Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Publicly shaming Fathers

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

  • Publicly shaming Fathers

    https://www.ontario.ca/page/missing-...support-payors

    The above is a government run website that names and shames men who have not paid child support and alimony. Is this acceptable? Should we do this if we do not really know what the situation is?

    Should putting an individual in prison for not paying child support (or taking away their drivers license) be acceptable? Would you answer the same way if it was a woman instead of a man?

  • #2
    I see nothing about "Fathers".

    Clearly says: "We need your help to find missing support payors."

    As to your question about prison and drivers license and would my answer be the same if it were women on here: yes. yes.....and yes. You made a kid, now you're responsible for said kid(s).

    Not sure I agree with all these for spousal support tho. edit: unless the ex-spouse that requires support has special needs.
    Last edited by iona6656; 05-13-2021, 03:32 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Shaming parents who don’t pay support? I agree to that. Especially since they give parents who do pay support a bad name.

      You obviously had a set back in your case as you tend to poke your head up whenever you want to bang your drum about “inequality”.

      I commend FRO for posting that stuff. Too bad they can’t imprison them and make them work off their debt. Shame on them for avoiding their responsibilities!

      And I say all this as a child of a deadbeat who hid in northern Ontario working for cash to avoid paying support. We had to resort to social assistance due to the lack of support and also do the leg work to try and root him out.

      Comment


      • #4
        If that was the case there would be more photos on that page. These are serious offenders who are avoiding the law. Many people don’t realize the underground aspect of this. My husband had a former friend try to coach him in not paying support. He had quit his job to avoid paying cs and ss and worked under the table. I know of one former poster on here whose ex is in for over 20 grand with FRO and he’s trying to get his kids to convince her to have it rescinded. He still refuses to admit what he did was wrong AND stole from them when they went to his house.

        You can say what you want about the support laws but until you’ve been raised on food donations, welfare and community health services because your deadbeat parent felt their rights were more important than their kids, you really don’t understand. Think about your kids and what you would do to protect them, that chip is missing in these people.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Brampton33 View Post
          There are better solutions than jailing parents for not paying support or taking away their licenses. How does that help? Just adds more animosity to already strained situations.

          There are cases where further examination is needed. Perchance the parent that is not interested in paying has been denied a proper relationship with child because other parent insisted on having the child 95% of the time? Maybe counseling should be offered to parents who don't pay to show how support helps child regardless of the relationship with the other parent.
          Ew. Really? Child support is the right of the child. It has nothing to do with the payor's "feelings", nor rights. It is not a bargaining chip.

          Parents who try to use CS as a bargaining tool get shot down pretty quickly. I speak from experience. My ex did this. He withheld CS for 10 months after separation because he didn't feel like he was getting enough time with our daughter. And told me on multiple occasions, he'd start paying as soon he got to see her more. I told him to politely eff off and I wasn't going to bargain with our daughter. It looked terrible on him. He got hit with retroactive payments at settlement.

          Counseling should be offered? By who? So you're saying we should hand hold a CS payor through the reasons they shouldn't be a deadbeat?

          Rather than jailing someone or taking away their drivers license (which neither helps provide actual money into someone's hands) the answer could be wage garnishment or independent review of such situations. Perhaps the parent cannot pay because they are ordered to pay beyond what they can actually realistically afford? This is even more true in COVID times where many have fractions of their real salary. For example, with lockdowns, nobody is traveling anywhere so taxi drivers and hospitality staff are only earning 25% of their normal salary. Further, we all know the Table amount does not account for other factors such as existing debt payments.
          Taking away someone's licence sure as hell gets them to pay. I used to settle Small Claims cases for unpaid Provincial Offences fines as part of my previous job. People would skip out on their fines for tickets all. the. time....that is, until their driver's license was suspended. Somehow they always found some extra $$ to then set up a payment plan.

          Wage garnishing only works if the person has a job- and FRO does that. An "independent review'- as you call it - is actually called get your act together and bring a motion to change CS and deal with arrears. You can set up a payment plan or reduce the amounts (with proper evidence).

          Nothing you have said here is the least bit convincing.
          Last edited by iona6656; 05-14-2021, 12:41 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            ^Also. Nothing I say above about CS has to do with the issue of access and apportionment of parenting time; which is SUPER problematic as it relates to child support. That's another discussion.

            I'm just talking about the straight up responsibility to pay child support.

