Insane family court ruling

[Jetsfan]

Two courts incredulously concluded Refcio's responsibility to his ex-wife extends to her twins; twins who were born well after the marriage ended and who were fathered by another man.


http://www.calgaryherald.com/Life/Co...075/story.html

[mykalberta]

Yah, read that this morning. If ever something screamed "GET A PRENUP" that does.

Thankfully the one court reduced the payments to 1 year but still. Crazy amount for 2 years of marriage with no kids fathered by the divorced husband.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Yah, read that this morning. If ever something screamed "GET A PRENUP" that does.

Thankfully the one court reduced the payments to 1 year but still. Crazy amount for 2 years of marriage with no kids fathered by the divorced husband.

I don't even know if a prenup would mean anything here. It seems like both courts have pretty much disregarded all sanity. A prenup wouldn't even contemplate these disguised child support payments because the kids didn't exist.

It's absolutely mind boggling that any judge could look at the facts here and come to this conclusion, either there are some details absent or somebody got some splainin to do.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't even know if a prenup would mean anything here. It seems like both courts have pretty much disregarded all sanity. A prenup wouldn't even contemplate these disguised child support payments because the kids didn't exist.

It's absolutely mind boggling that any judge could look at the facts here and come to this conclusion, either there are some details absent or somebody got some splainin to do.

A prenup would have definatley at least showed what he is owed. Because there is none, then you let an imperfect court and activist judge system to decide your destiny.

Likely they have the often common "feel sorry for the single mother" syndrome which is unfortunately common these days as it "takes 2 to tango".

The article isnt the most clear. I had assumed that the judge arbitrarily decided to lump his future payments into one large one to compensate for the mothers circumstances. Still mondboggling unfair but who said justice was fair.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Likely they have the often common "feel sorry for the single mother" syndrome which is unfortunately common these days as it "takes 2 to tango".

Exactly. Especially disturbing is that the courts seem to know that she decided to "tango" with another man and father his children...

[krazycanuck]

slut.

[CaptainCrunch]

At a certain point you just say WHHHHAAAATTTT?

Completley unfair to the male in this case.

[troutman]

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...=loco+parentis

[Coach]

The Honourable Judge Eric Furlatt now presiding.....please be seated

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...=loco+parentis

While still insane, wouldnt that be a bit different as even though his sperm didnt fertilize her egg, he did - for a small time at least - was "father" to those children.

This guy, got divorced, his ex whored out and got preggers, now he has to pay.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

A prenup would have definatley at least showed what he is owed. Because there is none, then you let an imperfect court and activist judge system to decide your destiny.

Likely they have the often common "feel sorry for the single mother" syndrome which is unfortunately common these days as it "takes 2 to tango".

The article isnt the most clear. I had assumed that the judge arbitrarily decided to lump his future payments into one large one to compensate for the mothers circumstances. Still mondboggling unfair but who said justice was fair.

A prenup would have allocated assets entering the marriage, that doesn't appear to be an issue here. This is a judge forcing child care payments disguised as alimony.

If he did act as a father the situation changes, but the article doesn't really tell us anything on that front.

[troutman]

I'd like to see the original judgment. I'm not sure if the writer of the article in the OP is confusing child support and spousal support?

[Bobblehead]

Here is a G&M article

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/National

After ending a two-year marriage that had produced no children, Rod Refcio had every reason to believe that his spousal support obligations would be modest.

So it appears it is NOT child support to pay for 2 other man's kids. It is spousal support and the issue with this case is with the seemingly arbitrary amount.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'd like to see the original judgment. I'm not sure if the writer of the article in the OP is confusing child support and spousal support?

1500/month for a 2 year marriage is ridiculous either way.

[troutman]

Spousal support is tax deductible for the payor, and income for the payee.

Several years ago, the federal government tried to reform spousal support by asking two respected family law experts - Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson - to come up with a set of guidelines that incorporate factors such as the duration of marriage and the number of children.

Mr. Epstein, who was on an advisory committee that oversaw their creation, said the guidelines are gradually improving the system.

Only Alberta has failed to embrace them, he said. "I think the guidelines have caused a major stride toward uniformity. I think they are doing the job they were meant to do."

It is hard to say if $1500 is unreasonable without knowing all of the facts.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Here is a G&M article

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/National



So it appears it is NOT child support to pay for 2 other man's kids. It is spousal support and the issue with this case is with the seemingly arbitrary amount.

After reading that Rod Refcio is a lawyer.... I say stick it to him!!!!!!!!!!

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by troutman

Spousal support is tax deductible for the payor, and income for the payee.

Several years ago, the federal government tried to reform spousal support by asking two respected family law experts - Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson - to come up with a set of guidelines that incorporate factors such as the duration of marriage and the number of children.

Mr. Epstein, who was on an advisory committee that oversaw their creation, said the guidelines are gradually improving the system.

Only Alberta has failed to embrace them, he said. "I think the guidelines have caused a major stride toward uniformity. I think they are doing the job they were meant to do."

It is hard to say if $1500 is unreasonable without knowing all of the facts.

Agreed, article seems strange.

However the main points in the article in the paper were as follows.

Ontario standard spousal support is 300-400 for this type of marriage without kids. And that there is a set time specified for those payments to end.

In the original judgement, 1500 was the amount said to be paid with no set time as to when they would stop.

The only thing that has changed with the new judgement, is the 1500 is to be paid for only 1 more year.

Now that I know he is a lawyer (and most lawyers are uber-rich (fishermen excluded of course ), 1500 doesnt seem overly expensive monthly repence given the other craziness we have seen. Although it does seem that the open endedness of the first judgement does seem insane.

[Boblobla]

[CaptainCrunch]

[fredr123]

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/d...nlii17353.html

Here's the Divisional Court ruling that set an end date to the support payments. This case concerns spousal support and not, as Bobblehead has pointed out, child support.

Other interesting tidbits that may be of relevance:

[7] During the relationship, the husband encouraged the wife to continue her studies and to terminate her employment. The husband is a young lawyer and at the date of trial was earning $60,000 annually. The respondent last worked in 2001 and earned approximately $12,000 annually.

[9] At the trial, the wife submitted three medical reports with respect to emotional difficulties that she experienced as a result of her separation. The symptoms included anxiety, insomnia and depression. Post-separation she was briefly hospitalized and continued under the care of her family doctor. Her doctor stated in his report dated January 2008, that her problems “continue to exist because there has been no resolution of the marital situation with her estranged husband”.