Wait, did they {gasp} listen to a Payor?

I received a notice this week, and I apologize for not posting this sooner, that the FRO has sent a Notice of Termination of Support Deduction that states that the Department of Justice (FOA) that the FRO "no longer requires [them] to to take support payment deductions..."

Well, this is good news. While I am not sure whether this was due to my FAX or my involvement of my local M.P.P., Dr. Kuldip Kular's office, the result is the same. Now I did find it humorous that my contact at the office was told this process was standard procedure and was not a new action, but rather an old one for the last dance around the courtroom, but I'm certain that's either a smoke-screen or an individual's uninformed observation.

Either way, this teaches us something about dealing with the FRO:

• INVOLVE YOUR M.P.P. 
• BE CLEAR, CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT YOUR POSITION
• KNOW YOUR COURT ORDER
• DON'T TRUST THEIR ACCOUNTING (I'm waiting on a Statement of Account BTW)
• USE THEIR FAX LINES, COMMUNICATION IN WRITING IS BEST

Take care people. 

October 14th...

Apparently the due date for payments to the FRO, somehow suggested by the standing court order*, is the 14th of the month. Because I could not pay the FRO by October 14th, 2009 the aforementioned court order was issued. I have several politically incorrect suggestions of what they can do with this action, but these are government employees... enough said.

Now. There are some core problems, problems I have pointed out before, such as the fact that there's no reasonable manner by which to obtain a Statement of Account. While mailing the SoA might be cost prohibitive (and they will charge you $25 for it), if they do not update you as what you owe or when you owe it, then actions like this are harassment. The fee they charge, $190 spread over 5 years, is ridiculous and frankly just a reminder of the stupidity of this agency.

I'm sick of this legal crap. It's taking all of my will not to just swear a blue-streak at this folks, but must REFUSE to give them the satisfaction of * either loosing my cool, or even calling them. I have informed them, by fax of my circumstances throughout my 7 months of unemployment, but now they demand (after this action) that I tell them who my employer is. Legal jargon aside, SCREW-THAT!

The last thing I'm doing for these jokers is helping them deliver further stress and embarrassment at any position I might pick up. In fact, I was straightforward enough to explain to them that I wouldn't be able to pay on time (assuming the due date was October 1st, 2009) and sent them a fax to inform them. Communications is the key, well not with the FRO. We could also swell on the fact that I have consistently, FOR YEARS (since 2003), paid before the funds were due (again, assuming the 1st of the month).

So, what am I to do? Well, I'll pay, I told them I'd pay when I had the funds, and that is this week. You should always pay your child support, but it does seem somewhat outrageous that while you're earning a mere fraction of your wages (or none at all) due to unemployment, you still need to find a way to pay 100% of that child support.

* there is no mention of the monthly payment due date in the standing court order, or the original from December of 2002. Also, since there are no arrears, there's no justification for this action (in my opinion).

Abolsute Lunacy.... The FRO's attempt at murder.

I think you can call it murder when you drive someone to the brink of suicide, the man who received this note isn't suicidal, but I can envision many payers of Child Support, those that have been justifiably unemployed for months because of this horrible economy, could consider this the breaking point.

A man with two children by the same mother, who earned ~$70K per annum, will have a support responsibility of, approximately, $1000. This same man will have an Employment Insurance coverage of about $1600 per month (maximum, $786 - bi-weekly). If he's renting and has his kids on a reasonable arrangement he'll pay about $1200 rent each month for a 2 bedroom apartment. He will also have a frugal $200 per month for basic foods (a little better than KD, every day, period). We'll let that sink in and suggest that he doesn't have a car, or at least car payments because this is painful enough.

So, on $1600/month income you have expenditures of approximately $2400, leaving you overdrawn (monthly) by $800. Simple math. Now, seven months in, you're out of savings, you're getting kinda edgy, desperate, and you've had help from a few friends and family members. Then you get this note from the Department of Justice explaining that whil you have maintained support and have been forthright about earnings and payments being a challenge, the Family Responsibility Office has now garnisheed your income, the $1600, reducing it to $600 per month.

The end of a rope is a dangerous place to be.

This note is real, delivered to someone who had been unemployed for 7 months and owe's nothing, presently, to his children or ex-wife, but the FRO seems to think this is the right course of action. I've got a name for the FRO, Bullies! And we have all seen the ads that tell us Bullying is wrong.

