Visitation to jail?

[billiechic]

I have to agree with the last 2 posters. Getting to the point of being thrown in jail for arrears is most often a result of not paying..on purpose! Yes, there are some who get laid off and can't pay, etc, but they have an actual case and should be acting on the change right away. If the system is not recognizing this change, and they are throw in jail for non payment, then they have a case, and there is a member on here who is challenging the system already. Best to add their support to that case than to bitch about life being unfair.

And 60 days is not long enough to take advantage of the programs in jail. Those programs are there for a reason. There are many offenders on there for 5-10 years that are going to have to support themselves once they are released. As a taxpayor I would rather pay for them to learn something in jail and support themselves afterward, rather than support them forever. Given a man a fish...feed him for a day...remember??

[rwm1273]

Not all debtors thrown in jail are deadbeats. There are some very silly orders made due to law, not justice.

CanLII - 2007 CanLII 18145 (ON S.C.)
[1] This is an appeal by Scott Kitching from the decision of the Honourable Justice Wolder of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated November 29, 2005. In that decision, Justice Wolder determined that an earlier decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated September 23, 2004, was not binding on the Ontario Court insofar as it ordered the discontinuance of the enforcement proceeding brought in the Ontario Court of Justice by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office ( “FRO”).
[2] The earlier Order of the Superior Court was issued on September 23, 2004 by The Honourable Mr. Justice C.M. Speyer. That Order was made pursuant to Minutes of Settlement that were filed by the appellant support payer and by the support recipient, Janet Cecilia Kitching, and which brought to an end their family law litigation. As a result of those Minutes of Settlement and the Consent Order that resulted, Speyer J. ordered that default proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice be discontinued. In his November 29, 2005 order, however, Justice Wolder concluded that the order of Justice Speyer was not binding upon the Ontario Court because FRO was not a party to the consent Minutes of Settlement reached between the appellant support payer and the support recipient, Janet Kitching. As such, he concluded that the costs and administrative fees which had previously been ordered in the amount of $11,200, as against the appellant, Scott Kitching, in favour of the FRO remained owing to FRO.


This guy paid his support, and had an order that was by consent with the ex wife to resolve the child support orders. The FRO didn't agree, and tossed him in jail for not paying them.



There are many cases like this, and these are not deadbeats, but are treated as such anyways.


There are very few debtors who are sent to prison who have anything left by the time a default hearing comes around, and can't afford to defend themselves.


Personally I would rather go to jail for a crime I committed, than over some legal position brought about by an abuse of power of the FRO. How is this "in the best interest of the child"?

[representingself]

RWM..... you should really READ the entire case before you go spouting off about $*#! you don't understand....

Allow me to summarize this case for you......

In September 1998... the support payor was ordered to pay $1000 month in child support.

By June 2000 he was in arrears $44,949.28!! FRO began preparing for a Default Hearing, which was withdrawn when the payor paid the arrears.

By October 2001, the payor was again in arrears in the amount of $21,599.95, and FRO commenced a new Default Hearing against him, which was heard on May 7, 2002.

The support payor was found guilty and sentenced to 90 days in jail (or until such time the arrears were paid in full).

He was taken into custody immediately, and while incarcerated, filed an appeal, and a stay of prosecution upon hearing the outcome of his appeal.

He was released from custody on June 5, 2002. His appeal was heard on July 26, 2002.... and he LOST. He was ordered to pay costs to the FRO in the amount of $5000.

He appealed his appeal and LOST AGAIN... and in September 2002, he was ordered to pay FRO an additional $5000 in costs.

In February 2003, he had finally served the full 90 days in jail.

Four months later, a third default hearing was commenced against the support payor as he was in arrears $212,441.50!!! (I don't understand the math but thats what it says!)..

In September 2004, the support payor and support receipient reached an agreement with regards to the arrears and filed a minutes of settlement.

Litigation ended between the support payor and receipient.... but the support payor was still on the hook for the $11,000 he owed to FRO for court costs and administration fees.

On February 15, 2006, the support payor paid the money owed to FRO.

Then on March 20, 2006, this dumbass then appealed the payment to FRO.

HE LOST FOR THE THIRD TIME...and was ordered to pay an additional $5000 to FRO for their court costs.

This is a story of one of the worst deadbeats out there....

He was sentenced and served 90 days in jail because he refused to pay support.

He eventually paid over $15,000 to FRO for court costs because he was an arrogant ass and kept filing appeal after appeal... and LOST!

This wasn't an abuse of power....

If the loser had paid child support in the first place, none of this would have happened!!

[rwm1273]

RWM..... you should really READ the entire case before you go spouting off about $*#! you don't understand....
I did read the case, and it clearly shows that the man had an agreement in 2004 by consent, but the courts overturned it because of the FRO, not the ex wife.

If the loser had paid child support in the first place, none of this would have happened!!

I do understand it, and it does not add up. You even pointed out the math does not add up. There is something fishy here when the man had a consent order solving the problems with the ex wife, but the FRO continued to drag it on. Did they pay the money they received to the children? I doubt it. After the consent order, their obligations to try to collect should have been over. But they didn't.

Justice Wolder concluded that the order of Justice Speyer was not binding upon the Ontario Court because FRO was not a party to the consent Minutes of Settlement reached between the appellant support payer and the support recipient, Janet Kitching.

There are many cases where the FRO continue to wage a war when the issues were solved by the parents. It is a case of Big Brother doing what they want.

Obviously there were many other issues at hand. Why did she consent to the order in 2004? She had no obligation to do so.

