Family Responsibility Office FRO takes 100% of Father's Wages and He Commits Suicide
In loving memory of
Andrew T. Renouf
May he rest In peace
Andrew T. Renouf committed suicide on or about October 17, 1995, because he had 100% of his wages taken by the Family Responsibility Office, an agency of the Government of Ontario, Canada.
He explained his situation to the Family Responsibility Office and their reply was "We have a court order!" They took 50% at source deducted from his paycheque and then the other 50% of his pay when it was direct deposited into his bank account.
He asked for assistance for food and shelter from the welfare office and was refused because he had a job, even though all of his wages were taken by the Family Responsibility Office.
Andy was a loving father that hadn't seen his daughter in 4 years. Andrew stated in his note " I don't even know if she is alive and well."
A memorial service was held in October, 1998, for Andy in front of the Family Responsibility Office at 1201 Wilson Avenue, West Tower, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This is in the Ministry of Transportation grounds in the Keele St. & Hwy 401 area.
All members of the Ontario Legislature were invited by personal letter faxed to their offices. Not one turned up. The Director of the Family Responsibility Office and his entire staff were invited to the brief service. The Director refused and wouldn't let the staff attend the service although it was scheduled for lunch time.
There was a peaceful demonstration by followed by a very touching service by The Reverend Alan Stewart. The text of the service can be read below.
Although the memorial service was not well publicized, a small group attended with 84 letters and emails of support from groups across Canada and the United States. The service made the TV evening news.
It was Andy's last wish that his story be told to all.
An annual memorial service is planned for October 17th.
We typed out Andrew's suicide letter below
Note: The Family Responsibility Office was formerly the Family Support Plan
7470 Ninth Line, Markham, Ont. L6B 1A8
1-905-471-0575 Fax: 1-905-471-2023
To Whom It May Concern
Last friday (13-October) my bank account was garnisheed. I was left with a total of $00.43 in the bank.
At this time I have rent and bill's to pay which would come to somewhere approaching $1500.00 to $1800.00.
Since my last pay was also direct deposited on friday I now have no way of supporting myself. I have no money for food or for gas for my car to enable me to work. My employer also tells me that they will only pay me by direct deposit. I therefore no longer have a job, since the money would not reach me.
I have tried talking to the Family Support people at 1916 Dundas St. E. their answer was:-" we have a court order." repeated several times.
I have tried talking to the welfare people in Markham. Since I earned over $520.00 last month I am not eligible for assistance.
I have had no contact with my daughter in approx. 4 year's. I do not even know if she is alive and well. I have tried to keep her informed of my current telephone number but she has never bothered to call.
I have no family and no friend's, very little food, no viable job and very poor future prospects. I have therefore decided that there is no further point in continuing my life. It is my intention to drive to a secluded area, near my home, feed the car exhaust into the car, take some sleeping pills and use the remaining gas in the car to end my life.
I would have prefered to die with more dignity.
It is my last will and testament that this letter be published for all to see and read.
A Suicide Remembered
The speech by Rev. Alan Stewart at the memporial service for Andrew Renouf, October 1998
Rev. Alan Stewart, Westview Presbyterian Church, 233 Westview Blvd., Toronto, ON.
The letter that Andrew Renouf left before he ended his life on October 17, 1995, was addressed: "To Whom It May Concern". We gather here today, whether we knew him or not, because we are concerned, deeply concerned about the pain he experienced and the issues that he brought to our attention as women and men in a civilized society.
We want to make sense out of his death.
We want to learn from his experience.
We want to receive his last will and testament, his legacy, as he asked.
We are attempting today to hear his cry, to learn and self-examine ourselves from his scream, which in this letter he made as loudly, as clearly, as emphatically as possible. He used his whole life to propel these words into our consciousness and into the fabric of our society. As his letter was his last will and testament, for all concerned, we are extending his legacy today by sharing his inheritance as he passed it on, in this letter.
As Andrew was a man, I will speak first about what the letter may point to in terms of those of us who are men; what we can glean from Andrew; what is his legacy for us?
In this letter, we are either Andrew, or there is an Andrew who is our acquaintance, our friend, our brother, our co-worker. We are reminded that four times as many men kill themselves as do women.
