Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good Parents Pay

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good Parents Pay



    What are your thoughts on this site?

  • #2
    website address

    Sorry, forgot to post the address, click here.

    Comment


    • #3
      Denisem,

      Unconstitutional.

      Basically this website was set up to locate individuals who are in violation of a court ordered child support.

      I don't see a similar website setup to post pictures of individuals who violate other types of court orders such as the child's access denials.


      lv

      Comment


      • #4
        I concur Lv.

        It reinforces my belief that our government is more concerned with the almighty dollar than they are the emotional rights of children and the devastation wreaked upon individuals who are deemed as nothing more than cash cows. And who, upon divorce and separation, are no longer important enough to be seen as a father...are not given the basic right of caring for their child when they are running a fever...who don't even know what size their little boy wears in a shoe anymore...but rather an ATM machine which is supposed to spit out money even when there is none to give. An ATM machine that will eventually get kicked and kicked, over and over until it wears out and is broken so badly that it will never function in any capacity ever again.

        I'm ashamed to be a Canadian. How disillusioned I was for so long.

        Comment


        • #5
          I too concur

          Why stop here, why don't we let Bell, Rogers or, Revenue Canada do the same thing for people delinquent in paying their bills. I am tempted to seeing these people all over Canada.

          SillyMe

          Comment


          • #6
            Look at the grey area

            I am not against LV and sillyMe ,they are right to a extent.I will say this site is bad for good parents and good for bad parents.People who have been paying for years but due to material change couldn't keep up and finally will be seen on this site......NOT FAIR.But parents who only Know how to give birth ,walk away without any obligation( financial,emotional etc) and pretend to be extra nice in public HMMM VERY GOOD FOR THEM.Once he literally threatened me either iI should quietly move out (no property division,,no child support) then he won't even see us through out the life otherwise he will fight for the Joint Custody.

            I Know not every man is like my ex" A AWEFUL FATHER" but all men are not as fair and genuine as LV,SillyMe ,Dadoftwogirls etc.You guys are Fathers and willing to act one but not everybody.

            Comment


            • #7
              yoyo,

              I enjoy a good discussion

              as you mentioned,

              You are mistaken in a couple of ways.
              Perhaps, Perhaps not. What I posted is just my opinion that the website was unconstitutional as it assigns labels to parents IE: "Good Parents Pay" Does that mean "Bad Parents don't pay?" Assigning labels to a parent is unconstitutional whether it is "good parent" or "bad parent."

              My point was that if you are going to label a parent "Good parents pay" for complying with a "court support orders" and for those violating "court support orders", end up on a government website; Then to me it is logical to conclude that there should have similar websites for "all parents" that violate any "court orders" as after all, "court orders" are apparently made in the best interest of the child.

              I suppose you also believe that those missing posters of parents who kidnap their children are unconstitutional as well?
              I'm not clear what that has do with what I posted and I don't believe I mentioned anything in that regard. If your speaking of "Kidnaping" in general; That is a different issue altogether. The term kidnaping as defined:

              http://dictionary.law.com/default2.a...1&submit1.y=12
              (also spelled kidnaping) n. the taking of a person against his/her will (or from the control of a parent or guardian) from one place to another under circumstances in which the person so taken does not have freedom of movement, will, or decision through violence, force, threat or intimidation. Although it is not necessary that the purpose be criminal (since all kidnapping is a criminal felony) the capture usually involves some related criminal act such as holding the person for ransom, sexual and/or sadistic abuse, or rape. It includes taking due to irresistible impulse and a parent taking and hiding a child in violation of court order. An included crime is false imprisonment. Any harm to the victim coupled with kidnapping can raise the degree of felony for the injury and can result in a capital (death penalty) offense in some states, even though the victim survives. Originally it meant the stealing of children, since "kid" is child in Scandinavian languages, but now applies to adults as well.

              Kidnapping is a criminal offence and can apply to not just children but adults as well. Since you are asking my opinion on this different issue I will give same. I agree that society should be aware of kidnappers, fugitives and every other convicted criminal that could pose a risk or element of harm to any individual or to aprehend a child should be posted. Moreover, everyones DNA should also be entered into a database for future reference. With this initiative alone; Crime would be reduced. Some example web sites of kidnapers, fugitives and other criminals:

              RCMP - http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/wanted/abduct_e.htm

              Ottawa Police - http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/servin...anted_main.cfm

              Toronto crime stoppers - http://www.222tips.com/index.php?pt=wanted&sub=1010

              On the issue of Kidnapping, I posted a thread on this subject previously:

