Wage Garnishment, Federal Garnishment...

[IronMama]

Hi everyone. I am raising my 3 boys on my own and trying to do my best.

Just wondering if anyone has any idea whats next with the enforcement actions that the MEP has placed on him.They are: wage garnish, federal garnish, property lien, federal license denial and drivers license restiction.

He has stopped paying since April of this year and it has been hard for me. Thankful that I have a great job taht I love and pays great but it has been a stretch.

He disappeared from Ontario to Alberta last year and I became somewhat of a PI and found where he lives and works....Im quite proud of me...if I may say so.

I dont really want him to go to jail as it makes no sense, but I heard that can happen. All I want is consistent support and a way for him to once again be a part of his kids lives. I even offered him counselling sessions which is covered by my work for him and the kids and he refused. The kids and I attend.

Any info is appreciated.

[Stargate]

Unless they passed a law recently that I am unaware of he cannot go to jail. If such a law has indeed been passed then we live in a fascist state reminiscent of the Nazi regime hunting down Jews.

The child support rules in Canada are for many people simply illogical and based on flat out erroneous arguments. So it isn't surprising that many find they too onerous and flee. The end result is that a father has lost his children and his children lost a father. Happens every day.

Until the CS guidelines are rewritten to reflect the needs of the children many people will follow your ex's paths away from the gallows of Canadian family law.

[billm]

Unless they passed a law recently that I am unaware of he cannot go to jail. If such a law has indeed been passed then we live in a fascist state reminiscent of the Nazi regime hunting down Jews.

The child support rules in Canada are for many people simply illogical and based on flat out erroneous arguments. So it isn't surprising that many find they too onerous and flee. The end result is that a father has lost his children and his children lost a father. Happens every day.

Until the CS guidelines are rewritten to reflect the needs of the children many people will follow your ex's paths away from the gallows of Canadian family law.

Sounds like you are attempting to justify his actions. However it sounds like he is not paying ANY support for his kids which there is NO justification for. Wanting to pay less and hiding to do so, well that may be justifiable given the situation (we don't know the details), but paying nothing and dropping contact with your kids? Sorry, not justifiable. If you have kids, you have to support them, period.

Putting someone in jail for not paying CS, I don't agree with and hope it can't be done. Though I believe you are in contempt of court, perhaps that could lead to jail...not sure, but I don't think it would be good for anyone.

[Stargate]

Sounds like you are attempting to justify his actions. However it sounds like he is not paying ANY support for his kids which there is NO justification for. Wanting to pay less and hiding to do so, well that may be justifiable given the situation (we don't know the details), but paying nothing and dropping contact with your kids? Sorry, not justifiable. If you have kids, you have to support them, period.

Putting someone in jail for not paying CS, I don't agree with and hope it can't be done. Though I believe you are in contempt of court, perhaps that could lead to jail...not sure, but I don't think it would be good for anyone.

I agree that a parent needs to pay CS support payments for his children. And I am not justifying this man's actions. Perhaps he lost his job and he simply cannot make payments.

What I am stating is that the current CS guidelines based on the payor's income has little to do with supporting one's children and based on erroneous arguments. Children's needs are not, nor should ever be congruent with a payor's income. They are static/fixed.

[billm]

...
What I am stating is that the current CS guidelines based on the payor's income has little to do with supporting one's children and based on erroneous arguments. Children's needs are not, nor should ever be congruent with a payor's income. They are static/fixed.

I don't think you'll get very far with that argument.

I read your comments as saying that if a NCP (non custodial parent) makes $50K and another NCP makes $150K per year, that their incomes are not relavant to determining CS? That if everything else was the same, and the only difference was income, that those two NCPs should pay the same amount of CS? If that is what you are saying then I couldn't disagree more.

[Stargate]

I don't think you'll get very far with that argument.

I read your comments as saying that if a NCP (non custodial parent) makes $50K and another NCP makes $150K per year, that their incomes are not relavant to determining CS? That if everything else was the same, and the only difference was income, that those two NCPs should pay the same amount of CS? If that is what you are saying then I couldn't disagree more.

Let's try this once again: The amount of CS should NEVER be determined by how much a NCP makes. It should be determined by the child's needs and NOT the amount of money one makes.

Child Support (keyword=child) should NEVER have an element of spousal support as they do now. I know of three cases where the mothers collect over $4,000 a month in (tax free) child support and sit at home powdering their faces, painting their toe nails and spend most of their day on the phone talking about the latest episode of the Young and the Restless. Not only do they not work and contribute to society but only a small fraction of the $4,000 goes to the children.

