Debtor's prison for dads

[TimG]

You're goddamn right a child is owed an equivalent standard of living 7 days a week. Otherwise the Non-C spouse is a dick.Now, we could discuss the merits of equivalent, meaning not everything can be equal, but for the most part it should be.

I bet you are bleeping hypocrite on this: Let's say a stay at home mom moves in with her rich boyfriend and the kids are eating mac and cheese at dad's. What should the government do to correct that inequality?

If you say nothing then you have no business saying the government should be trying to correct inequality when it is the other way around.

[jbg]

I have no idea what kind of lawyer jbg is, what he specializes in, or if his jurisdiction is a typical jurisdiction, or if his opinion is just reflective of his mainly dealing with one side of the issue, or if he just happens to be a lawyer with little experience in this area who agrees with you. In other words, it really means nothing to me as far as any kind of "proof" goes.

I am primarily a bankruptcy lawyer and do absolutely no divorce or family law. That being said, it is my experience that Courts often shrink from remedies under which actual money even changes hands. The Courts are quick to mete out multi-millions in damages where the defendants are impecunious; involve a valuable piece of property or solvent defendant and the Courts are much more exacting. Often the courts will come up with ridiculous jurisdictional problems or other "impediments" to even entering money judgments where the result will be to actually move money around. When it comes to contempt matters are even worse. One of my clients in a commercial matter went through a contempt hearing that spanned hearing dates over more than a year and the Referee found he lacked jurisdiction to order contempt. Thus my views on the matter.

I never suggested that the custodial parent who denies court ordered visitation should be thrown in jail. I think custody rights should be revoked.

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

But whatever the consequences of denying visitation are, the punishment has to be aimed at the guilty, not at the child. As I already pointed out, denying visitation isn't a legal consequence of missed child support payments. That would be aimed at, and harmful to, the child; same as withholding support money would be. That would be the legal system using the children as pawns.

Still a drastic option. Havign a child move back and forth among parents causes its own injury.

[guyser]

Spouses often have different ideas on what can be afforded. Sometimes the non-custodial parent is a dick. Other times the custodial parent is a gold digging bitch. Neither is the governments concern provided the children recieve support to meet their basic needs.

All true in the first part.

The second part I will leave alone.

The third part merely needs added this....."as befits the income levels as established per the chart"

It is reasonable argument as far as I am concerned and it is choice denied to non-custodial parents.

It is not a choice denied a Non-C, it involves the income levels of the spouses.

ie two divorced parents working at Wal Mart cant afford Med school for Junior.

Just a libertarian who does not believe that governments should be telling people what they should spend on their kids simply because they get divorced. If it was a choice before divorce it should be a choice after divorce.

Ok, but the reason its there is much the same reasoning we have unions. There was massive abuse in the past and in the interest of society it became necessary to referee these things and come up with what at the time (and remains so for the most part) was deemed a fair and equitable arrangement.

[guyser]

I bet you are bleeping hypocrite on this: Let's say a stay at home mom moves in with her rich boyfriend and the kids are eating mac and cheese at dad's. What should the government do to correct that inequality?

Since dad is the Non-C spouse, he does not have to worry. It is the NOn-C 's job to provide a living commensurate with what they had in the past, barring income change.

The govt should do nothing.Nor will they I suspect since the rich BF is nothing to the case at hand

If you say nothing then you have no business saying the government should be trying to correct inequality when it is the other way around.

I said nothing because the income of the bf is immaterial. He has no legal nor moral requirement to make good.

He's shtupping mom and making her happy. Win win !

[Bonam]

I said nothing because the income of the bf is immaterial. He has no legal nor moral requirement to make good.

Legal no, moral yes. By living with the mother of this child as her boyfriend/husband he is taking on the role of a father to that child, whether he is biologically the father or not.

[guyser]

Legal no, moral yes. By living with the mother of this child as her boyfriend/husband he is taking on the role of a father to that child, whether he is biologically the father or not.

I guess we could go back and forth on this one.

I think I know what you mean, and if right I do in many ways agree with you.

However, he does not truly have any moral reasons, however Mom sure has to know what his moral base is like. It is incumbent on her to pick the right guy, for her, for her childrens safety for a lot more.

That Mom might move in with a complete idiot lacking in morals is not his problem. It is hers and subsequently Dads, the Non-C.

I trust you see the difference?

Edited January 27, 2011 by guyser

[TimG]

Since dad is the Non-C spouse, he does not have to worry. It is the Non-C 's job to provide a living commensurate with what they had in the past, barring income change.

We are talking about an increase in from the past. I am saying the Non-C has no moral or ethical obligation to ensure the standard of living of the kids while their are living with the ex-spouse increases. The obligation is to ensure their basic needs are met. Nothing more.

[TimG]

Legal no, moral yes. By living with the mother of this child as her boyfriend/husband he is taking on the role of a father to that child, whether he is biologically the father or not.

