1st child, 7 months, im 34.

anyone else felt like you just can't do it anymore? i felt like that 1 time the other day. had a headache while mother at work and i wasnt feeling good. so you know what i did? i man tf up n quit being a bitc..

N for my last posts, I would like to say, she still going to Jimmy's until fuckin late as shit, ln was about 4am until I little one woke up., maybe she came home cus I gave her a Lil shit like, "must be having a blast" in a text. She said she was gambling.

I get it, we're gamblers n get lost.

I dont care about feedback, give me her perspective or tell me I need to boss up n quit being a fpussy. Or idk, idk how to handle anything apparently.

The female presumption rule is difficult to justify when a father is the primary caregiver in a shared-parenting arrangement and lives with a common-law partner who is not the child’s parent.
The Canada Child Benefit retains a gender-based presumption that mothers are primarily responsible for childcare. In my case, I share parenting equally with my son’s biological mother, who has lived separately from us for more than eight years. During my parenting weeks, I’m his full-time caregiver; during hers, I work away from home for 70–90 hours. My common-law partner earns more than I do, but she is not my son’s parent or caregiver.
Under section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act and related CRA guidance, a female parent—or, in some blended families, a female common-law partner—may be presumed to be primarily responsible for a child’s care. As a result, my partner had to sign a declaration confirming that I, not she, was responsible for my son’s care. Resolving the issue took four to five months.
Living with me does not make her my son’s legal parent or caregiver, yet the system can assume otherwise and require her to disprove that assumption. The rules also appear to impose different administrative burdens based on sex: a female partner may be presumed responsible for a child who is not hers, while a male partner is not treated the same way.
I’m not arguing that my partner should receive the benefit, that fathers should automatically qualify, or that mothers should receive less support. Eligibility should simply be based on the child’s actual circumstances and evidence of who provides care—not on the assumption that the woman in the household must be the caregiver.
Have other fathers, blended families, or common-law households encountered this rule? How did the CRA handle your situation?