[WestCoast]

That guy got fucked hard. His kids will be taught to hate him, he ruined the majority of his life, he has nothing but lost years to look at. This is why greed is so disconcerting. The dude had cash, yet he lived a miserable life. What's money if you can't enjoy it?

That guy just wasted 20+ years in hell, yet he is beig denigrated by the media. I feel bad for him.

[MikeCF]

(07-02-2012 02:35 PM)Locke Wrote:  

He did abandon his kid. You are looking at it from a money perspective, he left them physically and emotionally. You know that kids are just more than a money drain? What kind of man leaves his cancer stricken kid?

When reading a story, always ask: What does the reporter want to be true?

The reporter wants the father to be a bad guy.

Is the reporter going to provide any facts exculpating the father?

Will the reporter tell about all the times the mother violated the terms of the child custody order, keeping the father from seeing his children?

Will the reporter provide information about Parental Alienation Syndrome?

My friend can't even get his ex-wife to let him go on Skype with his children. He still pays child support.

But in two years after being denied access to his children (and after his wife has poisoned the childs' minds), will it even make sense to call them his children?

You are reading the article from a pro-feminist point of view.

Whether you were duped by the reporter or are a feminist troll remains to be seen.

[Vacancier Permanent]

It's sickening to read stories like this when hard working, honest men are driven to lose it all by the feminazi and corrupt law system in this shit hole called North America. of course, that joke of a newspaper, the Star is a feminist outlet to make the men look the villain while the real culprit of all this mess is the greedy and lazy wife backed by that corrupt legal system here. I truly feel for the poor guy and I applaud him for having had the courage to reclaim his freedom and not bend over to be ass raped by the court system. It would serve that greedy self entitled bitch a good lesson when she ends up on the welfare line and working at Wal mart as a cashier living in a 1 bedroom apartment in the ghettos.

[Kona]

(07-02-2012 03:12 PM)Vacancier Permanent Wrote:  

the greedy and lazy wife

You guys have attacked the paper that wrote the article because it doesn't say what you want it to say.

Where exactly does anything in the article lead you to believe that that woman is greedy or lazy? The only person that says that is the husband, who didn't have the balls to cough up 4 grand a month, could care less about his kids, and ran off.

Is it you guy's opinion that no matter what, the woman is always wrong in the child support situation, and a lazy bitch for asking, and the man should just be able to skip on any and all obligation at all?

This is a serious question: Do you guys have any respect for mothers at all?

A few of you guys have said "what choice did he have?" and so did he. Now Vacancier is saying the greedy bitch mother should live in a one bedroom in the ghetto.

A choice the guy had, the one that would have shown a little balls, if not to anyone at least to his kids, would have been for him to live in a shitty apartment in the ghetto and done something to take care of his kids. AND in that case he would have been there in the millions of cases those kids need a man around to handle non-monetary fatherly responsibilities.

I'm sorry dudes, but the cancer/down syndrome/rehab situation with the kids and this pussy running off just burns my ass.

And what a slap in the face it was to that little kid that just beat cancer getting a box of popcorn for his birthday.

That guys a candyass.

Aloha!

[Tigre]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

If it was necessary to make changes, she would have made them. But the system protects her from exercising any personal responsibility at all. Someone else will pick up the bill for the consequences of her failure to take care of her own shit.

That binding contract she signed where all parties agreed? Give her a mulligan.

Living beyond her means and racking up more debt? Stick her ex-husband again, he's good for it.

There were plenty of ways to make her situation work. She had three years. What has she done except go deeper into debt?

In the meantime, ex husband was paying his child support every month, as well as his own cost of living.

Look at his arrears. It's only $28,000, which is the seven months since he left the country. Up until that point, he was up to date.

The only sensible thing to do was sell the house (cf joehoya's earlier post). She fought that idea.

Why didn't she sell the house?

Doesn't she have any extended family that can mind the children while she works?

Extended family don't live nearby? Sell the house and move near them.

It's not just the $4,000 a month. It's being hit with the extra $1,500 backdated over the past three years. That's 50 grand right there.

Now pay the bill for both lawyers. Thanks for coming.

And that is after he gave her $300k in home equity for the price of $175k.

It all seems grotesque when I look at what people live on in Latin America. I look at how they deal with necessity and find a way to make things work. Then shake my head at the willful ignorance necessary to take a winning position and turn it into a loser out of stubbornness.

In some ways, I don't even blame her. People respond to incentives, and those are the incentives of the system she lives in.

