is forced to go back to them and say, "Unless you pay your portion, I can't go."

At the same time, I'd like to know: if a divorced parent is living at the poverty line, how can s/he be "forced" to put anyone through university?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 February 2005 12:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, married parents are NOT forced to pay for their child's education. The child can go to them all they want and say "I can't go if you don't pay." That still doesn't OBLIGATE the parent to pay legally.

Whereas a divorced supporting parent IS forced to do so, by family law. The supporting parent can be taken to court and forced to pay for it. I think that's wrong, and discriminatory, since they wouldn't be legally obligated to pay if they were married.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 12 February 2005 12:42 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it's not any student... I think it's something similar to the provincial guidelines for income assistance (ie: lived away from home and self-supporting for two years, unless there are extenuating circumstances). But yes Sillygoil, if you live in BC and the regulations haven't changed by then, your family income will be the determining factor in whether or not your son can get a student loan if he goes right into university (*heaven forbid* he can't work 3 part time jobs while doing a full course load)

Anyway, I think the reason that the NDP does not want to foist the financial responsibility of supporting children in university onto non-divorced parents is twofold. 1) They think that post-secondary education should be universally accessible. 2) Separation agreements and child support/education support in the case of divorced parents is usually decided by lawyers in consultation with the parents involved and/or judges. In either case, all relevant information regarding parents' ability to pay will be submitted in the process. That would not be the case if it were a universal thing.

Like my mum said, if there was any relationship whatsoever left with my father, I would not have permitted her to follow through with this court case. Then again, if there was a relationship left with him, his priorities would obviously be different.

Also, you keep on saying something that just isn't true. The law can only force the NCP to "pay for a child's education" (it's usually something more like "contribute after the child's earnings) IF the NCP has enough income to be considered capable of doing so.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 12 February 2005 12:45 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Parents who are married are not forced to support their adult children as long as they're in school. That's all sillygoil is talking about.

And on that, she is wrong, as the legislation referrenced above shows. True, it isn't often resorted to in situations of intact relationships because it means the young person taking court action against the parents. But certainly it's there for anyone who needs or wishes to use it. So I am baffled by sillygoil's constant going on about "they's never pass such legislation".


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 February 2005 12:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Amy: so it is IF the NCP has the income to contribute.

Two things, then: while, in effect, children of either sort of marriage are pretty much in the same situation (financial aid is tied to parents' income), the law is technically discriminatory in not forcing still-married middle-class people to care about their children while it does try to make middle-class divorced people do that.

sillygoil wants a law saying that all middle-class people, married, single, or divorced, should be forced to contribute proportionally to their children's PSE. Is that right?

I suppose that I could support such a correction of the law if a realistic income level were defined. But to me, such a correction would definitely be a bit of retrograde patching-up of a system that is already seriously corrupt and discriminatory. Why would the NDP waste time on such a campaign?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 February 2005 01:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by James:
And on that, she is wrong, as the legislation referrenced above shows. True, it isn't often resorted to in situations of intact relationships because it means the young person taking court action against the parents. But certainly it's there for anyone who needs or wishes to use it. So I am baffled by sillygoil's constant going on about "they's never pass such legislation".

Actually, if that's the case, then I'm okay with that, too. I have long thought that as long as student loan rules are the way they are (that parents' income is taken into account whether or not they are able to support their children), that adult children should be able to sue their parents for support through post-secondary if their parents can afford it. I mean, hell, if we let spouses sue their exes for alimony based on the fact that they have always been supported by their ex, then we should allow adult children to sue their parents for support until they're finished their education.

If nothing else, then at least it would put political pressure on elected officials to change the rules for student loans so that adults do not have their parents' income taken into account when it comes to eligibility for student loans.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 February 2005 01:13 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, like you, I went back to school after I'd been out for a number of years. That was back in the early seventies, though, and no one asked me about my parents' income. When you went back, were you asked?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 12 February 2005 01:19 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That was back in the early seventies, though, and no one asked me about my parents' income. When you went back, were you asked?

I went back to do an undergrad degree at age 29 (early 90s). As I remember it, the student-loan policy was that if you'd graduated high school more than four years previously, your family's income wasn't taken into account. But at this point I don't remember whether that was Canada Student Loan, or BC Student Loan policy.

[edit]

Whichever it was, I got both Canada and BC student loans, and never had to answer a question about my family's income.

[ 12 February 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 12 February 2005 01:35 PM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm still asking, sincerely: how, in practice, are there two different systems?