One of more idiotic aspects of the current law is mom can breakup with the rich bf and collect double the child support. This is one of the reasons why I reject the "best interests of the child" mantra. True justice requires that many different factors be weighed.

Perhap the most odious example is a case where a women cheats on man, gets pregnant, divorces him and moves in the biological father. The man gets to spend the next 24 years paying for someone elses kid. I cannot accept a system that allows that kind of injustice to occur.

Edited January 27, 2011 by TimG

[guyser]

I am saying the Non-C has no moral or ethical obligation to ensure the standard of living of the kids while their are living with the ex-spouse increases. The obligation is to ensure their basic needs are met. Nothing more.

Ok, they sure as hell have a legal one then. And at the end of the day, thats the one that counts.

One would have to be a real shitty father to keep his spawn living in conditions multiple levels lower than he enjoys.

Any dad would want to enrich his children as he has for his efforts procuring more monies.

Imagine a dad who now makes great money, he has 3 kids living w mom in some small apartment. Da would be in slightly different circles, eat at nicer restaurants , and he picks his kids up to attend something with him, dad in the nice Harry Rosen suit, the teenage kids in shitty clothes and looking out of place.

At breakfast the three kids will be discussing how "we dont belong in dads circle" , impressions of inadequacy will cement themselves. Ive seen it frankly, and dad..........?

Dad paid a much higher price in the long run rather than doling out some cash earlier.I know for a fact he died regretting that.

[TimG]

One would have to be a real shitty father to keep his spawn living in conditions multiple levels lower than he enjoys.

Plently of shitty fathers who shower money on their kids. It is not the government's job to regulate this. The problem is by attempting to address one injustice at the extreme end the government creates many more injustices in the middle where most people are.

Imagine a dad who now makes great money, he has 3 kids living w mom in some small apartment. Da would be in slightly different circles, eat at nicer restaurants , and he picks his kids up to attend something with him, dad in the nice Harry Rosen suit, the teenage kids in shitty clothes and looking out of place.

I am as unmoved by that as you are by the identical story with the actors switched. It makes no difference to kids that the money comes from mom's rich bf - the difference in standard of living is just something the kids need to accept. Edited January 27, 2011 by TimG

[guyser]

One of more idiotic aspects of the current law is mom can breakup with the rich bf and collect double the child support. This is one of the reasons why I reject the "best interests of the child" mantra. True justice requires that many different factors be weighed.

Do explain how dad can pay twice when he has only one child? The BF has no standing and likely never entered into the legal conundrum since he is as pertinent as the shoe salesman down the street.

Perhap the most odious example is a case where a women cheats on man, gets pregnant, divorces him and moves in the biological father. The man gets to spend the next 24 years paying for someone elses kid. I cannot accept a system that allows that kind of injustice to occur.

In the case you present, missing a ton of facts, I have to call BS.

If you are talking about 10 yrs after the fact, then of course. The child sees the "dad" the same as father, whether or not he is.

So in the best interest of the children, notwithstanding the wifes shitty rep,dad should and would pay, otherwise the child suffers.

Admittedly that is hard to swallow, but seen from the eyes of a child makes it easy.Afterall, the kid did nothing wrong, does not deserve abandonement, and will thrive on love and commitment to him/her.

Someone has to step up and be a man.

[guyser]

Plently of shitty fathers who shower money on their kids. It is not the government's job to regulate this. .

Correct.

Its the courts job, not the Govt

[TimG]

In the case you present, missing a ton of facts, I have to call BS.

Read this and take a look at my post again:

http://www.karenselick.com/CL0507.html

This gives rise to some pretty bizarre results, such as the case of Brown v. Laurin [2004] O.J. No. 5233 where a step-father was ordered to pay support for two kids even after they had gone to live with their natural father. Or consider this: in Ontario, you can become liable for supporting step-children even if you haven’t cohabited long enough with their biological parent to make you responsible for supporting her.

[TimG]

Its the courts job, not the Govt

The courts do what the government tells them to do. The government should not allow courts to regulate these aspects of people's lives.

[guyser]

Read this and take a look at my post again:

http://www.karenselick.com/CL0507.html

I did.Thank you.

I concede it is not perfect, but I also dont want to throw the baby out w the bathwater.

What struck me the most tho was the repeated use of 'steparent' . IOW, the step dad/mom has assumed some obligation to the child, even though the adoption may not have been done.

[guyser]

The courts do what the government tells them to do. The government should not allow courts to regulate these aspects of people's lives.

You have it backwards Sir.

The Courts decide , the govt follows.

Charter violations by the govt? The Court will decide pro or con and the govt will amend after.

[TimG]

What struck me the most tho was the repeated use of 'steparent' . IOW, the step dad/mom has assumed some obligation to the child, even though the adoption may not have been done.

This is why they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions and why I say the government and courts should be much more modest when it comes to trying to correct the injustices in the world.

