Jump to content

Debtor's prison for dads


jbg

Recommended Posts

A society must hold the principles of justice paramount.

Dont disagree with that.

But justice can mean many things and can be stretched when it involves a child. We have Family Court, Youth Court, so society has deemed children to be a special case.

Sweeping such things under the rug the moment you are confronted with a situation that involves a child is wrong.

Sweeping under the rug? We dont, but there are slightly different rules when we do have an issue with children before the courts.

Furthermore, given the extent of the socialization of our society, the child can easily be provided for financially without causing this injustice.

Which is pretty much the same thing, except you advocate someone else paying for it. Id rather the connected adult be required to provide.After all, there will always be more than just a connection between the child and adult in question.

My child, yes. Someone else's child, no.

I shouldnt have brought emotion into the thread, however I will stand ground that any child connected, even tenuously, will get food first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Does anybody think that debtors prisons are actually a bad thing?

They are a great help in this situation, so I don't see any reason we can't re-institute them for all debts.

It would certainly serve dissuade people from taking on too much debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... that an adult can be held financial liable for child if they did not get consent. As long as the 'best interest of the child' is the primary criteria injustices will occur.

A father who rejects a child after being deceived by the mother is not being a dick. He has absolutely no ethical or moral obligation to a child that his not his unless he was aware of the fact and knowlingly accepted the responsibility.

A father who would reject a child he has fathered to teenagehood is a major aho.

It's a good thing the courts place the interests of the child ahead of these whiny-ass self-centred dickfaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody think that debtors prisons are actually a bad thing?

They are a great help in this situation, so I don't see any reason we can't re-institute them for all debts.

It would certainly serve dissuade people from taking on too much debt.

But it doesn't help them work to pay their child support, and housing tbem in jail costs us taxpayers money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

In fact, there is no enforcement on the custodial parent, otherwise called the wife.

The Courts don't have the stomach to find a mother in contempt of court. In fact, members of the legal profession who pretend to represent the non-custodial parent (otherwise known as the husband) are committing a fraud. The 'negotiations' take the form of a trade-off, in terms of payments vrs the remaining rights of the non-custodial parent. But the court will not enforce those rights, so it is a farce.

Since the wife gets custody simply by wanting it, this bias is systematic.

Canadians have every right to hold these courts in contempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The Courts tend to accept whatever evidence females present to allow large support awards against their impoverished former male partners. In this case the FRO prevented the dad from earning money so that he could even up what he owed by their actions.

Pinko - it takes money to go to court and have the support obligations reduced - money that most men don't have after they pay the outrageous support obligations ordered by our court of "justice". In my 34 years as a lawyer, I have known several men who ended up committing suicide either becuz they could not afford the support or becuz their malicious ex-wives/partners refused to let them be a part of their children's lives or both. You should google the name :Darren White. He went in to a forest and hung himself becuz he could not pay the support ordered by the Court which was more than he was earning. Justice in Canad?? -not if you are male.

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.

Guest
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 - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...