I will try to simplify my assertion that this is a discriminatory policy.

The Ontario lesilation does indeed contain a provision whereby adult children can receive income support from parents, however, it is a RARELY used bit of legislation and it is not on par with the provisions that were established when Bill C-41 was enacted into law.

C-41 contains provisions where a non-custodial parent is forced to pay for the education of their ADULT child to their former spouse. That payment can also come under the auspices of provincial maitenance enforcement policy.

So, there are systemic mechanisms established to ensure the collection of support for adult children of divorced parents, but there are no similar mechanisms in Canada for children of married parents. Moreover, the Ontario legislation is PROVINCIAL and child support is governed by FEDERAL law... therefore, there is no FEDERAL requirement for married parents to support their adult children.

It is discrimination based on marital status and this flies in the face of federal and provincial human rights legislation.

Thank you Michelle for clarifying things. As a divorced parent, you understand what I am trying to put forward here.

So, if students want to solve the problem of obtaining funding for access to higher education, perhaps they should begin to seek that funding from their married parents. We already have a mechanism in place that is enshrined in federal law to ensure that divorced parents have to pay....

it's discriminatory.

I should also add that I am all in favor of eliminating the systemic barriers to higher learning, but even if we were to miraculously achieve that goal, there is still a discriminatory federal law that creates two classes of parents based entirely on their marital status.

I can see this issue from both sides. As a married parent and as a spouse of a non-custodial parent.

It is blatantly discriminatory.

[ 12 February 2005: Message edited by: sillygoil ]


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 February 2005 01:52 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
but even if we were to miraculously achieve that goal, there is still a discriminatory federal law that creates two classes of parents based entirely on their marital status.

How so, if paying for PSE were suddenly taken out of the calculations?

I mean, except in the sense that married and divorced couples are, by definition, two different categories?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 12 February 2005 01:57 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sillygoil:

Moreover, the Ontario legislation is PROVINCIAL and child support is governed by FEDERAL law...


Not quite so. The federal child support provisions apply only in the context of a Divorce proceeding. In the break-down of a common-law relationship, the Provincial Family Law Act, and the provisions I cited are the only ones that are relevant. (I do note that the province has adopted use of the Fed. Guidlines by Regulation for determining quantum in such cases.)

quote:
therefore, there is no FEDERAL requirement for married parents to support their adult children.

Nor could there ever be, without a constitutional amendment. The Constitution act gives the provinces exlusive juristicion over property rights and civil rights, except where specific powers are preserved to the Federal government. Divorce is one of those specific areas. Relationships between common-law couples, "civil unions", and between parents and children are not. So any Federal law that purported to do what you ask would be ultra vires. It is an area of provincial jurisdictiom. Hence the Ontario provisions.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 12 February 2005 03:43 PM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nor could there ever be, without a constitutional amendment. The Constitution act gives the provinces exlusive juristicion over property rights and civil rights, except where specific powers are preserved to the Federal government. Divorce is one of those specific areas. Relationships between common-law couples, "civil unions", and between parents and children are not. So any Federal law that purported to do what you ask would be ultra vires. It is an area of provincial jurisdictiom. Hence the Ontario provisions

It is a federal law that has provincial enforcement mechanisms, it's one of those nice little ditties the feds hand over to the provinces to enforce. Regardless, it is an inescapable fact that the Child Support legislation creates two classes of parents. Married parents have no legal requirement to support adult children and there is no provincial enforcement mechanism or system of mechanisms designed to enforce monetary support of adult children - there is, however, a legal requirement for divorced parents and the powers of the state are there to back it up.

That is discrimination based on marital status.


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 February 2005 03:52 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sillygoil, may I ask: given a choice, would you prefer to see all parents legally required to see their children through PSE (given the restrictions detailed above), or would you prefer to have that requirement lifted from the non-custodial parents?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 12 February 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My preference would be to have it lifted as there would be as much chance of resurrecting the dead as there would be in creating a similar legislative based/enforcement based process to ensure that married parents pay the cost of adult education for their children beyond age 18.
From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 February 2005 04:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Michelle, like you, I went back to school after I'd been out for a number of years. That was back in the early seventies, though, and no one asked me about my parents' income. When you went back, were you asked?

No, but that's irrelevant. We were talking about parents who are supporting adult children (in other words, kids who are going straight from high school into post-secondary).