[canucktraveller]

(07-02-2012 06:08 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 03:12 PM)Vacancier Permanent Wrote:  

the greedy and lazy wife

You guys have attacked the paper that wrote the article because it doesn't say what you want it to say.

Where exactly does anything in the article lead you to believe that that woman is greedy or lazy? The only person that says that is the husband, who didn't have the balls to cough up 4 grand a month, could care less about his kids, and ran off.

Is it you guy's opinion that no matter what, the woman is always wrong in the child support situation, and a lazy bitch for asking, and the man should just be able to skip on any and all obligation at all?

This is a serious question: Do you guys have any respect for mothers at all?

A few of you guys have said "what choice did he have?" and so did he. Now Vacancier is saying the greedy bitch mother should live in a one bedroom in the ghetto.

A choice the guy had, the one that would have shown a little balls, if not to anyone at least to his kids, would have been for him to live in a shitty apartment in the ghetto and done something to take care of his kids. AND in that case he would have been there in the millions of cases those kids need a man around to handle non-monetary fatherly responsibilities.

I'm sorry dudes, but the cancer/down syndrome/rehab situation with the kids and this pussy running off just burns my ass.

And what a slap in the face it was to that little kid that just beat cancer getting a box of popcorn for his birthday.

That guys a candyass.

Aloha!

Exactly, maybe this guy banging pinoy hookers while his wife was back in Canada dealing with 3 troubled kids led to the divorce in the first place?




Also, for the record, the house was worth $1.2M but only had $600K mortgage left. So the guy had money.

[misterporridge]

I think there are misunderstandings on all sides.

1) Donna doesn't have $600K in equity. She had to buy out Hans for $175K, of which she borrowed $122K with a lien on her mother's house. For the price of that and a waiver of future spousal support, she received what is nominally $300K in home equity (his half of the equity) according to the original contract.

Also keep in mind that home equity is doubly sensitive to house price fluctuations when the mortgage is half of the paid house price. But if she sold right away, and down-sized, she wouldn't be exposed to those fluctuations.

So $300K - $175K = $125K. This is what Donna received from Hans in lieu of spousal support in the original contract. Stating that she received a $1.2 million dollar house is misleading. She got $125K.

2) The younger son no longer has cancer.

3) The older son is no longer a dependent of the household.

4) The older daughter should be helping out at home.

5) The three dependent children are all of school age, so the mother should be able to work. However, it is not realistic to expect her to get the same level of compensation that she had when she left work, if she's been out of work for many years. Many households make the decision that one parent will stay at home to look after the kids. This is to the detriment of the long-term earning potential of the parent who stays home. It is hard to prove whether the decision was taken out of "laziness" or out of "self-sacrifice", but it was a household decision, so when the household breaks up, obviously this should factor into spousal support.

6) The article doesn't fact-check whether Donna's husband "took her to court three times and at one point tried to foreclose on the house."

7) Overall the article is biased against the husband and plays fast and loose with the facts. But the push-back in the comments also gets a lot of facts wrong and invents a lot of new facts.

[Excelsior]

(07-01-2012 11:29 PM)Locke Wrote:  

Are we supposed to celebrate the fact that he abandoned his kids? I'm betting his kids aren't exactly happy that their father chose to abandon them.

They can blame their mother and the canadian government for this situation. We cannot continue to place men into practically impossible situations (while asking next to nothing of the mother) and just expect them to "man up". This situation is nightmarish for the children, I agree, but it is purely the result of an entitled, inconsiderate (and possibly just plain vengeful) mother and a government entirely too willing to indulge her.

You want a happy ending? Treat the men in these situations like humans, not burros.

(07-02-2012 12:26 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

I'm not too impressed with this guy. Let's keep in mind that you need to pull in around $200K a year to make the monthly payments on a $600K mortgage. So even the revised settlement wasn't going to land him in the poorhouse.

Other posters more familiar with the mortgage situation up north have already addressed this, but the article does so as well and I believe you missed it:

Quote:

Hans Mills, who has a BA in economics from the University of Toronto, has held a number of sales and marketing positions with e-learning companies. At the time of the breakup, Mills averaged a yearly income of more than $100,000.

On this salary, he was being forced to make retroactive payments, complete all court costs, provide child support AND give Ms. Mills spousal support.
That, and he must also cover his own living expenses, which will be higher now since he has given up his home.