I concede it is not perfect, but I also dont want to throw the baby out w the bathwater.

Well: two simple suggestions:

1) No step parent obligations unless there has been a formal adoption (i.e. a step parent usually is more like a uncle - not a father).

2) No child can collect support from more than one dad (i.e. adoption extinguishes the responsibility of the biological father).

The former would also apply to men who were deceived by their wives. If he finds out and chooses to do nothing he is then responsible. If immediately divorces he is treated like a step dad.

For me the key value is choice: a man (or women) must choose to take on the responsibility for being a parent. Men do this when they choose to have sex. They don't do this simply because they live with someone else's kids. Nor did he make a choice if their partner cheated and did not tell him. Once that choice is made they have an obligation that they cant escape. It really bugs me when courts impose obligations on people who did not knowingly choose to assume them. That is an injustice that cannot be justified because "is better for the kids".

Edited January 28, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

The Courts decide , the govt follows.

So we live in a dictatorship run by SCC? I don't think so.

Charter violations by the govt? The Court will decide pro or con and the govt will amend after.

Charter violations are always case were the government tries to regulate something that it is not allowed to regulate. In response the government has to reduce the amount of regulation. The courts can never compel the government to pass new laws or regulations - only replace existing ones. Edited January 27, 2011 by TimG

[guyser]

Well: two simple suggestions:

1) No step parent obligations unless there has been a formal adoption (i.e. a step parent usually is more like a uncle - not a father).

2) No child can collect support from more than one dad (i.e. adoption extinguishes the responsibility of the biological father).

Cant agree , too simple.

Marriage is not the be all and end all anymore. A long standing relationship presumes the non parent will meet the obligation, if not voluntarily Im glad the court will.

There will be cases where the health of the child will suffer if left as de facto.

The former would also apply to men who were deceived by their wives. If he finds out and chooses to do nothing he is then responsible. If immediately divorces he is treated like a step dad.

For me the key value is choice: a man (or women) must choose to take on the responsibility for being a parent. Men do this when they choose to have sex. They don't do this simply because they live with someone else's kids. Nor did he make a choice if their partner cheated and did not tell him. Once that choice is made they have an obligation that they cant escape. It really bugs me when courts impose obligations on people who did not knowingly choose to assume them. That is an injustice that cannot be justified because "is better for the kids".

Women who cheat, and the subsequent child is born, the non-bio dad will have to assume legal responisibility, there is no other way.

Anything else punishes the child.

[TimG]

Anything else punishes the child.

So what? Children are harmed by bad choices their parents make all of the time. It is not the government's job to retify this - especially if the government causes a greater injustice by trying. In this case, it was child's mother who made the bad choice of not informing the husband of a potential issue with paternity. If this means her child ends up with less support then so be it. She needs to live with the consequences of her choices. The husband is the innocent victim in this scenario because he was not given the chance to make a choice. Without that opportunity to make a choice he has no obligations.

Frankly, if we followed your logic to its rational conclusion we should be holding lotteries where the "winners" get to pay child support for a random child since all that matters is "what is best for the child" and forcing random men to support them is definitely "good for the child".

If you reject that notion then you accept that what is "good for the child" is not a universal trump card and sometimes what is good for other people comes first.

Edited January 28, 2011 by TimG

[jbg]

Perhaps the cane should be applied by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent's read end? Maybe bringing some kinkiness into the relationship will set things back to rights and custody will no longer be an issue...

In fact at the end of religious services we sing "Cane-Key lo heinu, Cane-Kah-doh-nay-nu".

[Bonam]

If you reject that notion then you accept that what is "good for the child" is not a universal trump card and sometimes what is good for other people comes first.

Agreed, the financial good of the child, which is adequately provided for in our society in any case, is not a trump card that should be used to violate the rights of (and effectively enslave) other people.

[Molly]

(i.e. adoption extinguishes the responsibility of the biological father).

Cute. Extinguishes responsibilities... but not the rights, as opposed to extinguishing claims to children, but not responsibility for them.

Would that also apply to biological mothers, or are we confining this conversation to single-income families in which the income earner is male and whose income is double or more that of the average household (not incdividual) in Canada.... and, of course, in which the women are cold-hearted money-grubbing bitches with something on the side, both in the marriage and out?

Yeah. Right. That's exactly the model we should use to write the laws.

How about if both parents decide they want those rights, but none of the responsibilities?

Edited January 28, 2011 by Molly

[madmax]

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.

Mike Harris The Progressive Conservative Premier, created the Families Responsibilities Office in 1996.

It was part of the Common Sense Revolution.

[Molly]

..... which is part of what makes one wonder why this is listed under federal politics. All provinces, of course, have some sort of maintenance enforcement system, and they all have their own support value guidelines which are more likely to apply and be applied than are the federal, limited use guidelines.

All operate on similar philosophies- like the part about child support being all about supporting children- but no two are quite the same.