The trigger that seemed to set this death on its course was that Andrew had no money. Do we measure a man by how much money he has in his pocket or his bank account? The first thing that he mentions in his letter is the 43 cents in his account. He obviously felt that 43 cents pointed to his worthlessness, the 43 cents was a metaphor for how he felt and how much he was valued on the open market. Andrew had no connection to the amount of money that was garnisheed. He had no connection to the value of the money that he had actually earned the previous month. His value was focused on the 43 cents that was left to keep his account open.
Andrew was a man who did not have a place to take his pain. He says that he has no family, no friends. In the years that he lived on this planet, why did he not have any friends? Why did he feel there was nobody to call? Why was there no man or woman he knew personally that he could reach out to and that they would grab his hand? Why was there no brother-in-law, no buddy from work, no friend of a friend, no clergy? Why was there no "best friend"?
To respond to Andrew's letter, we men have to ask ourselves if, along the journey of our lives, we have been investing in relationships to help us live our lives. Are we cultivating, investing and risking to have good friends? Do we make excuses that we are too busy? Are we sabotaging our own lives by living in isolation from our brothers and sisters in our own communities or families? Are we in a life-long process of estrangement?
Do we hide our pain? The name 'Andrew' means "manly" or "strong". Does our notion of strength mean to go it alone, to be silent, reserved, to hide our feelings and pretend that we are in control and that everything is OK when it most definitely is not OK? When somebody asks us how we are, do we lie to them and say that we are fine? Do we hide our feelings under the pretence that other people do not want to know? Do we blame the unwitting for our lack of self-expression? Are we hostage to what we think that other people think of us?
Do we cultivate safe places, safe times, and safe people where we can really be who we are? Can we ever give ourselves permission to be vulnerable? Have we found someone we can trust with our secrets?
Andrew's letter says that estrangement, going it alone and hiding pain, spells d-e-a-t-h.
In his pain, Andrew chose to end his life. We who gather here without that pain can say that there were other choices he could have made. He could have told a police officer or clergyperson that he was suicidal, or walked into an emergencyward of a hospital. Strong men are not supposed to say, "I need help. I am scared. I feel like killing myself. Help me!" This is a lie! Our choices determine our life or our death. As men we are free to ' choose to get the help that we need to get through our difficult times and live our lives.
What does this letter say to women?
The loudest message that this letter says to me in regards to women is that "men feel". Men do feel. We may teach men not to show their feelings, but men can and do feel as deeply and as profoundly as any woman.
Andrew mentions that he has not seen his daughter in approximately four years. While I am not privy to the intimacy issues of the Renouf family, I can say that fathers naturally tend to love their children. A mother's or father's relationship with their child is separately authentic from their relationship with each other.
I can say that children need the love of both their father and their mother. The access that mother and father have with their children, aside from obvious abuse, should not be determined by the issues that the mother and the father have with each other. Each parent can say that we are having problems with each other, but we both love you very much. We know that children feel guilty about a marriage break-up and they need to know that both parents love them. It takes years to recover from taking sides, and that same taking sides sabotages future relationships when those children become adults.
Society says chat men are producers; they bring home the bread. Andrew's letter screams to us that he cannot produce without limit.
There is a limit to what a man can produce.
There is a limit to what a man can take.
If we, as a society, teach boys that to be a man is to control, and then, as in Andrew's case, we take all of that control away to the point that the only way for him to keep any control is to stop the wage garnishee, then by definition, we oblige him to make that choice.
Andrew mentions two government agencies: Family Support Services and Welfare. One garnishees his wages, the other tells him that he still really has the money the other agency took away. It is the classic case of the right hand not letting the left hand know what it is doing. What this did to Andrew is profoundly heinous in an age of computerisation, fax machines and telephones.
For Welfare to say that he made more than $520 the month before is not true. It is a lie.
Not only is it a lie, but the Family Support agency had all the documentation to prove to the Welfare people that Andrew Renouf did not have any of the money he had worked for during the previous month. The Family Support Services, in reality, did not support the Renouf family. The policies of the Welfare Office and the Family Support agency were contributing factors in the destruction of the Renouf family.
