PARENTS REALIZING CHILD SUPPORT
li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Hi out there!
I'm another parent who's gone thru all the proper channels, obtained all
the court orders and attachment orders and still received near-zip
from my ex, who consistently makes considerably more than I do.
Sound familiar?
If you, or someone you know, is in a similar situation, let's get together!
I'd like to form a support group that is also loud enough politically to
realize results; the old "strength in numbers" in action!
Please call me (Lisa) in Nanaimo at 756-4581, to put this together, or
contact me via email (li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca).
* By the way, my ex's name is "moe" (mort) graham and he presently lives
in Gibsons, b.c.
li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca (Lisa Graham)
The Old Coot's Almanac
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Ken Mcvay
> I'd like to see support payments made and collected by the courts.
> That way, the person granted support could rely on actually receiving
> the ordered payments, and the person ordered to pay support would
> find the weight of the law descending rapidly on their head if they
> tried not make a payment. It's time a support order was realized
> to be an _order_.
The problem would be amusing if it weren't tragic at the same time, Tony.
The courts often issue orders, but these orders are often functionally
worthless. The gov't agency that is supposed to enforce these orders not
only doesn't, they show little or no interest in actually DOING something..
I know of a case where orders have been in force for _years_, but the amount
collected is nearly nil. The ex-husband works 'under the table' in order to
avoid the attachment orders, does not use his chequing account to avoid that
attachment order, does not file income tax forms to avoid _that_
attachment.... well, you get the idea. Eventually, if he doesn't leave the
country, his ass will end up in jail, but it will probably take another four
or five years to get _that_ done. In the meantime, he takes his
under-the-table cash while telling welfare he's down and out...
The relevant laws are worthless. When this bum gets a new job, for instance,
under the table, the ex-wife doesn't know about it, unless she can afford a
private detective to follow the bastard around every time he switches. Since
she is usually impoverished because the bastard won't meet his obligations,
she can't afford to find out where he's working. Since she can't find out
where he's working, the government "enforcement" agency shrugs it off.
Legal Aid, which will help the husband avoid supporting his ex and children
for nothing, won't help the wife collect on outstanding court orders - the
case I know of involves back support in excess of $15K, and absolutely
_no-one_ will help her collect it.
I hope Lisa's new support group helps - I have delighted visions of the
wives who face this situation providing the assets needed to run these cheap
bastards to ground and make them accountable.... alas, the folks she needs
to reach aren't likely to be here on the net, but it's a start....
Any legal eagles out there who can do some pro bono work for women in this
situation, like drafting orders for them, etc?
--
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
(604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...
(Sssssssh.... Hard disk dying...)
Ken Mcvay
> I'd like to see support payments made and collected by the courts.
> That way, the person granted support could rely on actually receiving
> the ordered payments, and the person ordered to pay support would
> find the weight of the law descending rapidly on their head if they
> tried not make a payment. It's time a support order was realized
> to be an _order_.
I thought I'd augment my earlier response with some observations... I spent
some time with Lisa Graham today (she is my daughter, in case anyone's
curious about my interest in this matter), and had an opportunity to see
what she was up against.
She had gone to Legal Aid for advice, and learned immediately that Legal Aid
will not provide assistance wrt family maintenance collection, although it
appears that they _will_ provide services for spouses trying to avoid
payment - I'd love to clarify this further, and will be contacting the local
legal aid office next week to do just that - the irony hasn't escaped me :-)
Legal Aid was kind enough, through one of its lawyers, to tell Lisa that she
could, without cost, go to Family Court and request a Show Cause hearing in
cases where support orders have been ignored... as hers have been for over
four years.
So I drove her down to the courthouse, where she was told that as long as
she is involved with the Family Maintenance Enforcement program (one of the
surely _great_ oxymorons of our day!) the courts will not accept her request
for a hearing. She can, however, leave the FME program and _then_ get her
hearing. She was told, in my hearing, that all the FME folks had to do was
pick up their phone, call the clerk of the court, and request the show cause
hearing. No cost, no hassle.
