Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill (Canada)

CBC (Constant Bolshevik Crap) ^ | Wed, 12 Jan 2005 | Staff

[GMMAC]

Anyone who doesn't believe that the so-called "family" courts on both sides of the border have as their primary objective the advancement of the Marxist radical feminists' plainly anti-family, sexist agenda, needs to give their heads a shake.

To professional gender bigots and their fellow travelers in the Judiciary, all males are "evil oppressors" and quite clearly the new bourgeoisie!

[johniegrad]

Guess that's probably not the original title of the article (although I agree with your sentiments).

[T.Smith]

While I don't agree with the government (ours or theirs) requiring this man to pay for his daughter's schooling, I can't understand why he wouldn't want to. His daughter is following in his footsteps. He knows how hard it is to pay for medical school. If he has the means to help her out, why wouldn't he want to?

[GMMAC]

Right you are!
Although the original title - "Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill" - was retained in the body of the post.
Especially when it comes to the CBC, it's tough not to want to start the day off by calling a spade a spade!

[HarleyD]

If I was sued by my son (or daughter) to have me put them through school I'd be leaving my estate to Fluffy the cat.

[sittnick]

Okay, now the doctor is a government employee, and he is being charged for his daughter's education in a government school so that she could become a government employee.

Does anybody wonder why the government courts happily take control? Who dares challenge them?

[elli1]

This might be a clue as to why the father is resisting shelling out:

Barbara Neufeld's only income is from spousal support, the ruling noted.

Barbara is the doctor's ex-wife and Jennifer, the daughter, has a younger brother--who may also be in college--article doesn't say.

[sasafras]

Coming to America soon - democrats are nothing more than communists.

[thinking]

It is, clearly open season on males.....why is it that the wife is not "forced" to contribute to the "child's" support....why is it that the male, is "forced" to carry the load??

In this day of gender equality, one would think that financial support of a child would be shared by the wife and the husband.

Of course, reading between the lines; at a tax rate of 50% on $170,000, $22000 is a yearly payment of $11,000.

[ModelBreaker]

While I don't agree with the government (ours or theirs) requiring this man to pay for his daughter's schooling, I can't understand why he wouldn't want to. His daughter is following in his footsteps. He knows how hard it is to pay for medical school. If he has the means to help her out, why wouldn't he want to?

I have a feeling the real issue here is whether the daughter is saddled with her father's income when applying for financial aid from government schools, regardless whether he is actually supporting her or not. If she is so saddled, then the government schools get more money.

[Steve_Seattle]

Can anyone tell me what principle of LAW is being applied in this case? I thought parental financial obligations ceased when a child became a legal adult. If a parent cannot tell an adult child what to do, how can an adult child tell a parent what to do?

[goldstategop]

He has an obligation to support his daughter after she turned 18? Wow... in Canada, the welfare state and the destruction of parental rights have been elevated to a whole new level.

[GMMAC]

"...If he has the means to help her out, why wouldn't he want to?"

Obviously the article doesn't say but, maybe the Doctor put himself through medical school and sees himself as a better person for having done so?

Or, perhaps, the adult daughter bit the hand that fed her by siding once too often with her unemployed mother?

It could also be that the Doctor knows all too well that, while Canada's socialized medical system habitually short-changes public care in countless areas, it has readily provided radical feminists and homosexuals with what amounts to an endless taxpayer-funded "wish list" and, accordingly, is reluctant to subsidize yet another likely advocate for the current status quo within the system?

The point is: if this were a free country ...

[You Dirty Rats]

Of course, reading between the lines; at a tax rate of 50% on $170,000, $22000 is a yearly payment of $11,000.

I don't know about Canada, but in the United States Child Support is NOT tax deductible.

[datura]

Steve - you haven't been divorced, have you? No. If you had, you wouldn't find this case out of the ordinary at all. In fact, it sounds to me as though they were pretty lenient on the good Doctor. After all, he gets to pay his wife to live in the style she was accustomed to while married to him, plus he gets to pay for his daughter to enjoy his profession.

Had he been down here in the States, he'd be working a second job under the table just to pay rent in some $hithole since the ex and her new boyfriend got the house, and his child support would come to nearly 95% of his income.

[You Dirty Rats]

Can anyone tell me what principle of LAW is being applied in this case?

Law? What Court cares about the Law? What are you, some kind of romantic idealist?

[krb]

Indeed.

[krb]

Of course, reading between the lines; at a tax rate of 50% on $170,000, $22000 is a yearly payment of $11,000.

I'd think that at a 50% tax rate, $22,000 a year is more like a $44,000 payment.

[Lead Moderator]

To prevent duplication, please do not alter the heading. Thanks.