              Invoking S. 282 of the Criminal Code

              which can be found here

              http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/s...ghlight=miriam
              R. v. Petropoulous, (1990), 29 R.F.L. (3d) 289,(B.C.C.A) The court held that a mother with specified access rights could invoke s.282 of the Criminal Code to prevent the father, who had sole custody, from removing the children from the province as this would deprive her of lawful care or charge of the child. From the Judgment:

              It seems to me that, while obviously not a right to custody, the right to have what is described as "access" in circumstances such as these, where it is clear that the child will be living, albeit temporarily, in the company of one parent to the exclusion of the other, involves a transfer of "lawful care of charge" to the non-custodial parent for the duration of access period described. While the word "access" is used, indicating that the order does not contemplate joint, or alternating, custody, what is granted by such an order as this is more than merely a right to visit while the child is in the possession, care or charge of the other parent. It involves transfer of the child from the possession, care or charge of the "custodial parent" to that of the non-custodial parent.


              Abduction in contravention of custody order
              http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/280786.html

              Section 282(1) of the Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c. C-46 )

              282. (1) Every one who, being the parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbours that person, in contravention of the custody provisions of a custody order in relation to that person made by a court anywhere in Canada, with intent to deprive a parent or guardian, or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that person is guilty of

              (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

              (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


              That being so, it appears that if a parent with legal custody of their child relocated out of province without permission from an non-custodial parent s.282 of the Criminal Code could be invoked.

              lv

              Comment


              • #8
                yoyo,

                too funny

                I thought you left this forum many months ago under your other username, I'm not clear why you log in and participate under your current name. Have you been assigned a label?

                All that aside, I think you missed my point of my comment.

                I think that good parents pay child support. Think that is pretty widely accepted. Good parents don't run and hide from their obligations.
                Is that the criteria for being a good parent. That being so, if a parent paid their child support would that not construe to be a material change of circumstance and therefore since they are now labeled a "good parent," by the government; Is it not logical to conclude that they should have custody of their children? After all, they are now considered and officially labeled by the government as "good parents"

                Good parents don't run and hide from their obligations.
                Who says they are running or hiding? I believe I read the FRO cannot locate same. Big difference. Because they cannot locate the individual they are labeled. Again, if a parent exercises their constitutional right of mobility they could be labeled therefore making it unconstitutional. As listed in the charter:

                http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Charter....html#garantie

                The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides mobility.
                Mobility of citizens

                6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

                Rights to move and gain livelihood

                (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

                a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
                b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

                As an aside I also believe that good parents don't beat their children, good parents don't have sex with their children, good parents don't let their children have sex with the parents friends, hmm lets see good parents also have a relationship with their children and lots of other statements that are "value" driven. FRO doesn't enforce these things so it isn't in their mandate to have a website for these or for any other court order.
                Scenario

                What if an individuals picture is posted on the FRO site and the only issue is arrears of spousal support with no children involved. Are they still labeled a good parent or bad parent? Would this not be unconstitutional as they may not even be parents.

                I'm not clear what Child Abuse has to do with the topic. However, I agree that it is beyond the mandate of the FRO to be involved in a matter of child abuse. The appropriate crown agency is the CAS. Perhaps the CAS should have an equivalent website for parents who abuse their children, assign a label and post pictures of same so that society in general can see who these people are.

                For parents that make unfounded and unproven allegations and commit perjury in court under oath should also be assigned a label, have their picture posted on an equivalent government website for the general society to see.

                For other parents who fail to honour and comply with other family court orders should also have their picture posted on a equivalent government website and have an appropriate label assigned to them.

                I agree the the latter comments are beyond the scope of the FRO, but my point is that the government has assigned a label to a sector of society which is unconstitutional whether the label is good parent or bad parent.


                lv

                Comment


                • #9
                  yoyo,

                  too funny again.

                  Originally Posted by logicalvelocity
                  yoyo,

                  too funny

                  I thought you left this forum many months ago under your other username, I'm not clear why you log in and participate under your current name. Have you been assigned a label?
                  lv

                  Feel free to release my ip number or the other name... Also feel free to release the other id of the other person posting on this thread...
                  It was an honest and fair question which you never answered.

                  Or hmmm just delete this comment because it disagrees with your beliefs that good parents run away and don't have to pay child support.
                  I don't believe I posted that anywhere. If anything you said that. I believe you missed the point that I made all along - Labeling parents as "good parents" because they pay their court ordered support amounts or "bad parents" is unconstitutional.

