加拿大孩子抚养法是不太公正的 下面是一些当地人的对孩子抚养法德评论

Child Support Law Is Unfairly Totally Against Men Posted By HUGHESRLH5 Posted On: Sep 25 2007 1:04PM ________________________________________ I dont know how everyone else feels, but there has to be some changes with the Child support laws. It is seen by men and woman that there is a problem with the way the current system works. First of all, they say there is a need for the man to step up with in females and become better \"dads\" even if unwedded and not living with the other parent. Well that totally contradicting, when courts immediately say as soon as the child is born the mother is the only one with full custody in which they say the father is basically considered just the sperm donator; hum? Well if the father is just a sperm donator, why is he subject to pay money each month for his wonderful donation; hum? When do you get charged for a donation? Off the back it leads a man to feel less responsible and active in the participation, because he has no rights, depending on whom the female is and her backround ( meaning her way of being brought up) a man may have to go through a Honey Nut Cheerio hoop without breaking it just to see his child without any problems ;rather (verbally , physically, or financially). Not only do you have to pay child support, but you also have to pay the courts for rights (legitimation)\' ridiculous! not only do you to take the dna test but you have to pay the courts to try and receive equally spent time with the child (joint custody), ridiculous! After all the possible fees, on top of support paid, now wonder why men seem to not care. They do care but its expensive to prove to the stereotypical eye of the courts. Last I checked the count shows most women make more money than most men. How can men support the needs of her and the child, and try to get better themselves, Even a second make up job is charged. what happen to I pay what she would pay, Equally the same way the child was equally created. Posted By Huh? ID#: 2067 I feel that when there is a divorce, or even if a child is born out of wedlock that whoever has FULL custody of the child should also have the full responsibility that goes along with it, or at least the non-custodial parent should not have to pay such a ridiculously high amount of support. My fiance\'s ex-bag is trying to get his support raised. Can you honestly tell me when a child has a mother, step-father and a job that child needs another $600 a month? I THINK NOT!!! Do kids today \"need\" to be wearing nothing but $60 a pair jeans, $90 Doc Marten shoes, going to tanning beds all the times, etc? I THINK NOT!!! Do they \"need\" $100 hair straighteners? Child support was designed for the NEEDS of children. When the child has the one parent, a step parent, and is working besides I dont think they need this other huge amount from the non-custodial parent. It\'s a joke. The entire child support system is a joke. These people should have to prove what they spend that money on like they do in Montana. Also, if a custodial parent gets remarried the child support should end. All these big amounts of child support does is give the custodial parent more money to waste or spend on their other children that do not even belong to the non-custodial parent; and I know it happens, my fiances\' child tells me about it. The other thing the big dollars of paying support do is ruin the non-custodial parent financially in some cases. But Child Support does not care if you cannot survive as long as they get the money they demand. What gets me is that when a review comes along, the non- custodial parents entire financial wage statement goes to the custodial parent. What the hell business is it of theirs? Is anything private anymore? When a review is done the Child Support agency doesn\'t even give the non-custodial parent a worksheet to show their expenses and what it costs them to live. The reason for this is THEY DO NOT CARE!! How one-sided and cruel can they get? The Child Support system needs a complete overhaul and it\'s time they start being a bit more fair, and make these money grubbing custodial parents take more responsibility for the kids as well, or give them to the custodial parent instead. I have NEVER spent $600/month on my two kids, so tell me why a woman needs that much for one child!!!!! Posted By Huh? ID#: 2067 Posted On: Sep 25 2007 9:33PM ________________________________________ One question I have is this.....WHY is it that people always say \"Oh you need to be there for the kid and help out with feeding, etc.?\" In most divorce cases the mother does not want the ex around at all and doesn\'t even want to see the ex again, BUT she is right there to suck him dry for money \"for the kid\" as they put it. Posted By Andrew ID#: 1021 Posted On: Sep 25 2007 9:49PM ________________________________________ me~Well said, I hope you support every shared parenting effort and stop the courts from supporting and favoring mothers who seem to deliberately go out of their way to make it difficult for daddies to be involved. Most dads I know of lucky to support themselves after a good jolly rogering by the courts and the ex. Yes it is all about the kids isn\'t it, I wonder if you agree with the idea that any dad the mommy say\'s is the daddy will do, I believe there are about 4,000,000 dads in this country who are supporting kids they will never know, 800,000 who are supporting kids that aren\'t even theirs. And always remember there are at least 1,000,000 people employed by the Child Support Agency both directly and indirectly including the family courts. 