Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Study shows how child support guidelines punish those who pay support

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

  • #16

    Wednesday, September 6, 1995
    'True deadbeat dads' are few, Ottawa says

    By David Vienneau,
    Toronto Star OTTAWA - Only a small percentage of dads who do not make their child support payments are deadbeats, a top justice department official says.

    The reality, according to Carolina Giliberti, chief of the department's family law research unit, is that many dads are broke or only unintentionally in arrears.

    "The true deadbeat dads are few and far between," Giliberti, co-author of a federal-provincial task force report on child support that was released in January, said in an interview.

    "There are some, definitely. I've seen estimates that about 10 per cent are wilful defaulters. The rest just don't have the resources to go back and get their court order varied."

    This would appear to defy the oft-repeated public perception that 70 per cent of non-custodial fathers in Canada deliberately refuse to make court-ordered payments to their ex-spouses.

    Justice Minister Allan Rock is expected to acknowledge the misperception in the fall when he unveils Ottawa's long-awaited overhaul of Canada's child-support payment system.

    The package will include national child-support guidelines for judges to use in determining how much a non-custodial parent should pay for each child.

    Draft guidelines released earlier this year were criticized for being too low. Sources say they will be adjusted upwards but only for those parents earning less than $30,000 annually. The government's dilemma is boosting amounts without impoverishing the payer. Rock will also unveil a new strategy to assist the provinces in collecting payments from delinquent non-custodial parents.

    A third component will deal with taxation. Currently, parents receiving child-support payments pay income tax on that money, while the payers claim a 100 per cent tax deduction.

    Custodial parents say this is unfair but the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the system and now the government is being challenged to resolve the simmering dispute.

    Rock will also announce the government is planning a major study aimed at determining why some men default on making their payments.

    If a man is a seasonal worker or is temporarily laid off he often cannot afford to go back to court to seek a variance to the court-ordered support, Giliberti said. Many continue to pay a small amount and eventually resume full payments when they are back to work.

    The problem is that in Ontario, for example, the system sees them as being in arrears and therefore labels them "a deadbeat dad." There is no administrative mechanism to vary the award to reflect their fluctuating income.

    "There is a real problem with a number of non-custodial parents who go in and out of employment, seasonal workers or self-employed workers," she explained. "It means they don't have a regular cash flow which means they can't systematically pay their child support either in full or on time."

    Copyright © 1995 Toronto Star.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by karmaseeker View Post

      Wednesday, September 6, 1995
      'True deadbeat dads' are few, Ottawa says

      By David Vienneau,
      Toronto Star OTTAWA - Only a small percentage of dads who do not make their child support payments are deadbeats, a top justice department official says.

      The reality, according to Carolina Giliberti, chief of the department's family law research unit, is that many dads are broke or only unintentionally in arrears.

      "The true deadbeat dads are few and far between," Giliberti, co-author of a federal-provincial task force report on child support that was released in January, said in an interview.

      "There are some, definitely. I've seen estimates that about 10 per cent are wilful defaulters. The rest just don't have the resources to go back and get their court order varied."

      This would appear to defy the oft-repeated public perception that 70 per cent of non-custodial fathers in Canada deliberately refuse to make court-ordered payments to their ex-spouses.

      Justice Minister Allan Rock is expected to acknowledge the misperception in the fall when he unveils Ottawa's long-awaited overhaul of Canada's child-support payment system.

      The package will include national child-support guidelines for judges to use in determining how much a non-custodial parent should pay for each child.

      Draft guidelines released earlier this year were criticized for being too low. Sources say they will be adjusted upwards but only for those parents earning less than $30,000 annually. The government's dilemma is boosting amounts without impoverishing the payer. Rock will also unveil a new strategy to assist the provinces in collecting payments from delinquent non-custodial parents.

      A third component will deal with taxation. Currently, parents receiving child-support payments pay income tax on that money, while the payers claim a 100 per cent tax deduction.

      Custodial parents say this is unfair but the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the system and now the government is being challenged to resolve the simmering dispute.

      Rock will also announce the government is planning a major study aimed at determining why some men default on making their payments.

      If a man is a seasonal worker or is temporarily laid off he often cannot afford to go back to court to seek a variance to the court-ordered support, Giliberti said. Many continue to pay a small amount and eventually resume full payments when they are back to work.

      The problem is that in Ontario, for example, the system sees them as being in arrears and therefore labels them "a deadbeat dad." There is no administrative mechanism to vary the award to reflect their fluctuating income.