Fathers are part of the family unit.
Husbands are part of the family unit.
You may listen to what I am saying and say that there are many issues here:
the issue of child support
the issue of gender discrimination
the issue of alimony
What I would like to say to you is that there are no such things as issues, there are only people, flesh and blood men, women, and children. If our attitudes and agencies do not work to support the health of women and men and children, then we must change and adapt our attitudes and agencies so that they do help all people.
The terrible reality of this story is that everyone lost. A daughter lost her father. An ex-wife lost her support. Society lost a good and productive memberand Andrew lost the most precious thing: his life.
Surely a system that makes everyone a loser has got to be wrong.
The most radical thing I have to say is that the solutions to life's difficulties need a partnership that includes both men and women. We need both sides to achieve the full equation and we need to have the same rules and the same attitudes for both men and women.
There is a place in Los Angeles where there is a small mountain in the middle of an urban area. There used to be an observatory there before the city lights made it impossible to see the stars. It is a place where lovers go to park. It is also a place where people go to commit suicide.
One evening, a police car drove up the winding road, just to see a young man climbing over the rail to jump off and commit suicide. The first policeman dashed to grab him, but he was too late to get a good hold on him and keep his balance without falling over the cliff himself. There was a moment when it looked like both of them were going to fall to their deaths. By then, the second policeman was able to get around the car and grab the first policeman and pull them both to safety.
The ftrst policeman was nearly killed. He was later asked, "Why did you do this? Why did you risk you life, your future, losing your family and everything for a total stranger, a man you didn't even know?" He replied that when he touched him, he "became" the other man. To let go and let him die would have been like losing himself. He would not have been able to face himself the next day. He became the other man.
So, we are more than our brother's keeper. We are our brother; our brother's and our sister's welfare is directly linked to our own. When Andrew died, part of us died with him, men and women alike.
May God give us the grace to reach out in compassion for each other, to attend to each other's pain, that we might all live in mutual trust, esteem and love.
April 1, 2000
BRANDON, Man. - Thirty-five years ago today, Lillian White gave birth to her youngest son. Yesterday, she knelt down and kissed his coffin at his graveside.
Darrin White committed suicide two weeks ago in Prince George, B.C., after a judge ordered him to pay his estranged wife twice his take-home pay in child support and alimony each month.
In death he has become a poignant symbol of family courts gone awry, of a divorce system run by people with closed minds, hard hearts and deaf ears. Read More ..
StatsCan recently reported on a 10% increase in suicides. But StatsCan persists in ignoring the group of Canadians at greatest risk for suicide, as do the media and professional reports.
Suicide is a microcosm for those most under stress and most at risk of unresolved crisis in society. Suicides may logically be categorized as 100% citizens of Canada, and then as 79% male. The most critical measure of depression - suicide - is counted overwhelmingly in male corpses. For over 23 years widespread media and professional attention concentrated on 12,500 AIDS deaths, compared to little concern with 92,000 suicides. Read More ..
Ontario's Family Responsibility Office has many problems
Quote from Ontario Government Ombudsman -"an equal opportunity error-prone program,."'
Support recipients not getting their money.
Men who've been meeting their court-ordered obligations have trouble getting the FRO to stop taking payments when it's supposed to. Read More ..
March 25, 2000
Divorced fathers get a bad rap for not supporting their children. The truth is, many can't. And, tragically, some are driven to desperate measures, including suicide.
In his suicide note, Jim, the father of four children, protests that "not all fathers are deadbeats." Jim hanged himself because he couldn't see any alternative. Even now, his children are unaware of the circumstances of their father's death. Meeno Meijer, National Post George Roulier is fighting to regain money wrongfully taken from his wages by the Ontario child-support collection agency. Chris Bolin, National Post Alan Heinz, a Toronto firefighter, has gone bankrupt fighting for the return of his daughter, 3, from Germany. No one will help him, but German authorities are trying to collect child support from him.