I could rant about the government employees and lawyers that are all to happy to make this happen, but what's worse is that the law makers are in this with them. The insult to this injury is that even if this man got a job tomorrow and could pay his $1000 per month, he's also been insulted with a $190 "fee" for the trouble.

It's time to re-think things. It's time the government discard the FRO, with all of the other broken things they've created, and get smart about support. This is a clear example of how Child Support laws and the systems and agencies that support them are anything but fair.

SPEAK UP! Call, fax, or write or your M.P.P. today.

A Reflection on the Arrogance of Judges.

I was just reading a story in the Toronto Star about a Teen fighting for right to care for brothers speaks publicly on his family's 'warfare' and had to make the observation about the chronology included with the article that the findings of a medical profession, St. Joseph's psychiatrist Dr. Nagi Ghabbour, are disregarded by the Judge, Justice Van Melle. Since when does a Judge have more knowledge and ability to assess a psychiatric disorder than a medical professional?

This story, this tragedy, is why parents need to stop using their children as weapons. It is also a demonstration of how the system is beyond reproach regardless of their abilities and influenced by their biases.

While Parental Alienation is a big problem that needs to be addressed, the Judge needs to respect the knowledge and understand of others, whether that is a parent, medical professional, or common sense. This judge would seem biased, tainted, and arrogant in the area of justice. If this situation were reversed, and the mother had custody and was the one on welfare, the judge would have assigned the kids to their father, this is the awful truth of the problems within this system.

To Daniel, good luck and bravo for standing up for your siblings, though, it may be better if the child support was to help accommodate an apartment of your own as a middle ground, a sanctuary for all parties until they (the parents) can grow up.

Doing the Math...

I had posted a variation of this to another of my blogs, but thought it worth posting here too.

I knew all along the place I live was expensive, the fact that it costs $1250 per month is only part of the costs and the rest was managable on my income, but I told myself it was okay because it's a great place for my kids to grow up. I still feel this way.

BUT... The reality is that on Employment Insurance (max. $800, bi-weekly) the reality of financial peril is something I need to face.

Costs:

RENT: $1250
CS*: $1100
HYDRO:$ 200
GAS: $ 60
FOOD: $ 200
PHONE:$ 200 (incl. Internet/Cable)
BUSES:$ 90 (reduced cost for tickets while looking)
===========
TOTAL:$3100

So... I would need to move to a place that I could rent for ... Okay, so they'd need to pay me.

If you're reading this you likely know what CS stands for, that's Child Support. I have a responsibility to pay that. It does not go away should I lose my job. I have asked (by e-mail) my ex-wife for some understanding* in this, but my intention is to pay while I can.

I could rant on about the "system" but I won't. There's really no point, they can only demonstrate their compassion by actions. I have my responsibility, get employed, and that is what I will work toward doing.

* UPDATE: My ex-wife has agreed to discuss a fair amount, she's empathetic if not sympathetic and when I have a clear idea of what my situation will be we will make the necessary negotiations. I wonder if I can negotiate my rent too?

For Hire: Psychic.... I lost my job!

Now I [might] get to see how a Judge will rule.

First priority, finding a job.

Out of a Job, but will a Judge understand?

Sure, the news is chock full of economic woes, but will Ontario's Family and Superior Court judges understand that you're out of a job or even when you regain employment at half the rate? Imputed Income is a curse on those who are in the sights of the FRO and the "System" as a whole, your expected to maintain the child support payments even though you're income has dropped to the Employment Insurance maximum or your new gig's salary (or worse, hourly) is about 50% of what you're used to.

The expenses of moving to a new 1 bedroom apartment are on top of the fact that you've got a standing support payment that's more than you took home last month. You want to pay, you've been a good customer of the FRO until your job just up and vanished in late 2008, or maybe your plant has laid you off and your $26/hour is not $13/hour at the local BK. Your expenses haven't dropped and for some reason everyone wants what they've always been paid, there just isn't the money to go around. You feel trapped, squeezed, and fears of garnishment of the already perilous income you have are, weighing heavily on your mind let alone your wallet. Feeding your self is a secondary thought to how you'll feed the kids next time they're over and they're already sick of tuna sandwiches.

