"Deadbeat" Dad?

Sorry this is off topic but that weasel Anderson Cooper who came up with the disgusting tea bagger label for the Tea Party just announced that he is a real teabagger . Says ( I'm gay,always have been always will be )

Somewhere in the Phillipines a 21 year old girlfriend awaits the "deadbeat Dad".

The Mail Online DOES struggle to stay ahead of the National Enquirer,don't they. Better T&A at the Mail,though.

Based on the few details in the article I'd seriously consider leaving if in his position.

It never occurred to her to sell the luxury house and move to a more affordable one and bank the profits? Being on the lake typically doubles the value of a house in Ontario. A brand new home in the Ottawa suburbs is $300 to 350,000. An older house in Cornwall is $200,000 and up. Since she has no job, she can move.

http://www.ottawamenscentre.com/

Not knowing any real specifics of this case aside from the outcome decided by the Ontario Family Court... for any father going through a divorce, they need to keep all the notes of their past, and their spouse's notes, and notes on their children, and notes on their neighbors and work history, knowing that within family court anything can be said without regard to truth / just add some emotion and it'll all be good.
And be twice as good of a parent / spouse as the other, and to be able to PROVE this by their notes / recollections of others.
And never settle for less access than 50% of the time with your kids, and you'll be set.

Work as a long haul truck driver for example? or the oil sands of Fr. McMurray? Better to bail on that and find gainful employment as a Walmart clerk, so you can spend more time with your kids. The flip side can / will be nasty.

I have no sympathy for a guy that runs off to a 3rd world country and leaves this behind. He'd be better off re-consoling with his ex and taking her fishing. He'd be free in less than 10 years too. With the kids.

The point stands but I'll note the place had a 600K mortgage.

Still, not chump change if you sell the place and find something cheaper to live in.

Like me dad said....

"Jus' cause ya go ta court don't mean ya'll get justice......."

Only here, would you see people defending a guy who abandoned his family. Is this supposed to be Conservative values in action?

I bid him bonne chance!

Regardless of any circumstances, what kind of man
runs out on his children? And what is lower on
the Darwin scale than a father who would leave his ex-wife to raise four children (and pass off so glibly the fact that one of them had - cured, or not - cancer) with one of them having Down's Syndrome. He knows that even if his wife can't forever look after this daughter, that the Ontario government will take care of her.
Also, for those sympathizers, if the home has a mortage and she sells it, how much will she be left with to raise the children?
Sorry, just one more scumbag. I know, because I raised one and I don't accept apologies for unacceptable behaviour.

According to the data, he's not a 'deadbeat dad'.

He left her a property worth at least 1.2 million. If she sold it, she'd get at least 600,000. Hmm. That's more than a lifetime of spousal support. She could buy a house for 250,000 in a small town. Since she refuses to work, she could live off the investment plus the govt subsidy she receives. She could do as many other mothers, both divorced and not divorced, she could work part-time.

But even so, at the moment, she has an income of about 4,500 a month. There's the 2,500 from the government for the 'disabled' children, and 2,000 from the rental property. Surely she can manage, as do many, many others, on that income.

Ahhh, so he married again? Is that what is bothering her? Is that why she went back to court, claiming that she hadn't read the original divorce decree and didn't know she had rejected spousal support in lieu of full equity in the 1.2 million dollar house? Didn't she have a lawyer?

The young son calls his father a 'deadbeat dad'. Hmm. Where would a child get that vocabulary? From his mother?

Nope, I side with the father in this instance.

John said, "Only here, would you see people defending a guy who abandoned his family. Is this supposed to be Conservative values in action?"

So we have a woman who lives in a $1.2 million home, gets government subsidy for her disabled children, gets an income from a rental property, gets child support, and then goes back to court to get more money from her ex, and also refuses to work. She is the type of person who sits on all this wealth but wants more and refuses to sell her home and buy a more economically viable one (imagine how much it costs to have people come in and clean a home that large?) but would rather fleece her ex to pay for it all. So, being an intentionally unemployed person living off someone else's earnings while possessing considerable wealth could be considered typical liberal values in action?

John & gellen, have you any male friends who have been divorced since Allan Rock amended the divorce act in the mid '90s? Everything is biased against the father in divorce court.

There is a little more meat to the story in the Toronto Star.

