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.