                  I am not clear why you brought the issues of kidnapping, child abuse into this discussion of the "FRO website of Good Parents Pay" as they were off topic, However, I believe I posted my opinion on same when sought by you


                  Originally Posted by logicalvelocity

                  Is that the criteria for being a good parent. That being so, if a parent paid their child support would that not construe to be a material change of circumstance and therefore since they are now labeled a "good parent," by the government; Is it not logical to conclude that they should have custody of their children? After all, they are now considered and officially labeled by the government as "good parents"

                  Originally Posted by yoyo

                  If they are there they haven't paid and they don't have their address. It takes some effort to disappear so skip traces and the govmt can't find you.
                  Fair enough. My point is that the posted individuals on the FRO site are now labeled regardless of the reason why the FRO cannot locate same. They could be be deceased. That being so, is it constitutionally correct and respectful to label a parent when deceased. However, If they are deceased, it is logical to conclude the reason why they haven't informed the FRO of their new address.

                  Originally Posted by logicalvelocity

                  Who says they are running or hiding? I believe I read the FRO cannot locate same. Big difference. Because they cannot locate the individual they are labeled. Again, if a parent exercises their constitutional right of mobility they could be labeled therefore making it unconstitutional. As listed in the charter:

                  Originally Posted by yoyo

                  All the parent has to do is tell FRO where they are and the pic and details are off the site. They are hiding.
                  They are still labeled. Again they could be deceased and if that is the case; It would be very difficult for the individual to inform the FRO where they are.

                  Even the FRO acknowledges that they haven't been able to locate same. Who is to say that the individuals are hiding? Not even the FRO will acknowledge such. The FRO acknowledges that they having been able to locate the individual. Therefore I conclude that the public perception created by the site of "Good Parents Pay" labels are unconstitutional.


                  Originally Posted by logicalvelocity

                  I'm not clear what Child Abuse has to do with the topic. However, I agree that it is beyond the mandate of the FRO to be involved in a matter of child abuse. The appropriate crown agency is the CAS. Perhaps the CAS should have an equivalent website for parents who abuse their children, assign a label and post pictures of same so that society in general can see who these people are.

                  Originally Posted by yoyo

                  There is a child abuse registry in this country.Are you against this.
                  Off topic, but since you ask my opinion, I'm all for Child Abuse Registries, and Amber Alert programs. Moreover, I am of the belief that every Canadian should submit a DNA sample into a central national registry as a tool that police can access to alleviate crime in the country.


                  So I would like to know what circumstances there would be that someone is unable to be located and hasn't paid child support that still allows them to be labeled a good parent. Can you tell me this? I am stunned at this.
                  I never labeled any of the individuals located on the FRO site. My point in all this thread is that assigning individuals a label whether it is "good parent" because they pay court ordered support or "bad parent" if they don't is unconstitutional.

                  As you demonstrated already in your previous comment from your coined term "deadbeat." Is this a label you concluded after viewing the FRO website or your general opinion of parents who do not pay support. How is it constitutionally correct to come to a perception and conclusion about a certain individual without knowing them and any of the facts in their particular case after viewing their picture on FRO website. As demonstrated, it solidifies my comment that the FRO "Good Parents Pay" site is unconstitutional.

                  If you asking my opinion on parents that fail to meet their parental obligations to children by way of support, I would want to know all the facts of the particular before I passed Judgment on them.

                  I suppose you won't this post will be deleted or edited ( if by jeffy then no evidence will be around about what i said- you will have to delete this post totally since I believe that is the only thing in your power right?
                  I enjoy a good discussion. I don't see anything on your opinion that you posted unreasonable. After all, the right to free speech in protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

                  lv

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    IMHO - FRO is pretty much useless..they can't find them?! In my paticular circumstance over $18,000 in arrears were racked up, and ex never changed his address, phone number, car, licence plate or hair style for that matter. He was right where he was from the beginning. I called them I don't know how many times over a period of 3 years, and in those 3 years they sent one letter....oooh scary!!! They better be carefull or they just might give someone a paper cut!

                    The way the sytem is set up is ridiculous, you can completley ignore court orders and get away it, you can lie your face off and nobody cares, except when it comes to money, the system seems pretty quick to rectify any financial issues. You can interfere with visitation and access, you can demonize the ncp without any fear of retribution. Too bad there wasn't some kind of registry to report all the crappy behaviour done by parents in the midst of custody disputes.

                    They show about a dozen men who haven't been 'found'. I guess it's okay to be in arrears as long as they know where you are I seriously doubt 'Good Parents Pay' is going to be effective as it relies on people having some kind of conciousness of behaviour and morals and chances are if you do you wouldn't be listed on the site.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Keep Going

                      Hi LV and Yoyo

                      That was a nice discussion.

                      sufferer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        yoyo,

                        as you mentioned,

                        well so is the only thing that the person might be dead somewhere your only possibility that allows a person to be both not paying and not being able to be located. I think most people have people in thier life who would report you missing if you failed to show up for work, home etc. How many of these people do you think are likely dead and no one notified FRO or the ex about it? Really there are only a handful of missing or unidentified bodies floating around there.
                        Are you absolutely sure? After all the FRO cannot “locate” the individual. Who is to say where they are.

