Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Publicly shaming Fathers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by respondent View Post
    The FRO collected 100% of his wage - first 50% when the paycheque was issued, and second 50% when it was deposited, so let's face it, the FRO made a mistake, yet they refused to even admit it or apologize and refused attending poor man funerals.
    They garnished his bank account as there was an order against him. It was unfortunate but they don’t wake up one day and do it. There was an order against him. He should have taken some sort of action. Plus that case was from almost 30 years ago when FRO was in the early stages. You can’t keep holding it up as an example of what is happening now.

    The shame board is not smart for two simple reasons. It affects children, and they could quickly be bullied in school that their dad has abandoned them, as kids have internet too and often know how to use it better than parents. It also affects ability of dad to earn money to pay the support, thus once again affects the child. Same goes for driver's license - some people need it to get to/from work, some people use it for work.
    Again, have you gone on the site to see who is on there? Have you looked at the cases? Kids don’t go on the site to bully others. If a child is being bullied because their parent doesn’t pay support it is probably because they have shitty clothes, no food, no roof over their heads or their mother lives on assistance. As for the dads not making money…the ones on the list of most wanted are earning money and hiding it so yes they should be shamed. You keep missing the point of the list online and clearly are not looking at the men on it. Men who have left the country, who choose to avoid responsibility. There was a recent media story about a man who was in the hole over $200,000 and was living on the east coast under an assumed name.

    If you really want something fair regarding the support payments, the law should be changed. There shouldn't be a need for motion with 8 months wait when there is significant material change - in most cases you won't even have money to bring that motion. There should be equal parenting from the very start. Then we will talk.
    Yes I agree there should be changes to the system when it comes to custody and support but this is not the same thing. Parents who pay nothing and end up in arrears of more than $100,000 and are on a most wanted list ARE NOT THE SAME. They have chosen to take off and shirk responsibility.

    I get that you don’t like the idea of paying support and that you are being responsible. You are a good parent who understands and accepts their responsibilities. The publicly shamed dads are not and you should be angry that they have been allowed to walk away and get away with it. These individuals are the ones who give good parents a bad name.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Brampton33 View Post
      I know I will get some backlash from some members about "staying on topic" or "hijaking" the thread....but in the similar vein of "publicly shaming fathers", has there been any talk of publicly shaming the mothers?

      There are MANY examples of fathers out there who needlessly spent all their money to be included in their children's lives, whereby mother decided to be stubborn and force an elongated and expensive court process. By doing so, the dad is excluded or restricted in children's lives during the early years until it gets sorted out in court.

      Courts see many cases where a mother has to fight in court to get a father to pay up or be involved.....what about the opposite where people are in court and the father HAS been paying, and WANTS to be involved, whereby its the mother who is causing hurdles and impediments. There are a few examples of posters on this forum who can attest to this (ie: WorkingDad)

      Go back to the original post on this thread and look at the link. This isn’t a one size fits all situation. This is serious abandonment of responsibility. These are the Osama Bin Laden’s of the support world. The big baddies if you will. This isn’t a list of parents who missed a few payments and we aren’t talking about going after everyone.

      Good lord. Take a breath and let it go.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by rockscan View Post
        Go back to the original post on this thread and look at the link. This isn�t a one size fits all situation. This is serious abandonment of responsibility. These are the Osama Bin Laden�s of the support world. The big baddies if you will. This isn�t a list of parents who missed a few payments and we aren�t talking about going after everyone.

        Good lord. Take a breath and let it go.
        It often costs father legal fees north of 6digits in legal fees and years of litigation to earn the right to be in child life or earn shared custody. Mother gets it automatically from the very start, and then fights father in court with his own money while he pays.

        Not every father would have 100k to fight for the right to be with his children, as he needs to pay "temporary" child support for those years while court is going.

        How about wall of shame for mothers who tried getting sole custody but lost, and made children live without their father for years? I guarantee you the list would be hundreds or even thousands times longer than man who doesn't pay.

        Comment


        • #49
          Fro is going after parents, not fathers. No need for separate mum shaming!

          Besides a couple hundred dollars in court fees, family court is free and available to everyone. They'll give you all the forms to make it as easy as possible to fill out. There's nothing new with shared custody.

