Jump to content

Debtor's prison for dads


jbg

Recommended Posts

But you said there was a variety of "lesser punishments" levied at non-custodial parents not paying court ordered child support, and I'm suggesting that custodial parents who don't abide by visitation orders be held to the same punishments. If it's deemed appropriate for one situation, it should be just as appropriate for the other.
In most cases, non-custodial parents will have the wages garnished and are charged interest for late payments. Loss of drivers licences and other such penalties only come into play when garnishing is not possible. However, such tactics make no sense for custodial parents. The closest equivalent would be fines levied by the court. As I said above, fines would work but it is ridiculous to say the kids won't be affected if their custodian is paying significant fines. If you are willing to accept the harm caused by fines then you should have no problems with the harms caused by delayed support payments.
Making an order for the good of the children and then withholding the order to levy a punishment against the parent is what would be absurd.
What is the difference between a $1000 fine levied on the custodial parent and the delay of a $1000 support payment? In both cases the family has $1000 less to pay for expenses.

If you reject fines as an option then please enumerate exactly what lighter punishments you would support. Losing custody and jailtime are the nuclear options and, as a result, are not effective deterrents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

By the same token, I know of many fathers who don't show up for their court appointed visitation -- they had to work late or something came up. Other fathers take their child only to leave them with a sitter or grandma while they go out with the boys. We could play the tit-for-tat game all night and never run out of examples. Both mothers and fathers sometimes don't do the right thing.

But I've been very careful to refer to "custodial" and "non-custodial" parents, because it's not always the mother who has custody. Seems some want to make this about 'the poor man' and 'the awful women who do them wrong.' That's not the way it works. As I said, we easily could exchange story-for-story, but it would prove nothing.

A non-custodial parent can care for a sick child as well as the custodial parent can. Any non-custodial parent who runs into the other parent denying them court ordered visitations should keep a detailed record of it and take it to court to fight for joint custody or even main custody. If the custodial parent constantly denies visitation, it will not bear well in court.

And again, I could match that story with one of my own, and it wouldn't be the worst case, either. But I won't waste my time, because what's the point? It proves nothing, other than both mothers and fathers sometimes do the wrong thing.

Exactly. No one disputes--ever--that some parents do the wrong things when it comes to custody issues.

But the idea that this is some sort of rampant bad-parent virus infecting society has not been...well, proven (to put it generously).

And the idea that this virus is primarily restricted to women makes the notion even more bizarre.

Like you say, we could all produce lots of examples to "prove" whichever point we wish to make: for example, to this day, I think my ex-wife is a bit of a jerk. But our custodial issues?

Zero.

And my experience tells us roughly nothing about this issue; but according to the anecdote-happy among us, I have offered a solid rebuttal.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you say, we could all produce lots of examples to "prove" whichever point we wish to make: for example, to this day, I think my ex-wife is a bit of a jerk. But our custodial issues?
The overwhelming majority of non-custodial parents make their court ordered payments in full and on time. Yet despite this governments have set up bureaucracies that do nothing but chase after these "deadbeat dads". Based on your logic this is a waste of money since the percentage of cases of tiny and not something we should be concerned about.

The argument I made is there are just as many custodial parents denying access as there are non-custodial deliquents. It may be a tiny fraction of the whole but it is enough to justify some policies which can help correct this injustice.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And the rights of both need to be protected unless that wrong is a criminal wrong. Not to mention that the child themselves would almost always benefit from having significant involvement in their lives from two (non-criminal) parents."

Throughout your posts you seem to be implying a systemic imbalance in custodial arrangements. Why have you brought the element of criminality into the equation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is your argument, do you have any evidence of it? It sounds very unlikely.
It was important enough for a parlimentary committee to write a report that identifies teh issues I touched on:

My link

The enforcement of access orders and agreements remains a private obligation, usually carried out by way of contempt of court proceedings, where the penalty may be a fine or even imprisonment of the custodial parent. Provincial legislation, such as Ontario's Children’s Law Reform Act, may permit the court to order the police or sheriff to apprehend and deliver the child to the access parent. Advocates for non-custodial parents have argued that the no-fee enforcement assistance with support enforcement provided by the provinces in the last decade, while not improving access enforcement mechanisms, has unfairly benefited custodial parents, usually mothers, without responding to the often-expressed concerns of non-custodial parents, usually fathers. While some jurisdictions have considered new access enforcement methods, to date no proposals have gone ahead.