      "There is a real problem with a number of non-custodial parents who go in and out of employment, seasonal workers or self-employed workers," she explained. "It means they don't have a regular cash flow which means they can't systematically pay their child support either in full or on time."

      Copyright © 1995 Toronto Star.
      What is the point you are trying to make with this article?

      Comment


      • #18
        "Actions speak louder than words". why hasn't anyone of you come up with a better calculation for CS? and voice your opinion to the ones in power and not on a forum where what exactly will be done? nothing! There are so many forums, bloggs, complaints and not one has come up with a better solution? I wonder why? I can think of millions of reasonse why, but it won't change the facts now will it? Has anyone looked at other Provinces, Country to see how it works for them?
        Karmaseeker: have you ever wondered how many "women" have commited suicide because of this as you say? I personally think the rate of women commiting suicide may be higher.
        Every situation is different. In my case, I never asked for SS, or a life insurance in my name,or many other things. DO you know why? to avoid the fight and additional court costs; as how many non cutodial parents will actually VOLUNTARILY agree to pay and do this? knowing if something was to happen to them, the non cutodial parent is left raising the children on their own. This goes both ways!

        Comment


        • #19
          There have been challenges to this. However, they get little to no press or support from the public as it is not a politically correct subject.

          As soon as a person opens their mouth on the subject feminists jump out of the woodwork claiming your a misogynist, and that you are trying to take food out of some poor child mouth by punishing a single mom......

          And I have insurance through work....guess who the beneficiary of 50% of my policy is....my daughter....and I did it voluntarily.

          There is a huge misconception that there are more deadbeats then payors. The reality is quite the reverse. The only thing is, you only hear about the deadbeats because it is "sensationalist" and politically correct, and you never get to hear about the vast majority of NCP's who are doing their share because, well......that is what they are supposed to be doing.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by winterwolf7 View Post
            Sorry but no kids cost $46,000 per year in your example, nor should simply having 1 child increase your own income by 110% from 20k to 42k.
            $42,000 is the TOTAL household income in that example! In the example I quoted, the TOTAL household income of the custodial parent is $42,000, and the TOTAL household income of the payor was $54,600. If that payor is broke and struggling living ALONE on $54,600, how do you think it is for the kids?

            And again, you are getting hung up on looking at this as money for your ex, as opposed to money flowing into the household that supports your kids.

            Originally posted by winterwolf7 View Post
            The real point is that the tables cause great injustices at both the lower end of income, and lead to unfair enrichment at the higher end of income. If you're in the middle to middle-upper range it works out reasonable well. Your example of 54k and 42k for the two households is still pretty unfair, but does results in a workable situation for both parties to enjoy a good standard of living.
            I do not see how that is unfair to the payor at all. I really don't. The CP and the kids have a FAR, FAR LOWER SOL than the non-CP.

            Originally posted by winterwolf7 View Post
            How about my situation? I went from 63k net down to 17k per year gross. What kind of standard of living do I get? I didn't choose this divorce, I was kicked out and now 73% of my income has been stolen from me, not even leaving me enough to have an apartment or a compact car.
            Obviously I can't speak to your situation, as I have no information about it, but even in this 'study' there is no scenario in which any payor is paying out 73% of their income - and by the information you do provide is would actually be more, since 17 is 27% of 63 and 63 was your net income before, while 17 is your gross now, which honestly seems even more odd.

            Originally posted by winterwolf7 View Post
            Like most guys, I love my kids and want to support them, but their mom chose to quit on our partnership and that means she has an equal responsibility to provide for them financially. The table amounts do not provide a realistic measure of what it costs. Produce your receipts, show us where the money goes, and we'll glady pay half (or proportionally) for that. Anything more is simply punitive and greedy.
            Again, the issues in your marriage and the reasons for its breakdown are IRRELEVANT, as they should be, and it is unreasonable to force the CP into a role of having to justify every expense, especially in cases where there was abuse. Different people have different earning potential, and kids should always be able to benefit from the financial resources of BOTH parents.

            Comment


            • #21
              You asked for more factual information as the original study/ report was flawed so I posted more information I have gathered.

              I am only trying to show people that the system is fatally flawed.

              I believe Australia has the best system based on Shared parenting.

              I am aware it goes both ways - and in a system of generalizations there are always going to be extreme examples on both sides. I have never said that dad's shouldn't pay. I have only ever argued that they are in a large part getting royally screwed over by a system that doesn't take into account the time they spend with their children (thus providing for them). I am not talking about situations like Canadamama or even yours TLCRN. Clearly you both are like myself - primarily doing it on your own.

              My ex pays me what he can - no court - no separation agreement - no need - we have a workable scenario - even if that makes me less well off.

