Debtor's prison for dads

[jbg]

I thought this article (link, excerpt below), on Debtor's Prisons for Dads was excellent and extraordinarily powerful. As a lawyer myself, I am appalled by the Courts' frequently unrealistic approaches. When support and alimony levels are set, they are often fixed with no regard to what the former husband can truly afford.

Even worse, the parties, when making the decision to split, don't realize that Courts and judges don't "give" them money. The Judge is not writing the check. It is, however, impolite and politically incorrect to insist upon reality. People should think long and hard about: 1) who they marry; 2) who they have children with; and 3) sundering relationships that create children. There is no Santa Claus to pay for peoples' shifting tastes in the opposite gender, and expecting Courts to draw blood from stone doesn't solve the problem. Excerpt:

Debtor's prison for dads

By Barbara Kay, National PostJanuary 20, 2011

***************

On Aug. 31 Paul Donovan, age 50, a reliable long-haul trucker, lay down beside train tracks near his home in London, Ont., and rolled himself into the path of an oncoming train. Most people would call it a suicide. Not his common-law partner, Brenda Higgins. Ms. Higgins holds Ontario's Family Responsibility Office (FRO) liable for his death, and will launch a lawsuit to that effect.

Paul's ex-wife works, owns a home and drives a new car. Neither she nor their children -- today adults of 18 and 21 -- are, or ever were, impoverished. Paul had been paying regular child support since 1996. But during the trucking industry's recent hard times, Paul was temporarily unemployed, and missed two support payments.

Although he was soon back at work, Paul's commercial licence was suspended by the FRO. They refused to reinstate it without payment of $1,500 Paul hadn't yet earned. Their irrational licence suspension ensured he couldn't earn it. Ms. Higgins' scant income is only sufficient to support her three children. According to Ms. Higgins in a telephone interview, several pleas to negotiate the amount and schedule of payments with the FRO by Paul, his MPP and an ombudsman were rebuffed.

Bills mounted, but Paul's livelihood remained blocked. ******************

Imprisonment for debt is sometimes grouped with torture and slavery in human rights discourse, and was abolished here under the 1869 Debtor's Act as "not consistent with the morals of the day." Debtor's prison was only reinstated at the urging of radical feminist legal activists in the 1980s for one group: fathers behind on support payments.

**********************

While out looking for Paul on the afternoon of Aug. 31, Ms. Higgins arrived at the scene of his suicide, not 50 metres from their home. Seeing the police cars and ambulance, she "knew" without asking. The trauma threw her into a suicidal depression resulting in a six-week hospital stay.

Tally: A healthy, responsible, productive man is dead, a partner devastated. Two middle-class children have lost a loved father, three children an engaged stepfather. At the time of his death Paul Donovan owed a measly $4,000 in child support.

Ms. Higgins can hear the trains go by as she struggles to sleep. Is there a winner in this story? If so, who?

[BubberMiley]

Debtor's prison for dads

By Barbara Kay, National PostJanuary 20, 2011

***************

Debtor's prison was only reinstated at the urging of radical feminist legal activists in the 1980s for one group: fathers behind on support payments.

Ewwww...radical feminist legal activists. Heartless, cold bitches, they are. Have they no shame?

I bet they would even use a depressed man's suicide as a means to justify their radical agenda!

[jbg]

Ewwww...radical feminist legal activists. Heartless, cold bitches, they are. Have they no shame?

I bet they would even use a depressed man's suicide as a means to justify their radical agenda!

And you're going to call the writer of that article a "male chauvenist pig"?

[Guest TrueMetis]

In my experience the father tends to pay less then he can afford, so I guess my anecdote counter's your anecdote. No how about some real statistics.

And you're going to call the writer of that article a "male chauvenist pig"?

Debtor's prison for dads

By Barbara Kay, National Post

Pay attention.

Edited January 23, 2011 by TrueMetis

[jbg]

Pay attention.

I did. I was pointing out the rank absurdity of the post to which I was responding.