That is nearly $4000 monthly in total support, living costs for him (easily another three thousand altogether in the GTA), plus court costs (in the many tens thousands). This guy makes $8.5k per month tops (note that it gives his $100k income as an average-he could easily make less in many years), and that is BEFORE taxes (over $3000 monthly). He's got maybe $5500 after tax. He cannot live on that with these obligations, much less have any chance of retirement. He would have NO money at all, and would sooner end up jailed for inability to meet his obligations than actually avoid the poorhouse as easily as you insist he can.

Oh, and while all of this is going on, his wife refuses to sell her $1.2 million lakefront home or even attempt to work, while potentially receiving (prior to her re-doing the agreement) approximately $7500 monthly from all available income streams, about $5000 of which was tax free (the government support for the sick kids and the child support).

This situation was absolutely unacceptable for him-you're entirely missing the forest for the trees here if you cannot see that. It is plain as day.

(07-02-2012 12:26 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

And contrary to what some of you think, the kids won't understand. Any inheritance will go the new kids he has with the new wife.

The things that my father (who I have never seen) did to my mother in the days just prior and soon after my birth are easily on this level, and he had far less justification than this guy (in fact, he had none-just wanted another woman).
Even I have grown beyond my dislike for the man as I've become a man myself. Do not underestimate the capacity of children to grow and understand-if I can forgive a man who did much worse than this dude (he did not get anything close to a raw deal like this to justify his actions), then these kids have the potential to figure it out too. It isn't that uncommon.

(07-02-2012 12:26 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

The husband is not without guilt either. I suspect he's been looking for an escape route for a long time. The oldest kid is a fuck up. They've got one with down's syndrome, and another who may or may not have cancer. The only healthy kid they have is always showing signs of faltering under the stress. This guy is trying to escape from his defective family so he can start over with a new one. I don't really respect that.

Given all of the other factors involved here (the settlement nearly leaving the guy for broke, the wife's total inability to shift and help the situation, the government's willingness to back her at all costs, etc), how are you so sure that this is the one that is actually at fault?
The man had no problem sticking around when they had a fair, mutual, rational agreement. He left when that changed. How are you so sure that this change (again, unjustly supported by the government) was not in fact the primary concern?

This, aside from the fact that the youngest no longer has cancer and the oldest boy is no longer a dependent?

(07-02-2012 12:37 AM)Kona Wrote:  

He walked out on his family because he was no where near tough enough to deal with any type of problem. Now he blames the system for his pussiness.

Kona, I'm going to pose to you exactly the same questions I asked porscheguy above: how are you so sure that his pussiness caused this, and not the fact that the government was ready to bankrupt him?
Why did this "pussiness" show up only after the mutual agreement originally signed was unjustly written off without his consent? He dealt with the issues before-why not now?

Quote:

1 kid has cancer, one has down syndrome, and the oldest one is on heroin.
It costs way more than 4 grand a month to take care of kids with those kind of problems. Plus, they need at least one full time parent. Just to take them to doctors appointments.

They're in Canada-healthcare costs are not what your average American is going to be used to. Medical scares up there do no bankrupt them at nearly the rate we see south of the border.

Oh, and a) the youngest kid doesn't have cancer anymore and b) the oldest one is no longer a dependent.

[Excelsior]

(07-02-2012 06:08 PM)Kona Wrote:  

You guys have attacked the paper that wrote the article because it doesn't say what you want it to say.

Where exactly does anything in the article lead you to believe that that woman is greedy or lazy? The only person that says that is the husband, who didn't have the balls to cough up 4 grand a month, could care less about his kids, and ran off.

To quote the comments (which, to my pleasant surprise, seem very much on the right track):

"Rossvegas
Shame on you, Brazao.
I've read this article twice, and I don't share your outrage. She's skilled, is sitting on a massive piece of real estate and the courts clearly overturned a mutually negotiated settlement - who's the real "victim" here?"

"shamnin
Doesn't add up...
She gets $2500 monthly from the government, $2000 for the apartment, AND needs $4000 from her ex? She needs $8500 every month, while living in a million dollar home? Also, they split in 2005 and came to the agreement in 2008 - I don't buy that you 'didn't have time' to read what you were signing. Headlining this article with 'deadbeat dad' is misleading and unfair."

You're also grossly understating the costs foisted upon the man in this case (back spousal support, all legal costs for his ex, his own living expenses now that he's lost his home, his own legal costs, etc). It adds up to much more than $4000 a month, which in itself is already next to mission impossible on $5000 post-tax monthly income.