Any form of automatic access enforcement is particularly controversial; custodial parents often argue that they may not make the child available as required because of concerns for the child's well-being. When resort to the courts is necessary in order to enforce an access obligation, a judge is given the opportunity to assess the evidence of potential risk to the child before altering an access schedule or levying a penalty against the custodial parent. In 1989, Ontario passed new access enforcement legislation (the Children’s Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988, Bill 124), to allow for speedier access to the courts and empower the courts to award compensatory access; however, the Act was never proclaimed. The proposed law was opposed primarily by women's groups, who claimed that it would make it too easy for non-custodial parents to draw custodial parents into costly and time-consuming litigation.

I have no reason to believe that the situation has improved in the last 13 years. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was important enough for a parlimentary committee to write a report that identifies teh issues I touched on:

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp441-e.htm#F. Enforcement of Custody and Access Orders(txt)

But this doesn't even attempt to respond to what I asked...which begs the question of why you quoted my question before not responding to it.

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this doesn't even attempt to respond to what I asked...which begs the question of why you quoted my question before not responding to it.
I have you the committee report that shows the government has seriously looked at the issue which effectively refutes your claim that it affects a insignificant number of people. That means the null hypothesis is the rates of access denial and non-support are comparable since there is no reason to believe they would be different. If you believe that they are different then you find the stats that prove it. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry - the null hypthesis is the rates of access denial and non-support are comparable since there is no reason to believe they would be different.

That's absolute nonsense. The null hypothesis is meaningless until it is tested. That's what null hypothesis is.

It's not meant to be the presumption, taken as a given. It is a tool that is dependent upon further evidence which will normally favour one side or the other.

Favour it, that is, once it is tested. Which you deem unneccessary, because of your assumption, based on abslutely nothing, that custodial interference is as common as support delinquency.

Tell me...where did you get this assumption in the first place? I mean, you didn't read it, nor even garner anecdotal evidence (which at least I have in my favour)...you just made it up.

"Null hypothesis" is not in any way a rebuttal here.

In both cases all the various activitist groups regal us with ancedotes but do not provide hard numbers to back up their cases. If you believe that they are different then you show stats that show it.

So...you don't need to provide stats...only those who dispute your declarative statements do.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stats bedamned, we are far from having unanimity about whether it's in the interests of the state to care about the details of citizens' personal arrangements.

I don't accept that there's any need for more than 'the nuclear option' with respect to visitation.

Court time and enforcement time costs taxpayers money at an alarming rate. If the issue is a very big deal (a big enough deal for the state to consider stripping one or the other parent of parental rights) then it is worth that investment to get the situation settled. If it's not- if it's just a matter of convenience and or pettiness, with the arrangement otherwise endorsed by all parties, then why the heck should the state be involved? |Why should the state be mediating personal squabbles between people don't appear to particularly want it settled and who 'game the system'?

In essence, if the parties know that it isn't important enough for 'the nuclear option', then they should be forced to suck it up, grow up, and figure it out themselves. Taxpayers can be left out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as American Woman is gamely defending the interests of children, the interests of the children still seem to be getting lost in the argument.

Anecdote alert: So very many kids miss out on the ball team, the drama club, the sleepover, the camp... the consistent help with homework, the music lessons, and even the close friendship with the kid down the street, because their time is spent being shuffled between parents, and their obligation is first to the custody/visitation orders and only second to their own best interests.

Some are even put in harm's way by the enforcement of visitation orders.

There are far worse things than having one parent or the other wander or be pushed out of a childs day-to-day life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A buddy of mine wife left him for another women, now he has moved back in with his parents to be able to afford the 1600 bucks a month payments. Mean while the wife and GF which both have jobs and are doing quite well, and he is stuck in the basement. His job changed and he makes less now and asked for a reduction and was denied. What gives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Court time and enforcement time costs taxpayers money at an alarming rate. If the issue is a very big deal (a big enough deal for the state to consider stripping one or the other parent of parental rights) then it is worth that investment to get the situation settled. If it's not- if it's just a matter of convenience and or pettiness, with the arrangement otherwise endorsed by all parties, then why the heck should the state be involved? |Why should the state be mediating personal squabbles between people don't appear to particularly want it settled and who 'game the system'?"