Armed with this new knowledge (FME clerks insisted for months that there was
"nothing more" they could do, so Lisa was understandably elated with the new
information), Lisa contacted the FME inquiry clerk. FME doesn't assign 'case
workers', so no bureaucrat can be held responsible for inaction... a great
system if you happen to be at the public trough, since it effectively makes
all of your co-workers, and yourself, unaccountable for anything. The
inquiry clerk told Lisa that they could _not_ request the hearing. Lisa
explained what the court clerk had just told her, and the FME clerk
back-tracked, explaining that "it took MONTHS, and we almost NEVER do it
anyway, so why bother?" Lisa continued to insist. Eventually, she was told
that she would have to write a letter requesting the hearing, but that the
FME folks ONLY requested these hearings on a formula of cryptic origin which
had something to do with 'how long who has owed who what.' The implication
was that a mere ten to twenty grand over 4 years wasn't important enough for
them to bother with... trivial, don't you know?
Lisa then called her MLA, and was asked to send the FME request letter to
the MLA instead of the FME folks, and that's where it stands at the moment.
(I'd let Lisa tell you all of this, but the computer she's using needs some
expert attention, so it may be a day or two before her news system is back
online)
Catch 22 is the bureaucratic order of the day, as is clear from today's
exchange. I think it's time for some media attention, and applaud my
daughter's efforts to create a support group to assist other parents who
find themselves being ground into poverty by bureaucratic red tape and
indifference. I cannot believe that such matters are permitted to drag on
and on without resolution, and now fully understand the parents in the
States who are buying time on local television to run WANTED FOR FAILURE TO
PAY CHILD SUPPORT advertisements in the hope they can embarrass their ex's
into doing what they should be doing.
The ex? Well, he's got his season's pass at Whistler, and is undoubtedly
looking forward to an exciting winter season on the slopes. My grandchildren
are paying for it, in spades.
If you know of any parents with similar horror stories, and would like to
help them out (male or female), I'd appreciate it if you'd let them know
about Lisa's efforts. Support groups will be formed right across the
bountry, along the lines of the MADD effort many are familiar with. Perhaps
publicity will get the bureacrats off their lazy, overpaid asses, and prod
them into actually doing something for their paycheques.
Tony Buckland
desire to see the _courts_ pay the amounts ordered as support;
I imagine the bureaucrats would stir off their asses soon enough,
faced with outflow and the need to get corresponding income.
It's not as though the courts had no experience in collecting
money - there are such things as fines, after all.
Melvin Klassen
> li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>I'm another parent who's gone thru all the proper channels, obtained all
>>the court orders and attachment orders and still received near-zip
>>from my ex, who consistently makes considerably more than I do.
Program" -- in Victoria, telephone 356-8692) handles this area.
They can garnish wages, UIC payments, and even MSP payments to non-opted-out
Medical Doctors. The local Family Court will have the 3-page application
form, or FMEP will send one to you.
Ken Mcvay
The problem, of course, is that the courts are at the mercy of the
provincial bureaucrats, who are clearly dedicated to doing as little as
possible in such matters. If my ex-son-in-law could be brought into court
with a show cause hearing, he'd have reached the end of the line, or would
at least be forced to leave Canada to avoid jail (which is exactly where I
would like to see him put).
It's ironic - my grandchildren are visiting this scrooge for the weekend,
and he isn't around today - he's "at work" you see... Perhaps an irate ex or
two, picketing the employer who pays him under the table (so he can avoid
paying taxes or child support, and, if possible, collect UIC at the same
time - that's one of his old standbys) might help him recall his
responsibilities.. anyone know single parents in the Gibsons/Sechelt area
who are having similar problems running their ex's to ground? It shouldn't
take more than an hour to find out where he's working this time around...
Ken Mcvay
>Until that day arrives, another agency (the "Family Maintenance Enforcement
>Program" -- in Victoria, telephone 356-8692) handles this area.
>They can garnish wages, UIC payments, and even MSP payments to non-opted-out
>Medical Doctors. The local Family Court will have the 3-page application
>form, or FMEP will send one to you.
