GayandRight

My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)

Monday, July 31, 2006

An outrageous decision...

The government is going to have to step in and legislate changes to divorce, custody, child support and alimony.
Canada's Supreme Court has ruled ex-spouses could face hefty retroactive child support payments if they fail to declare increased earnings -- a decision that could affect thousands of divorced and separated couples across the country.

The ruling was unanimous: 7-0. The top court decided that ex-spouses -- the fathers in most cases -- who pay support have an obligation to report increases in income which could therefore boost their court-ordered payments.

The court also ruled that former spouses should be hit with retroactive penalties if they fail to inform their ex-partner about any changes to their income.
Right now, the courts are just stacked against men....this just makes it worse....it continues the trend to turn fathers into walking wallets.

6 Comments:

Anonymous lkcxvim said...

Isn't the chief justice on record saying that the Supreme Court of Canada is NOT an activistic organization?

Remember how the Liberals under Paul Martin attacked Harper's Tories, saying how the Conservatives are overly critical of Canada's judiciary?

3:11 PM  
Anonymous kariba said...

I am a woman that gets child support from her ex-husband. I will not be demanding extra child care payments even though I know my ex is much wealthier now than at the time of our divorce. I honestly don't think I'm entitled to child care support payments based on any figure other than the income he was making when we were together.
Why should I have a right to monies he has made in the years since?!

3:45 PM  
Blogger jeff davidson said...

kariba, this really isn't about you so much as it's about your kid(s). if daddy is making the big bucks, they should have access to that income until they can earn their own. that's not so shocking is it? you would expect children in a nondivorced family to benefit from increases in the family fortunes. why should the kids from broken homes be treated any differently.

6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This morning a interview on the Radio had a lawyer explain that is was a 4-3 split in the intent of the Charter ,but all 7 agree on the final benefit to children and argeed they saw what the Charter meant and not what it says.

I'm no fool, these Judges conspire in private to do what's safe or appears as balanced and follows the will of the people .
A 4-3 split tells me that 6 Judges are all correct until the 7th Judge takes sides to show that the other 3 are wrong in their understanding of Human Rights and Justice.

Split vote are the coward's way out , and 7-0 on serious issues shows no free thought and how they are all selected for their predisposed "Bias" for Liberal Doctrine.

8:58 PM  
Blogger jw said...

First off, we need to say that this decision applies only to NC fathers ... as of yet no one is willing to take the risk of applying these decisions to NC mothers; there's too much risk of being accused of violence against women. Sad, but true.

Next, most women will not take advantage of the decision. Most women are half-way responsible as are most men.

Also, the decision does not apply to lowering support due to loss of wages. Lowering support is an expensive and very unsure game. Many judges just plain refuse to lower support ... and even if the judge does, most men do not have the money to go to court for the attempt.

Long term, a lot of these cases have made for law with effects on society which are, as of yet, unknown. My best guess is that this decision will put more men into the "I will never marry nor have children" camp.

Sadly, all females have an absolute right to over-rule all males on reproduction. It's not yet legal for a woman to go to court and get a court order for a sample of a given male's sperm ... that will come. None-the-less, today any fertile woman can use any method short of a court order to get a sperm sample.

So, just saying "I will not have children" is useless as fertile females have the right under law to over-rule the saying.

It's all very complex and we can bet everything we have that it has unforeseen effects which will make massive changes to our society.

5:23 AM  
Anonymous edgewaterviews999 said...

With all other factors being equal, gender is the single most important factor in determining custody in Canada, in spite of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms set 25 years ago. This ruling perpetuates and preserves the patriarchal flow of monies from men to women in a way that is highly innapropriate, given the lack of child support paying mothers. Access is an issue that affects fathers more than mothers, and there still is no non-litigious way of resolving an access issue apart from the court, even if it is "malitious mother's syndrome" or "parental alienation sysndrome" at the root of the access denial.

1:09 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home