                        These parents don't want to be found
                        Again, are you absolutely sure? I’m not convinced. See Jlalex’s contribution to this thread and the experience with the FRO. As mentioned by Jlalex, the individual never went anywhere. Perhaps the FRO ran out of paper or were delinquent in paying their telephone bill to contact same.

                        I understand you don't like "labelling" these men but good parents take care of their children.
                        That is somewhat correct. I feel the label of (Good Parents pay) as depict by the FRO website is unconstitutional being that it is now a government defined criteria to determine the difference.

                        Please clarify further what you mentioned (good parents take care of their children) as it is a broad statement. Do you mean as depict by the FRO site “Good Parents Pay”

                        Sure it is a "value" statement but I think most people would agree both child support is a good thing. Most people are willing to say that parent should take care of their children.
                        Is it a value statement or a label depict by the FRO on their website. I agree that Parents should in general take care of their children. This is common sense, which has many meanings.

                        Most people would say other "value" driven statements like good parents don't abuse their children but you never know maybe their are people out there who don't want to assign labels on people like "bad parent" if they sexually abuse their children.
                        Off topic. Your comparing apples to oranges as the issue is the FRO “Good Parents Pay" website. Again I’m not clear why the topic of child abuse is being dragged into this thread. As you mentioned already there are Child Abuse Registry’s to handle same.

                        Hell maybe there are people who agree with skipping out on thier children.
                        Sad but true. There is no law that compels a person to be a parent to a child.

                        Heaven forbid we allow someone to publize it and make that "judgement" that they are bad parents. This is why the child abuse came into this discussion.
                        The “someone” you are referring to is an agency of the crown, Therefore assigning a label is unconstitutional and I believe that is my point of this whole thread.

                        Heaven forbid I make any statements that question the "goodness" or badness of a parent.
                        That is your right under the Charter.

                        I am surprised you seem surprised about comments of posts being deleted - what they never happen?
                        I am not surprised at all. I admit I deleted some of your posts in other threads in this forum as they were inappropriate. I’m not clear what your vendetta is with this forum and its members.

                        And LV when you want to release that name . ... feel free .... also post the other duplicate names. And your own real name would be nice as well.
                        No need to release or post same. I’m not clear of your intentions of having my real name posted in a public forum. Please clarify. However, if you would like to contact me I can be reached at logicalvelocity@yahoo.ca

                        lv

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree that the FRO site is not a good use of tax payer dollars ,and does not solve the problem at hand. In some cases puts a label on people unjustifiably. No one, good or bad, should have to bear this kind of public labelling, as this is unconstitutional, as I personally feel that the innocent may get caught in this trap and be forever damaged emotionally etc.

                          I have a psychotic ex and I have never had reason to say I "Hate" someone but can for this individual as he has kidnapped my children, threatened their lives, and attempted to murder me by way of hiring someone, and is also in arrears. Would I want his face there? Heck NO!! It doesn't help it only hinders everything about "the best interests of the children". This should be banded, I too am ashamed to be Canadian when this type of thing happens.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Denisem
                            What are your thoughts on this site?
                            What bugs me the most about this site, is the perception is creates and reinforces the stereotype of the non-involved deadbeat father. What is clear from all the newspaper articles and overall support for this site is the general public has absolutely no understanding of the Family Law system in Canada (unless they have been it in). Let me list a few of the issues regarding support:

                            1) The child support guidelines assume the recipient parent is paying their fair share. In cases of equal income, that would be 50% of the costs. But their share is not court ordered, tracked or verified. So, if the recipient was to not contribute their share, they are completely invisible to the system (i.e. not brought to court and not branded a deadbeat). Their is a huge assumption that the recipient is holding up their end of the bargain. The paying parent is not granted the same considerations.

                            2) The money is not accountable (the recipient is not obligated to spend 1 cent on the kids). Nor does it count for tax purposes. It is invisible money.

                            3) Most CS and SS orders are for 50%-60% of net income of the payer. That leaves little for the paying parent to live on. The recipient can also claim the children as dependents, can claim CTB and a host of other tax incentives for "low" income parents. The payer, nothing.

                            4) The recipient can claim (write-off) all court costs attributed to having child support increased. The paying parent cannot claim court costs for attempting to lower support. The list is endless on the imbalances between recipients and payers. The ball is certainly in the recipient's court.

