Once the legal battle is over the emotional and financial battles begin. The message to the kids, and since the courts are supposedly honourable and judges don ’t lie is that one parent is right and the other is wrong. Guess who?

Once the judge has alienated the kids from dad, except from paying support, of course, the Family Responsibility Office steps in to take over. The FRO essentially launders the money from dad to ensure that even at this level there is no contact with his children. Dads are not allowed to pay the recipient directly even if they are beyond the age of majority and living by themselves. There is absolutely no accountability for how the money is spent and although there is enforcement for payment orders, there is no enforcement for orders related to giving dads access to their kids.

The Family Responsibility Office – “the enforcers”

This office is the Province of Ontario agency to manage / enforce support orders. I’ll make the assumption that other agencies across the country operate in like fashion. Since Ontario has roughly 30% of the Nation’s population, where I make reference to the National numbers, I will prorate accordingly.

The Family Responsibility Office was transferred from the Office of the Attorney General’s to the office of Community Services and Women’s issues in 2001 and as their fact sheet says, improved their operational efficiency to ensure that FRO can get more money to children and women faster….Before I get going, is there anyone who sees a conflict here? Any possible ideas why there is no enforcement of orders for father’s access or recipients accountability yet ferocious enforcement on support? Ummm????

Once the court has issued a support order the bureaucracy kicks in. The FRO sets up an account. letters from the office are sent out to both parties and the workplace of the payer to garnish wages and a collection process is put in place. The support payment is made and monies collected and deposited with the FRO. The FRO must then reverse the process and mail payment to the recipient. What an absolute waste of time, public funds and resources.

This process is done in all cases whether enforcement is required or not. Does this make sense? I’m sure a large percentage of payers are quite willing to support their kids and are quite capable of paying another bill in addition to the mortgage phone, utilities and rent etc. yet are subjected to a demeaning process of policing and the embarrassment of wage garnishing.

Rather than apply a broad brush approach, could taxpayer’s money and the resources of the Government not be better spent on cases where there is abdication of responsibility, temporary default or where there is legitimate hardship in managing family support and access to children?

Some Facts

From the 2003 Annual Report of the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario and 2005 Update.

I would like to start by saying that parents have a paramount responsibility to nurture and provide financial support for their kids regardless of the state of their own relationship. This is not at issue!!!! What is at issue is the means that this country uses to manage or as the Family Responsibility Office states it enforce compliance.

What is a deadbeat Dad or I guess a deadbeat Mom, although this term is never used?

I am not aware of a formal definition. In context, a deadbeat “whatever” is one who is ordered by the courts to pay child support and then for whatever reason defaults or gets behind in payments and ends up in arrears. There may be legitimate reasons such as, delay in court process, a job loss or reduction of income but this is not recognized without court intervention and subsequent order.

I wonder how many people have been classified as deadbeats because of totally irrational support awards by judges, the mistakes, bureaucratic process and delays in the FRO and CRA or lack the financial resources to deal with the Court system every time a change requires a court order. If a man is a seasonal worker or is temporarily laid off he often cannot afford to go back and forth to court every time to seek a variance to the court-ordered support.

The problem is that once the system sees them in arrears they are labelled “a deadbeat .” There is no administrative mechanism to vary the award to reflect their fluctuating income.

The FRO does not differentiate and as I detailed previously in my example during a period of unemployment. And while it takes a year to vary a support order in court, the enforcement begins within 2 months. What a ridiculous system, the left hand doesn’t know what right hand is doing.

I have documented irrational support orders previously in this book but as these orders are a major cause of judges creating deadbeats, the following is a quick summary of some contributing factors arriving at the amount of support in my case alone.

Children of the non-custodial parent are not recognized by Child or Spousal Support Guidelines or judges when the woman is not working. Why are they discriminated against? Does the law or judges not recognize that these children have identical needs?

1. Legal costs either personal or when ordered for the responding party are not included in any calculation but a huge factor.
2. Costs for non-custodial parents (fathers) to maintain a relationship with their kids not included. This is especially important where the kids have been removed from their home town.
3. Costs such as transportation and other expenses to earn monies to pay support in the first place is not taken into account.
4. Although spousal support is separate from Child Support the formula used is based on income equalization which includes spousal support with the result of double payment for spousal support.
5. Spousal support is not taken into consideration in the Child Support formula.
6. Special and extraordinary expenses such as school, medical, orthodontic etc ordered over and above the child support guideline amount are not taken into consideration.
7. Paying support on E.I. that will later have to be repaid is not factored in.
8. Orders to pay support for children over the age of majority are not taken into account.