Quote:

Is it you guy's opinion that no matter what, the woman is always wrong in the child support situation, and a lazy bitch for asking, and the man should just be able to skip on any and all obligation at all?

No. It is my opinion that in this particular case the woman is wrong and quite obviously an entitled bitch.

Quote:

This is a serious question: Do you guys have any respect for mothers at all?

I respect many mothers.

Donna Mills is not one of them.

Quote:

A choice the guy had, the one that would have shown a little balls, if not to anyone at least to his kids, would have been for him to live in a shitty apartment in the ghetto and done something to take care of his kids.

1. On what money? That settlement wouldn't have left anything for him to live on and (as Samseau has pointed out) there's no guarantee he'd have been able to see/support his kids in such a situation anyway. The guy makes $8.5k monthly, $5k after taxes, and is being asked to cover back support, plus $4000 total in current support AND cover past legal costs (likely well into the tens of thousands), all while somehow supporting himself. How is this supposed to work?
You're trying to make an impossible situation look like a walk in the park, and that can't work here.

2. While he "mans up" as you request, she continues to sit in her unaffordable $1.2 million home on the lake drawing in $5000 plus in tax free income from disability and childsupport, refusing to work at all after overturning a mutually agreed settlement?

You ask the impossible of him (give up EVERYTHING, live in poverty with almost literally no money) and absolutely NOTHING of her. He must go to ground zero and zero fucks are to be given about it, but she is to stay cozy in a $1.2 million home, already receiving $7000+ in revenue (disability + support + rental income) and begging for more (spousal support, back legal fees, back support fees) with no desire to work even though qualified?

Seriously, what is that?

This is a situation where two parties are supposed to work together for the sake of the vulnerable (the children). This was possible, and had been done with the original settlement. It also could have been done even more smoothly had she been willing to make a lifestyle adjustment, such as the following suggested earlier by joehoya:

(07-02-2012 05:02 AM)joehoya Wrote:  

Third, with her refusal to get a job AND desire to still live in a house with a $600K mortgage on it, how soon do you think it would have been before she was BACK in court demanding even more money? No way would she last very long on $3,700 a month child/spousal support alone in a house with a mortgage that big.

They should have sold that house as soon as they got divorced. He takes his $175K, she takes the $425K. She could have bought a smaller house, not on a lake, with cash,and still had $100K+ left over, plus she would have still had the monthly child support payments from him. A free and clear house, $100K in the bank, and $2,200 per month in child support. That is not a bad deal.

Instead, she stands unwilling to make ANY adjustment at all, receiving no call to do so from the government which joined her in throwing this guy under the bus.

Any failure to these children is due to the foolishness of this court system and the entitlement of the mother-that is it. We cannot continue to come up with entirely impossible situations for men and then crucify them when they fail to mint miracles or seem unwilling to embark on said kamikaze missions.

You want a better outcome? Place a fair scenario in front of the man.

Quote:

AND in that case he would have been there in the millions of cases those kids need a man around to handle non-monetary fatherly responsibilities.

Why are you so sure he'd have been there?

[misterporridge]

The calculations that suggest that he'd be left with little or nothing are flawed, I believe: support is tax-deductible. So $110K - $48K = $62K gross, and the income tax would be calculated based on that $62K, because the support is deductible.

[xsplat]

So if you owe child support in the US or Canada you can't get your passport renewed.

That means I can't impregnate any Canadians or US citizens, and if I want to marry anyone anywhere I'll need a 2nd passport, in the event they try to sue me in my own country for child support.

Women have oops babies on purpose all the time, and the courts are awarding huge sums that are stealth alimony that is unrelated to the actual costs of raising a baby you did not agree to have and that the woman "agreed" not to have.

If the courts are going to impose those laws, there is no way to legally remain a free man, than to simply stop impregnating Canadian and US citizens, and to obtain a 2nd legal passport.

Anyone know the laws about if you knock up a hooker in Bangladesh and she can prove paternity - is your Canadian or US passport at risk?

A visit to Paraguay to arrange that 2nd passport is now in my long term plans.

[malc]

(07-03-2012 12:59 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

So if you owe child support in the US or Canada you can't get your passport renewed.

That means I can't impregnate any Canadians or US citizens, and if I want to marry anyone anywhere I'll need a 2nd passport, in the event they try to sue me in my own country for child support.

Women have oops babies on purpose all the time, and the courts are awarding huge sums that are stealth alimony that is unrelated to the actual costs of raising a baby you did not agree to have and that the woman "agreed" not to have.

