Quebec parental discipline case may go to Supreme Court of Canada
National Post, By Marianne White, Canwest News Service, April 7, 2009
QUEBEC - The lawyer for a Quebec man whose 12-year-old daughter took
him to court to challenge his punishment said Tuesday the case might be
taken to the country's top court after the father's appeal was quashed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal sided with the girl, who won a decision
from a lower court last June overruling her father's decision to ban her
from a school trip.
The court stated that it is a question of parental authority and that
what should have been a daily parenting decision burst into a major
conflict. But the girl was right to ask the Quebec Superior Court to
resolve the matter because her divorced parents couldn't agree, it
added.
The mother was in favour of the school trip while the father forbade
the girl from going because she didn't follow his orders to stay off the
Internet and got into a fight with her stepmother.
"I wasn't proud to be a Quebecer when I read the ruling. I can't
believe we let a child do this," said Kim Beaudoin, who represents the
girl's father - who can't be named to protect his daughter's identity.
"The court is sending the message that children can sue their parents
when they are not happy with a punishment. Is that what we want? It
doesn't reflect my values and I think it doesn't reflect the values of
our society," Beaudoin added.
The Court of Appeal noted in its ruling that the tribunals are not a
forum for children who want to dispute a parental punishment unless
their "health, security or education are imperilled".
Beaudoin also criticized the Court of Appeal ruling for siding with
the mother because the girl was living at her house last June even
though the father had the legal custody.
She said the Gatineau-area father has asked her to look into the
possibility of taking the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. "I'll
ponder what are our chances are and how much it would cost," the lawyer
said, noting the decision won't be made hastily.
She also called on the provincial government to amend its civil code
that allows minors to challenge parental authority in court.
"I would rather see the law changed than have to get to the Supreme
Court to make sure this won't happen again," Beaudoin said.
Quebec Justice Minister Kathleen Weil declined to comment on the case
since it might be brought to the attention of the Supreme Court.
But a lawyer for the 12-year-old girl said parents need not worry
that their children will take them to court because they withheld their
allowance.
"This is truly an exceptional case," said Lucie Fortin, noting the
decision is virtually without precedent.
She stressed that the Article 159 of the common law that gives minors
the right to challenge parental authority requires an authorization be
granted before any legal action is taken.
"If the court is seized with a trivial question, it will not
authorize it," Fortin said.
She also insisted her client didn't act on a whim in this case.
"I did everything to avoid taking the matter to court, but the
parents wouldn't agree," Fortin said. "And if there is something to be
learned from this case it's that parents should put their marital
problems aside and put their children first when there is a divorce."
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 ..
