CBC Child support article

[mcdreamy]

Families that aren’t receiving their cs are likely on welfare or using food banks of some sort, and most of the rest of us are paying for those parents who decide not to pay support for their children. It is a serious issue for all of the provinces, and tracking down these parents should be a priority - but at what cost?

The article says there is one staff person in BC for every 752 cases. Do we throw our tax money at FRO (and similar provincial entities), to increase the number of employees and track nonpayors down, while simultaneously throwing tax money into the welfare system to keep the recipient families surviving until payment is received? [and how hard are they looking? one of the nonpayors is easily found on facebook!] Is anyone here looking to have their taxes increased to pick up the slack for these nonpaying parents?

Deadbeat moms across Canada owe more than $3.7B hours of make up time for access and court costs -- LF32 News.

About time they get a site dedicated to them.

The article is non-gender specific. Why would you interpret it otherwise? The last time the site “good parents” was posted and discussed on this forum, there were several pictures of non-paying mothers. In addition, we have several posters here (fathers), who are continually dealing with nonpayment from their exes.

Beachnana’s idea might work if: (1) all income was declared and (2) we were all willing to waive privacy rights and allow information to be shared, but I’m not comfortable with that concept. On the other hand, if there are any further reports released about the government monitoring our phone calls, emails, etc., maybe they have all the information already!

[LovingFather32]

Just straying a bit off topic to those "deadbeat dad" sites. Just think it would be suiting to have a "deadbeat moms" site for those who deny access to their fathers. Or other deadbeat dad sites that deny access to the mother's.

I just think deadbeats can acquire that label for more reasons than money. (although Im cognizant money is important).

[mcdreamy]

But its not a deadbeat dad site. Its a deadbeat parent site.

[Straittohell]

Mcdreamy, LF32 is making a bit of a sweeping generalization by attributing custody shenanigans to women, but they do constitute the majority, and do get a way with it easier. Nothing wrong with recognizing it.

[LovingFather32]

Illinois Deadbeat Parents

I mean all we have to do is count female to male ratio. Yes Im generalizing but c'mon. They're basically dad sites.

Like I said .. I was straying off topic.

Should have a site like this with pictures of parents who deny access to other parents for no good reason. I wonder if the ratio would change?

[stripes]

Mcdreamy, LF32 is making a bit of a sweeping generalization by attributing custody shenanigans to women, but they do constitute the majority, and do get a way with it easier. Nothing wrong with recognizing it.

And your evidence for this is ...?

Statements that being with "everybody knows ..." or "it's common knowledge that ..." have a way of being inaccurate. If you've had personal experience with women pulling "custody shenanigans", you can name and claim that as your personal experience. But you really can't generalize from your own experience (or the experience of your friends) as though this was a universal truth. In my field, we call this "bro-science".

[mcdreamy]

The link posted is titled 'deadbeat parents’, and there is Shannan, Susan and Amee, all nonpaying parents, in your link. Sweeping generalizations lead to faulty conclusions.

The stats confirm the majority of nonpaying parents are fathers; that would infer the majority of nonpaying pictures would be male.

Should have a site like this with pictures of parents who deny access to other parents for no good reason. I wonder if the ratio would change?

Which ratio? The ratio of nonpaying parents? I doubt it. Particularly since I don’t believe there is an agreed definition for “no good reason”, is there? Who judges? There are a couple of posters I’ve seen on these forums who make statements, and statements I’ve read on the internet from other parents, that would have me thinking they shouldn’t be parenting.

[LovingFather32]

The stats confirm the majority of nonpaying parents are fathers; that would infer the majority of nonpaying pictures would be male.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the majority of nonpaying pictures are not male? Because they are. If you are saying that then I'm agreeing with this obvious fact.

Regarding withholding access and abductions, etc, Ill do some research on stats and get back to you. I'm just curious if its this huge sweeping generalization .. or .. may I be right? I'm not saying "only" moms withhold access, etc. I'm saying my prediction is that more moms than dads do.

I know you'll disagree and that's fine. You also believe that it shouldn't be 50/50 to kids during a separation. Correct me if Im wrong. But I believe that's your stance.

[Beachnana]

CS makes me sick in that the recipient can continue asking for money here and there and every day without consequence. $3K of support payments a month and we are asked to buy shoes we have already bought twice. And a shit storm of emails ensue. We are firm, we will not purchase another pair of shoes... the emails continue and we ignore. I realize this is not the intent of the thread but where the hell are people's thought process when they pull this kind of crap?

Not everyone gets a lot of money. People with an average salaryunder $70 k with one child child get around $670. Not everyone asks for more money to cover expenses such as shoes, teacher gifts. There are of course more than one side to every situation.

I guess if only nice sane people got married or cohabitated and had children then separation and finances would not be an issue that it appears to be in many cases. But then if everyone was nice and sane they likely would not have separated.

