Men: Do Not Breed!

[no2fembots]

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=46aa4db2-d522-4e08-84be-8f1a43f03354

... at least not until the draconian anti-male laws are changed!

And Liberal, Conservative or NDP, we as men have NO friends in any of the political parties!  

Hey, with any luck our poor excuse for a country will rival the USA when it comes to jailing men!  We're on the way there with this legislation!  Then we'll be playing in the big leagues!

Screw canada... we never lead but stick our noses so far up the USA's ass in our effort to follow as to be unbelievable!

Gawd, FUCK POLITICIANS!

[ween]

Un-freaking real.  And nowhere on the civilized part of the planet to escape it either.

http://www.rense.com/general65/sun.htm

[Peter]

[Peter]

Penalities for deadbeat parents doubled

Ah, so nonsexist language. I am impressed.

TORONTO (CP) -- Deadbeat parents in Ontario who fail to pay court-ordered support payments could spend up to six months in jail --

As we all know, most people get rich in jail. Then they can afford to pay their debts. Why do we have all this polluting industry? Let's build more jails!

and even lose their hunting and fishing licences -- under tough legislation passed Thursday.

Too much calorie intake clearly make you work less.

"People were actually choosing to go in (for) 90 days and walk away, and still haven't paid.

Does he even know what he talks about? Choose? Higly unlikely. Have you heard about the golden fountain? (Relatives      and friends paying for a man threatended with imprisonment.)

But NDP Leader Howard Hampton said what's needed is more staff at the family responsibility office and a better computer system, not more jail time for deadbeats.

A bigger brother watching us. Are you really sure that you need no jail when  you get your shiny computer with blinking lights. Does it print money? Does it make beef?

"The reality is, you do not have enough staff to handle the casework and you don't have the kind of information system that allows you to keep track of things," said Hampton.

Reality? That is what your postmodern friends have proved irrelevant long ago. Why drag it in here so unexpectedly?

Yes, your government is too small. Ideally, we should all be goverment employees. Let's prohibit non-governmental work. It is reactionary.

"You can talk about putting people in jail and taking away their hunting licence and their fishing license and, frankly, that's all a bunch of nonsense."

Oh! How come? And the drivers licence? What is your next excellent idea? Limb amputation?

Deadbeat parents in Ontario owe at least $1.2 billion in support payments to their former spouses and children, although activists estimate the total is closer to $1.6 billion.

Activists? Or feminists?

Where is the discussion of the actual cost of raisning a child compared to what fathers are requested to pay?

Where is the discussion of the realities of Family Court?

[Galt]

In the United States, they won't just take away your fishing license, they'll take away your driver's license and professional license, or just throw you in jail.  That'll help those truck drivers and lawyers who are behind on their payments.  Not being able to work will get them caught up.  I guess.

The thing that gets me about the draconian child support system is that there is almost no leeway for men.  He may have paid child support for 5 years without a problem, and then he loses his job, or gets sick or the like.  Sometimes it takes months to work your petition to lower child support through the system, and sometimes they won't accept it.  Really.  They will claim that you are ABLE to earn a certain amount ("imputed income") so it's your problem.

The problem here is that a certain man may mean well, and pay on time for years, but if he makes one misstep, or if life deals out crap to him (like getting fired and not being able to find a comparable job), his entire life could spin out of control.  If you read the "Bradley Amendment" (my thread is still up on this page), a judge cannot reduce any prior amount you owe for any reason.  That's draconian.  You also can't declare it in bankruptcy or anything else.  Interest accrues.  You also can't (legally) run, because your passport may be taken away, and if you cross state lines owing a certain amount, it's now a felony.  Some men pay what they can on a mountain of debt that will only increase because of the interest.

For men who aren't familiar with these laws, you should find out about them.  It's almost unreal.

And if you realize that the state gets fed money for doing this, and if you think that the woman getting the money may have a new guy anyway who's paying for everything, and she's spending the money on even more shoes, you start wondering why men are treated this shabbily.  I mean he still has to pay it if it's for her new shoes, but why these draconian measures?  Almost treating men like animals - you can have the best intentions and still go afowl of this law, because life has its surprises.

**** CAVEAT (that I learned to include on certain feminist boards): I have never personally been ordered to pay child support.

[bluegrass]

The other part of it that gets me is that very often you've got some guy who was taking great care of his kids -- both financially and caretaking-ly -- while his marriage was intact.  It was working out great for the kids!

But he's not the one who changed that equation.  You could say maybe his wife did, but ultimately the gov't changed the equation, redefined his relationship and set a completely new standard that's far more stringent than the one that he willfully entered into.  That's the real kicker!

[devia]

Canada has something the States doesn't have. Child support guidelines, a table the caculates your earnings and sets child support.

As a payer I find the guidelines to be very fair EXCEPT that if ones financial situation changes you have to pay a lawyer to get the child support changed. This could be easily remedied by allowing legal aid for this purpose the same as they allow the payee legal aid to aid in family courts. Or just simply adjust is without the courts the same way one applies for unemplyment insurance.

I went through a period with my ex where he was taking me back every year or so "just to see if my financial situation had changed", while he collected welfare and worked under the table. Worked for him for a few years (another 25 a month here and there) until my income came down.

My brothers a dead beat. Never been taken out of his kids lives until they were old enough (late teens) to decide to not have him in their lives. He worked under the table as a painter so he'd never have to pay. Karma got back at him though, he's now 48, his kids really don't like him (all those years bitching about their mom), and because he never regeistered his company he naver hired anyone when he sucessful. Now his hands don't work so well.

Btw, the divorce was his idea, she submitted the paperwork.

[Davie_boy]

Men really, really, really need to understand how the cards are stacked against them in marriage and family courts.

In my opinion, men are far too reasonable, far too naive, and far too trusting of women and government. A little extra vigilance, no matter how "unreasonable" or "pathetic" a woman or a friend may say it is may just be your best friend in the end. The most you ever get for this kind of vigilance is not a refutation of facts, but rather some shame-based comment like "golly gee, you really have a complex" or "you really see the glass as half-empty" or "you're a mysoginist", all of which really equate to "I don't really have a good reason for you not to think the things you do, except that I don't really like it."

I've done the Internet dating thing. No one castigates women for being cautious and protective, in spite of the fact that rapes and assaults are relatively rare.

Similar things can be said of carrying a firearm.

Some things in life are worth considerable (i.e., unreasonable) scrutiny and deliberation.

[SIAM]

As a payer I find the guidelines to be very fair EXCEPT that if ones financial situation changes you have to pay a lawyer to get the child support changed.

devia, by saying "payer", are you a non-custodial mother paying maintainance?

[devia]

Yep, and I have no issue with paying and have always considered what I pay based on earning to be fair.

What I do have issue with is the process of changing child support whether it be because of a change in your job situation etc, and having to pay for a lawyer you cannot afford when the payee decides to check to see if your still earning the same.

As I said I went through a few years of yearly lawyers fees. Joke was on him though when my income has significantly gone down for a time and he tried it again. He hasn't done it since, and I'm in no hurry to tell him that I make more then ever now. HOWEVER if my son wasn't provided for well I would raise the payments up myself. As it is I've started an investment fund for my kid instead.

[Double Jeopardy]

The Canadian system seems more fair than the US. Pay according to earnings? Yea....pay according to POTENTIAL earnings. I sure would have liked to of been able to make the right choices with my earnings for my kid. But then again, I'm a man, other people do that for me. :roll:

[SIAM]

Devia, did you lose custody of your child against your will?