            Comment


            • #7
              If you go through and look at the list on the site, all of them work in a field where they can get away with skipping out and working for cash. Some of them have even left the country.

              I also encourage anyone wondering if this “fair” to put themselves in a situation where they have full custody of more than one child, work for less than $30,000 a year and try to raise those kids while their paying parent has skipped town. See how eager you are to not shame them for not paying after that.

              There was a case either last year or the year before of a dad who skipped out on his kids and owed over $300,000. He was found on the east cost making a shit ton of money under an alias. He was brought back to Ontario and jailed.

              Comment


              • #8
                There may be shame but that is not the goal:

                "When support payors stop making support payments for at least six months and they cannot be found,"

                I would acknowledge a few of them have likely been screwed over unjustly but there is no way to fix that right now.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'd like to see the corresponding page with pictures of people who refuse or limit access of the children to the other parent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
                    I'd like to see the corresponding page with pictures of people who refuse or limit access of the children to the other parent.
                    none of this ^ justifies withholding child support. What exactly is the purpose of your comment?

                    What you describe is contempt of a court order, if there is one. And the consequences can be a lot more than public shaming. Now if there was a government funded agency that enforced parenting time- like FRO enforces CS- I think that would actually be pretty useful- and I'd be happy to have my tax dollars go towards something like that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not paying child support is wrong and we punish and publicly shame people for it.

                      Withholding access to children is also wrong yet we ignore it and say, "whatever". (Except for the parent being denied access.)

                      If we are going to enforce one aspect of separation agreements, we should uphold all aspects.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
                        Withholding access to children is also wrong yet we ignore it and say, "whatever". (Except for the parent being denied access.)
                        When someone's child is taken, they would run to police or court and fix it right away. When the other parent says "whatever" and allows the child to go, which parent should be shamed?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
                          Not paying child support is wrong and we punish and publicly shame people for it.

                          Withholding access to children is also wrong yet we ignore it and say, "whatever". (Except for the parent being denied access.)

                          If we are going to enforce one aspect of separation agreements, we should uphold all aspects.

                          If you see having their name on a most wanted list as punishment then you need to give your head a shake. They have avoided “punishment” by taking off. I should also note that for many of the recipients, social assistance is their only option to survive. As a taxpayer are you ok with the government paying these parents support while the payor fucks off?

                          As for the withholding children, there are different elements of this. Yes parents who file false accusations to withhold children, play games with the schedule and alienate their kids should be punished but there is a big difference between not seeing your kids for a period of time and not paying tens of thousands of dollars for their care. Changing that rule is something to put energy into. The problem is getting it to court and then going through the process to change it.

                          Those who think shaming is a bad thing need to separate themselves from the emotion of their case and the people on this list. These are criminals who have abandoned their kids and responsibilities and are leaving it to others to carry the financial burden. If my tax dollars are going to support kids who have had their parent bugger off then I say post the photos!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Parents who withhold access to the other parent are basically kidnapping the children.

                            I fail to see any moral difference between a parent not paying child support and another refusing to allow access.

                            The only difference I see is that one is widely condemned - the "deadbeat dad." While the other is ignored, or at least not punished to any extent that I'm not aware of.

                            Do the courts ever issue any actual punishment for withholding access to children?

                            (Btw, I have no access issues with my particular case so don't have a horse in this race. Not that it should make a difference.)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
                              Parents who withhold access to the other parent are basically kidnapping the children.
                              If they are supposed to be with the other parent, per a court order. Then- yes , they're breaking the law. I still don't get your argument.

                              I fail to see any moral difference between a parent not paying child support and another refusing to allow access.
                              The difference is that one is about the physical needs of the child. Which exist whether they see the other parent or not. The question was - is it fair to publicly shame parents who don't pay child support. Not whether not paying is fair if the parent doesn't see the kid as often as they would like. Not a valid issue.

                              The only difference I see is that one is widely condemned - the "deadbeat dad." While the other is ignored, or at least not punished to any extent that I'm not aware of.

                              Do the courts ever issue any actual punishment for withholding access to children?
                              Uh, yes. I don't have time to go find it- but there are a cases that show that continuous contempt of an access order can result in a change of custody.

                              (Btw, I have no access issues with my particular case so don't have a horse in this race. Not that it should make a difference.)
                              It sounds like you're venting, rather than making any logical argument here. If a parent withholds access- where access has been determined- then they're breaking the law. And can be punished. The same can be said about parents (not "deadbeat dads") who don't pay their child support.

                              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