Miss Mills receives $2,500 a month from the government due to her two youngest children's disabilities. She received child support up until last December when the judge ordered Mr Mills to pay $2,235 per month child support and $1,537 spousal support. She also has or could have had the rental income of $2,000 a month. Assuming the child support did not increase in last years ruling, then 2,500 + 2,235 + 2000 is $6,735 monthly.
Add in the $425,000 equity in the house compared to Mr. Mills buyout of $175,000.

Misses Mills (and her lawyer who I presume was advising her) must have thought that the settlement reached in 2008 was a fair one. Thanks to her financial mismanagement she went into debt and instead of downsizing her home and moving to someplace cheaper (the golden horseshoe wrapping around the
west end of Lake Ontario has very expensive real estate and very high municipal taxes, I'll bet that $1.2million dollar home is taxed at $25,000 per annum) she decided to get more money out of her ex. Hi dear, you remember that deal we signed? Guess what, I've decided it's off because I need more money for myself and you're going to pay. And when the court decides in my favour, you'll pay for your lawyer and my expensive lawyer too!

She could and should have sold the house at a profit of over $400,000, bought a less expensive house outright so she would not have a mortgage, and still be receiving $2,235 in child support and $2,500 in disability benefits and gone back to work.

John & gellen, have you any male friends who have been divorced since Allan Rock amended the divorce act in the mid '90s? Everything is biased against the father in divorce court.

There is a little more meat to the story in the Toronto Star.

Miss Mills receives $2,500 a month from the government due to her two youngest children's disabilities. She received child support up until last December when the judge ordered Mr Mills to pay $2,235 per month child support and $1,537 spousal support. She also has or could have had the rental income of $2,000 a month. Assuming the child support did not increase in last years ruling, then 2,500 + 2,235 + 2000 is $6,735 monthly.
Add in the $425,000 equity in the house compared to Mr. Mills buyout of $175,000.

Misses Mills (and her lawyer who I presume was advising her) must have thought that the settlement reached in 2008 was a fair one. Thanks to her financial mismanagement she went into debt and instead of downsizing her home and moving to someplace cheaper (the golden horseshoe wrapping around the
west end of Lake Ontario has very expensive real estate and very high municipal taxes, I'll bet that $1.2million dollar home is taxed at $25,000 per annum) she decided to get more money out of her ex. Hi dear, you remember that deal we signed? Guess what, I've decided it's off because I need more money for myself and you're going to pay. And when the court decides in my favour, you'll pay for your lawyer and my expensive lawyer too!

She could and should have sold the house at a profit of over $400,000, bought a less expensive house outright so she would not have a mortgage, and still be receiving $2,235 in child support and $2,500 in disability benefits and gone back to work.

Just look at Dave Foley from the Kids in the Hall. His ex got child and other support based on his no longer highest income from a decade ago. He stays in the US, and will not return to Canada because he would be set about by the police to enforce the court money order. Men, dont get married, dont have children, play them all, stay sane.

There's only disincentives for men to marry in Canada. It must be hell on the courts now, trying to figure out who to punish when gays divorce.

The idea that to be a "good father" one should beggar one's self before a harpy of a wife and mother is beyond moronic. Our courts are very good at draining blood, er, I mean money from fathers but do absolutely nothing to enforce things like shared custody or visitation. I am happily married and have to wonderful kids but I, too, would consider a trip to the Philippines if my wife took everything and demanded more. As they say, we each have but one life to live and I will be the once who chooses whom to give it to, not the courts.

There is only one way to play this and it takes nerves of steel and blood like ice water.

You stand up to the b*tch, you dare her to take you to court and bankrupt you and cost you your job...and she gets nothing. Most of these women get awfully reasonable when they see they can't bully you.

Just another example of the leftards(Rock) desire to kill the traditional family.Then some people blame the father,instead of the not so justice system?

She shouldna oughtta broke the deal. She did okay but had to plunge the knife one inch deeper. I've seen way too many men get screwed - truly screwed. My favorite was a guy I know who had a mental breakdown from his divorce and spent the next few years unemployed doing nothing but drinking beer. I don't even think he asked for alimony. He eventually recovered about the time his kids finished school.

better deadbeat than DEAD

the bitch screwed herself, with the help of a greedy liar (lawyer) I bet

Divorced in 2005. Wife was given full custody.