[pinko]

In the jurisdiction I live in there are predetermined support payment guidleines. Secondly if an individual's means change then the individual may apply to the courts to vary the level of payment. Deadbeat dads need to be held to account.

While the events described in the article are tragic this man had an obligation to contribute to the upbringing of his children.

Edited January 23, 2011 by pinko

[Guest American Woman]

In the jurisdiction I live in there are predetermined support payment guidleines. Secondly if an individual's means change then the individual may apply to the courts to vary the level of payment. Deadbeat dads need to be held to account.

I think that's true in most places, if not all. The fact is, whatever the non-custodial parent doesn't pay falls on the custodial parent; so if a non-custodial parent can only afford to pay $100 a month, or skips payments, where does that leave the parent raising the child? It's not as if they can just skip meals or the electric bill or turn off the heat. So perhaps some of the guidelines are to encourage non-custodial parents to seek a job that pays enough to fairly help support the child they, too, brought into the world.

While the events described in the article are tragic this man had an obligation to contribute to the unpbringing of his children.

Exactly. Custodial parents still have to put food on the table and clothes on the child's back and a roof over their head. It costs a lot of money to raise kids. What would this man have done if he had had custody of the child(ren)? He wouldn't have been able to pass on his responsibility to them because he had fallen on hard times. It's a difficult situation, all the way around. But to blame child support obligations for his suicide is off-base.

[pinko]

Perhaps jbg could elaborate a bit more on the premise he has advanced. I have some knowledge of family law albeit from the perspective provided by a relationship involving my daughter and her participation in litigation involving custodial and maintenance matters. From such a perspective I have a different view than that described in the National Post article. Were my daughter to have relied on the deadbeat she and my grandson would not have survived financially. Fortunately she has a marketable skill and a husband who, while not the biological father of my grandson, provides the elements of fatherhood missing with respect to the deadbeat. The deadbeat is thousands of dollars in arrears and while he has spent a few days in jail for his delinquent behaviour seems to continue to be in default.

Edited January 23, 2011 by pinko

[Scotty]

I thought this article (link, excerpt below), on Debtor's Prisons for Dads was excellent and extraordinarily powerful. As a lawyer myself, I am appalled by the Courts' frequently unrealistic approaches. When support and alimony levels are set, they are often fixed with no regard to what the former husband can truly afford.

You have to remember, JBG, assuming you know it to begin with, that there is likely no more incompetent agency of government at any level in Canada than the Family Responsibility Office. It is notoriously backlogged, its computer systems unworking and unworkable, its staff obdurate, uncaring, and often unreachable. It cares no more what the custodial parent (the mother) says or wants than it does about what the non custodial parent (fathers) says or wants. It care about no one. It cares about its rules and regulations and answers, apparently, to no one.

In addition you have the family law courts. One must remember that lawyers often are attracted to areas of the law which is their preference. There is a certain crusading mentality to a lot of those female lawyers who go into family law, and the Ontario government has been quite content to appoint these crusading people onto the benches. This only adds to the marked unfairness of the legal system in dealings between men and women. A system which was heavily biased to begin with becomes more so with biased judges added to the mix.

[pinko]

You have to remember, JBG, assuming you know it to begin with, that there is likely no more incompetent agency of government at any level in Canada than the Family Responsibility Office. It is notoriously backlogged, its computer systems unworking and unworkable, its staff obdurate, uncaring, and often unreachable. It cares no more what the custodial parent (the mother) says or wants than it does about what the non custodial parent (fathers) says or wants. It care about no one. It cares about its rules and regulations and answers, apparently, to no one.

In addition you have the family law courts. One must remember that lawyers often are attracted to areas of the law which is their preference. There is a certain crusading mentality to a lot of those female lawyers who go into family law, and the Ontario government has been quite content to appoint these crusading people onto the benches. This only adds to the marked unfairness of the legal system in dealings between men and women. A system which was heavily biased to begin with becomes more so with biased judges added to the mix.

Such a jaundiced view. Have you been involved in litigation in such a system?