I am hoping the "System" we are operating under is more understanding that they have been in the past, this year, 2009 and likely into this next decade, will need a high degree of understanding and will humble many. We will be faced with mothers who still want to get paid full-pop, regardless of the father's income, we will have judges who have no risk of hard times, living their opulent lives, and we will have fathers reaching the end of their emotional ropes thinking about things they really need help to avoid. My biggest concern is losing my job, most non-custodial parents will have this fear this year. While there will be Deadbeats taking advantage of this as a reason not to pay, working under the table or whatever they do, there will be a good number of you who will feel so afraid and ashamed that you cannot support your kids and yourself that you will need to find solace in knowing you are not alone and this is not your fault. Never give up, but above all, tell your kids how things are, not to scare them, be honest that times are tough and that money is tight, they will understand and will adjust to tuna sandwiches, just keep loving them.

Am I helping/helpful?

I have come to wonder whether this blog is actually a help to people. The problems found in any and all of the various enforcement systems come down to two things, people having children that they aren't willing to pay support for and people who are parents that need support. The complications come in the post-moment realizations that children are a cost, but are totally worth it.

There are some that walk away from all responsibility, there are some that want to be involved that are shut out. There are seemingly few (but in reality this is the majority) that are payors or payees that are just fine, but the squeaky wheel gets the attention. This by the way is a completely justified squeak!

What we KNOW is that:
- parents should have a 50/50 access arrangement where possible.
- children should NOT be used as pawns or viewed as property
- moving great distances from the child(ren)'s non-custodial partner is not cool
- the current economic climate is going to lead to many people being unable to pay support
- every effort should be made to ensure both parents are involved
- where a parent walks away, the other parent does not need to PUSH the relationship
- where a parent walks away, they should NEVER walk away from support obligations
- Child Support is NOT about the mother and her needs, but the children and theirs*

I have put this effort in to be helpful, help people endure if not resolve the impact of the system. I don't know that I've helped, but I do know we need to be there for our kids. I'm not a fan of women using what people so crassly refer to as winning the baby lottery, but the men in those situations need to teach their kids that these women are a real problem and maybe education will resolve this issue.

Maury Povitch does whatever he does with the same intentions. The risks involved from unprotected sex are not only diseases, but a lifetime commitment to being a parent. I told my daughters one basic truth, "Boys Lie." I have also talke to them about the teenaged Moms we see at the mall and how that changes their life, how dreams and aspirations to be something more than just a drain on society can be lost when you make the choice to be a parent. Everyone makes that choice when they decide to have sex. That is the moment, if you don't want that, don't have sex.

* The judges should really start thinking about this harder.

Courts, the FRO, and the RAW DEAL!

In The Toronto Star: In fact, things might have turned out much differently had Tippett known that family law had undergone some dramatic changes in the time since his separation. Had anyone simply pointed him to familylawcentre.com where he could do the math himself, Tippett might have realized he was at serious risk the minute he stepped into court.

2009 a year of employment woe... but will the judges understand?

The Globe and Mail Reports that Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, said that Canada is going to have substantial job losses this year. The question becomes, will the judges understand when there's a definate and pressing need to reduct support payments quickly to ensure the payor does not lose his or her house, vehicle, etc. and can ride out this economic storm?

The courts are notorious for laying all of the responsibility on the payor to find new work of equal value when there may be none to be had. Maybe the payor was promoted to a higher pay and has focused skills, maybe the pay-scale has dropped and scrambling to keep a home for his or her kids is (and should be) the first priority. "In the best interest of the child(ren)" should understand that the father can afford accomodation for all of them.

Praying for understanding in 2009.

Child Support Judgement Questionable... What now?

It turns out that being the biological father is not the foundation of Child Support it is that you have a role as father, provider, or financial crutch. The idea that a judge can make a decision "for the good of the children" and without regard to the mother's responsibility in the matter is troubling.

The Toronto Star covered a story titled "Man must pay support though twins not his" which details the case of a man paying support for children that have been proven to be anoter man's by DNA evidence. The only problem is that DNA doesn't tell us who this might be and the ex-wife is not talking.

The laws are there to protect the children, the women are benefiting (in cases like this) though there are plenty of cases where the FRO and the courts do nothing for women, mothers, children where the support is justified.