I would actually like to see it made mandatory for parents above a certain income to be compelled to support their children through post-secondary education, if their kids go straight from high school to post-secondary. (If the kid decides to work and becomes self-supporting, then they're on their own, I guess - I didn't expect my parents to pay for my university when I went back at age 27.)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 February 2005 04:15 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My preference would be to have it lifted too -- once we cock a snoot at Bob Rae and start fighting for free post-secondary tuition for all who qualify.

There is an interesting column by Murray Campbell in today's Grope about how economically practical free tuition would be, in spite of Rae's recommendations. (No, I won't link to the Grope, but it is easy to find online.)

Until then, however, given that, as Campbell tells us, 70 per cent of jobs available in Canada now require some PSE, I find it odd that parents would not want to do as much as they can to get their children fully qualified.

I write also as a second wife, sillygoil. When I first became entangled with my husband, he was putting two "adult" children through university, and our combined income was never much more than about $40,000 (1980s). But that's the way it was, and I wouldn't have thought to question his commitment to his children.

And I must say, twenty years later, I know how wonderfully that commitment has paid off in many ways. It hasn't been a benefit only to the kids, although it definitely was that. But what price do we put on a sincere struggle to keep the lines of communication open, even as the family unit has come apart?

I repeat: I do not think that the current system is just, but my main objection to it is that it sets up class barriers -- the poorer you or your family are, the higher the barriers.

However, even in the context of an unjust system, how could anyone wish to encourage a parent to break ties with his children? That may happen for other reasons (some children turn out to be dorks), but what parent would not want at least to try?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 12 February 2005 05:33 PM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that the entire family law system is designed to break ties with the family... this form of discrimination is just one in a long list of public policy/legislative issues that divides husband against wife, child against parent. At the same time, there is something sinister about legislating a requirement for one group of adults (parents) to support another group of adults (children). While I understand that a variety of taxes are put forward into a variety of social programs and there is an indirect "collective" support system in place that we all contribute to, when it comes to determining a parent's financial commitment to their children, in my view, that commitment ends at age 18.
From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 12 February 2005 10:00 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
Can someone explain away the seeming paradox?

quote:
Originally posted by sillygoil:
I think that the entire family law system is designed to break ties with the family... a long list of public policy/legislative issues that divides husband against wife, child against parent.
... a lament that any policy might work to diminish long-term and intergenerational family bonds.

And yet, from the same post ...

quote:
a parent's financial commitment to their children, in my view, that commitment ends at age 18.
... seemingly a declaration that "age of majority and you're on your own.

The latter sentiment goes against everything that I understand the extended family to be, that I will forever be, to the extent possible, responsible for the material, psychological and spiritual well-being of my parents, my children, my siblings, my nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles. Likewise, they for me.

If true socialism cannot find expression within the family, then its difficult to understand how it could work in a larger context.

And btw, since your children are legally obligated to support you, as possible and if required, how can it be right that your obligation to them ends at age 18?


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 13 February 2005 12:21 AM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And btw, since your children are legally obligated to support you, as possible and if required, how can it be right that your obligation to them ends at age 18?

Paradox be damned. Children might be required to support parents *let's call it payback* but your comparison is moot because financial support of adult children of divorce is backed up/enforced by legislative and sytemic mechanisms to ensure it is payed. Moreover, it is also a matter of known public policy... no such similar legislative and systemic mechanism exists for children to support their parents or married parents to support their adult children.

The difference here is that marital status is the only thing that has changed and real legal mechanisms exist to ensure that the support is paid to an adult child - it doesn't exist for the group you have mentioned or for married parents.

So, yes - once you are 18, you are on your own IF you are a child of a married family. It's also a reasonable expectation to want your children to move out, get a job, get on with their lives separate of their parents.

As mentioned a jillion times already - it is discrimination based on marital status and it is an established fact - show me similar mechanisms to force married parents to support their adult children or adult children to support their parents that has the same teeth as the mechanisms that force divorced parents into a separate category.

You can't... know why? Cuz they don't exist.

quote:
... seemingly a declaration that "age of majority and you're on your own.

The latter sentiment goes against everything that I understand the extended family to be, that I will forever be, to the extent possible, responsible for the material, psychological and spiritual well-being of my parents, my children, my siblings, my nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles. Likewise, they for me.


It may very well go against what many people believe the extended family to be, but as a group, divorced parents are singled out by virtue of a change in their family status.

The government has selected this group and this group alone to target in this area as a matter of public policy. The legislation should be amended to remove this discriminatory practice or new legislation should be introduced in the House to bring married families in line with what is happening to divorced families. Anything less is systemic wholesale discrimination based on marital status.