[Scotty]

Perhaps jbg could elaborate a bit more on the premise he has advanced. I have some knowledge of family law albeit from the perspective provided by a relationship involving my daughter and her participation in litigation involving custodial and maintenance matters. From such a perspective I have a different view than that described in the National Post article. Were my daughter to have relied on the deadbeat she and my grandson would not have survived financially. Fortunately she has a marketable skill and a husband who, while not the biological father of my grandson, provides the elements of fatherhood missing with respect to the deadbeat. The deadbeat is thousands of dollars in arrears and while he has spent a few days in jail for his delinquent behaviour seems to continue to be in default.

I know a number of men involved in disputes with their exes. In my experience, their willingness to contribute depends on two facts. The first, of course, is their monetary situation. The second is their relationship with their exes. If the relationship is bitter, they're far less likely to want to pay a dime. For example, one man's ex wife left him one day, right out of the blue. He had no idea there was even any problem in their marriage. He got legal papers from a lawyer demanding a divorce. His wife wouldn't even talk to him. He found out later she'd been having an affair with a guy she met at work. They have one child, and she rarely lets him see her at all. Is he cooperative in paying child support? Not especially so.

The narrative in these cases tends to be surly men who won't help out their sainted ex wives living in poverty with their poor children. In most of these cases it tends to be more like the surly man won't help out his bitch of an ex living with her boyfriend while both do their best to turn the children against him.

Note that I'm not saying the first type of situation doesn't exist. I know very well it does. There are some ripe bastards out there who won't do a thing to meet their responsibilities. But it would be easier to condemn such a situation if all such situations weren't lumped together painted with a broad brush of martyrdom for the mother, and if the guilt weren't automatically assigned to the evil penis-wielder. That is what the courts and FRO tend to do, and it can certainly lead to deaths by men driven beyond the brink.

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps jbg could elaborate a bit more on the premise he has advanced.

The problem I have with this article is that it's one sided. Totally. And it's lacking in crucial information. How did his ex manage to own a house? Why were his children never impoverished? What part did the ex play in it all? Did he own a house? What kind of car did he and/or his common law wife drive? What about her three children -- was he helping support them? I can't imagine otherwise, in the form of housing, heat, electricity, food, etc. at the very least. And what was his salary? His child support payments? Why is that information not given? His ex, by default, is made out to be a well off money-grubbing bitch -- as we have no idea what her story is.

I have some knowledge of family law albeit from the perspective provided by a relationship involving my daughter and her involvement in litigation involving custodial and maintenance matters. From such a perspective I have a different view than that described in the National Post article. Were my daughter to have relied on the deadbeat she and my grandson would not have survived financially. Fortunately she has a marketable skill and a husband who, while not the biological father of my grandson, provides the elements of fatherhood missing with respect to the deadbeat. The deadbeat is thousands of dollars in arrears and while he has spent a few days in jail for his delinquent behaviour seems to continue to be in default.

There are many similar cases to your daughter's; it's not just about men having to live on skid row because they are ordered to pay child support payments. As I said, I found the article to be obviously biased without even an attempt to portray/see both sides of the story.

[BubberMiley]

I did. I was pointing out the rank absurdity of the post to which I was responding.

Rank absurdity? What was absurd--the part about how the radical feminists might stoop so low as to try to exploit someone's suicide to get support for their political agenda?

[pinko]

I know a number of men involved in disputes with their exes. In my experience, their willingness to contribute depends on two facts. The first, of course, is their monetary situation. The second is their relationship with their exes. If the relationship is bitter, they're far less likely to want to pay a dime. For example, one man's ex wife left him one day, right out of the blue. He had no idea there was even any problem in their marriage. He got legal papers from a lawyer demanding a divorce. His wife wouldn't even talk to him. He found out later she'd been having an affair with a guy she met at work. They have one child, and she rarely lets him see her at all. Is he cooperative in paying child support? Not especially so.

The narrative in these cases tends to be surly men who won't help out their sainted ex wives living in poverty with their poor children. In most of these cases it tends to be more like the surly man won't help out his bitch of an ex living with her boyfriend while both do their best to turn the children against him.