If the courts are going to impose those laws, there is no way to legally remain a free man, than to simply stop impregnating Canadian and US citizens, and to obtain a 2nd legal passport.

Anyone know the laws about if you knock up a hooker in Bangladesh and she can prove paternity - is your Canadian or US passport at risk?

A visit to Paraguay to arrange that 2nd passport is now in my long term plans.

You have a second passport in case you get in trouble with the legal system of one of the passport countries. I think many countries will revoke your passport if your a fugitive of any sort.

Paraguay isn't the greatest passport, since you can lose it if you don't live in the country for 3 years if your naturalized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan...itizenship) . I have concluded the best way to get another passport is to actually immigrate via business to another country if you can't get it through birth circumstances, like your parents being from another country. All the 'easy passports' have big conditions to them. Singapore is not a multiple citizenship country and is starting to require a year of military service for new citizens, Israel requires military service, etc.

Don't fucking not use condoms with a 3rd world hooker!

[xsplat]

(07-03-2012 01:51 AM)malc Wrote:  

You have a second passport in case you get in trouble with the legal system of one of the passport countries. I think many countries will revoke your passport if your a fugitive of any sort.

Paraguay isn't the greatest passport, since you can lose it if you don't live in the country for 3 years if your naturalized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan...itizenship) . I have concluded the best way to get another passport is to actually immigrate via business to another country if you can't get it through birth circumstances, like your parents being from another country. All the 'easy passports' have big conditions to them. Singapore is not a multiple citizenship country and is starting to require a year of military service for new citizens, Israel requires military service, etc.

Don't fucking not use condoms with a 3rd world hooker!

I'm Canadian and they allow dual citizenship.

I don't actually fuck hookers. The question is a legal one.

I'm not up on the paraguay laws yet, but my recollection is that you don't have to live there full time to count as living there. Someone here must have some better info.

I'm not aware that Paraguay would revoke my passport for owing child support according to the Canadian government. I doubt any country would do that.

I fuck my girlfriends without a condom, and they sometimes deliberately don't take their pill in order to deliberately get pregnant against my wishes. That's their decision. My decision would then be to leave the country. I'm not about to be enslaved against my will because of a woman deliberately trying to make me her lifetime golden goose in a cage.

I've caused 11 pregnancies so far. The girls sometimes say they want to keep it, no matter what I do. Until they realize that I'm not bluffing about leaving town. Then they take an abortifactant or have surgery. And keep fucking me. Sometimes getting pregnant a second time.

I have no plans to marry, and I will NEVER marry or even alter my relationship with a girl just because she gets pregnant. I will continue to date twenty somethings for as long as I can, in serial and parallel monogamy. This is certain to cause problems, as women use every tactic they can to keep a man, or to punish him once they realize they can't keep him, and they can be vicious.

In order to date a man must have a portable income with backup plans and stashes of money and legal protection. In order to date a man must have freedom of movement.

[Kona]

(07-02-2012 07:40 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Kona, I'm going to pose to you exactly the same questions I asked porscheguy above: how are you so sure that his pussiness caused this, and not the fact that the government was ready to bankrupt him?
Why did this "pussiness" show up only after the mutual agreement originally signed was unjustly written off without his consent? He dealt with the issues before-why not now?

Because he gave up. He could have stayed and fought and stuck around to be near his kids.

Forget about the money. The man has children with serious problems. His whole life was one big problem. As opposed to fighting to make it right, and keeping the respect of his sons and daughters, he took off. Now he sends them a box of popcorn, and the first thing he does when somebody gets ahold of him is badmouth the shit out of that poor lady. She's the one dealing with the Downs kid, and the cancer kid, and the depressed girl and the oldest one that's in rehab.

This guy was the captain of a very fucked up ship, and when it got to tough for him he bailed.

See my point Athlone Mcginnis? That's his blood, and it was easier to abandon them then fight. You eloquently broke down his financials and figured that after he paid his support every month he had a grand left over right?

Well take that grand, get a ghetto apartment (if they have the ghetto in Canada) for $350 a month, go to work, then ride a bike to the rehab facility and sit with your son. Or go read a book to the downs kid. Do something other than give up. At least be a man that your children can learn to respect. And hey, it's canada, so he doesn't have to worry about health care!