Whenever fathers and divorce are discussed, one image dominates: the 'deadbeat dad,' the schmuck who'd rather drive a sports car than support his kids. Because I write about family matters, I'm regularly inundated with phone calls, faxes, letters and e-mail from divorced men. It's not news that divorced individuals have little good to say about their ex-spouses. What I'm interested in is whether the system assists people during this difficult time in their lives, or compounds their misery. From the aircraft engineer in British Columbia, to the postal worker on the prairies, to the fire fighter in Toronto, divorced fathers' stories are of a piece: Though society stereotypes these men relentlessly, most divorced dads pay their child support. Among those who don't, a small percentage wilfully refuse to (the villains you always hear about).
What you haven't been told is that the other men in arrears are too impoverished to pay, have been ordered to pay unreasonable amounts, have been paying for unreasonable lengths of time, or are the victims of bureaucratic foul-ups. Read More ..
Edmonton and Calgary Sun
Feb 5, 2005
EDMONTON -- An Edmonton judge has decided a divorced dad has to make child support payments, even though the child isn't his. Justin Sumner had an on-again-off-again relationship with the woman he eventually married, Dawn Sumner.
She already had a child from a previous relationship with a man named Rob Duncan, and as she and Justin broke up and reunited, Dawn was sexually involved with both men.
When she found she was pregnant, she called Justin, who recognized there was a possibility that Duncan was the father, but later concluded he was the dad. Read More ..
The Ottawa Citizen
January 14, 2012
TORONTO - Ontario's controversial Family Responsibility Office has been overbilling 1,700 parents, mostly fathers, for as long as 13 years, the province admitted Friday.
The 1,700 parents were overbilled by an average $75 each month, after the agency wrongly applied a cost of living adjustment that was eliminated in 1997.
Those who were overpaid will not be forced to give the money back.
Instead, taxpayers will foot the $5.3 million bill for the agency's mistake.
"This error's been found and it's being corrected," said Liberal cabinet minister John Milloy. "We're going to be reaching out to those individuals (who were overbilled) and talking to them about their situation, formally alerting them."
The Family Responsibility Office, or FRO, is responsible for ensuring court-ordered child support payments are made. Read More .. than 97 per cent of all payers overseen by the office are male.
Milloy said the agency discovered the problem at some point in 2011. No one will be fired for the mistakes, he added.
"I see this as something very serious," he said in an interview. "I'm not trying to minimize it, but â€¦ there's been lots of action taken to reform FRO, to update computer systems, to update customer relations and it's on a much firmer footing."
The billing mistake is only the latest controversy to engulf FRO. Read More ..
"Canada's national newspaper for professional women"
On June 9, 2005 the McGuinty government announced the passage of Bill 155, legislation that promised to increase enforcement, improve fairness and enhance efficiency at the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).
However, the legislation did not address the problem of accountability and, as things now stand, the FRO is a threat to every Canadian affected by a government regulated support and custody arrangement system. Think of George Orwell's 1984 and you'll have a good picture of how issues are handled at the FRO.
They have legal power to extort money from Canadians, but are not responsible or accountable for their actions.
Last year an FRO staff member decided not to wait for a court date to review the financial status of an out-of-work truck driver and took it upon themselves to suspend his license because he was, understandably, behind on his payments, having lost his job earlier in the year. Although he was looking for work, the FRO cut off the only way he knew of to earn a living. His suicide note explained how he'd lost all hope. Is this what we want FRO to be doing? Read More ..
The Truth About Deadbeat Dads
"Canada's National newspaper for professional women"
When families fall apart, they can make for the bitterest of enemies. The intensity of their hostility, the personal rhetoric, the posturing and positioning, and the utter faithlessness of remembrance in the relationship's good deeds and consequences is a breathtaking phenomenon. It's as if the positive qualities and countless achievements are struck from history as a revisionist might strike the Holocaust. Into all of this the family court system wades, often inelegantly. Divorce lawyers drive up the emotional and financial toll of separation and transformation. Family and friends frequently collude to make things worse.
And when government decides to rear its head, well, it's a mess for all the world to see. Witness the recent attention on Ontario's euphemistically branded Family Responsibility Office. A job in advertising doubtlessly greeted the person who came up with its title, because it suggests some sort of feel-good missionary work to hold together the sanctity of the institution. Read More ..