Yankee-Bashing Canadian Comedian Seeks Refuge in… America | NewsReal Blog

“The judge even said, if I was paralyzed from the neck down, I would still be responsible for having to earn a million dollars a year.” - Dave Foley [Yankee-Bashing Canadian Comedian Seeks Refuge in… America | NewsReal Blog]

And this is the stupidity of imputed income and the judges that operate in the Ontario Family Court system.

Children Are Not Pawns

Your children are not chess pieces in the life you have after a failed marriage, they are children. You don't play one against your former spouse or make it difficult for them to see that other party. Why, because they are not your property and life is NOT a game.

Some people, such as my ex-wife, are all too ready to call the other parent names, denigrate them or otherwise tarnish the image that your children have for their other parent. They will make up their minds on their own. That said, I would encourage you to ensure that if your son or daughter is unhappy with the other parent, try to help them maintain a positive attitude where possible.

Single fathers feeling trapped in one-sided system - Goderich Signal-Star - Ontario, CA

Single fathers feeling trapped in one-sided system - Goderich Signal-Star - Ontario, CA

Some good coverage...

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.