(07-02-2012 07:40 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

To quote the comments (which, to my pleasant surprise, seem very much on the right track):

"Rossvegas
Shame on you, Brazao.
I've read this article twice, and I don't share your outrage. She's skilled, is sitting on a massive piece of real estate and the courts clearly overturned a mutually negotiated settlement - who's the real "victim" here?"

"shamnin
Doesn't add up...
She gets $2500 monthly from the government, $2000 for the apartment, AND needs $4000 from her ex? She needs $8500 every month, while living in a million dollar home? Also, they split in 2005 and came to the agreement in 2008 - I don't buy that you 'didn't have time' to read what you were signing. Headlining this article with 'deadbeat dad' is misleading and unfair."

Athlone McGinnis, I was asking about the article itself not the comments below the article.

This was my question: "Where exactly does anything in the article lead you to believe that that woman is greedy or lazy? The only person that says that is the husband, who didn't have the balls to cough up 4 grand a month, could care less about his kids, and ran off."

Is the only reason you and the other guys think she's greedy and lazy because she's the woman?

And hey Athlone McGinnis, I think you'll have a different idea about this in a few years. There was another post some time ago that you wrote that was exactly how I used to think a few years back. I forget what it was though.

Aloha!

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I would like to know who filed for the divorce back when the whole thing was resolved the first time. Of course, I have some suspicions...

[dragnet]

(07-02-2012 12:37 AM)Kona Wrote:  

I can't believe how much you guys are applauding this guy?

1 kid has cancer, one has down syndrome, and the oldest one is on heroin.

It costs way more than 4 grand a month to take care of kids with those kind of problems. Plus, they need at least one full time parent. Just to take them to doctors appointments.

Dude, the solution for this was simple: DON'T DIVORCE YOUR HUSBAND.

[alphaspiraton]

I agree with dragnet. Obviously She initiated the divorce to bank in some cash. After the first couple of disabilities in the children he learned that this woman had fucked up genes. And what did the husband do? He was still nice enough to give this lowlife lady (not in reference to her race) the gift of sticking around with her to raise the children and give her more children.

I made two promises to myself that I think everyone on this forum should do as well:

i) Never get married in Canada or America

ii) Never bring a wife into Canada or America

Game on.

[Excelsior]

(07-02-2012 08:59 PM)misterporridge Wrote:  

The calculations that suggest that he'd be left with little or nothing are flawed, I believe: support is tax-deductible. So $110K - $48K = $62K gross, and the income tax would be calculated based on that $62K, because the support is deductible.

Child support is NOT DEDUCTIBLE for the payor in Canada, nor is it taxable for the recipient.

You cannot deduct child support in most of the USA either. I'm not sure where you got this idea that one could write that off-I don't think this is done anywhere in the anglosphere, at least not in the USA or Canada.

(07-03-2012 04:04 AM)Kona Wrote:  

Because he gave up. He could have stayed and fought and stuck around to be near his kids.

...with quite literally zero money and an entitled wife using his children as leverage?

Quote:

Forget about the money.

Easy to say when you have some. More difficult to say when you're being asked to put out significantly more than you can make in a month, all while your wife continues to occupy an unaffordable million dollar home while receiving $5000 in tax free income (while still demanding more) and you have nowhere to live.

Quote:

The man has children with serious problems. His whole life was one big problem. As opposed to fighting to make it right, and keeping the respect of his sons and daughters, he took off.

"Man up!"

Quote:

Now he sends them a box of popcorn, and the first thing he does when somebody gets ahold of him is badmouth the shit out of that poor lady.

As if she hasn't earned it.

We must not be reading the same story. Anyone observing this objectively should, at a bare minimum, be able to see why she deserves at least as much blame for this situation as anyone else.

Quote:

She's the one dealing with the Downs kid, and the cancer kid, and the depressed girl and the oldest one that's in rehab.

1. Kid doesn't have cancer.
2. Oldest kid is not a dependent, hasn't been for two years (since before he fled the country).
3. There's no concrete proof that she (oldest girl) has been diagnosed with anything, and even if she was depressed, she's in the same boat as 30-40% of girls her age. No need to weep over that.

Quote:

This guy was the captain of a very fucked up ship, and when it got to tough for him he bailed.

Not even an accurate statement. He left in 2011, remember? He had been making payments and dealing mutually with the wife since their separation in 2005.

I asked this question before, and I'll ask it again: if the illnesses are the issue here and NOT the fact that he'd essentially been bankrupted by his own government in a shady, unjust dismissal of a mutual agreement, then why didn't he bail in 2008, 2009, 2010, or earlier in 2011?

