Barbara Kay: Courts get a new way to discriminate against fathers

Madeleine  Meilleur, a feminist liberal lawyer, (what a combination) is the Minister responsible for FRO. This is the oxy-moronically named Family Responsibility Office (Mom's Stazi Police) designed to be the official misandric arm of the Ontario Provincial Government currently ruled by the most incompetent Liberal government in Canadian history.  In previous correspondence with her colleague Laurel Broten another feminist Liberal lawyer, to allow men access to DV assistance and counselling on an equal basis to females she used some cherry picked and bogus stats, supplied by her professional feminist staff in her Status of Women portfolio to deny my request. Keep in mind she is both Ontario's Official Feminist in Chief but is allied with Meilleur in the DV Industry the chief cause of radical feminists.

The feminists in charge of these gulags relish in the power they get over men on an official basis. Most men pay their child support. The smaller number of non-custodial moms are by far less likely to pay but you can bet it would be front page news if one of them were thrown into jail for non-payment. The MSM would be demanding changes because then the chivalrous and protective editors would finally see the stupidity of these laws. The vast majority of those who cannot pay are unemployed or underemployed after being laid off. Those who have cars or trucks often live in them under the circumstances as mom gets to stay in the family home in many cases, while collecting welfare, child benefits, and from hubby. Who’s the real dead beat here?

We have devolved to the 18th century including debtors prisons thanks to feminists like Meilleur and Broten and those kindly male sycophantic politicians who think they are being white knights. They are, in a manner, self loathing by thinking fathers are unimportant, when that in fact is scientifically, a malicious misandric myth. The gulag called FRO is the manifestation of misandry perpetuated by the political and judicial class. Mom’s get 90% of sole physical custody, ownership and control of the children to do with what she may, including denying access with impunity.

The Political class’ response is to create further impediments to dad earning a living through loss of license, jail, posting his picture for the world to see on a website, humiliating his children, and now impounding his vehicle. What morons we have in the Government and FRO. What do you get when a moron makes the rules for other morons? Chaos and the further denigration of men.

 Some research notes with respect to child support:

“Studies show that the overwhelming majority of steadily employed divorced fathers pay their child support. While there are a few well‑heeled divorced dads who stiff their children, most non‑paying dads are either poor, unemployed, disabled, or incarcerated. According to a US Government Accounting Office report, two‑thirds of those fathers who do not pay their child support fail to do so because they are financially unable to do so.” 

Source: Judi Bartfield and Daniel R. Meyer: "Are There Really Deadbeat Dads? The Relationship Between Ability to Pay, Enforcement, and Compliance in Nonmarital Child Support Cases," Social Service Review 68, 1994, pp. 219‑235.

Source: "Deadbeat Dad Image A Myth, Study Finds,"  New York Times,  May 5, 1999.  See: http://sharedparent.freeyellow.com/ddiamsf.pdf.  Look for "Divorced moms reported."

Source: Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, pp. 206‑207.

Source: Kathleen Parker, "Deadbeat dads more myth than reality," The Orlando Sentinel, Jan 24 1999. See: http://www.dadi.org/kpdbeat2.htm. Look for "Census Bureau."

“Fathers have a much better record of paying court-ordered child support than mothers do.” When children were living with dad and support was ordered moms paid an average of 33% owed; dads paid an average of 62% owed. 13% of dads overpaid but not a single mom. Keep in mind the moms salary exceeded dads otherwise support would not likely be ordered.

Conclusion: When dads have the children, moms are far less likely to be ordered to pay support, are ordered to pay less, are less likely to pay it, and never overpay.

Source: John Siegmund, “Preliminary Analysis of the Database of the DC Office of Paternity and Child Support Enforcement” compiled for the Children's Rights Council, November 9, 1999.

Father and Child Reunion, Warren Farrell, PhD, page 179

Compiled by Glenn Sacks and located at http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1000 and Mike Murphy. MJM

Barbara Kay: Courts get a new way to discriminate against fathers

Barbara Kay  November 9, 2010 – 10:40 am

 

GREG WOOD/AFP/Getty Images

Wait a minute ... a man with a stroller? You mean men are parents too? But why should men have access to their children? This is weird.

“They throw guys in jail for non-support all the time, and when they do, the guys serve the whole 30, 60 or 90-day sentence (the term keeps lengthening), even though cocaine dealers routinely get out of jail after serving half their time.”

Ontario’s Family Responsibility Office, which is responsible for ensuring that custodial parents don’t get stiffed for child support payments by the non-custodial parent, has a lot of power.

Starting Dec. 1, someone (read “father”) in arrears on their support payments can have their car impounded. That’s about the stupidest punishment for non-payment one can imagine, since most people need their cars in order to work. As Lloyd Gorling, a father’s rights activist put it, “How are you going to make support payments if you can’t get to work? If you can’t make support payments, does the government really think you’re going to be taking a taxi every day to work?”

If you’re going for irrational responses to non-payment, why not just throw the guy in jail –– but oh wait, they already do that. They throw guys in jail for non-support all the time, and when they do, the guys serve the whole 30, 60 or 90-day sentence (the term keeps lengthening), even though cocaine dealers routinely get out of jail after serving half their time.

In 2004 an FRO staff member didn’t bother waiting for a court date to review the financial status of an out-of-work truck driver. He just suspended his license because – hey, because he could, you see. But the guy couldn’t pay, because he had no job, you FRO idiot. He had no money to pay with, you FRO moron. He was looking for work, and the FRO decided that the best way to deal with a non-paying parent was to make it impossible to find a job so he could pay the support. Nice going, FRO. His suicide note lamented that he didn’t see any way out of his situation and had lost hope. And did anyone pay for that? Of course not.

The FRO is accountable to no one.

Let’s look at the bigger picture, though. What is the guy paying child support for? Yeah yeah, to support his children. But that means they are, you know, sort of his children, right? Not necessarily. The custodial parent, almost always the ex-wife, although supposed to grant agreed-upon access rights to the children’s father, can arbitrarily decide she doesn’t want to allow access, and for any old reason — oh sorry, little Jimmy has a play date, oh sorry little Emma has too much homework, oh sorry, I just don’t want to — can deny the father access. And does she pay for that? No. Oh, she might get a scolding from the judge, but there is no downside for her. No custodial mom has ever spent a night in jail or had her licence suspended for refusing her children’s father legal access to them. If they have, enlighten me. I have never heard of such an outcome.

You want to impose draconian punishments for non-support? Fine. But be rational about them. The arbitrary car-licence suspension is simply stupid. It punishes the children. But reluctance to punish children is the rationale for not jailing mothers who refuse access to fathers. Judges continually say they can’t put the mother in jail, because how would it look for the kids to see their mothers punished? One might ask the same question about their dads, no? Or does nobody care how it is for children to know their dads are in jail because they couldn’t give their mothers money? Rhetorical question. Of course nobody cares how a father’s suffering impacts on children, because only mothers’ suffering has the attention of family courts, police and the FRO.

If I were paying money for child support – and by the way, no custodial parent is obliged to say how she spends the money she gets for the children; she could be using it for spa days and nobody at the FRO would care – I wouldn’t be much encouraged to carry on with it if I never got to see my kids. It would occur to me that the state considers money more important to children than fathering. If the state feels that way, maybe society does too. Kind of an incentive-suppressant for fathers.

This story is about a lot more than car licences or what the appropriate punishment should be for failure to pay child support. Double standards abound in the custody industry. The FRO is a very scary agency characterized by way too much power, and far too little intelligence.

National Post

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/09/barbara-kay-courts-get-a-new-way-to-discriminate-against-fathers/#ixzz14oC463HU