                            5) Child support is a huge lifestyle award. So let's call it that. No child can burn up that kind of cash per month. When is enough is enough?

                            6) Child support does not end at 18. Those may be ADULT children the payer is supporting. Under the current law, the recipient receives child support until the child obtains at least one university degree or when the child remove themselves from parental control. That could be 30!

                            7) University tuition is NOT included in child support. It is another add-on cost that is paid by each parent proportionate to their income. There are other add on costs like daycare, extra expenses and on and on that are tacked on above support payments. And unlike children of married families, divorced children are guaranteed to have their full tuition fees paid. When will it end?

                            8) It is extremely expensive and difficult to have support lowered or terminated when the paying parent loses their job or runs out of money. It is easy to see why people fall into arrears. The arrearages are likely created in large part because the child support system is mulishly impervious to the economic realities working people face, such as layoffs, wage cuts, unemployment and work-related injuries. According to the Urban Institute, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffers a substantial drop in income is able to get courts to reduce his or her child-support payments.

                            9) It is common to impute income to the payer and make then pay support based on some artificial salary much higher than they actually make or can afford.

                            10) Support is never retroactively adjusted to benefit the payer, but it is almost always retroactively adjusted to benefit the recipient. Disgusted yet...?

                            11) The purpose of spousal support is to get people back on their feet. Not a cash-for-life lottery. Yet, spousal support awards continue forever, even if the recipient re-marries!

                            12) There is no consideration for second families. Do those children not need support too?

                            13) In Canada, when you have the children 50-50, you are supposed to receive a reduction in support payments. But they branded that law and the father's that try to use it as well. They call it "dollars for days" and assumed the dad was "up to something". Yup. Instead of getting a break on child support when you incur half the day-to-day costs of the children, you are branded an opportunist. A money-grabber. It was once reported that for every father attempting a reduction in child support by applying for 50-50 access, there were 100 mothers withholding access to gain full child support. Oh, but don't worry mom's. The SCC Contino's decision ensured that for every father who managed to get 50-50 will be in court for decades trying to get a break on their support. Most end up paying full support even though they have equal responsibility, access and custody of the children.

                            Now, I could go on and on. But my point is made. There are various problems with the system. But no one wants to fix the problems. So, lets simply portray the typical deadbeat dad, the poor helpless mother and the abandoned kids. Yet, journalist never dig into the issues. Maybe just take one or two of these guys and see what their income is, what their payments are, what their arrears are. Actually look into the facts. But, these questions where never highlighted. Just for once, I would like a journalist to actually dig into these issues and paint the entire picture. Not just the sensationalism.

                            I always like the guilty until proven innocence stance of all this. The term deadbeat parents is immediately applied. Second, if you are so below the social radar that you cannot be found, really, what kind of people are they? And how much can they really be making? Also, how many of these people had the kids taken from them by the ex through our courts. Basically pushing them out of their children's lives. You can only take so much.

                            But the kicker, to get all the above, you have to have the children. That means you fight like heck to get your kids. And in this country it is biased towards the mother. And once you have the kids, the winner-take-all cash flow begins. It's sickening. And then the father is type-cast as the typical non-involved father. But they were court-ordered to see their children only 2 times a month due - all to their ex's ability to push them out of the children's lives BTW, mom's withhold children all the time. Deny access. Where is the FRO's branch of visitation enforcement? Well, there is none. Dad's only recourse is to return to court and mom gets a slap on the wrist. And, what is this 'trace and locate unit'? Could I have called on this elite crime fighting team to track down my child when my ex kidnapped 'em for fathers day, Easter, Christmas, and several other days that were MINE. Oh wait, that's access. And we know access is not at all in their "Best Interests". Just cash.

                            We need to fix the system!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by yoyo
                              You are mistaken in a couple of ways. This is not just who are in violation of the support order but also are missing I doubt the FRO could possibly hope to ever afford the bandwidth nessasary to spotlight all parents who are in default of support orders.
                              It costs about $5K through a lawyer to even begin to have your support altered if you lost your job. The guys on the web site look like seasonal labourers, homeless, or retired. Sorry, these are not high-rollers living in a mansion with the playmate-of-the-month.

                              And the FRO itself is notorious for making clerical errors, etc. For example, they just admitted tomaking an error that sent people into arrears that were not. And the FRO takes months to catch up on paper work.

                              BTW, I am not defending anyone for abandoning their child(ren) - if they did that at all. We don't even know their custody and access situation from this site???

                              Let's get some facts here before we get the pitchforks and torches.

                              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