Good Parents Pay

[Denisem]

What are your thoughts on this site?

[Denisem]

Sorry, forgot to post the address, click here.

[logicalvelocity]

Denisem,

Unconstitutional.

Basically this website was set up to locate individuals who are in violation of a court ordered child support.

I don't see a similar website setup to post pictures of individuals who violate other types of court orders such as the child's access denials.


lv

[gooddadgoingmad]

I concur Lv.

It reinforces my belief that our government is more concerned with the almighty dollar than they are the emotional rights of children and the devastation wreaked upon individuals who are deemed as nothing more than cash cows. And who, upon divorce and separation, are no longer important enough to be seen as a father...are not given the basic right of caring for their child when they are running a fever...who don't even know what size their little boy wears in a shoe anymore...but rather an ATM machine which is supposed to spit out money even when there is none to give. An ATM machine that will eventually get kicked and kicked, over and over until it wears out and is broken so badly that it will never function in any capacity ever again.

I'm ashamed to be a Canadian. How disillusioned I was for so long.

[SillyMe]

I too concur

Why stop here, why don't we let Bell, Rogers or, Revenue Canada do the same thing for people delinquent in paying their bills. I am tempted to seeing these people all over Canada.

SillyMe

[sufferer]

I am not against LV and sillyMe ,they are right to a extent.I will say this site is bad for good parents and good for bad parents.People who have been paying for years but due to material change couldn't keep up and finally will be seen on this site......NOT FAIR.But parents who only Know how to give birth ,walk away without any obligation( financial,emotional etc) and pretend to be extra nice in public HMMM VERY GOOD FOR THEM.Once he literally threatened me either iI should quietly move out (no property division,,no child support) then he won't even see us through out the life otherwise he will fight for the Joint Custody.

I Know not every man is like my ex" A AWEFUL FATHER" but all men are not as fair and genuine as LV,SillyMe ,Dadoftwogirls etc.You guys are Fathers and willing to act one but not everybody.

[logicalvelocity]

yoyo,

I enjoy a good discussion

as you mentioned,

You are mistaken in a couple of ways.

Perhaps, Perhaps not. What I posted is just my opinion that the website was unconstitutional as it assigns labels to parents IE: "Good Parents Pay" Does that mean "Bad Parents don't pay?" Assigning labels to a parent is unconstitutional whether it is "good parent" or "bad parent."

My point was that if you are going to label a parent "Good parents pay" for complying with a "court support orders" and for those violating "court support orders", end up on a government website; Then to me it is logical to conclude that there should have similar websites for "all parents" that violate any "court orders" as after all, "court orders" are apparently made in the best interest of the child.

I suppose you also believe that those missing posters of parents who kidnap their children are unconstitutional as well?

I'm not clear what that has do with what I posted and I don't believe I mentioned anything in that regard. If your speaking of "Kidnaping" in general; That is a different issue altogether. The term kidnaping as defined:

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.a...1&submit1.y=12

(also spelled kidnaping) n. the taking of a person against his/her will (or from the control of a parent or guardian) from one place to another under circumstances in which the person so taken does not have freedom of movement, will, or decision through violence, force, threat or intimidation. Although it is not necessary that the purpose be criminal (since all kidnapping is a criminal felony) the capture usually involves some related criminal act such as holding the person for ransom, sexual and/or sadistic abuse, or rape. It includes taking due to irresistible impulse and a parent taking and hiding a child in violation of court order. An included crime is false imprisonment. Any harm to the victim coupled with kidnapping can raise the degree of felony for the injury and can result in a capital (death penalty) offense in some states, even though the victim survives. Originally it meant the stealing of children, since "kid" is child in Scandinavian languages, but now applies to adults as well.

Kidnapping is a criminal offence and can apply to not just children but adults as well. Since you are asking my opinion on this different issue I will give same. I agree that society should be aware of kidnappers, fugitives and every other convicted criminal that could pose a risk or element of harm to any individual or to aprehend a child should be posted. Moreover, everyones DNA should also be entered into a database for future reference. With this initiative alone; Crime would be reduced. Some example web sites of kidnapers, fugitives and other criminals:

RCMP - http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/wanted/abduct_e.htm

Ottawa Police - http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/servin...anted_main.cfm

Toronto crime stoppers - http://www.222tips.com/index.php?pt=wanted&sub=1010

On the issue of Kidnapping, I posted a thread on this subject previously:

Invoking S. 282 of the Criminal Code

which can be found here

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/s...ghlight=miriam

R. v. Petropoulous, (1990), 29 R.F.L. (3d) 289,(B.C.C.A) The court held that a mother with specified access rights could invoke s.282 of the Criminal Code to prevent the father, who had sole custody, from removing the children from the province as this would deprive her of lawful care or charge of the child. From the Judgment:

It seems to me that, while obviously not a right to custody, the right to have what is described as "access" in circumstances such as these, where it is clear that the child will be living, albeit temporarily, in the company of one parent to the exclusion of the other, involves a transfer of "lawful care of charge" to the non-custodial parent for the duration of access period described. While the word "access" is used, indicating that the order does not contemplate joint, or alternating, custody, what is granted by such an order as this is more than merely a right to visit while the child is in the possession, care or charge of the other parent. It involves transfer of the child from the possession, care or charge of the "custodial parent" to that of the non-custodial parent.


Abduction in contravention of custody order
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/280786.html

Section 282(1) of the Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c. C-46 )

282. (1) Every one who, being the parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbours that person, in contravention of the custody provisions of a custody order in relation to that person made by a court anywhere in Canada, with intent to deprive a parent or guardian, or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

That being so, it appears that if a parent with legal custody of their child relocated out of province without permission from an non-custodial parent s.282 of the Criminal Code could be invoked.

lv

[logicalvelocity]

yoyo,

too funny

I thought you left this forum many months ago under your other username, I'm not clear why you log in and participate under your current name. Have you been assigned a label?

All that aside, I think you missed my point of my comment.

I think that good parents pay child support. Think that is pretty widely accepted. Good parents don't run and hide from their obligations.

Is that the criteria for being a good parent. That being so, if a parent paid their child support would that not construe to be a material change of circumstance and therefore since they are now labeled a "good parent," by the government; Is it not logical to conclude that they should have custody of their children? After all, they are now considered and officially labeled by the government as "good parents"

Good parents don't run and hide from their obligations.

Who says they are running or hiding? I believe I read the FRO cannot locate same. Big difference. Because they cannot locate the individual they are labeled. Again, if a parent exercises their constitutional right of mobility they could be labeled therefore making it unconstitutional. As listed in the charter:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Charter....html#garantie

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides mobility.

Mobility of citizens

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Rights to move and gain livelihood

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

As an aside I also believe that good parents don't beat their children, good parents don't have sex with their children, good parents don't let their children have sex with the parents friends, hmm lets see good parents also have a relationship with their children and lots of other statements that are "value" driven. FRO doesn't enforce these things so it isn't in their mandate to have a website for these or for any other court order.

Scenario

What if an individuals picture is posted on the FRO site and the only issue is arrears of spousal support with no children involved. Are they still labeled a good parent or bad parent? Would this not be unconstitutional as they may not even be parents.

I'm not clear what Child Abuse has to do with the topic. However, I agree that it is beyond the mandate of the FRO to be involved in a matter of child abuse. The appropriate crown agency is the CAS. Perhaps the CAS should have an equivalent website for parents who abuse their children, assign a label and post pictures of same so that society in general can see who these people are.

For parents that make unfounded and unproven allegations and commit perjury in court under oath should also be assigned a label, have their picture posted on an equivalent government website for the general society to see.

For other parents who fail to honour and comply with other family court orders should also have their picture posted on a equivalent government website and have an appropriate label assigned to them.

I agree the the latter comments are beyond the scope of the FRO, but my point is that the government has assigned a label to a sector of society which is unconstitutional whether the label is good parent or bad parent.


lv

[logicalvelocity]

yoyo,

too funny again.

Originally Posted by logicalvelocity
yoyo,

too funny

I thought you left this forum many months ago under your other username, I'm not clear why you log in and participate under your current name. Have you been assigned a label?
lv

Feel free to release my ip number or the other name... Also feel free to release the other id of the other person posting on this thread...

It was an honest and fair question which you never answered.

Or hmmm just delete this comment because it disagrees with your beliefs that good parents run away and don't have to pay child support.

I don't believe I posted that anywhere. If anything you said that. I believe you missed the point that I made all along - Labeling parents as "good parents" because they pay their court ordered support amounts or "bad parents" is unconstitutional.