Surely you jest, Sir. These folks are the sorriest excuse for trough-feeding
'civil servants' I've ever had the distasteful experience of examining.
It takes anywhere from 4 months to a year to get into the program at the
_local_ level, and months _more_ to get the "real" office (Vancouver?) to
list the case. It is the FMEP that has refused to help Lisa by providing her
with the Show Cause summons which she needs to force her ex to stand in
front of the judge and explain himself. They have, in fact, gone out of
their way to avoid being useful.
They even denied that they _could_ file such a summons until faced with
chapter and verse of the code which governs them in the first place, then
they began building higher and higher walls in order to discourage Lisa from
insisting.... which, through the office of her MLA, she will be doing next
week. If the FME folks are 'state of the art,' then let's fire the lazy
parasites and start over with folks interested in earning their over-large
paycheques and indexed pensions.
Jim Mercer
>I'm another parent who's gone thru all the proper channels, obtained all
>the court orders and attachment orders and still received near-zip
>from my ex, who consistently makes considerably more than I do.
>
>Sound familiar?
it's things like this that attach labels to people who don't deserve them.
i pay support, on time, every pay.
i get access, and i am prompt and non-argumentative.
i am not pleased with the settlement we have, but i agreed to the settlement
and i am keeping my end of the deal.
sure there are NCP's (non-custodial parents) out there who don't pay their
support, but don't punish those of us who do. there is some legislation
out there in Ontario, which allows the CP to go to court and have the
support deducted from the NCP's pay.
the NCP is expected to pay a couple months up front, and there is a one
or two month delay in getting the funds to the CP.
fortunately, this legislation is not automatic, it must be enacted by
the CP. they were talking about making all support orders go through this
system, but i guess they realized that it was only necessary for those who
weren't paying.
>If you, or someone you know, is in a similar situation, let's get together!
>I'd like to form a support group that is also loud enough politically to
>realize results; the old "strength in numbers" in action!
please be cautious about what you want to do. your actions may effect
those CP who are getting their support.
>* By the way, my ex's name is "moe" (mort) graham and he presently lives
>in Gibsons, b.c.
>
>li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca (Lisa Graham)
my ex's name is lisa. 8^)
--
[ Jim Mercer Reptilian Research me...@iguana.reptiles.org +1 519 893-6085 ]
[ I don't want to work for a company that has a CIO. ]
[ Disclaimer! I don't need no stinking Disclaimer! ]
Jim Mercer
>I know of a case where orders have been in force for _years_, but the amount
>collected is nearly nil. The ex-husband works 'under the table' in order to
>avoid the attachment orders, does not use his chequing account to avoid that
>attachment order, does not file income tax forms to avoid _that_
>attachment.... well, you get the idea. Eventually, if he doesn't leave the
>country, his ass will end up in jail, but it will probably take another four
>or five years to get _that_ done. In the meantime, he takes his
>under-the-table cash while telling welfare he's down and out...
please remember that NCP (non-custodial parents) can be women too.
also be aware that sometimes the NCP with-holds support because the CP
is with-holding access. of course, the NCP looks bad because they are
not paying their support, but not much is said about CP's with-holding
access.
as a CP, think of how you would feel if you couldn't see your child, or
how it feels to have to pay money to see your child. sometimes that's
how CP's make NCP's feel.
(i get access the weekend after my biweekly pay).
>Legal Aid, which will help the husband avoid supporting his ex and children
>for nothing, won't help the wife collect on outstanding court orders - the
>case I know of involves back support in excess of $15K, and absolutely
>_no-one_ will help her collect it.
Legal-Aid also helps the CP impoverish the NCP who probably makes too much
to qualify for legal-aid.
a friend was involved in a divorce, (no kids), and his ex told him to his
face that she didn't care how much it cost, since it was _his_ money
she was spending.
he ended up selling his house, give 50% of the proceeds to his lawyer, and
the other half to his ex.