The logic in your comments escapes me. The court system is in place to address disputes with respect to the law. In this case we are speaking about the interpretation and adminstration of family law and although far from perfect it provides an orderly process upon which to adjudicate (not to be confused with mediate) disputes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...you don't need to provide stats...only those who dispute your declarative statements do.
No. Only those that think that they can dismiss an entire argument because in their completely unsubstantiated opinion they think the problem is irrelevant. If you think the problem that a parlimentary committe wrong a report on is irrelevant then the onus is on you to produce the stats supporting your position.

Of course, the real problem is such stats are not compiled into a nice web accessible DB and the lack of accessible stats does not support your argument at all. But instead of acknowledging the lack of information you simply declare that you must be right because I don't have the stats. A rather arrogant position to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In essence, if the parties know that it isn't important enough for 'the nuclear option', then they should be forced to suck it up, grow up, and figure it out themselves. Taxpayers can be left out of it.
Fine. Then apply the same standard to enforcement of child support orders. i.e. close down the government departments that use taxpayer money to collect private debts. The problem is the system is currently biased against non-custodial parents who see their rights being violated with impunity while government goons go after them if they fail to live up to their side of the "private agreement". Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They tell the woman that they are her friend and support..they use the woman ...they use the man - they con both of them so lawyers and other rats can eek out a living through the family law system..When it gets down to the crunch they hold non-compliant woman in as much contempt as the "dads" ------------ IF you are of no use to them...the crush you....Fathers should be respected...BUT what we have here is a type of animal husbandry going on that is state sponsored...They convince woman that THEY are their friends...and the state loves them -------In the end both the male and female are screwed by these parasitic rats. My advice to those envolved in family law situation is boycott the courts and work things out - why give them your money and time? Give the money to each other and the children...Let the lawyers and second rate judges get real jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Only those that think that they can dismiss an entire argument because in their completely unsubstantiated opinion they think the problem is irrelevant. If you think the problem that a parlimentary committe wrong a report on is irrelevant then the onus is on you to produce the stats supporting your position.

Of course, the real problem is such stats are not compiled into a nice web accessible DB and the lack of accessible stats does not support your argument at all. But instead of acknowledging the lack of information you simply declare that you must be right because I don't have the stats. A rather arrogant position to take.

I agree that I was a little cavalierly dismissive about a serious issue--non-custodial parents getting screwed around.

However, you stated, declaratively, that there as many instances of this as in negligent support payments.

I wasn't making the absolute assertion either way; you were.

So again, if you believe this is the case (and you do, since you stated it as an unambiguous fact) I'm compelled to wonder where you get your information.

I sincerely doubt the numbers of non-custodial interference by the custodial parent rises to the same level as failure to pay. Or even close to it.

You disagree.

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely doubt the numbers of non-custodial interference by the custodial parent rises to the same level as failure to pay. Or even close to it.
Based on what? Given the lack of data supporting either position, perhaps it is enough to agree it is significant issue worth discussing and leave comparisons with the problem of deliquent support aside.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what?

Based on the numerous divorced couples I personally know; anecdotal information, to be sure, but I doubt you can say the same thing from the other side.

People will be negligent with money (or unable to pay) a lot more often than they will design to keep their children away from the other parent. Human nature isn't quite that horrible.

Given the lack of data supporting either position, perhaps it is enough to agree it is significant issue worth discussing and leave comparisons with the problem of deliquent support aside.

Absolutely. To hell with the comparison; it's enough to focus on them separately.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. Then apply the same standard to enforcement of child support orders. i.e. close down the government departments that use taxpayer money to collect private debts.

Sorry, but that particular 'private deal' is the obligation of an adult to a dependent child- not another adult- and when that obligation is abandoned, as often as not it falls to the state to make up the shortfall. The interest and the obligation of the state is obvious.

Apples and oranges may both be displayed in a single bowl, without being the same fruit.

The problem is the system is currently biased against non-custodial parents who see their rights being violated with impunity while government goons go after them if they fail to live up to their side of the "private agreement".

Let's run that by again... Those non-custodial parents are the ones who deem the custody/visitation issue to be of too little importance for 'the nuclear option'. If it is of so little importance to them, then why should it be of great importance to me, and other taxpayers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that particular 'private deal' is the obligation of an adult to a dependent child- not another adult- and when that obligation is abandoned, as often as not it falls to the state to make up the shortfall.
Providing access to a non-custodial parent is also an obligation incurred by the adult (the custodial parent) to the dependent child. You denigrate the value of parenting if really think access is provided for the benefit of the non-custodial parent. One of the biggest problems with system today is it is infested with people who think non-custodial parents are nothing but cash cows to milked until dry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...