60,000 of which are solely employed by the taxpayer to enforce child support. That is an awful lot of taxpayer dollars, if they spent one dollar of the profits on or for the benefit of children, instead of themselves and politics, our children would not be raised the way they are. It\'s a national disgrace. http://www.kxnet.com/getForumPost.asp?ArticleId=68849&Start=0 http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/fathers/childsupport.pdf www.supportthemovie.com Posted By HUGHESRLH5 ID#: 7681 Posted On: Sep 26 2007 8:47AM ________________________________________ Great comments, I really see that there are two sides of the situation as usual. On one side you have people who say, well child support isnt bad, just take care of the kids and pay. On the other side there is the point that ; child support isnt bad i love to support my child, but does it have to be so expensive to love and provide for the child. I bet 10 out of 10, the people who say the current child support law is fair, either are not paying child support and therefore doesnt really understand how much is actually being taken from your earnings, or is recieving child support and feel that there never is enough becuase money is something I dont think anyone would say ,\" okay thats enough,\" to. I really like the point that was brought up about fathers also take care of kids that arent there own, that is so true. I apologize for not responding to a womans side also, becuase yes there are woman to who pay child support and I agree the law; rather your male, female, dog, cat; needs to be revised quickly becuase the economy is getting no better. I have started a group and would like anyone intrested in the change of childsupprt law to reply to this, and please pass the information to anyone intrested. We will all find ways to communicate, and put the ball in our hands to make a change. See the problem is every doesnt like it, but dont want to put in the effort to really speak volume and make the change. With enough minds together and wil, i believe we the people can make this happen. Look forward to anyone who would like to be apart of this, once I see your reply and email address I will respond to you after, and we can together work to make the change. Posted By shoppegirl2001 ID#: 1614 Posted On: Sep 26 2007 11:24AM ________________________________________ fathers are considered worthless and of no use to the court system... the x-wife usually just wants to go and FIND A LIVE IN BOYFRIEND to sleep with and to abuse her kids..... it is very cruel and it will take a long long long time to change the courts, but those of you involved BEST START WORKING TO CHANGE THINGS.... be careful who you marry and have kids with... people don\'t usually change after marriage, a bum before marriage, a bum after marriage, man or woman, doesn\'t matter....... good luck The problems with the current guidelines are that they are based on faulty mathemetics. The equation that calculates CS amounts has 3 assumptions: 1) the man has no other children in his care to support 2) he is a bachelor and has minimal expenses 3) he spends no other money on his kids (ZERO) after child support. This creates the problems becasue men are made to pay TOO MUCH. Especially when he has another family. Then you have to add on \"extra\" expenses and access costs for the payor. ### Canadian Charter of Rights Equality Rights Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Children in \"second\" families are discriminated against (they are not entitled to an equal amount of their fathers income as their step-siblings, and they not entitled to have their post-sec. education paid for by law) Support paying parents are discriminated against (they are not allowed to deduct basic \"living expenses\" to ensure they can support themselves after CS and extras are paid, they pay all the taxes on CS but are not afforded any benefits for this under tax laws, they can be imputed incomes greater than what they earn, and are made to pay CS on incomes that aren\'t even real, they are forced to work and have limited choices i.e. are often not able to \"up-grade\" in schooling as judges order them to keep paying a high amount, they have no choice but to continue working, they are not able to provide equally financially for ALL their children etc. etc.) \"Second\" wives are also discriminated against. (they are often told to go back to work to support their families when their children are still babies (because CS and extras that the fathers pay to first wife are well above what is actually needed to raise children, and well above the amount fathers would be required to pay if BOTH the parents of the divorced union were held financaily responsible for their kids after divorce), the first wives are not instructed the same, and are thought of by courts as having the \"rights\" to be a stay-at-home mom until kids are school age. Thus, second wives lose their right to be a stay-at-home mom until their kids are school-age, and \"second\" kids are not able to have a stay-at-home mom.) I do believe \"second\" children are discriminated against due to \"birth order\", support payors are discriminated against as they are not \"equal under the law\" as their ex- wives, and \"second\" wives are discriminated against due to \"order of marriage\". These are contrary to Canadian Charter of Rights. Does anybody know if the guidelines have ever been challenged in a Canadian court? ### To: The Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following: THAT, the Canadian Child Support Guidelines (C.C.S.G’s) are unfair to the “second” families of parents who pay child support (payors). THAT, the guidelines do not recognize the financial needs of any “second” children a payor may have in his care (in an intact family) when assigning the child support and “extra-ordinary” amounts to be paid for the “first” children. THAT, the formula which calculates how much child support is to be paid contains 2 assumptions, i) that