He bailed in late 2011 right after being saddled with indisputably insurmountable payments in June of that year following an act by the wife that can be called shady at best. Why didn't he leave before if that wasn't the real issue? He had plenty of opportunity to do so, but only took it after the imposition of unjust payments. What's up with that?

Answer this for me.

Quote:

See my point Athlone Mcginnis?

No, I don't. Most of the time I do, but with regards to this particular topic I don't think you've got one.

Quote:

That's his blood, and it was easier to abandon them then fight. You eloquently broke down his financials and figured that after he paid his support every month he had a grand left over right?

Read more carefully what I said:

(07-02-2012 07:46 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

...You're also grossly understating the costs foisted upon the man in this case (back spousal support, all legal costs for his ex, his own living expenses now that he's lost his home, his own legal costs, etc). It adds up to much more than $4000 a month, which in itself is already next to mission impossible on $5000 post-tax monthly income...

Quote:

A choice the guy had, the one that would have shown a little balls, if not to anyone at least to his kids, would have been for him to live in a shitty apartment in the ghetto and done something to take care of his kids.

...1. On what money? That settlement wouldn't have left anything for him to live on and (as Samseau has pointed out) there's no guarantee he'd have been able to see/support his kids in such a situation anyway. The guy makes $8.5k monthly, $5k after taxes, and is being asked to cover back support, plus $4000 total in current support AND cover past legal costs (likely well into the tens of thousands), all while somehow supporting himself. How is this supposed to work?
You're trying to make an impossible situation look like a walk in the park, and that can't work here.

He has $1000 left after the combined spousal/child support payment. He doesn't get to keep that after covering combined legal costs for both himself AND his ex, in addition to retroactive spousal support payments and his own living expenses. This is not a financially viable situation-his best case scenario is absolute poverty, while his wife occupies a million dollar lakefront home and receives over $5000 in tax free income in addition to spousal support (retroactive and current) plus $2000 available in rental income, all while refusing to work.

Quote:

Well take that grand,

Which doesn't exist.

Quote:

get a ghetto apartment (if they have the ghetto in Canada) for $350 a month,

Assuming this even exists in the Greater Toronto Area and would be viable for him to live in. $350/month rents are not something you can count on in these parts of the world.

Quote:

go to work,

Assuming he can afford to do so at this point (with what money will he be paying for transport?).

Quote:

then ride a bike to the rehab facility and sit with your son.

Assuming the distances involved here make biking feasible in this case.

Quote:

At least be a man that your children can learn to respect.

You do understand that with the financial situation he was put in he was more than likely to have eventually ended up in jail or in arrears anyway, right? Then you would still be calling him a deadbeat dad (all while still putting none of the deserved blame on the woman, who apparently can do no wrong here).

You also assume he'd have regularly been allowed to see his children (anyone familiar with child support cases these days knows that isn't a given) and that the woman would not have been poisoning them against him anyway.

This guy can't win. The only way to survive this game is not to play, and in that regard he made the best possible move.

Quote:

Athlone McGinnis, I was asking about the article itself not the comments below the article.

This was my question: "Where exactly does anything in the article lead you to believe that that woman is greedy or lazy? The only person that says that is the husband, who didn't have the balls to cough up 4 grand a month, could care less about his kids, and ran off."

Both comments refer to material that is factually correct and drawn from the article.

"She gets $2500 monthly from the government, $2000 for the apartment, AND needs $4000 from her ex? She needs $8500 every month, while living in a million dollar home?"

All accurate statements judging from the information in the article, on top of the fact that she is skilled and had plenty of time to read the agreements she claims to have not read.

And, once again since you seem unwilling to acknowledge this, he was ordered to "cough up" much more than $4000 monthly once you factor in retroactive support, legal expenses for himself and his ex, and his own living expenses.

Quote:

Is the only reason you and the other guys think she's greedy and lazy because she's the woman?

Now I'm starting to wonder if you're intentionally ignoring what I have written. Read the previous post I wrote again if you are still unclear as to why I find this woman to be very much in the wrong, and you can also go over the other comments written in this thread which are on point as well. I'm not going to write it all out again, it has been made very, VERY clear.

Quote:

And hey Athlone McGinnis, I think you'll have a different idea about this in a few years.

No, I will not. What this man was subjected to is wrong right now, and it will not be any less incorrect in a few years.

[Samseau]

Kona:


Dude, wouldn't you walk out on a business deal if the guy you made a deal with didn't hold up his end of the bargain?


