Print edition A17 (online by subscription only), December 23, 2004
Irwin Cotler, the Justice Minister, announced on Tuesday that the federal government will hold off on
reforming child custody laws. We can't say that's too much of a disappointment. If enacted, the expected
changes would mostly have served to tilt the anti-father bias of Canada's family courts even further in
favour of women.
First proposed by Mr. Colter'
s predecessor, Martin Cauchon, the now-dormant bill would have scrapped
existing provisions compelling the courts to grant "maximum contact" to both parents and severed the last
remaining connections between payment of child support and access by fathers to their kids. Worse, it would
have given judges the power to withhold all access to fathers with past histories of violent behaviour while
permitting wives to raise allegations of abuse at divorce proceedings even if they had made no previous
complaints of violence -- a recipe for false accusations in bids to win total custody.
The Cauchon law was also a direct slap in the face to the joint Parliamentary committee that recommended
"shared parenting" -- i.e., granting both parents equal custody and responsibility for children at the end
of the marriage -- after years of study. Despite the Senate-Commons committee having held extensive hearings
on the subject, Justice department bureaucrats held another set tailored to suit their own views before
submitting recommendations to the justice minister (then Anne McLellan) that were diametrically opposed to
those of the committee.
But while the decision to put off the legislation doesn'
t trouble us, the reasons behind it are more unsettling. By all appearances, the postponement of the child custody changes has nothing to do with Mr.
Colter recognizing their flaws; rather they simply appear to have slipped down his priority list -- notably
below Divorce Act changes to allow for gay divorce, which the Justice Minister is keen to have ready by the
time same-sex marriage legislation comes before the House next month.
As bad as the proposed child custody amendments were, they were presumably a sincere attempt to make
children'
s lives better after the break-up of their parents. That the Liberals consider this less deserving
of their attention than gay marriage and divorce is a little curious.
Far more of this country's children (roughly 35,000 annually) are affected by divorce than there are gays
hurt by their inability to marry. Children of divorce are more likely to suffer behavioural problems, drop
out of school, experiment with drugs, commit violence against a partner or spouse and run afoul of the law.
Not surprisingly, they are also more likely to divorce from their own spouses later. But divorce is a modern
fact of life, so improving the laws governing custody and access by non-custodial parents in order to lessen
its adverse consequences ought to be among the government'
s top priorities.
Rather than simply reviving Mr. Cauchon'
s deplorable legislation when it suits him, Mr. Colter should turn
his attention to crafting a new custody law more in keeping with the parliamentary committee'
s common sense
proposals. We hope that this will be one of the Justice Minister'
s priorities in 2005
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 -- 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.
Andrew T. Renouf committed suicide on or about October 17, 1995 because he had 100% of his wages taken by the Family Responsibility Office, a child support collection agency of the Government of Ontario, Canada.
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.
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 will soon be able to be read below.
The service made the TV evening news.
It was Andy's last wish that his story be told to all. YOU CAN READ HIS SUICIDE NOTE
Payers and recipients do not have direct
access to their assigned enforcement services officer
"There is only limited access to enforcement
staff because many calls to the Office do not get through or are terminated before they
can be answered."
"The Office is reviewing and working on only
about 20% to 25% of its total cases in any
given year."
"At the end of our audit in April 2010, there
were approximately 91,000 bring-forward
notes outstanding, each of which is supposed
to trigger specific action on a case within one
month. The status of almost one-third of the
outstanding bring-forward notes was "open,"
indicating either that the notes had been
read but not acted upon, or that they had not
been read at all, meaning that the underlying
nature and urgency of the issues that led to
these notes in the first place was not known.
In addition, many of the notes were between
one and two years old."
"For ongoing cases, the Office took almost
four months from the time the case went into
arrears before taking its first enforcement
action. For newly registered cases that went
straight into arrears, the delay was seven
months from the time the court order was
issued."
Read the shocking report by The Auditor General of Ontario Report on the
Family Responsibility Office
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 … 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.
"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 ..