Do the math. It does not add up.

You state he paid the arrears in June 2000. Therefore no more arrears. 17 months later he is 21K in arrears on a $1000 month order? Where did the extra money come from for the arrears?

How did he go from having paid all arrears in June 2000 and having $1000 a month in support payments then have over $212K 3 years later?

I think what you have missed here is that he and the ex wife had a consent order that cleared his child support issues with her. We do not know what other issues they settled on and how much else she got, but the issue should have been finished by the consent order.

However it was the FRO that wanted his money.

[dadtotheend]

Nice going RWM. You just don't get it AT ALL.

[rwm1273]

Nice going RWM. You just don't get it AT ALL.

Thank you for your comment, however it is inaccurate.

[dadtotheend]

Screw you. All you do around here is make outrageouse provocative statements. This one about debtors/murderers is a perfect example. You're a lost cause.

[rwm1273]

Screw you. All you do around here is make outrageouse provocative statements. This one about debtors/murderers is a perfect example. You're a lost cause.

You really have missed the point. But just so you understand I will say it again.

Where does the FRO get off continuing legal action when the issues have been settled between the parties?

There are many cases where they have done just that.

And a murderer does get better treatment than a debtor. It all comes down to the crime and time served. Debtors are not entitled to only serve 2/3 of a sentence before being able to go free.(or atleast apply for release) Murderers are.

[billiechic]

The statement you made about murderers/ CS debtors had NOTHING to do with FRO. You are sticking your foot in you mouth constantly changing the "intent" of your post so that nobody can say you are wrong.

Show a little self respect and conceed that you point was overstated!!

[billiechic]

Debtors are not entitled to only serve 2/3 of a sentence before being able to go free.(or atleast apply for release)

Going to jail is not the POINT for the CS debtors, it's to force them to make good on their CS, to have them pay to support their children!!!!! As soon as they pay their debt they are RELEASED!!!

Could you imagine giving murderes the same "benefit"???

[Rioe]

And a murderer does get better treatment than a debtor. It all comes down to the crime and time served. Debtors are not entitled to only serve 2/3 of a sentence before being able to go free.(or atleast apply for release) Murderers are.

Uh, no they're not. They are serving a life sentence, and you can't take 2/3 of that. They are watched until they die, even if they get parole.

And even if someone gets a definitive sentence for Manslaughter instead of Murder, they're serving 2/3 (most likely) of a sentence over two years, which is far more than 60 days.

You're coming at your argument from two sides, and they are both incorrect.

[tugofwar]

YOU do the crime, YOU do the time. There are laws, courts etc set up for reasons you break them you go to jail.

[representingself]

I do understand it, and it does not add up. You even pointed out the math does not add up. There is something fishy here when the man had a consent order solving the problems with the ex wife, but the FRO continued to drag it on. Did they pay the money they received to the children? I doubt it. After the consent order, their obligations to try to collect should have been over. But they didn't.

Justice Wolder concluded that the order of Justice Speyer was not binding upon the Ontario Court because FRO was not a party to the consent Minutes of Settlement reached between the appellant support payer and the support recipient, Janet Kitching.

Dude.... give your head a shake....

They may have had a consent order... but that was YEARS after he spent time in jail for defaulting on his payments... and it had NOTHING to do with the fact that he owed the FRO over 10 grand in legal fees.

FRO didn't drag it on... he did, with his arrogant and numerous appeals!

There are many cases where the FRO continue to wage a war when the issues were solved by the parents. It is a case of Big Brother doing what they want.

You keep saying there are "many cases", and yet the only one you quote, regards a serious deadbeat parent, who was prosecuted due to his own negligence.

Obviously there were many other issues at hand. Why did she consent to the order in 2004? She had no obligation to do so.

You have no knowledge of this woman, or her motivations, obligations or the terms of the consent order.

Do the math. It does not add up.

You state he paid the arrears in June 2000. Therefore no more arrears. 17 months later he is 21K in arrears on a $1000 month order? Where did the extra money come from for the arrears?

I don't "state" anything, I simply READ the link, and summarized it for your petite cerebral cortex.

You have no idea how much he owed prior to 1998, how much he was ordered to pay in equalization, or obligated to pay in interest and penalties.... or how much of his ex wife's costs he was ordered to pay.

There are numerous variables that are unknown in this case, and a Judge can order FRO to collect money that isn't necessarily strictly guideline child support or spousal support.

How did he go from having paid all arrears in June 2000 and having $1000 a month in support payments then have over $212K 3 years later?

These questions are irrelevant.

I think what you have missed here is that he and the ex wife had a consent order that cleared his child support issues with her. We do not know what other issues they settled on and how much else she got, but the issue should have been finished by the consent order.

However it was the FRO that wanted his money.

I think what YOU missed here is that the consent order was irrelevant to the fact that he owed money to FRO from his frivolous attempts at appeals.

Seriously guy... I get that you get off on provoking arguments on this forum, and you have some serious issues with women and a general lack of education and common sense.... and I forgive you for that... but you are frustrate the crap out of me when you claim to have knowledge or dish out advice to people, who don't know better than to trust your blatant bull$*^!

You know very little about family law in this country and even less about criminal corrections... so do yourself (and the rest of us) a favour and at least do some reading and research before your spew more verbal vomit at us...

You are embarassing yourself.

[dinkyface]

... As soon as they pay their debt they are RELEASED!!! ...

I wonder who decides whether the debt has been repaid. Sure hope it's not the FRO!

[dadtotheend]

It's rwm1273!