Six years later his then 13yo son is a 19yo heroin addict; his 11yo daughter is a depressed 17yo. He may have failed their kids. His wife definitely failed their kids, she had custody and full responsibility.

But do not worry, the canadian taxpayers will end up picking up the pieces. Neither of them are capable of it.

I feel bad for thinking that with that many genetic dead ends, maybe a fresh start was in order.
(shiver, pour myself another vodka/7)
Think about escapes, think about exit strategy, now I've accepted the fact that I'll never be a rock star if I insist on playing punk.
So be it, glad I'm childless and single.
D

Al in Ottawa: Yes, I have a friend of my son living in my basement with his clothes in bags hoping if he goes to court again, he'll get a better deal.

Scratch the single part, I think that French women are going to be searching for new countrys to land on when their economy crashes and the socialists run out of other people's money.
Teaching to to shave certain areas,could be a challenge...
O and hey Cappy, like the new site.

After reading the Daily Mail article...is there a place to vote for "Stupidest headline of the year"?

i wouldl ike to know why she left him in the first place or why he left her in the first place ....I think it is low for him to do but i understand it has nothing to do with his kids or even his ex or his current lover ..it has everything to do with a man being unfairly treated by a court system ..it happens everyday in canada. i have a friend who has two kids with a women that he stuck with and got her off drugs only to have her fall of the band wagin again start hanging with the wrong group .

She left him with a lease on a home that he provided (it was only a rental but it was better than what she ever had) she took him to court and the judge makes him pay her almost a thousand dollars a month on top of that she said she needed to take care of the kids so she could not work so the judge makes him pay her an additional five hundred buck to her (they were never married only common law) . So what does she do opens up a daycare out of her home and now she makes money on the side (this was brought up in court judge said it was acceptable for her to do that ) he still has to pay her..and what did he do?

nothing she found a sperm donor that has a good heart and she abused him i have seen how she treated him in person ...so have about fifty other people (he took her to a company ski trip where she basically mauled him infront of everyone then tried to leave with one of his freinds) she is a wicked woman ..funny all of this only happend after their second child was born before that she was fine perfect nothing worng (she was dealing with her drug abuse just fine she was clean for three years)

courts have no care or regard for a fathers relationship with thier children men are just sperm donors in a court of law and a paycheque for the female!!

our courts here in canada are so broken and corrupted it is remarkable!!

If the court effectively bankrupts a person , it is equivalent to a modern day paupers prison

I know lots of expats in South East Asia in exactly the same situation, from all over the western world. Some are indeed turds, but many have left abusive relationships with western women (female on male) and the courts have decimated them in their divorces.

These guys end up in nicer homes with better lifestyles than they ever had back in their home countries, usually with much younger and far more pleasant Asian girlfriends. The educated ones normally speak English, the uneducated ones not, but they don’t seem care as much about the big fat slob twice their age on the indoor pool bar stool either.

You can get a Mansion in the Philipines for the price of a small apartment in Canada, along with 2 live-in maids that cook, clean, nanny, and get the groceries for around $100US a month.

It’s not a tough deal for these guys considering they pay 0% tax on high expatriate income and the alternatives left to them back in the western world.

It may seem unpalatable or immoral to some, but who is anyone to judge that hasn’t been through the same experiences. Any animal reacts if you back them into a corner, these guys just run.

WOW you Canadians are ignorant about your own screwed up laws.. Canada Courts do even try to play fair..As a matter of fact a Canadian divorce decree (after 16 years of child support) can be changed, without Notice to the ex- Husband , by any Court employee. (does not require a Judge) and the new order “MAY” be enforced in the USA...

Your Divorce laws are Obscene. Canadian lawyers are IMHO incompetent and unnecessary, that is unless you like to pay your lawyer to play social worker by telling you WHY you can't win...

Now if you could find an Honest Lawyer; they would tell you the same thing!

Sorry for the rant,

gellen, according to my coworker who was put through the wringer by his ex, the only way your son's friend can get a better deal is to prove that supporting his children is impoverishing other children. He would have to father or become a step-father to other children and prove that the child support for the children from his previous marriage is detrimental to his younger children. Only then would the court consider 'balancing' his support for the older and younger children.