          Those parents either messed up, gave up, or heard/paid $100k for a lawyer who says they can't be a parent. All garbage, and nothing to do with the system or fro. Otherwise, they have 50/50, yet ignore that and focus on other hearsay stories...

          Comment


          • #50
            If I can still break bread with a man who put me into $65,000 debt by the time I was 25, who left me and my siblings with a mentally unstable person, who abandoned several other children, who was part of my need for several years of therapy and a destroyed relationship with my mother then yes you can let it go. Couples who split do go through a great deal of strife but kids are innocent victims. And many kids bear the scars long term.

            Remember the adage, holding onto anger is like swallowing poison and expecting the other person to die.

            This thread is in relation to another poster pissed about his case noting the “unfairness” of having a most wanted list on the FRO site. There are plenty of other threads on the courts, custody and support. Take your complaints there.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by StillPaying View Post
              Fro is going after parents, not fathers. No need for separate mum shaming!

              Besides a couple hundred dollars in court fees, family court is free and available to everyone. They'll give you all the forms to make it as easy as possible to fill out. There's nothing new with shared custody.

              Those parents either messed up, gave up, or heard/paid $100k for a lawyer who says they can't be a parent. All garbage, and nothing to do with the system or fro. Otherwise, they have 50/50, yet ignore that and focus on other hearsay stories...
              When mothers starts divorce (and statistically 9/10 cases started by women), they get "temporary custody and CS/SS", and then court deliberates "for free" next few years. If dad is lucky and earns his shared custody, mom smiles and walks away with few years of support, so essentially she still won some free cash, so it just makes sense getting a temporary order, and then stretching the case as long as it is possible. In the end children are the victims of mom's greed. No one would return them years without father.

              If system was giving equal start to both parents, the landscape would be completely different in a court room.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                This thread is in relation to another poster pissed about his case noting the �unfairness� of having a most wanted list on the FRO site.
                The answer is no, they shouldn't be doing it for both mothers and fathers, unless you want to read another thread some 20 years down the road how one child was bullied in school when FRO published his dad picture, and had to take therapy for 10 years and now is trying to sue the FRO for that.

                With amount of power FRO is given, they have no right for a mistake.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by respondent View Post
                  The answer is no, they shouldn't be doing it for both mothers and fathers, unless you want to read another thread some 20 years down the road how one child was bullied in school when FRO published his dad picture, and had to take therapy for 10 years and now is trying to sue the FRO for that.

                  With amount of power FRO is given, they have no right for a mistake.

                  Seriously dude, you need to get a clue. Kids aren’t going to be bullied because of the FRO most wanted list.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by respondent View Post
                    When mothers starts divorce (and statistically 9/10 cases started by women), they get "temporary custody and CS/SS", and then court deliberates "for free" next few years. If dad is lucky and earns his shared custody, mom smiles and walks away with few years of support, so essentially she still won some free cash, so it just makes sense getting a temporary order, and then stretching the case as long as it is possible. In the end children are the victims of mom's greed. No one would return them years without father.
                    Much of what you say is completely made up nonsense.
                    Show me someone going years with limited access, and I'll show you where they messed up, not the system.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by StillPaying View Post
                      Fro is going after parents, not fathers. No need for separate mum shaming!

                      Besides a couple hundred dollars in court fees, family court is free and available to everyone. They'll give you all the forms to make it as easy as possible to fill out. There's nothing new with shared custody.

                      Those parents either messed up, gave up, or heard/paid $100k for a lawyer who says they can't be a parent. All garbage, and nothing to do with the system or fro. Otherwise, they have 50/50, yet ignore that and focus on other hearsay stories...
                      ^this.

                      The rest of you "what about terrible moms?!?!?!?!?!" are spouting made up nonsense statistics.

                      The stories about the father's killing themselves. Sad when that happens- but it's not on FRO. If you can't pay- and can show it- then you get your ducks in a row and get your order amended.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Brampton33 View Post
                        Meanwhile, if dad were to take off with kids and tell mom "if you want to have proper access to your kids, file in court"...what do you think would happen? It would make the news. The system is biased. Unless you have actually experienced family court with your own kids, you are not in a position to comment.
                        I’m commenting on a thread about FRO shaming fathers. Unless you have been publicly shamed by FRO or dealt with a deadbeat parent, you are not in a position to comment.