>Any legal eagles out there who can do some pro bono work for women in this
>situation, like drafting orders for them, etc?
there are various newsgroups out there, i only really know those for NCP's
the FREE mailing list and alt.dads-rights.
for CP support newsgroups, i think there is a misc.family.law.
a post asking for group references to soc.women would probably get some results.
Ken Mcvay
>In article <1992Nov20.1...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>>I know of a case where orders have been in force for _years_, but the amount
>>collected is nearly nil. The ex-husband works 'under the table' in order to
>>avoid the attachment orders, does not use his chequing account to avoid that
>>attachment order, does not file income tax forms to avoid _that_
>>attachment.... well, you get the idea. Eventually, if he doesn't leave the
>>country, his ass will end up in jail, but it will probably take another four
>>or five years to get _that_ done. In the meantime, he takes his
>>under-the-table cash while telling welfare he's down and out...
>please remember that NCP (non-custodial parents) can be women too.
No argument there.
>also be aware that sometimes the NCP with-holds support because the CP
>is with-holding access. of course, the NCP looks bad because they are
>not paying their support, but not much is said about CP's with-holding
>access.
In my daughter's case, this is not remotely correct - she has consistently
provided access when requested, and I applaud her for that.
>>Legal Aid, which will help the husband avoid supporting his ex and children
>>for nothing, won't help the wife collect on outstanding court orders - the
>>case I know of involves back support in excess of $15K, and absolutely
>>_no-one_ will help her collect it.
>Legal-Aid also helps the CP impoverish the NCP who probably makes too much
>to qualify for legal-aid.
In my daughter's case, the ex makes enough to support a comfortable
lifestyle, while my daughter is having a very difficult time. Legal Aid will
not provide assistance _in any case_ to enforce maintenance orders - period.
>>Any legal eagles out there who can do some pro bono work for women in this
>>situation, like drafting orders for them, etc?
>
>there are various newsgroups out there, i only really know those for NCP's
>the FREE mailing list and alt.dads-rights.
Yes, I'm familiar with them, but they generally apply in the United States,
rather than Canada. I would like to initiate a mailing list dealing
specifically with Canada, but there's little interest.
--
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
(604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...
Grannies gratified....
Jim Mercer
>In article <1992Nov23.1...@xenitec.on.ca> me...@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>please remember that NCP (non-custodial parents) can be women too.
>
>No argument there.
>
>>also be aware that sometimes the NCP with-holds support because the CP
>>is with-holding access. of course, the NCP looks bad because they are
>>not paying their support, but not much is said about CP's with-holding
>>access.
>
>In my daughter's case, this is not remotely correct - she has consistently
>provided access when requested, and I applaud her for that.
your daughter's case is one in thousands. are there statistics that show that
NCP consistently don't pay their support?
it is unfortunate that in divorce, the child/ren get treated like assets.
the NCP must pay to meet there end of the upbringing of the child/ren.
the CP must allow access to the child/ren.
>>>Legal Aid, which will help the husband avoid supporting his ex and children
>>>for nothing, won't help the wife collect on outstanding court orders - the
>>>case I know of involves back support in excess of $15K, and absolutely
>>>_no-one_ will help her collect it.
>
>>Legal-Aid also helps the CP impoverish the NCP who probably makes too much
>>to qualify for legal-aid.
>
>In my daughter's case, the ex makes enough to support a comfortable
>lifestyle, while my daughter is having a very difficult time. Legal Aid will
>not provide assistance _in any case_ to enforce maintenance orders - period.
there are not a small number of NCP's who have a difficult time too.
i, for example, supposibly make a comfortable living.
after paying rent, loan payments and support, i barely have enough to buy
food. clothing is going to be sheer luck. entertainment is courtesy of
friends, which i will lose soon if i keep leeching off them.
the loan payments are for the entire matrimonial debt, which i am paying
off because i "make a comfortable living" and she was just working parttime.
she is now full-time, but i can't get the amount changed without incurring more legal fees.
i can't get legal aid, because i "make a comfortable living".
before you get upset about "all" those non-paying NCP's, please think about
what your actions are going to do to those who are paying.
my ex and i are amenible, we talk, i don't begrudge her the support,
(although i would like to address the debt thing). if all of a sudden
i am to be lumped in with "the deadbeat dads", i am going to be very upset.
this is akin to saying that all men are potential rapists.
the fact that a man can rape (not pay support) does not mean that they
will rape (will not pay support).