As pointed out above 75% of support orders are in arrears. Does anyone really believe that there are 450,000 support payors (fathers) who are deadbeats?
Of course not. The first step is to artificially create deadbeats (customers) so that the courts, the divorce industrial complex workers can justify their own existence.

Creating deadbeats is easy. First the courts issue unrealistic support orders which are impossible to pay, then between, the court process, discriminatory laws, exorbitant legal costs, delays in the tax system, inefficiency of enforcement the father is finally brought to his knees and a deadbeat is created. Once there, it’s like a snowball and he becomes a lifetime customer.

As detailed earlier, it takes a year of court process to change a court order (such as when one loses their job). Add to that another 8 months or so for the FRO to reflect the change in their accounts and 1 year or so before CCRA is updated so that valid tax deductions, which are required to pay support in the first place can be processed. That’s between 2 and 3 years before an adjustment that should have been automatic takes effect. Yet, since arrears are identified on a monthly basis and enforcement begins within 2 months, how many are classified as deadbeats for no other reason than the delays within the system.

To make sure the deadbeat doesn’t get up he has his credit rating destroyed, driver license and passports suspended, federal payments and assets seized. That should help him get a job and generate income…. Utterly brilliant. Then to top things off his picture is posted on an internet site so the mother can show the children what society thinks of their deadbeat dad. In contrast there is absolutely no accountability for women, no enforcement of access orders, no contingency of access to support payment, no rules against child abduction and no pictures on the internet. Dalton, no wonder you’ve decided not to keep suicide statistics.

Following is a brief over view of the steps in the enforcement process.

Initial passive enforcement steps include:

In January 2007 Dalton McGuinty has found yet another way to kick deadbeats, many he created himself.
He will now begin to publish pictures of those in arrears on public web sites. Regardless of the fact this violates human rights and privacy laws, can you imagine the embarrassment of those who are willing to pay support but due to the corruption, inefficiency, cost and lack of accountability within the system are so classified.

To counter, a group of Fathers Rights activists are creating a website called “Meal Ticket-Kidnapper Moms “. This latest collaborative effort will not use a cent of taxpayers’ money, but will be entirely subsidized by the fathers and other persons involved. Fathers and their supporters feel this is a fair and adequate balance to the Liberal Ontario Provincial government’s outrageous attempts to shame and embarrass fathers who they allege have not paid child support. There is a hope that this website will, just like the deadbeat parents website claims to be doing, shame the “Meal Ticket-Kidnapper Moms” into turning themselves in or halting their fraudulent activities.

So how long will it take for all out war between ex moms and dads…..Is any of this in the best interests of the Family?

How to make a Good Dad into a Deadbeat:

Following are 2 real life example of how the Courts, Child Support Guidelines, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines conspire to bankrupt and then turn a hard working Dad into a deadbeat.

Example 1. Details:

The parents have divorced; there are 4 children of the marriage. Each parent has custody of 2 of the children. Parent A earns $100,000 per year. Parent B does not work and earns $0. Each child is allocated $3,000 in special expenses (ortho, other medical, extracurricular etc.) which is treated over and above guideline amount in the Child Support Guidelines.
As court action is required each time there is a change in circumstance (approximately every 2 years), legal fees are approximated to $10,000 per year.

Following is a chart of how such a situation is treated within the law and the courts.

Note:

You don’t need to take my word. Take your own example, follow the Child Support Guidelines, Spousal Support Guidelines, a tax guide to come to your own conclusion.

The Results: Guess the deatbeat?

Remember: Parent A and B each have custody of 2 children. Parent “A” has no earnings but ends up with effective income of $50,050
Parent “B” earns $100,000 with effective income of $10,569. Question: Which parent is classified as the deadbeat?
Parent “A” who does not work and receives $50,050 after tax or Parent “B” who earns $100,000 and ends up with $10,569, works hard to earn a good wage to support his now divided family, is required to pay outrages support which forces him into arrears and bankruptcy.