a payor has no other children in his/her care to financially support and ii) that the payor is a bachelor and has minimal expenses. THAT, the payor often has to pay “extra-ordinary” expenses, in addition to child support, considerably increasing the amount they are obligated to pay. THAT, only the income of the payor is used in determining how much child support to pay, and there are no provisions for ensuring the basic living expenses of the payor (and 2nd children) can be met, after child support and extras are paid. THAT, there is no consideration in the guidelines for the additional expenses payors’ incur while caring for their children on their access time, above and beyond child support payments to the recipient, causing the payor to pay “twice”. THAT, child support payments are based on “gross income”, the payor pays tax on the child support as if that income stayed in his/her household. The income is tax free to the recipient and his/her taxes are further reduced by dependent child exemptions and the child tax credits. These tax benefits and credits are not available to the payor. THAT, government benefits assigned to “second” children, such as the Canadian Child Tax Benefit (CCTB), are based on the payor’s total income, without deducting the child support payments which directly leave their household. Thus, “second” children are entitled to lower CCTB, based on the true incomes in their households. “Second” families may not qualify for other government assistance as their household incomes are deemed higher than they actually are. THAT, when the custodial parent moves away with the children, the cost of accessing the children lies with the payor. This can amount to thousands of dollars per year on top of child support and “extra-ordinary” expenses. THAT, adult children of divorce are entitled (through the C.C.S.G’s) to have their parents contribute to their post-secondary education. If the child remains at the custodial parents home while attending school, the payor may be obligated to pay both child support and post-secondary costs, up to age 26. “Second” children do not have this right and supporting adult “first” children in this manner will result in continued financial hardship for the second family. THAT, when a payor works over-time, or obtains a second job to improve the financial situation of his “second” family, this income is included in the calculation of child support. After paying increased child support, paying an increased proportion of “extra-ordinary” expenses, and incurring increased taxes, the second family is often left with little extra. THAT, second wives are often instructed by judges in family court to return to work in order to support themselves and their subsequent children, losing their rights to be a stay-at-home mum. Many second wives believe that the C.C.S.G. recognize only the right of the “first” children to have a mother at home until school age, but this is not an option for them. THAT, “second” children (in intact families) are not considered at all in the C.C.S.G’s unless the paying parent claims “undue hardship”. Hardship claims are only accepted when the hardship is “undue”, and the “second” family is in extreme peril, such losing their home. Second family concerns are very rarely accepted as a reason to lower child support and extra-expense obligations to the first born. THAT, these significant inequities highlight the negative financial and psychological implications of belonging to a “second” family. THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to revise the Canadian Child Support Guidelines so that ALL the children a payor has a moral and legal duty to support (whether from the first, the second or subsequent families, and regardless of whether the family is currently “intact” or not) are recognized in the Guidelines in such a manner that payors’ are able to provide equal treatment for all of their children. (please note: if you would like your MP to read this in Parliament, just print it out and obtain 25 signatures and postal codes from supporters. Ensure the last paragraph \"THEREFORE, your petitioners....etc.\" is copied onto the top of the 2nd page where the signatures are located. This is the required format for a petition to be read in Parliament.) THANK YOU! Sincerely, The Undersigned #### Divorced parents incomes are entwined, so the entire (first and second) children need to be considered. They are after all, step-brothers and step-sisters to each other. My ex-wife is allowed to split her income evenly between ALL her children (first and second). She even used the child support I sent for our child to out-fit the nursery for her \"second\" child. Yet, by these laws I am not \"allowed\" to share my income evenly between all MY children. The law says \"first kids first\", but this only applies to support payors. Support recievers are able to treat all their kids equally, the way it should be. Why are \"second\" kids discriminated against only in the home of CS payors, but not CS collectors? Would someone tell me why my \"second\" child is less important than my ex wifes \"second\" child? Not all families work out the first time. SO i dont see why children from the next marriage have to suffer because youall choose that child support. is only meant for the ones that dont live with the dad or mom. and now that cant put food on the table for their other children. i think the other parent should have to put in just as much if not more. i think you need to sit down and think about the children that are really suffering not the ones that are getting all the money. The Fed Child Support Guidelines are an unfair system that takes no consideration to the payor and their new family while giving considerable benefit to the recipient and their new