Canadian Judge Forces Dad's into Retroactive Debt.

Yet another move in the wrong direction.... I love the wrote that says
it is all about money.... isn't that the truth. It took a J.D. to
figure that out.

C wrote:

http://www.canada.com/national/natio...7-8eabe616ed6c

This is another decision from a judge who has been testing his gavel on his
own brainbucket.

I'm not sure this would be a terrible decision, if it were to work both
ways -- when a NCP's income goes DOWN, he should *immediately* have his
CS obligation adjusted downwards, even if it takes a few months to work
it through the courts. Thus, the state and/or the CP would have to pay
him back for the money that was taken from him over and above his
(retroactively lower) obligation.

I'm not holding my breath for that one, although this decision does set
a precedent.

- Ron ^*^

C wrote:

http://www.canada.com/national/natio...7-8eabe616ed6c

This is another decision from a judge who has been testing his gavel on his
own brainbucket.

Good Lord... This bit made me laugh -- capitalization mine:

"Payers of child support have historically been treated with UNUSUAL
LENIENCY by the law -- and children have paid the price," Judge Paperny
wrote. "In the post-guidelines regime, where it is clear that EACH
PARENT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY HIS OR HER FAIR SHARE and the support of the
children is to be considered primary, there is, in any event, no
legitimate public policy supporting leniency for a non-paying parent."

- Ron ^*^

"J" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yet another move in the wrong direction.... I love the wrote that says
it is all about money.... isn't that the truth. It took a J.D. to
figure that out.

If the baboons in black robes can rule CS orders should go up every time a
CS payer's income increases retroactive to the pay increase date, then they
will rule every CS order must be increased retroactively every time the CS
guidelines are increased.

This change practically requires annual CS order increases as opposed to
every 2-3 years. A person working on commission could have their CS order
change every month.

"C" wrote in message
.. .

http://www.canada.com/national/natio...=7e69ee01-cec0
-465d-b537-8eabe616ed6c

This is another decision from a judge who has been testing his gavel on
his
own brainbucket.

C

Sooner or later, this kind of decision surely must have an impact on the
willingness of young men to get married and have children. There's the
usual nonsense from the judges about "noncustodial parents" and "his or her"
but anyone who has a grain of commonsense knows that so-called "child
support" -- in Canada and elsewhere -- is money that fathers pay mothers.
This decision represents an additional risk for men who marry and become
fathers, and a further disincentive for any man to put himself in a
situation where he can be exposed to this kind of risk.

For decades now, the benefits to men from marriage and families have
been steadily reduced, and the risks have been steadily enlarged. Now, the
game's not worth the candle, and that realization must be spreading among
men. What happens after the knowledge of the situation becomes general, I
don't know, but I doubt whether it will be to the advantage of women.

I think soon the only way men will be able to have children safely is by using
surragacy with the mother giving up parentel rights. I am sure most women will
not like it but what do they expect?

Paula

PBu7434922 wrote:

I think soon the only way men will be able to have children safely is by using
surragacy with the mother giving up parentel rights. I am sure most women will
not like it but what do they expect?

Hey, that's a good idea!

I'm a man but I'm very interested in having kids (always was), so for me
it would not be satisfying to just forego having kids completely. I
suspect lots of men are like that. But having the mother sign a writ
giving up parental rights... Hmm. I like the sound of that. It's good
advice.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:P2nOd.83740$Tf5.64899@lakeread03...


PBu7434922 wrote:

I think soon the only way men will be able to have children safely is by
using
surragacy with the mother giving up parentel rights. I am sure most women
will
not like it but what do they expect?

Hey, that's a good idea!

I'm a man but I'm very interested in having kids (always was), so for me
it would not be satisfying to just forego having kids completely. I
suspect lots of men are like that. But having the mother sign a writ
giving up parental rights... Hmm. I like the sound of that. It's good
advice.

Why not just adopt? There are loads of kids in need of a good home.


- Ron ^*^

Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:P2nOd.83740$Tf5.64899@lakeread03...


PBu7434922 wrote:


I think soon the only way men will be able to have children safely is by

using

surragacy with the mother giving up parentel rights. I am sure most women

will

not like it but what do they expect?

Hey, that's a good idea!

I'm a man but I'm very interested in having kids (always was), so for me
it would not be satisfying to just forego having kids completely. I
suspect lots of men are like that. But having the mother sign a writ
giving up parental rights... Hmm. I like the sound of that. It's good
advice.


Why not just adopt? There are loads of kids in need of a good home.

I see your point, but there is something special about a child that is
"your own".

Counting the days until the feminists start lobbying against cloning
because men start looking into having their own kids that way...

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:ywwOd.106217$Jk5.9668@lakeread01...


Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:P2nOd.83740$Tf5.64899@lakeread03...


PBu7434922 wrote:


I think soon the only way men will be able to have children safely is by

using

surragacy with the mother giving up parentel rights. I am sure most women

will

not like it but what do they expect?

Hey, that's a good idea!

I'm a man but I'm very interested in having kids (always was), so for me
it would not be satisfying to just forego having kids completely. I
suspect lots of men are like that. But having the mother sign a writ
giving up parental rights... Hmm. I like the sound of that. It's good
advice.


Why not just adopt? There are loads of kids in need of a good home.

I see your point, but there is something special about a child that is
"your own".

In my family, there are 7 grandchildren - 5 are adopted, and I'd defy anyone to
tell us which one(s) aren't "our own".
If you feel there's a difference, by all means, don't adopt.


Counting the days until the feminists start lobbying against cloning
because men start looking into having their own kids that way...

- Ron ^*^