I always advise " when you hold your child, do so with " clean" hands".

[Beachnana]

Families that aren’t receiving their cs are likely on welfare or using food banks of some sort, and most of the rest of us are paying for those parents who decide not to pay support for their children. It is a serious issue for all of the provinces, and tracking down these parents should be a priority - but at what cost?

The article says there is one staff person in BC for every 752 cases. Do we throw our tax money at FRO (and similar provincial entities), to increase the number of employees and track nonpayors down, while simultaneously throwing tax money into the welfare system to keep the recipient families surviving until payment is received? [and how hard are they looking? one of the nonpayors is easily found on facebook!] Is anyone here looking to have their taxes increased to pick up the slack for these nonpaying parents?


The article is non-gender specific. Why would you interpret it otherwise? The last time the site “good parents” was posted and discussed on this forum, there were several pictures of non-paying mothers. In addition, we have several posters here (fathers), who are continually dealing with nonpayment from their exes.

Beachnana’s idea might work if: (1) all income was declared and (2) we were all willing to waive privacy rights and allow information to be shared, but I’m not comfortable with that concept. On the other hand, if there are any further reports released about the government monitoring our phone calls, emails, etc., maybe they have all the information already!

You often hand over this information to your ex and you have no control over what they would domwith it. If CRA shared with Fro the $ income amount. Fro should have a system which recalculates and issues the new amount. No one needs to have a paper copy.

So in fact your privacy is protected more so.

[Rioe]

I'm going to jump in and do some horrible generalizing, just to get it all out there and save everybody else the trouble.

When men don't pay child support it's usually because they hate their ex more than they love their children. They feel that withholding money punishes their ex for leaving them, or, if they are the one who left, punishing their ex for not being good enough to stay with.

When women don't pay child support it's usually because they don't have (or don't want) access, and don't feel that they should pay for something they aren't using. Or they may feel that their ex has more money/income than them already.

When men deny access, it's to punish their ex, by taking away her most prized possessions.

When women deny access, it's because they think they are a better parent and can do the job of both parents just fine, and also because of objectifying the children as possessions that belongs to a mother.

So there's my generalization - Men behave the way they do because they desire justice for the perceived wrongs done to them by their ex, and women behave the way they do because of following misguided feelings. So men are logical and women are emotional. End of generalization.

This is why we still need feminism, by the way.

[Serene]

I think you missed my point. Regardless if it's 670 or 3000, CS is for basic necessities. And the average parent can purchase shoes for a child with their own income AND CS AND CCTB AND the UCCB they receive. Let's keep in mind that CS has a purpose. And its not to ask for more, more, more every few days.

For the record, I do not get CS and still have never asked anyone for shoe money. Not for the first pair or the 30th pair lol

[Serene]

Rioe, while your generalization may not have scientific merit it was very well laid out. For the most part I agree. I will add there is a level of control in the denying money and kids to the other parent as well. And for many who lack self esteem, I sense that they don't want the other parent to succeed, hence they deny the children to prevent success.

[arabian]

Something that I found out several years ago when starting to deal with MEP in Alberta is that this maintenance enforcement agency, like others, is simply a call centre.

I do notice a difference from province to province in some procedures. I notice that FRO (Ontario) still isn't even online. They could save or reallocate alot of manpower to collection if they simply streamlined things so that people can log on and look at their accounts. They have this system in Alberta and other provinces.

Alberta also has a child status review program to go with the child support recalculation program. Both online. I'd be interested to know if anyone from other provinces has the same set-up when dealing with their maintenance enforcement program:

Maintenance Enforcement Program - Alberta Justice


I believe one get's what you vote for. The ineffectiveness of the program administration should be an election topic. The next time you vote for those people in Ontario you should consider this and other government programs.

I agree with what another poster said - not enough is done to collect money from deadbeats. However, visualize the "sweat shop" or call centre where your inquiries are being handled. Perhaps the employees simply do not have the training and equipment required to do a thorough job. Sometimes out-dated procedural rules drown employee's ability to think creatively and perform their jobs effectively.

We'll probably never know though as the operations are extremely secretive and far from being transparent.

[Serene]

I agree with what another poster said - not enough is done to collect money from deadbeats. However, visualize the "sweat shop" or call centre where your inquiries are being handled. Perhaps the employees simply do not have the training and equipment required to do a thorough job. Sometimes out-dated procedural rules drown employee's ability to think creatively and perform their jobs effectively.

I don't even think they look for them. As you know my story (somewhat) no one has ever looked for the non-paying father in my situation. In fact, I'm told - if you can't tell us where he is, we don't know where he is.

Another pissy part of FRO, for me to acquire a statement that proves I'm owed the 80K or whatever is owed to me, I must PAY $20 for that. That in itself is a slap in the face. I have to pay for them to tell me what they can't collect?