Note that I'm not saying the first type of situation doesn't exist. I know very well it does. There are some ripe bastards out there who won't do a thing to meet their responsibilities. But it would be easier to condemn such a situation if all such situations weren't lumped together painted with a broad brush of martyrdom for the mother, and if the guilt weren't automatically assigned to the evil penis-wielder. That is what the courts and FRO tend to do, and it can certainly lead to deaths by men driven beyond the brink.

There are several points you present that I would like to take issue with. As you know ours is an adversarial system. In such a system once legal counsel is retained it isn't unusual for the lawyer to contact the the other party. A lawyer doesn't have the authority to demand a divorce and in most cases seperation, custodial issues and place of residence are common points of discussion in the initial stages. Once one party petitions the court the other party is notified and the process begins. Whether legal counsel is engaged or not the issues are defined in a series of case conferences including financial disclosure and other issues such as those previously described.

Throughout the process there are opportunities to mediate the issues and as well the case conferences allow for advocacy and resolution of issues as they arise. The process itself has nothing to do with the tactics adopted by the litigants and from my point of view it is the litigants who should be held to account if found to be frustrating the objectives of the law. Of course each side paints the picture it wants to create but I would suggest the judiciary sees through such attempts and addresses them accordingly.

Edited January 23, 2011 by pinko

[Guest American Woman]

I know a number of men involved in disputes with their exes. In my experience, their willingness to contribute depends on two facts. The first, of course, is their monetary situation. The second is their relationship with their exes. If the relationship is bitter, they're far less likely to want to pay a dime. For example, one man's ex wife left him one day, right out of the blue. He had no idea there was even any problem in their marriage. He got legal papers from a lawyer demanding a divorce. His wife wouldn't even talk to him. He found out later she'd been having an affair with a guy she met at work. They have one child, and she rarely lets him see her at all. Is he cooperative in paying child support? Not especially so.

If she "rarely lets him see her at all," I have to assume his ex is either in contempt of the divorce/visitation agreement or he didn't care enough to get legal visitation rights. But the child support payments are for the child, and no matter how he feels about his ex, hopefully he doesn't project those feelings onto the child. She'll be a child for a short time, and an adult for a much longer time. I would think he would want to do things right over the short term so he and his child will both benefit over the long term. So if he's not "especially cooperative" in paying his child support, when the child is innocent of all that's happened/happening, it doesn't say much for him.

Edited January 23, 2011 by American Woman

[pinko]

If she "rarely lets him see her at all," I have to assume she's either in contempt of the divorce/visitation agreements or he didn't care enough to get legal visitation rights. But the child support payments are for the child, and no matter how he feels about his ex, hopefully he doesn't project those feelings on the child. She'll be a child for a short time, and an adult for a much longer time. I would think he would want to do things right over the short term so he and his child will both benefit over the long term. So if he's not "especially cooperative" in paying his child support, when the child is innocent of all that's happened/happening, it doesn't say much for him.

This is probably one of the major problems as quite often parents use the children as pawns in satisfying the need to win at all costs. This shows a lack of maturity on the part of the parents and conceivably damages relationships between parent and child.

Edited January 23, 2011 by pinko

[Scotty]

Such a jaundiced view. Have you been involved in litigation in such a system?

No. My view is indeed jaundiced and comes from reports of people who have, and media reports.

[Guest American Woman]

This is probably one of the major problems as quite often parents use the children as pawns in satisfying the need to win at all costs. This shows a lack of maturity on the part of the parents and conceivably damages relationships between parent and child.

Sadly, too often parents do use the children as pawns, and it's terribly wrong of them. It's the children who are always ultimately hurt the most. Fortunately, the courts don't allow for that; the courts will enforce child visitation rights if need be. If there is a court order that the custodial parent is not adhering to, the courts will intervene.

But in a bad situation, I think it's best to remember that in the overall life of the child, the child-support years are short, and do end, while the relationship with the child/grandchildren is ongoing, for many years. Irreparable damage can be done in the early years out of spite for the ex, and that's a no-win situation for everyone involved.