Answer: And the Deadbeat is….

If you chose Parent “A” you would be wrong!!!!

If you guess the hard working Parent “B” as the deadbeat you win!!!!

Example 2 Details – Real example that forced me into bankruptcy.

Parent “A” income is a CPP income of $12,000 per year. There is 1 child, age 22, 4 years over the age of majority, has no debt, attends university in home town, works hard during breaks and has an income $12,000. University expenses are $6,000.
Parent “B” works hard and has an income of $100,000. The young self sufficient adult is ordered by Judge Speyer to remain a dependent and orders both child support and special expenses in addition to spousal support.

Following reflects Justice Speyer’s Court Order.

Results

1. Parent “A ” and over age of majority dependant receive after tax and deducting university expenses $60,499.
2. Parent “B” who works hard pays all the costs is left in the negative to the tune of ($11,383) and is forced into bankruptcy.

I won’t go through the guessing game again but as before Parent “B” is still the deadbeat.

Note: Re: Legal Costs ….

This time I did not represent myself but hired a lawyer to make sure I would get professional support. “For what it’s worth”…. The only difference was that the lawyer added another $30,000 after tax to my troubles.

Deadbeat Summary:

A good deadbeat summary article;

• The Truth About Deadbeat Dads
• From Readers Digest
• BY GLADYS POLLACK

For decades, they have been pictured as living the high life — driving their Porsches, vacationing in exotic places — while their former wives and their children haunt food banks and live off welfare. Branded as “deadbeat dads,” they are viewed as heartless men who have simply walked away from their family responsibilities. The fact is, sure, there are some dads who fall into this category — men who have fathered children but don’t want to honour their obligations to them — but a closer examination reveals another story.

In general, statistics indicate that between 85 to 91 percent of Canadian children covered either by private or court-ordered child- support agreements actually receive payments, the vast majority receiving regular support payments. And statistics also reveal the close association between the regularity of payment and the frequency of contact between fathers and their children.

Studies also show that many non custodial fathers who do not pay child support simply can’t afford to. Some are unemployed or on sick leave. In fact, one of the best predictors of non-payment is the unemployment rate. Higher incomes are associated with higher compliance rates, and lower incomes with lower rates. One study suggests that a father’s ability to pay, in addition to his willingness to pay, determines the extent to which he fulfills his child-support obligations.

Burdened by unrealistic court- imposed support payments, continuing legal fees, increased taxes due to changes imposed by Bill C-41 and estrangement from their children, some men find themselves caught in a downward spiral of depression and have resorted to the ultimate escape: suicide. With a divorce, funds that were unable to support one household are now expected to support two. Add to this the cost of expensive litigation, the fact that one party may be trying to use money as a means of obtaining concessions such as access or custody, and we have a recipe for disaster — with children often caught in the maelstrom

What happens after the break-up of the family? Eighty-seven percent of children end up living solely with their mothers after a parental separation (only 7 percent live with their fathers). Only 30 percent of children report visiting their fathers every week. One quarter of children visit their fathers irregularly — once a month or on holidays. A whopping 15 percent never see their fathers.
And what has Bill C-41 done for fathers? Under the changes to the tax treatment of child support, which came into effect on May 1, 1997, it is no longer taxable in the hands of the receiving parent and no longer deductible in the hands of the paying parent. It is worthy of note that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada rose in Parliament to speak in favour of Bill C-41, he stated that the revenue derived from ending the deduction of child-support payments would yield the federal government more than an additional $1 billion dollars over a five-year period.

Finding solutions that are in the best interests of the children was the aim of the 1998 Senate-Commons Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. Understanding that children of divorce are entitled to a close and continuing relationship with both parents, the committee recommended that the terms “custody” and “access” be stricken from the Divorce Act and a new term, “shared parenting,” be incorporated. Both parents would have access to information and records regarding the child’s development and social activities, such as school and medical records and other relevant information. The federal government has apparently shelved the committee’s recommendations, however, in the interests of further study.

Yes, there are some deadbeats who don’t care about their kids. But it’s unfair and unproductive to label every father who falls behind in his support payments a “deadbeat.”