I am not clear why you brought the issues of kidnapping, child abuse into this discussion of the "FRO website of Good Parents Pay" as they were off topic, However, I believe I posted my opinion on same when sought by you

Originally Posted by logicalvelocity

Is that the criteria for being a good parent. That being so, if a parent paid their child support would that not construe to be a material change of circumstance and therefore since they are now labeled a "good parent," by the government; Is it not logical to conclude that they should have custody of their children? After all, they are now considered and officially labeled by the government as "good parents"

Originally Posted by yoyo

If they are there they haven't paid and they don't have their address. It takes some effort to disappear so skip traces and the govmt can't find you.

Fair enough. My point is that the posted individuals on the FRO site are now labeled regardless of the reason why the FRO cannot locate same. They could be be deceased. That being so, is it constitutionally correct and respectful to label a parent when deceased. However, If they are deceased, it is logical to conclude the reason why they haven't informed the FRO of their new address.

Originally Posted by logicalvelocity

Who says they are running or hiding? I believe I read the FRO cannot locate same. Big difference. Because they cannot locate the individual they are labeled. Again, if a parent exercises their constitutional right of mobility they could be labeled therefore making it unconstitutional. As listed in the charter:

Originally Posted by yoyo

All the parent has to do is tell FRO where they are and the pic and details are off the site. They are hiding.

They are still labeled. Again they could be deceased and if that is the case; It would be very difficult for the individual to inform the FRO where they are.

Even the FRO acknowledges that they haven't been able to locate same. Who is to say that the individuals are hiding? Not even the FRO will acknowledge such. The FRO acknowledges that they having been able to locate the individual. Therefore I conclude that the public perception created by the site of "Good Parents Pay" labels are unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by logicalvelocity

I'm not clear what Child Abuse has to do with the topic. However, I agree that it is beyond the mandate of the FRO to be involved in a matter of child abuse. The appropriate crown agency is the CAS. Perhaps the CAS should have an equivalent website for parents who abuse their children, assign a label and post pictures of same so that society in general can see who these people are.

Originally Posted by yoyo

There is a child abuse registry in this country.Are you against this.

Off topic, but since you ask my opinion, I'm all for Child Abuse Registries, and Amber Alert programs. Moreover, I am of the belief that every Canadian should submit a DNA sample into a central national registry as a tool that police can access to alleviate crime in the country.

So I would like to know what circumstances there would be that someone is unable to be located and hasn't paid child support that still allows them to be labeled a good parent. Can you tell me this? I am stunned at this.

I never labeled any of the individuals located on the FRO site. My point in all this thread is that assigning individuals a label whether it is "good parent" because they pay court ordered support or "bad parent" if they don't is unconstitutional.

As you demonstrated already in your previous comment from your coined term "deadbeat." Is this a label you concluded after viewing the FRO website or your general opinion of parents who do not pay support. How is it constitutionally correct to come to a perception and conclusion about a certain individual without knowing them and any of the facts in their particular case after viewing their picture on FRO website. As demonstrated, it solidifies my comment that the FRO "Good Parents Pay" site is unconstitutional.

If you asking my opinion on parents that fail to meet their parental obligations to children by way of support, I would want to know all the facts of the particular before I passed Judgment on them.

I suppose you won't this post will be deleted or edited ( if by jeffy then no evidence will be around about what i said- you will have to delete this post totally since I believe that is the only thing in your power right?

I enjoy a good discussion. I don't see anything on your opinion that you posted unreasonable. After all, the right to free speech in protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

lv

[jlalex]

IMHO - FRO is pretty much useless..they can't find them?! In my paticular circumstance over $18,000 in arrears were racked up, and ex never changed his address, phone number, car, licence plate or hair style for that matter. He was right where he was from the beginning. I called them I don't know how many times over a period of 3 years, and in those 3 years they sent one letter....oooh scary!!! They better be carefull or they just might give someone a paper cut!

The way the sytem is set up is ridiculous, you can completley ignore court orders and get away it, you can lie your face off and nobody cares, except when it comes to money, the system seems pretty quick to rectify any financial issues. You can interfere with visitation and access, you can demonize the ncp without any fear of retribution. Too bad there wasn't some kind of registry to report all the crappy behaviour done by parents in the midst of custody disputes.

They show about a dozen men who haven't been 'found'. I guess it's okay to be in arrears as long as they know where you are I seriously doubt 'Good Parents Pay' is going to be effective as it relies on people having some kind of conciousness of behaviour and morals and chances are if you do you wouldn't be listed on the site.