If you think that is fair give your head a good shake before posting.

[representingself]

Yup... if you don't pay your CS you can end up in jail. While you're there, your bill keeps going up and up, and when you get out, you owe more than you did when you went in... it is a means of "punishment".

Right or wrong...good or bad, it is definately possible.

"The FRO may bring a payor to court on a Default Hearing if the payor is not making support payments. A Default Hearing provides the support payor the opportunity to explain to the court the reasons for non-compliance of their support order.
The court has a number of powers at the Default Hearing. For example, the court may order the payor to make payment(s) toward the support owed, or else be jailed for up to 180 days."

source: Ministry of Community and Social Services - How to Section

Actually, I heard somewhere that McGuinty was making that 180 days the minimum mandatory sentence.... still looking for confirmation

[Stargate]

It's no wonder that some parents skip the country and leave their children behind. I am all for supporting one's children but the state has gone too far!

[got2bkid]

Stargate - You're not kidding, it's gone way too far when men can be jailed for the sin of being poor!

A man who can't pay his mortgage, car payments or any other bill (whether for good, bad or neutral reasons) CANNOT be thrown into jail. They got rid of debtors prisons a century ago.

However, a man who can't pay his CS payments (whether for good, bad or neutral reasons), CAN be thrown in jail. They brought back debtors prisons specifically for divorced fathers.

The Guidelines are flawed, that is the root of the problem.

[Mess]

The person wouldn't be jailed for being poor. They would be jailed for contempt of court, the same as if they gave the judge the finger.

If they are poor then they can demonstrate that and claim undue hardship. If they can't demonstrate that, then they aren't poor.

If you ruin my lawn and I take you to court and you are required to pay me for replacing my lawn, and you refuse and take off to Alberta, you could be found in contempt of court as well. That's not debtor's prison. For any offence if there is fine then you have to pay or go to jail. If you can't pay, you have to pick jail.

I don't agree with long sentences, or minimums, frankly a week should be sufficient for the first incidence. If a payor is in jail they can't earn income to pay support.

Stargate, if you are really peeking in women's windows and watching them to see what they are doing while they are collecting child support you have too much time on your hands.

[billm]

Let's try this once again: The amount of CS should NEVER be determined by how much a NCP makes. It should be determined by the child's needs and NOT the amount of money one makes.

Child Support (keyword=child) should NEVER have an element of spousal support as they do now. I know of three cases where the mothers collect over $4,000 a month in (tax free) child support and sit at home powdering their faces, painting their toe nails and spend most of their day on the phone talking about the latest episode of the Young and the Restless. Not only do they not work and contribute to society but only a small fraction of the $4,000 goes to the children.

If you think that is fair give your head a good shake before posting.

As I often tell my kids, "tell me what you want, not what you don't want", so Stargate, how would you determine CS for the NCP?

Perhaps you could tell us a general guideline for how, and also a specific case of 2 kids, every other weekend with the NCP, and the NCP makes $80K, and the CP makes $40K. What would be CS in that case?

[Stargate]

Mess - you're blowing gas from the wrong orifice of your body and demonstrate that you fail to understand the basic principle at hand. If you're poor then you can't afford a lawyer to defend your rights in Court. Try and get a variance on CS without a lawyer and it's akin to having a 10 year old driving a car without a license. You're dead from the moment you put the key in the ignition.

The Courts have clearly demonstrated their bias towards women at the expense of men in all matter relating to Family Law. The CS Guidelines are severely flawed. And as long as they are people will try anything to try and get from being under them. These forums are filled with horror stories about this very issue.

As I stated in a previous post I am 100% in agreement with supporting one's kids. But the way the Guidlines are written and the laws backing them are are severely flawed (keyword=severely).

[Stargate]

As I often tell my kids, "tell me what you want, not what you don't want", so Stargate, how would you determine CS for the NCP?

Perhaps you could tell us a general guideline for how, and also a specific case of 2 kids, every other weekend with the NCP, and the NCP makes $80K, and the CP makes $40K. What would be CS in that case?

The answer is simple. Child support is meant to financially support children's needs. And those needs vary according to their age. These include their food and clothing which should make up the bulk of any child support payments. Entertainment is an ancillary need, secondary to food and clothing. A 1 year old may need toys while a 10 year old may need a Playstation or a computer. Children of different age groups have different needs. These can easily be determined according to their age group. The current CS Guidelines make no differentiation. They simply use flawed arguments and base the CS on the father's income which has nothing to do with the children's actual needs according to their age.