[pinko]

No. My view is indeed jaundiced and comes from reports of people who have, and media reports.

Fair enough but I am sure you must recognize that people you know paint the picture they want you to see.

[Esq]

My take on this:

1. It is likely in part a deterent against divorce or throw away sex partners. Those you knock up and abandon. (This is why people who don't want children should be careful about who they sleep with, because it is not only sexual gratification but also an economic responsibility if you get someone pregnant.

2. As for the amounts: Taxes are based on earnings so why not child support? Of course it should be considered a "net loss" since you don't control the resources and are like a payment - thus should be deducted from gross income. Also it should be counted as "income" for the person with custody.

Other than this that is it. You don't want to pay don't knock the person up. Raising a family shouldn't be seen as a passtime, it is serious business.

If you can't live with the person don't inseminate them.

[Scotty]

If she "rarely lets him see her at all," I have to assume his ex is either in contempt of the divorce/visitation agreement or he didn't care enough to get legal visitation rights.

Honestly, how many men "wouldn't care enough" for their children to get visitation rights? Why would you even suggest that? The problem is that visitation rights are not enforced in Canada. It really doesn't matter what the judge says. The mothers are perfectly free to ignore any and all orders regarding their children with relative impunity. Only very rarely are any such orders enforced.

But the child support payments are for the child, and no matter how he feels about his ex, hopefully he doesn't project those feelings onto the child.

Yes, that's the theory. Unfortunately, it comply ignores human nature.

She'll be a child for a short time, and an adult for a much longer time. I would think he would want to do things right over the short term so he and his child will both benefit over the long term

.

What benefit does he get with a child who doesn't know him, and who is taught to hate him? There was a case in the papers not that long ago about a judge condemning both sides in a custody dispute, and then awarding full custody to the mother because, the judge said, she and her new partner had done so much to turn the child against its father that the child refused to have anything to do with him.

So the custodial parent turns the child away from the father he never sees, tells them how evil and nasty their father is and how he doesn't want to see them, and the law awards custody on the basis that the child is now estranged from the father. Nice.

And he's supposed to continue to make child support payments.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Scotty

[Esq]

My take on this:

1. It is likely in part a deterent against divorce or throw away sex partners. Those you knock up and abandon. (This is why people who don't want children should be careful about who they sleep with, because it is not only sexual gratification but also an economic responsibility if you get someone pregnant.

2. As for the amounts: Taxes are based on earnings so why not child support? Of course it should be considered a "net loss" since you don't control the resources and are like a payment - thus should be deducted from gross income. Also it should be counted as "income" for the person with custody.

Other than this that is it. You don't want to pay don't knock the person up. Raising a family shouldn't be seen as a passtime, it is serious business.

If you can't live with the person don't inseminate them.

If you didn't know that is part of your source of wealth.

[Scotty]

Sadly, too often parents do use the children as pawns, and it's terribly wrong of them. It's the children who are always ultimately hurt the most. Fortunately, the courts don't allow for that; the courts will enforce child visitation rights if need be. If there is a court order that the custodial parent is not adhering to, the courts will intervene.

No, in fact, they will not.

[Scotty]

Fair enough but I am sure you must recognize that people you know paint the picture they want you to see.

They paint a picture of frustration and anger. They tell tails of outrageous conduct by their exes and lack of interest in any rights they, the non-custodial parent, has with regard to their children, along with inflexible insistence on support payments, regardless of economic ability.

[Guest American Woman]

Sadly, too often parents do use the children as pawns, and it's terribly wrong of them. It's the children who are always ultimately hurt the most. Fortunately, the courts don't allow for that; the courts will enforce child visitation rights if need be. If there is a court order that the custodial parent is not adhering to, the courts will intervene.

No, in fact, they will not.

Sorry, but you're going to have to provide proof of that or it will just remain your obviously biased take on it. I have a difficult time believing that the courts in Canada wouldn't enforce visitation rights when a non-custodial parent pursues it.

Edited January 23, 2011 by American Woman