So James, do you think that legislation should be enacted to bring married families in line with what is happening to divorced families? Are you prepared to support legislation that would force parents from intact marriages to support their adult children with the same kind of teeth in terms of enforcement mechanisms currently experienced by divorced parents?

[ 13 February 2005: Message edited by: sillygoil ]


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 13 February 2005 12:30 AM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's the survival of the fittest mantra, under a different guise.

If there were the numbers of children of "intact" families proceding to court to sue a parent who wasn't living up to their financial obligations where they are able, then there probably would be a mechanism introduced to deal with that.

I wouldn't be too sure about the children paying for parents -- I think there might be a process here in BC for the adult children with parents in long-term care, etc. I'll check into that when I'm finished with the court thing.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 13 February 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Loretta:

The very existence of the child support legislation provides the basis for this systemic form of discrimination. There are PLENTY of parents in functional marriage who don't provide adequate support for their children, but they are not targetted by legislation nor is there a mechanism with all of the enforcement that the state can offer similar to that which exists under the child support law.

I am not arguing your daughter's lack of entitlement to financial support from her father if he is indeed a deadbeat dad - if anything he should be paying.

What I am talking about are two classes of parents , one issue - access to post secondary education - and one class of parents (divorced) who are required by law to support adult children of the marriage.

The system stinks.


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 13 February 2005 02:17 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sillygoil:
That is discrimination based on marital status.

That's why the Ontario Child Support Guidelines and other provisions are the same as the federal ones, so that children of unmarried parents and married parents are treated the same.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 13 February 2005 07:40 AM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They are not treated the same because it isn't a matter of public policy in Ontario to pursue child support for adult children of intact marriages.
From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 February 2005 07:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sillygoil:
The very existence of the child support legislation provides the basis for this systemic form of discrimination. There are PLENTY of parents in functional marriage who don't provide adequate support for their children, but they are not targetted by legislation nor is there a mechanism with all of the enforcement that the state can offer similar to that which exists under the child support law.

This is where you lose me completely. I am completely in support of child support legislation when it comes to minor children, and I say that as a supporting parent. It is NOT a form of discrimination to expect the non-custodial parent to financially support the child. The reason there isn't the same enforcement for parents within marriages to provide support for their children, and for divorced non-custodial parents to provide support is because divorced non-custodial parents have been the ones who have been most likely to completely abandon their financial responsibilities toward their children.

Also, there ARE enforcements in place for parents in functional marriages who do not provide adequately for their children. If the child is being neglected or abused, the CAS can intervene. However, people in functional marriages are already providing a home and food and whatever else they see fit for their children. All child support does is to ensure that a parent who ISN'T living in the same household as the child, is contributing financially to the child's household, something that they would be doing by definition if it was their own household as well.

I can't imagine what would happen if child support legislation were scrapped. Well, actually, yes, I can imagine. It would be terrible. But yes, I'm sure there are lots of non-custodial parents and their spouses who would party if that were to happen.

I personally appreciate the legislation, and I also appreciate the child support guidelines, because it takes the guesswork out of "how much is fair" when it comes to how much I, as a supporting parent, should be paying based on my income.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 13 February 2005 11:15 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
I am sorely tempted to give up. sigh.
quote:
Originally posted by sillygoil:
...it isn't a matter of public policy in Ontario to pursue child support for adult children of intact marriages.

So apparently the way to discern "public policy" is not to look at enacted legislation, or decided court decisions, or the experience of family law practitioners, but rather unsubstantiated declarations of one whining silly goil.

Never mind that the enforcement provision and mechanism,

Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act applies equally and in exactly the same compulsory manner to any family support order, be it former-spouse "alimony" or an adult student's right to parental financial support, or an impoverished's parent's right to support from her children. Never mind that the delinquent "payor" in any of those, and other situations is automatically subject to the very same legislated "enforcement" provisions and penalties; (yes, Mr. Yuppie, the "Director" will seize and sell your SUV if you don't comply with a court order to support your indigent mother), just take it as a declared "matter of faith" from someone with an obvious "axe to grind" that such reality is "not public policy". What bullshit !. It is public policy, and it is good and progressive social policy.

quote:
So James, do you think that legislation should be enacted to bring married families in line with what is happening to divorced families? Are you prepared to support legislation that would force parents from intact marriages to support their adult children with the same kind of teeth in terms of enforcement mechanisms currently experienced by divorced parents?