This guy had a finalized statement that was overturned by the court just because the wife made up some bullshit that she felt rushed and didn't understand the terms of the contract.

That's obviously a load of shit and the judges who overturned the contract were corrupt as hell.


When you can't even depend on your own court system to enforce contracts you make with your wife, who is to say his wife wouldn't fuck him over again and again, for as long as he was in Canada?

The first time in court he has to pay 4500 a month, then they decide to up it to 8500? For no reason at all? Who's to say they wouldn't up it again to 10,000 per month?

Why the hell should anyone play by those rules?

[beta_plus]

Am I the only one who noticed that he was Danish guy who married a girl from Ontario? I think that he could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he could have read the forum's Toronto threads and Don't Bang Denmark.

The Roosh Travel Forum is doing the world a favor

[Veloce]

(07-02-2012 07:40 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

[quote] (07-01-2012 11:29 PM)Locke Wrote:  

And contrary to what some of you think, the kids won't understand. Any inheritance will go the new kids he has with the new wife.

The things that my father (who I have never seen) did to my mother in the days just prior and soon after my birth are easily on this level, and he had far less justification than this guy (in fact, he had none-just wanted another woman).
Even I have grown beyond my dislike for the man as I've become a man myself. Do not underestimate the capacity of children to grow and understand-if I can forgive a man who did much worse than this dude (he did not get anything close to a raw deal like this to justify his actions), then these kids have the potential to figure it out too. It isn't that uncommon.

This. I wanted to make a point on this. I wouldn't call my dad a deadbeat (he made payments) but I rarely saw him and when I did he was a prick. Most of my friends are raised by single mothers with semi-deadbeat dads.

And looking at my mom, I don't blame him. She was crazy.

There's this stigma out there, this vibe, a sort of public outcry, "But what about the children?!"

Children are stronger than the rest of us. They're resilient and they learn to adapt to survive. Of course, they harbor fucked up issues that will bite them in the ass later on, but at that point they're an adult and it's up to them to rehabilitate themselves mentally.

It would have been nice to have a great dad, and I'm sure many on this board would echo those statements. But it is what it is, I turned out fine, you don't become a great person by having it easy. Great people struggle.

Ideally, I'd give my kid a better childhood than I had, but if I was in a situation like this mofo in the article, best believe I'm not going to subject myself to a lifetime of misery because of some one-sided government policy. What I WILL say is this fucker should have thought twice before shacking up with this broad, but there's no point in lamenting his lack of red-pill wisdom.

Life is extremely cruel and difficult to all humans from all walks. Some people die young of cancer, some folks die in plane crashes, some people wake up one day ruined and in some deep shit with the law. As men, many of us do our best to stand up to all of it and bear it. But it doesn't exempt us from occasionally buckling to the pressure and doing what it takes to survive. Call him a pussy all you want, he's flesh and bones like the rest of us.

[Black Quixote]

1k a month isn't enough for him to survive.... Remember he's 53, he needs cash for retirement.

Car insurance itself can run 1k a month in Canada. Not to mention he lives in the GTA where things are more expensive.

1k a month and he's living in deep poverty.

[el mechanico]

(07-02-2012 12:44 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 09:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The USA already has ways to freeze your passport. Pretty soon they'll just make it mandatory to freeze your passport if you have any child support payments.

If you owe $2,500 or more in child support, you are not eligible to receive a U.S. passport.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/fam...y_863.html

According to this letter, your current passport can be suspended:

https://vlc.wikispaces.com/file/view/Pas...10+(2).pdf

Department of revenue Florida suspended mine around two months after my kids mother turned me in for support even though my case never got heard and was filed. My drives licence also and put a lien on one of my properties. She lost but I still had to clean up the mess one at a time. I would never leave my kid though even the few days I've been in the DR is killing me. I would of figured a way to manipulate the situation.

[Moma]

(07-03-2012 09:23 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  

Am I the only one who noticed that he was Danish guy who married a girl from Ontario? I think that he could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he could have read the forum's Toronto threads and Don't Bang Denmark.

The Roosh Travel Forum is doing the world a favor

Don't bang Denmark is for not banging Danish women not for Danish men not banging other women. Also, Ontarian women are quite nice, it's the lizards from Toronto that suck.

[tjames]

From what I heard about DC, Canada is really the same way. Women have really high bitch shields here. They get offended easy too it seems like. But that's just the case for women born into feminist doctrine everywhere...grrrl power!!!