                        I do so love the you don’t know so shut up posts. Especially from those who need to deal with their residual anger over court that doesn’t belong IN THIS THREAD.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by StillPaying View Post
                          Much of what you say is completely made up nonsense.
                          Show me someone going years with limited access, and I'll show you where they messed up, not the system.
                          just try getting a court date, and you'd see what I mean. It is at least 8 months away, and after that CC you'd hope going to SC, only to realize that OCL isn't ready, and they rebook you for in 8 months and so on.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Brampton33 View Post
                            If a woman moves out of home and takes kids, and tells dad "if you want to see your kids, you'll have to fight me in court"....then dad has to fight in court.
                            If someone takes your kid and says you can't have them back, go to court. That's why it's there, free, and easily accessible. Whether it's an emergency motion or case conference, a temporary access order will be made. Further motions will be brought to keep increasing access until it's 50%. If you don't have 50% before trial, there's probably a good reason for that.

                            There are way too many variables to group it all together. But they'll come down to human error over the system. The people on the "list" had plenty of options to pay the proper amount (the same amount we all pay) but gave up on their kid(s)/life and ran off instead.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by StillPaying View Post
                              If someone takes your kid and says you can't have them back, go to court. That's why it's there, free, and easily accessible. Whether it's an emergency motion or case conference, a temporary access order will be made. Further motions will be brought to keep increasing access until it's 50%. If you don't have 50% before trial, there's probably a good reason for that.

                              There are way too many variables to group it all together. But they'll come down to human error over the system. The people on the "list" had plenty of options to pay the proper amount (the same amount we all pay) but gave up on their kid(s)/life and ran off instead.
                              it is free only if your ex is also not represented, otherwise it is fighting against lawyer who done it hundreds times, and know every judge in the court house, and what words appeal to him or her, but let's put money aside for a minute.

                              Say you had some savings and also hired a good lawyer. The case conference would happen in about 5 months. At CC the judge will assign OCL, and the SC 8 months away. You'd think that 8 months is sufficient for OCL to interview your children few times and write 2 page brief, but when you'll come to SC 8 months away, the OCL will say "they still working on it" and it should be ready in just a week. Judge would say trial coordinator would rebook you for the closest available slot as SC isn't practical without input from OCL and since their conclusion is only 1 week away anyway. The trial coordinator would regretfully inform you that the earliest slot they see is 8 months away and would book you. In 8 months when you will come to that SC and OCL would finally read their brief, judge would tell that this is now 8 months old, and he prefers something fresher, and will send OCL to retake interviews with children as he'd want some new feedback before making any suggestions, and will rebook SC.

                              During all this time, you, will be paying SS and CS, and will very soon realize that you can only afford self representation as you can't do both SS/CS and pay your legal fees, so you will go into self rep, which will really insult many judges. But let's say you got somehow money and continued to be represented. By the time you will go through all CC, SC and TMC, it will easily be 3-4 years that children were growing without you. At that time your ex will say she agrees for 50/50 custody so to avoid trial.

                              New chapter in your life, kids are finally living with your not 39%, but whole 50%. But now your ex would start playing games on delaying adjust the CS/SS. Firstly she'll take time responding to emails, 2 months down the road you'd be fed with this and will ask a motion, only to find out that court dates are 8 months away.


                              I guess the main issue is getting to court. If when ex removes children you could get hearing same day, and not in 5 month, if you didn't have to wait for 1.5 of OCL decisions, if SC could be scheduled faster than 8 months it would be more efficient. Before that the time is used against children who live without one of the parents

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                You're throwing so much irrelevant, long-winded mud - again, complete nonsense.

                                Most don't rely on the ocl. Ss has nothing to do with this. Cs follows the child. Motions are needed; the extra conferences are your journey to trial. Judges prefer facts and truth, not friendly faces.

                                Court is free and relevant facts are all you need. If you should be with your kids, the judge will help you. If you need to amend your support, the judge will help you. Ignore court, and the judge will help you learn why that is wrong. FRO is not to blame either. They'll work with you if you're pushing the issue through court.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X