              I am talking about women that blatently try to screw over their ex by using the full heavy of the law to flatten their exes and if you read these forums you will see many a man in this situation.

              The laws were set up to protect women like you both - 1/ with an absent father and 2/ one that is grossly under paying. Unfortunately the other extreme is the women that are so padded with their CS, SS, matrimonial home, tax benefits, tax breaks, and personal income that their exes are left to struggle and get hounded from FRO til they are ruined.

              Neither extreme is FAIR. It should be about finding a middle ground. finding a place where all can have a decent standard of living. Where hostility is not promoted and that children can get on living a happy life with two parents who are financially and emotionally stable. It should be a system that promotes access instead of using at a weapon. It should be a system wherein NO one is so devastated that suicide is an option. Children need BOTH parents.

              I have suggested alternatives - which relates to consideration of access time to be considered. But I am not a law maker just one person with a cause.

              Why tell people here on this forum? Well because many men here are confused and wondering how in hell this can be happening to them in CANADA - true north strong and free. These men aren't free - they are slaves to a corrupt system. I support them and I support the women that aren't being treated fairly. I am not anti women - I am anti greedy women.

              I find it interesting that the 2 women are neither the type of women I am talking about are they ones supporting a court system that they didn't use. TLCRN I think it admorable that you have made the choices you have. You are a better person for it. Canadamama, I don't know what the law does in your situation with him being overseas. My ex lives overseas - and as I said he pays me what he can and my son visits in the summer and he comes here throughout the year. After meeting my fiancee's ex - I love my ex even more.

              I would love to hear someone come on and justify their position of why they deserve to live in luxury while their ex lives in poverty.

              Maybe if more people of both genders see the unfairness and inequalities then we can work together for the best interest of this country, it's families, and therefore the children in creating something better.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by canadamama View Post
                $42,000 is the TOTAL household income in that example! In the example I quoted, the TOTAL household income of the custodial parent is $42,000, and the TOTAL household income of the payor was $54,600. If that payor is broke and struggling living ALONE on $54,600, how do you think it is for the kids?

                And again, you are getting hung up on looking at this as money for your ex, as opposed to money flowing into the household that supports your kids.



                I do not see how that is unfair to the payor at all. I really don't. The CP and the kids have a FAR, FAR LOWER SOL than the non-CP.



                Obviously I can't speak to your situation, as I have no information about it, but even in this 'study' there is no scenario in which any payor is paying out 73% of their income - and by the information you do provide is would actually be more, since 17 is 27% of 63 and 63 was your net income before, while 17 is your gross now, which honestly seems even more odd.



                Again, the issues in your marriage and the reasons for its breakdown are IRRELEVANT, as they should be, and it is unreasonable to force the CP into a role of having to justify every expense, especially in cases where there was abuse. Different people have different earning potential, and kids should always be able to benefit from the financial resources of BOTH parents.
                I have my children eow, Fri to Mon. one overnight through the week. we rotate march break, summers are split as well as Christmas. What it works out to be is one overnight a week more. For that one week i pay full table amounts which works out to be roughly 800.00. So based on her 4-5 days a month more...she have 800.00 worth of expenses more than me....some 200.00/day...I am not buying that argument.

                I am not broke! Mom is rich! oh and she makes 15k a year more than me. Money is not for the kids its to buy mom a new 50k suv...trips to Cuba and what not...oh...kids don't go to Cuba lol. She puts them with sitters then sticks her hand out for half the costs. Meanwhile I am more than me capable of having the children....but then if I have them with when she goes away for work or lockout vacations then i would have the children more that 40% if not 50%...then she loses almost 10k tax free money.....cant have that now could we?

                Luxury vs poverty...if you were a kid...and not knowing any different where would you want to be?

                I know eventually that its not about the money...but for now trips to theme parks...xbox, playstation, bikes and all the other goodies are a huge influence...I

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by LostFather View Post
                  I have my children eow, Fri to Mon. one overnight through the week. we rotate march break, summers are split as well as Christmas. What it works out to be is one overnight a week more. For that one week i pay full table amounts which works out to be roughly 800.00. So based on her 4-5 days a month more...she have 800.00 worth of expenses more than me....some 200.00/day...I am not buying that argument.

                  I am not broke! Mom is rich! oh and she makes 15k a year more than me. Money is not for the kids its to buy mom a new 50k suv...trips to Cuba and what not...oh...kids don't go to Cuba lol. She puts them with sitters then sticks her hand out for half the costs. Meanwhile I am more than me capable of having the children....but then if I have them with when she goes away for work or lockout vacations then i would have the children more that 40% if not 50%...then she loses almost 10k tax free money.....cant have that now could we?