Ken Mcvay
>In article <1992Nov23....@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>>In my daughter's case, this is not remotely correct - she has consistently
>>provided access when requested, and I applaud her for that.
>
>your daughter's case is one in thousands. are there statistics that show that
>NCP consistently don't pay their support?
Frankly, my dear, to quote Mr. Gable, I don't give a damn. Nowhere in this
thread have I suggested that all NCP's fit the same mold, so I'd appreciate
it if you'd keep that in mind. I am concerned about the folks who do their
utmost to avoid their legal responsibilities, and there are more than just a
few of them.
>it is unfortunate that in divorce, the child/ren get treated like assets.
Don't patronize me - I've been through it, and won't argue the point, except
to say that it isn't remotely germaine to the situation under discussion.
>>In my daughter's case, the ex makes enough to support a comfortable
>>lifestyle, while my daughter is having a very difficult time. Legal Aid will
>>not provide assistance _in any case_ to enforce maintenance orders - period.
>
>there are not a small number of NCP's who have a difficult time too.
Again, so what? In my daughter's case, this isn't remotely true. Although I
can't repeat the figures I've seen, for reasons of confidentiality, I can
assure you that anyone making what my ex-SIL has made in the past four years
has _absolutely_, repeat, _absolutely_, no excuse for avoiding his
responsibility to his children, and to the law.
He has defrauded the federal government through bogus UIC claims (yes, UIC
is investigating, and I'm delighted to have had a part in that - it put paid
to one of his scams, which was working under the table while collecting
UI... and, I might add, the FMEP won't attach under-table wages, so he
killed several birds with one illegal act.), and done a good many other
things for which I sincerely hope he spends some jail time.
>before you get upset about "all" those non-paying NCP's, please think about
>what your actions are going to do to those who are paying.
Absolutely nothing. If they are meeting their legal and moral obligations,
nothing I do will have any affect upon them whatsoever. They are not my
target, nor will they ever be.
>my ex and i are amenible, we talk, i don't begrudge her the support,
>(although i would like to address the debt thing). if all of a sudden
>i am to be lumped in with "the deadbeat dads", i am going to be very upset.
I certainly haven't done that, nor do I intend to. I suspect my daughter
will tell you exactly the same thing. I won't, however, sit quietly back
while my grand-children suffer because of the selfish and illegal actions of
their father.
>this is akin to saying that all men are potential rapists.
Phooey - nothing I have said justifies such silliness.
Chris Dollmont
- >Legal Aid, which will help the husband avoid supporting his ex and children
- >for nothing, won't help the wife collect on outstanding court orders - the
- >case I know of involves back support in excess of $15K, and absolutely
- >_no-one_ will help her collect it.
-
- Legal-Aid also helps the CP impoverish the NCP who probably makes too much
- to qualify for legal-aid.
-
- --
- [ Jim Mercer Reptilian Research me...@iguana.reptiles.org +1 519 893-6085
- [ I don't want to work for a company that has a CIO.
- [ Disclaimer! I don't need no stinking Disclaimer!
I was recently involved in a similar situation. I wanted to start custody
proceedings for my son, but my lawyer advised me that it would cost me
approximately $30,000.00 and I would *probably* lose, as certain allegations I
was making about my ex'es lifestyle were virtually unproveable.
What would it cost my ex to fight back? Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not one thin
dime. My tax dollars, ironically enough, would assist her battle.
Fortuneately, her and I came to an understanding, and all is one again as right
as it could get. srrr
| Chris Dollmont | USENET: b...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
| Blue North Software | SNail: 16936D 85th Ave.
| | Edmonton, AB T5R 4A3
| Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most...