Absolutely, I support such legislation, and would lobby for it anywhere that it doesn't already exist. As repeatedly pointed out here, it does exist, and I wholeheartly support it.

What I do wish is that more people who could and should use the legislation would do so, and that it was better publicized. That would better reinforce in the social concience the absolute tenet of morality, that absent clear repudiation family responsibility is forever.

Share that sentiment or not, it is the law. Get used to it and get over it.

[ 13 February 2005: Message edited by: James ]


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 13 February 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And hope to god/ess that you're never in the position of needing to use it.
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884

posted 13 February 2005 09:42 PM      Profile for sillygoil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First off, there has never been an epidemic of non-payment of child support in Canada. This was confirmed by the federal justice department itself (Carolina Giliberti) and reported on in the Toronto Star back in 1996. So, statistically speaking, child support enforcement legislation isn't really needed at all - let me rephrase that, it should only be mandatory for cases where there is a proven history of willful non-payment of support.

James has mentioned ad-nauseum, the Ontario legislation and I will try to simplify my position on this further.. I wish I could draw pictures on here...

a) Ontario is the only province with such legislation so the practice is discriminatory in the rest of the country

b) Even with Ontario's legislation, there has never been the political will to force *emphasize* force married parents to support adult children anywhere in Canada.

c) Non-custodial parents are pursued exclusively by the state enforcement mechanisms, it is reported on regularly in the news media.

d) We don't see anything from political leaders or the news media about forcing married parents onto an enforcement program or to compel that group to financially support adult children.

Now, why is that?

The only reason is because it is a discriminatory practice and it would be political suicide to suddenly target married parents to financially support their adult children in their post secondary educational pursuits.

Even the NDP - long time advocates of mandatory child support enforcement, are utterly silent on the issue of married parents being forced to support their adult children.

When the state and legislation begins to compel married parents to support adult children, then it won't be discriminatory - it's as simple as that folks.


From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 13 February 2005 10:30 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
Damn ! I did say that I was sorely tempted to "give up". I won't do so, because to me it is important that children, young adults, the elderly, and the "still-relationshiped" parents of children know their rights, and if necessary exercise them.

Government policy, as interpretted by any poster goil here be damned. Government policy is expressed through legislation. So -

quote:
there has never been the political will to force *emphasize* force married parents to support adult children[

A meaningless statement. The will to do so is expressed through the legislation clearly set out above. The enforcement provisions are "blind" as between separated parents, divorced parents, together parents independent children, dependant parents, you name the combination. That said, "enforcement only can happen when there is an "order" to enforce. When spouses separate or divorce, the matter pretty much automatically comes before the court, and the court and state exercise their parens patriae jurisdiction to ensure that any order that issues protects the intrests of the children. "Intact" family units are far less likely to come under court or government scutiny, so it is far less likely that there are support orders to be enforced in those cases.

With parents who are able, but unwilling to fund their childrens' higher education, I think that should change.How do we accomplish that ? Send an auditor to the home of every child nearing the end of secondary education ? That would be one way. Or, we can simply broadcast it far and wide "Yes, kids, your parents are obligated by law to pay for your higher education. If they won't call this toll free number ....". I prefer the latter. That is what I am doing on this thread. That is what I am fighting for.

I admit I haven't fully researched the legislation of other provinces. If they are so backward that they have not yet pased similar legislation, shame on them. Inevitably, they catch up in time.

And sillygoil, I think we agree: that every parent who is able should fund their child's higher education, and that every adult child should financially support their aged parent. That those are basic human obligations. You think that those obligations are discriminately enforced by law depending on status and jurisdiction. You may be right on that. It does not change the principle.

c) Non-custodial parents are pursued exclusively by the state enforcement mechanisms, it is reported on regularly in the news media.

d) We don't see anything from political leaders or the news media about forcing married parents onto an enforcement program or to compel that group to financially support adult children.

Now, why is


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 February 2005 11:44 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Should children be required to support parents who refused to finance their post-secondary education?
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 14 February 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
No, I think probably not; not if the parent was able to do so and refused. Note the above posted legislation, which I reproduce here -

quote:
32. Every child who is not a minor has an obligation to provide support, in accordance with need, for his or her parent who has cared for or provided support for the child, to the extent that the child is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 32.

I think that there is no doubt that a court would weigh and consider the degree to which the parent had provided what "support" was feasible against the present circumstances, and make an equitable decision.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 14 February 2005 10:22 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WAY TOO LONG.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca