Varying Spousal Support Arrangements

Posted on December 22, 2011 by
English: Supreme Court of Canada building, Ott...

Supreme Court of Canada (Image via Wikipedia)

The Supreme Court of Canada handed down two decisions yesterday that “ruled spousal support arrangements can only be changed if the spouse who is paying can establish a genuine, significant and unexpected change in circumstances“.

Professor Nick Bala of Queen’s University, a well-known family law expert, says:

In these tough economic times, these are important decisions and this is significant. The rulings emphasize the importance of careful consideration before a separation agreement is signed. In particular those who agree to pay spousal support will have real difficulty is seeking a reduction if their financial situation changes.

There’s more information about these decisions in this report in the Globe and Mail and associated links.

Posted in Family Law | Tagged | Leave a comment

Some Thoughts on Regret

Posted on December 2, 2011 by

Watch this 17 minute Tedtalks video of Kathryn Schulz talking about regret and why it’s not such a bad thing after all:

Posted in intellectual life, interconnectedness, Psychology | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Polygamy, Serial Monogamy, and Support Arrangements

Posted on November 24, 2011 by

William Leckey, Associate Professor of Law, McGill University

In the wake of Wednesday’s decision by the Supreme Court of British Columbia upholding the constitutionality of the Criminal Code’s ban on polygamy, the Globe and Mail today publishs an interesting commentary by McGill University law professor, Robert Leckey.

Leckey points out that there’s an interesting parallel in terms of economic impact as between polygamy and mainstream forms of marriage.

[...] men in polygamous unions may have more children than they can support and may induce economic dependence in more women than they can support. The result is women and children with insufficient resources.

While polygamy may be likelier than other arrangements to lead to more dependants than a breadwinner can support, the problem of unmanageable support duties is widespread. It often arises when someone still supporting children and a spouse from a former relationship assumes new family obligations.

[...]

[...] divorce makes it socially acceptable for men to remarry and have more children while the first wife is still living. Divorce also makes it more likely that a man may become the breadwinner for one woman, while still supporting another made dependant by a previous union.

The key difference between polygamy and the successive families enabled by divorce is timing. Polygamy leads to multiple wives and children simultaneously. Divorce leads to multiple wives and children sequentially. The economic problem in both cases is multiple dependencies and the need for support at the same time.

The increased social acceptability of unmarried cohabitation has made successive families even easier, as repartnering no longer requires the formalities of divorce and remarriage.

Leckey poses the trenchant question when will Canadian law and policy catch up to the reality that many Canadians have multiple living partners (albeit sequentially) and that many Canadian children have more than two parental figures in their lives.

Read his entire commentary here.

Posted in Family Law, Parenting | Tagged , | 2 Comments

How to argue with teenagers? Know when to stop!

Posted on November 4, 2011 by

Anthony E. Wolf

I’ve had occasion in the past to favourably cite psychologist Anthony E. Wolf, the parenting columnist at The Globe and Mail.  In this morning’s paper, he discusses what he calls the No. 1 day-to-day mistake parents of teens make: not withdrawing from the argument.

The problem is simple. With the great majority of teens, if they are not getting their way, anything that their mother or father says – anything – just pours fuel on the fire. They will argue and cajole and complain forever. (And I do mean, forever.) That is, unless the parent says, “I give up. You win. I’ve changed my mind.”
The greater wisdom is that once you take an unpopular stance, and if after a brief discussion, you haven’t changed your mind, it’s best to say what you have to say – and then nothing further.

He then sets out a few reasons why parents fail to heed this good sense and stop arguing.

1.  The compulsion to make the teen change her mind and see things the way the parent sees them.

That is not going to happen.

The obvious fallacy is that it is what you do – not what you say – that matters. They learn their persistent arguing bears fruit, or that it does not. That is the only lesson.

2.  Parents feel they can’t let their teens get away with backtalk.

The point of backtalk – the reason they [teenagers] do it – is that they’re mad they’re not getting their way, and they want to bully you into changing your mind. If you respond, their backtalk will have succeeded in keeping the argument going – and you will get more backtalk. Conversely, if there is no response, it renders the backtalk pointless.

3.  Seeing the world in terms of win/lose contests.

“I can’t let her get in the last word. I just can’t. She’ll win. That’s not right. I’m the parent.”

[...]

But when you disengage and they keep going, it does feel as though you’re the winner. At least it feels like you’re the parent.

Posted in adolescence, Parenting, Relational ideology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Transformative Mediators Establish Network in Quebec

Posted on October 31, 2011 by

John Peter Weldon

John Peter Weldon is a Quebec-based Certified Transformative Mediator™, lawyer, and trainer for the Continuing Legal Education Service of the Quebec Bar (Le Barreau du Québec).  He recently announced the creation of the Réseau pour une approche transformative du conflit (Network for a Transformative Approach to Conflict).  The network numbers 50 predominantly French-speaking professionals, among whom are  mediators, labour arbitrators and conciliators, HR directors and consultants, management and union representatives, workplace bullying investigators, collaborative lawyers, law professors, an ombuds, a retired judge, and the vice-dean of a medical school.  All have received basic training in transformative mediation and have chosen to nurture and develop a transformative dimension to their practice.

From the news release announcing the establishment of the Network:

Based on the values of co-development, mutual support, and outreach, the new network is slated to play a major part in helping to make the transformative option available in the French-speaking world, not only in Canada, but also in France, where mediator and trainer Marianne Souquet has become the network’s first overseas partner.

[The Network's objective is to begin]  to provide the critical mass necessary to support the public’s freedom to choose the type of professional best suited to help them through a conflict (emphasis in original).

A tip of the hat to John Peter for this important initiative and best wishes for the success of this Network.

Related articles
Posted in transformative mediation | Tagged | Leave a comment

What it takes to be a Mediator?

Posted on October 26, 2011 by

Here’s a video taken from a June 2011 training by Certified Transformative Mediator™, Louise Phipps Senft of Baltimore, on the characteristics of a mediator:

Posted in transformative mediation | Tagged | 1 Comment

The Experiencing Self and the Remembering Self or Well-being and Happiness

Posted on October 18, 2011 by

Posted in mind & brain, mindfulness, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment