Family Maintenance Enforcement Program
li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
After just shy of a year in their program, I withdrew due to my lack of
amusement with their infamous Comedy of Errors operations, etc.. I had
figured out that -- in my case anyway -- I stood a much better chance (once
withdrawn from FMEP) of recovering from my ex-husband several thousand dollars
in child support arrears, on my own. Their records show that my enrollment was
withdrawn effective February 22, 1993.
I have recently received disclosure that some funds from the federal government
owed to my ex were garnisheed (for child support arrears) by the FMEP on
January 16 and 29, 1993 and again on February 13, 1993.
As I have never received such funds and am back in court on Monday, May 17, to
address the matter of arrears, I called the FMEP to enquire as to what had
become of those said federal funds garnisheed on behalf of our children? I
was told that those funds had been returned to my ex as a result of my
withdrawal from the program! Please note that those monies were garnisheed
36 days, 24 days and 9 days respectively, *prior* to my withdrawal from the
program! The garnisheed amount in question? $468.75 TOTAL. (Oooh, ahh)
As my ex has disclosed only that the funds were garnisheed and has not
disclosed the fact that they were subsequently returned to him, I asked the
FMEP to advise me of when those funds were returned to him. They then informed
me that as I was no longer enrolled with them, they would not give me that
information. They are aware of the fact that my court proceedings concerning
the matter of child support arrears will resume this Monday. In other words,
my ex has copies of the chequestubs reflecting the garnishees -- and therefore,
indicating payments towards arrears -- while I have nothing to show that those
funds were subsequently returned to him by the FMEP.
I told the FMEP that I do not recall anything in the Family Maintenance
Enforcement Act that indicates they can return garnisheed amounts to the
debtor parent, provided arrears are known to be owed and as long as the
creditor parent is enrolled. The staff I spoke with acknowledged that there
is not such a clause in the said Act. I then asked her where in the FMEP's
policy and procedures manual it contained any such clause, assuming that they
must have one in their manual that is not covered by governing legislative
Acts. She said she "could not" (would not?) answer that question for me.
B.C.'s taxpayers pay over $6 million a year to fund the FMEP. The FMEP's
"success rate" is a mere 26%. Their caseworkers have an average caseload of
1100 - 1300 clients per worker. Needless to say, the program is hardly
efficient in most cases.
It seems terribly apparent to me that the program is yet another bureaucracy
working to cover their own privately owned, publicly funded asses and not
one dedicated to the role it was supposedly intended to assume -- that of
recovering court ordered support from delinquent debtor parents, for their
children.
Also, the few debtor parents who have experienced firsthand the other side of
the FMEP coin, that I know, have been garnisheed for funds they didn't owe;
treated like criminals if and when they were laid off, etc. from work *even
when they had been paying full and regular support prior to that time, through
the program*; and so on.
I certainly maintain that there needs to be a system in place for the
enforcement of child support orders, for cases in which the debtor parent fails
to but has the ability to pay, assuming the Order itself is reasonable.
Unfortunately, it seems that an additional system is needed to make sure the
enforcement agency is truly doing its job efficiently and intelligently. (Now
there's an oxymoron, "government intelligence"!)
At the same time, the last thing we need is more government bureaucracies and
more taxes! Sigh...
Lisa (Graham) Lambeth
---
Lisa Lambeth li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Nanaimo, B.C.
Canada NEXT?
Alan Yasutovich
You know, *I* have never been "given" anything. I support
myself (and several hundred others). and my wife is from the
same "school".
I don't think that anyone wants to receive public assisitance
of any kind; it's degrading.
But there are people who have nothing better to do with their
time than graze around looking for "free stuff". Things they
can coolect on to better their own lot, rather than just
living and working like everyone else. It's the basis
for our "sue crazed" society, and 90% of the lawyer commercials
we see on TV.
When are people going to live within their own economic
means, rather than always looking for cash-cows?
Answer? Never. It was rhetorical.
My income tax returns were stolen in the late 80's. After
losing the deduction for my son, and a few bucks that no one
can accuont for, my $1300 return turned into about $500,
about 6 months later. I was one of the lucky ones.
I'm tired of people skulking around examining me and what
they think they *MIGHT* be able to get from me.
And if I could make a loud, clear, crisp, affirmative
statement to this whole net, if I could know EXACTLY
how much I was required to pay for HOW LONG, then
at least half of my aggressive pissed off attutude
would dissapear.
It's people like this. People who stalk people financially.
That have pissed me off so much.
I'm DIVORCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My ex needs to look up that definition. And my income, and
my money are none of her, or anybody elses business anymore!
--
Alan Yasutovich
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
"inquiring (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Ken Mcvay
>In article <k3HJ4B...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>Well, the taxpayer-funded, privately operated FMEP did it again.
[Lisa's complaint deleted for sake of brevity]
> You know, *I* have never been "given" anything. I support
> myself (and several hundred others). and my wife is from the
> same "school".
So, I can directly assert, is Lisa.
> I don't think that anyone wants to receive public assisitance
> of any kind; it's degrading.
Her remarks had nothing to do with public assistance. What were you
referring to?
> But there are people who have nothing better to do with their
> time than graze around looking for "free stuff". Things they
> can coolect on to better their own lot, rather than just
> living and working like everyone else. It's the basis
> for our "sue crazed" society, and 90% of the lawyer commercials
> we see on TV.
None of which, of course, has anything to do with Lisa's comments.
> When are people going to live within their own economic
> means, rather than always looking for cash-cows?
See above.
> It's people like this. People who stalk people financially.
> That have pissed me off so much.
I might suggest that you take a deep breath, chill out a tad, and re-read
what Lisa had to say. She isn't "stalking" anyone, I assure you. She is,
however, involved in a continuing struggle to collect funds for the support
of her children, mandated by the courts over the course of many years, as a
part of the divorce settlement.
> I'm DIVORCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Join the club - were there children from your union? If so, who has custody?
Who supports them?
> My ex needs to look up that definition. And my income, and
> my money are none of her, or anybody elses business anymore!
That may well be true - it is in the case of my divorce - but it is not
remotely true in cases where the support of minor children is involved.
In such cases, the income of the non-custodial parent is indeed the business
of the court and the custodial parent, until such time as support for the
children is no longer legally required.
The fact worth noting in Lisa's article is that the taxpayers of this
province are being taken to the cleaners by a private organization that is
supposed to provide a necessary service, but which does not in the vast
majority of cases. It acts, again and again, contrary to the very laws that
govern its existence. Whether or not you have opinions regarding a specific
instance in which the FMEP becomes involved isn't even material to the
article - whether or not you like seeing your tax dollars going into the
pockets of a corporation that hasn't remotely earned them is another issue
entirely.
--
The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA
Home to the Holocaust archives - send INDEX to list...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca
[This space reserved]
Tony Buckland
>> in full, with every blank line and signature line ...
> 40 lines, I think, of response, every line with an initial tab ...
I wish people responding to long postings would EDIT THE DAMN THINGS
DOWN before adding their comments. Note that I have no objection to
the length of the original posting, but I've ALREADY READ IT AND
DON'T WANT TO SEE EVERY BLOODY WORD AGAIN. Flame off. Have a nice
day.
li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
> > >ya...@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> > >
> > >> When are people going to live within their own economic
> > >> means, rather than always looking for cash-cows?
> > >
> > >the mother has to pay to look after them and the father can just `walk-awa
> > >
> Jeesh!
My sincere apologies to Tony Buckland for the extensive quotes...Your point
was well taken -- just momentarily forgotten. Sorry,
Lisa
li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
> In article <1993May17....@ve6mgs.ampr.org> ma...@ve6mgs.ampr.org (Mark
> >ya...@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> >
> >> When are people going to live within their own economic
> >> means, rather than always looking for cash-cows?
> >
> >Exqueeze me, but when there are kids involved, why are you indicating that
> >
> >Sure, a Divorce implies that both parties have decided to throw away a
> >relationship, but `their' kids must be cared for. As a `never divorced'
> >parent, I can assure you I pay more in `child' support than *any*
> >divorced father does when enforced or otherwise. These are MY children,
> >and I have NO problem with it.
> >
> >> My ex needs to look up that definition. And my income, and
> >> my money are none of her, or anybody elses business anymore!
> >
> >
Mark,
In case you've missed some of Alan's more "poignant" posts, the son that he
had by his first wife he sometimes refers to as his "ex kid."
> I have one. That's why I'm here.
>
> In case you missed my story, I didn't see either of them
> for 10 years. Then, 7 years into my next marriage
> and one new baby, they barge in. THis, after being
> shunned, told to take a walk, and leave them alone.
>
> this kid doesn't even go by his real last name; MINE.
>
> And he wants "birthrights"?
>
Alan,
I think it very sad that you apparently hold your own child son responsible
for his mother's actions/decisions. Her influence seems apparent and thus your
son continues to be victimized by both her bitterness and your own.
> That's why the "cash-cow" thing. Maybe I'm coming
> from a different direction. But things/people STILL
> pop out from the woodwork.
>
> Don't people have a right to know exactly what is
> expected from them so they can plan accordingly?
As you well know, our children see their father at least every two weeks and
when possible, more often than that. No one is "popping out of the woodwork"
here. In fact, it was my ex who initiated our current court proceedings!
Mark makes an astute observation in pointing out the inequities of a
custodial parent having to be 100% financially responsible for their
children after divorce...only difference is, my ex didn't walk away from his
kids, only from his parental responsibilities for them.
Anyway, as my dear father has pointed out, your comments in this thread have
nothing to do with the FMEP (in my case, at least) nor with anything related
to my original post. I didn't ask my ex for copies of those garnisheed
chequestubs -- I didn't even know they existed! I did ask the FMEP about them
(once my ex's attorney presented them to me) and subsequently, about when
those funds were returned, which they refused to divulge.
Jeesh!
mark
>>Well, the taxpayer-funded, privately operated FMEP did it again.
>>FMEP o advise me of when those funds were returned to him. They then informed
>>me that as I was no longer enrolled with them, they would not give me that
>>information. They are aware of the fact that my court proceedings concerning
>>the matter of child support arrears will resume this Monday. In other words,
>>indicating payments towards arrears -- while I have nothing to show that those
>>funds were subsequently returned to him by the FMEP.
<I'm still not sure what the post below has to do with the one above, but...>
> You know, *I* have never been "given" anything. I support
> myself (and several hundred others). and my wife is from the
> same "school".
>
> I don't think that anyone wants to receive public assisitance
> of any kind; it's degrading.
>
> But there are people who have nothing better to do with their
> time than graze around looking for "free stuff". Things they
??? Are you saying that there are people who *do* want to receive public
assistance, as opposed to the sentence above?
> can coolect on to better their own lot, rather than just
> living and working like everyone else. It's the basis
> for our "sue crazed" society, and 90% of the lawyer commercials
> we see on TV.
That I'll agree with."I ain't responsible, it's *gotta* be someone else's fault.
<snip>
> And if I could make a loud, clear, crisp, affirmative
> statement to this whole net, if I could know EXACTLY
> how much I was required to pay for HOW LONG, then
> at least half of my aggressive pissed off attutude would dissapear.
??? My divorce decree spells it out quite clearly. The only thing that I
dislike about it is something that *I*, stupidly, insisted on putting in
(a minimum child support amount - at the time, I was not considering that
I might hit a Depression, and wind up unemployed for a length of time, as
I did a couple of years ago).
>
mark
Alan Yasutovich
>ya...@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>> In case you missed my story, I didn't see either of them
>> for 10 years. Then, 7 years into my next marriage
>> and one new baby, they barge in. THis, after being
>> shunned, told to take a walk, and leave them alone.
>>
>> this kid doesn't even go by his real last name; MINE.
>>
>> And he wants "birthrights"?
>>
>Alan,
>
>I think it very sad that you apparently hold your own child son responsible
>for his mother's actions/decisions. Her influence seems apparent and thus your
>son continues to be victimized by both her bitterness and your own.
I agree.
>> That's why the "cash-cow" thing. Maybe I'm coming
>> from a different direction. But things/people STILL
>> pop out from the woodwork.
>>
>> Don't people have a right to know exactly what is
>> expected from them so they can plan accordingly?
>
>As you well know, our children see their father at least every two weeks and
>when possible, more often than that. No one is "popping out of the woodwork"
>here. In fact, it was my ex who initiated our current court proceedings!
>Mark makes an astute observation in pointing out the inequities of a
>custodial parent having to be 100% financially responsible for their
>children after divorce...only difference is, my ex didn't walk away from his
>kids, only from his parental responsibilities for them.
>
>Anyway, as my dear father has pointed out, your comments in this thread have
>nothing to do with the FMEP (in my case, at least) nor with anything related
>to my original post. I didn't ask my ex for copies of those garnisheed
>chequestubs -- I didn't even know they existed! I did ask the FMEP about them
>(once my ex's attorney presented them to me) and subsequently, about when
>those funds were returned, which they refused to divulge.
>
>Jeesh!
>
>---
>Lisa Lambeth li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
>Nanaimo, B.C.
>Canada NEXT?
I agree again.
(Off goes Lisa to have a coronary)
Michael Stemper
><snip>
>> And if I could make a loud, clear, crisp, affirmative
>> statement to this whole net, if I could know EXACTLY
>> how much I was required to pay for HOW LONG, then
>> at least half of my aggressive pissed off attutude would dissapear.
>
>??? My divorce decree spells it out quite clearly. The only thing that I
>dislike about it is something that *I*, stupidly, insisted on putting in
>(a minimum child support amount - at the time, I was not considering that
>I might hit a Depression, and wind up unemployed for a length of time, as
>I did a couple of years ago).
I hate to have to point this out, but the fact that it's spelled out quite
clearly is irrelevant. If your income goes up, the CP can immediately file
for and receive an increase in CS payments. If you file for a change in
custody, the CP can file for and receive and increase in CS payments, based
simply on the fact that you have enough money to afford a lawyer. If you
marry (or have a live-in friend), the CP can file for and receive an
increase in CS payments based on the fact that your household income has
gone up. If October 1993 comes, the state will file for and receive an
increase in CS payments based on the fact that the Federal government
told them to.
What if you lose your job? If six months goes by, you might be allowed to
file for a slight reduction. Assuming that you continued to faithfully
make all CS payments without income. Assuming that it wasn't decided that
you were "voluntarily unemployed". Assuming that the CP didn't decide to
call you a child abuser.
--
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mste...@empros.com
li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
> In article <ZD9P4B...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes
> >ya...@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> >> this kid doesn't even go by his real last name; MINE.
> >>
> >> And he wants "birthrights"?
> >
> >I think it very sad that you apparently hold your own child son responsible
> >for his mother's actions/decisions. Her influence seems apparent and thus y
> >son continues to be victimized by both her bitterness and your own.
>
> I agree.
> >> That's why the "cash-cow" thing. Maybe I'm coming
> >> from a different direction. But things/people STILL
> >> pop out from the woodwork.
> >>
> >> Don't people have a right to know exactly what is
> >> expected from them so they can plan accordingly?
> >
> >As you well know, our children see their father at least every two weeks and
> >when possible, more often than that. No one is "popping out of the woodwork
> >here. In fact, it was my ex who initiated our current court proceedings!
> >Mark makes an astute observation in pointing out the inequities of a
> >custodial parent having to be 100% financially responsible for their
> >children after divorce...only difference is, my ex didn't walk away from his
> >kids, only from his parental responsibilities for them.
> >
> >Anyway, as my dear father has pointed out, your comments in this thread have
> >nothing to do with the FMEP (in my case, at least) nor with anything related
> >to my original post
> >
> I agree again.
>
> (Off goes Lisa to have a coronary)
Not at all:-) I am truly delighted!
Alex Nemeth
From: Mark G. Salyzyn, ma...@ve6mgs.ampr.org
Date: Tue, 18 May 93 20:43:59 GMT
In article <1993May18....@ve6mgs.ampr.org> Mark G. Salyzyn,
Then,
>>7 years into my next marriage and one new baby, they barge in. THis,
after
>>being shunned, told to take a walk, and leave them alone.
>
bitterness
>about her attitude! It was well within your rights to fight for access to
>your children, why did you not do this? Why are you so bitter that your
>previous children are deciding to make you part of their lives?
>
> <<<< LOts of stuff deleted >>>>
Mark,
If I may make a suggestion. Have Alan send you his story via PRIVATE
e-mail and read it before you make any other comments or ask any other
questions. There is a lot more to this story than was posted here.
Hopefully this will give you an insight and explain the answers to the
questions your asking about.
Personally I didn't understand Alan's reaction to Lisa's Post, and I also
thought it was unrelated to the original post.
>Ciao -- Mark
> Kept my marriage going by looking forward rather than inward