Canada Goes Communist
I can almost grasp the logic of the Canuck court’s decision. In theory, parents should have to see to it that their children get what they need.
The problem is that 1. It’s excessive at 22.000 a year (is that Canuck $ or USD? either way), and 2. It’s real frightening that the decision expands that country’s goverment’s power and influence over the way parents are required treat their grown children.
3. It seems like, if he’s got the money and his daughter wants to pursue the same profession, that he should WANT to pay for half, if not all, if her medical education - sans government intrusion. No matter, though, because is all Mom does is sit around on her fat ass, then this chick is not going anywhere with only half of the tuition.
I’m already exasperated at the attitude that a parent LEGALLY owes their offspring who have reached adulthood ANY financial support for any reason.
If the parents want to support their offspring once they’ve reached adulthood, that’s fine I have no problem with that, because it remains a private matter between parents and progeny. I’m a parent, I want to support my two little girls as far as I _can_, because they’re my girls. But for the government to mandate my support once they reach adulthood?
That’s utterly and completely WRONG.
Fucking nanny state bullshit.
Great - Now I can Sue my 80 year old Mom
She is going to get a bill because she born me a long time ago.
My tire salesman at sears said he has to pay for the crap his son gets to fix his car because of the damn judge.
He said his son wanted a new clutch but his son drives an automatic. So come to find out his X-Wife’s new husband needs a clutch.
Some son’s are jerks to their dads to help there moms and their new husbands, pathetic.
Posted by Z Woof
01/13/2005 at 10:13 AM
Doesn’t the father still have a responsibility to his daughter? Regardless of the status of the marriage, I would think that the father would want to help his daughter succeed and provide support to her in college.
Are there other issues here that are not discussed?
Posted by MAJ Mike
01/13/2005 at 10:23 AM
And the mother? She sits at home all day....
And probably fucks....
Maj Mike, since when should the state legislate “obligation to any child?”
Using your logic, at what point does this father’s obligations end? What if she wants to be a “permanent” student and never get a job?
The “obligation” to a child ends when that child reaches adulthood--as defined by law as being 18 years old. If she wants to go to school, get a job, get a loan, get a grant, get a scholarship. There is no lack of any of that stuff out there.
People may thing this doctor should pay because he makes $170000 Canuck dollars a year. Sounds like a lot until you realize the confiscatory rate at which Canada taxes its citizens. Plus the guy is paying alimony. How much bleeding does he have to do and for how long? For that matter, why should parents go into the poor house just because their kids want to go to college?
Soory, it just frosts my jaws that society has this attitude that their children are “owed” an education. I do not buy it.
But that’s me.
No. A child is a life-time obligation. If you don’t see it that way, don’t have any children.
The ex-husband may hate the ex-wife. The ex-wife may be a lazy slut. The ex-husband may be a horn-dog, but the daughter is a precious gift from God and the parents should do all they can for as long as they can to support and assist her in being a success.
Sometimes the assistance may consist of tough-love. A blank check is not the best way to support your child. But you don’t abandon resonsibility because of some arbitrary age limit.
Raising children is a crap shoot. No matter how hard you try, you may still fail. That fact doesn’t stop you from trying.
Besides, it’s not an obligation, really. Isn’t it something you would do because you love them?
Posted by MAJ Mike
01/13/2005 at 06:40 PM
01/13/2005 at 09:28 AM