                  Luxury vs poverty...if you were a kid...and not knowing any different where would you want to be?

                  I know eventually that its not about the money...but for now trips to theme parks...xbox, playstation, bikes and all the other goodies are a huge influence...I
                  LostFather I was not addressing YOUR situation - I was addressing the scenarios laid out in that document, which claims to show how unfair the child support tables are, and which, in my opinion, fails in the attempt.

                  I don't know how it is that you ended up in the situation you are in, and I think I have said already that I can see how that magical 40% does seem to be a significant opportunity for abuse for many.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The guidelines are built around the concept that the custodial parent either doesn't work and stays at home to care for young children or has a lessor job and earns much less than the NCP. If the CP is earning $20k and the NCP is earning $80k then the Guidelines work fairly well.

                    For NCP that has the kids 35-39% paying full support is an unfair burden.

                    They work fairly well for shared 60/40 custody with the off-set.

                    They don't work well at all when the NCP is the lessor earner. The NCP would have at least some expense to maintain a decent home for overnights but would be paying full support. When the CP is earning $80k and the NCP is earning $20k it is ridiculous to have the NCP paying support, better to allow them to keep the money and use it to provide a decent environment for overnights.

                    I don't fully understand the Australian system but it seems to be a formula based on total income of the two parents and then support responsibility is split according to % the children are in each home. It seems to be more flexible.

                    The current Canadian guidelines don't take many variations into account and haven't kept up with changes in society where both parents may work, the CP may have a professional career and be the primary earner, different levels of access besides EOW, etc. However I don't think that loaded language like "fatally flawed" and the level of bias and hyperbole I see on Canada Court Watch will get the issue taken seriously.

                    A simple proposal of a child-centered formula that attends to the children's actual needs in both households without opinionated editorial slant will be far more likely to receive positive reception. Extremist language just shuts down discussion and drives people into opposing camps.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by karmaseeker View Post
                      You asked for more factual information as the original study/ report was flawed so I posted more information I have gathered.
                      Posting a news article that is over 15 years old and that refers to an era before the Guidelines were even made law is hardly providing factual information.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        If people are committing suicide because of a system that can take everything from them leaving them destitute, in jail, without health cards, with out a drivers license, homeless - I call that fatally flawed. And yes those might be extreme cases but if this happened in another country Canadians would be outraged by the human rights violations.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by canadamama View Post
                          LostFather I was not addressing YOUR situation - I was addressing the scenarios laid out in that document, which claims to show how unfair the child support tables are, and which, in my opinion, fails in the attempt.

                          I don't know how it is that you ended up in the situation you are in, and I think I have said already that I can see how that magical 40% does seem to be a significant opportunity for abuse for many.
                          criminal judge and an evil greedy vindictive ex. My situation a lot of dads are in the same situation....or even worse. Paying huge cs payments while also raising their children with expenses. The system only works with those guideline if...and i say if...the payor doesn't see their children and pays no expenses...then maybe it works, but in a lot of other senerios it fails miserably.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I posted this some time ago."Stats Can Report" We had alot more to say in the thread if your interested I also provided a link that may still work.
                            My spouse spoke with the gentleman who prepared it and Frankly the man had little to defend his position with......

                            .....The one that I found most disturbing is that they reported for 2009 they had 186,000 cases on file. Of that they reported that 65,100 are in arrears. 35% Arrears are defined as being $1.00 to any amount behind. What I objected to is that there was no breakdown what so ever in this thing as to the status of cases. Such as the person is in court, why they might be behind, are they behind at all.
                            A case I would like to comment is one person I have come to know had an order for support but FRO had him on record as owing several several thousands. Another my spouse they were working on an order that expired in 2002, he was not taken off thier books until this spring. Over a year after the court told FRO they had no jurisdiction. There also are so many cases were FRO has just lost payments. How about those who are homeless and can't report, I have met many. The stats just dont show any of those cases.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Canada Court Watch.

                              I've heard some non-favourable comments.

                              How legitimate is that organization?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                What I can say about CCW is they are a forum much like this but the have a focus more on CAS amoung its users. They have many resourses posted and among thier users. Much like us here. One thing is they are very vocal outside of the forum.

                                In defense of forums they can be a good thing in that they are like a meeting place for those of like interest and are accessible to anyone in the country and outside of. Some rights groups may be limited in the people they reach. having said that now it is up to a group to do something with the knowledge they are given.

                                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