The father's standard of living after child support and spousal support is paid is irrelevant to the court. He could be living in a friend's mothers basement or in an insulated garage with nothing but a microwave, a card table and a lawn chair and the court would not take that into consideration.

Interesting.

On the face of it, the guy is made to be a scumbag. On further examination, not so much.

Fathers in Canada are treated as the lowest possible carbon unit and that is looked upon as being dealt with generously.

Have some sympathy for the children, though zero for the woman.

Greed works both ways, the woman would not move a finger to make herself useful.
The guy gave her a whole lot of wealth, if she is not satisfied, maybe she could try Burkina Faso, it's warm there and hardly anybody works, she would fit right in.

A deal should be a deal. It was signed by her. She clearly came out with a fair deal and that should be that. Our laws need to be changed so this cannot happen. They should analyze her situation and state that she doesn't need the million dollar home if she isn't working and could move elsewhere and keep her standard of living.

"Sorry this is off topic but that weasel Anderson Cooper..."

Who cares?!

"It must be hell on the courts now, trying to figure out who to punish when gays divorce."

LMAO! The one who acts the least "gay" I suppose. Or the one with the biggest balls, maybe? Big balled, non-flambouyant gay people face the most discrimination under the law in the country! Maybe that's white men in general?

Why can't we all just be persons under the law? Male/Female/Gay/Straight/Black/White/Jew/Christian it's so stupid to have laws that differ based on colour or sex or religion. Even worse, like in this case, when the judge shows bias where the wording of the law probably doesn't. Aren't we all supposed to be equal?

Just curious, if it was him raising 4 kids and she had been the bread winner how do you think the courts would differ, or would they? Are they biased against men, or are they biased against the one making the most money, or the one who is spending less time with the children?

Also wondering now, considering the bill in California mentioned in an earlier post, how the courts there would deal with the situation of more than 2 parents?! Things would get really tangly there.

Nurse Waters. Could you check to see if operating theatre "c" (as in castration) is available for an immediate "testicalectomy"?

I retract my previous comment f you Mr Captcha
dipsh!t
Spell that l33t wanabe

Dale--Wright@hotmail.com jerky

Captain of the wrong ship, yo.

I have empathy for this man (just look at that harpy's face), but there are some points not mentioned:

While the family courts issue very stupid decisions on occasion (unlike SCOTUS, no, wait...), the fact is that the wife's spousal support was a temporary order.

Yes, she has a million dollar lakefront home (with a mortgage and for which she probably still owes her ex $175K).

Yes, she has an order for child support which in Ontario is bases soley on the father's income and is higher than most of us earn in a month but you know those kids' clothes and shoes and bikes and toys and the mortgage payment and utility bills on that house are much higher than for most of us too.

Yes, she receives $2000 from the rental, but most of that goes to the maintenance and tax of the rental property and maybe its mortgage.

Yes, we have public health insurance, but there are still plenty of medical expenses. What teenage girl isn't "depressed", but OHIP doesn't cover 100% of psych treatments.

Yes, the 19 year old is legally an adult, but how many families have adult children living at home as grown children (well beyond age 19)?

Canada has no Bradley Amendment (a Federal law in the US that allows child support arrears never ever to be reduced. Ever.) So the $28,000 could reasonably be reduced by a future court decision. (My ex was owed $22k+ for her child from her ex who is a much less sympathetic fellow than this Mills chap, and the judge cut it in half.)

In light of the above, I must say that while the family courts can issue horrible rulings, while the child support system is in dire need of reform, and as there are thousands of men like this one living abroad for various and somewhat understandable reasons, I'm sorry, but:

Mills could have remained in Ontario to face the trial that would have doubtless given some kind of releif to his almost-4-grand CS obligation, probably likewise "retrospective" reduction to the $28k, and thrown out the temporary spousal support order in light of the rental income and the offset of the marital property. Then he could learn how to deal with making those payments with his $200,000+ income while sleeping with 20 year olds in his bachelor pad.

But instead he chose to flee to the Orient with his Filipina nanny where he is actually allowed to keep a loaded shotgun next to his bed.

Hell hath no fury as an Ex with a lesbian lawyer.

Hell hath no fury like an ex's do over. Actually, redoing deals is steeped in Canadian history. Ask the folks at Caledonia. The dad is a wuss for leaving the kids but he isn't necessarily the reason the kids are screwed up.