The ongoing search for deadbeat parents

Fellow citizens, the court does not care about each case. They must establish a system where the almighty dollar rules. Let's say your family's model was one spouse stayed home and took care of the 2 kids while the one worked outside of the home. In one example, the income was $70 000 and in a 2nd example, the income was $150 000. The Child & Family Support would be different for both because the court would consider the "family lifestyle" prior to the divorce. You can not expect the court to punish the family that earned a higher income to receive the same amount of support as the lower income even if the amount would seem adequate enough to help raise the children. The court will consider the fact that a family chose to have one spouse stay home to take care of the house. Now that they are divorced, it is not common pratice for the court to expect that spouse to now get back to work and earn a high paying job after so many years being at home. This decision is done by the court because the majority of divorces would put the female at a disadvantage because women tend to make less than men in a similar job and that most of the family models have the women being the gender staying at home. If your situation is not this typical family model, that's when you are expected to get a lawyer and plead your case. I have many friends divorced and there are complaints in each of their situation. I am just glad my wife and I are still together.

My deadbeat ex feels that because HE left the province and the court order states he can not have nover night visitation until he does an alcohol assessment program that he doesn't have to pay support. Let's not forget that he has a child in Alberta whom he hasn't seen in over 12 years. Now a child in Ontario who he calls, but ultimately, left for another province. So working on province number 3, his original province, I guess he'll make another baby and not have to pay support. Yes, there is a court order and yes, it's through the FRO he is supposed to pay, but he says that the FRO won't go after him cause he left the province and he knows how to beat the system, just up and leave. He's a classy man with 2 kids he doesn't see or pay support for, and yes, criminal records in every province he passes through.

Why is this article titled Deadbeat dads? It’s discriminating and bashing men. Yes , non-custodial parents often get a raw deal. I pay my support, even before there was a court order, but I haven’t seen (our) son in 174 days.A Parent who deny access needs penalties like drivers license suspension also.

My ex is a deadbeat dad too..........to date he owes $30,000 is arrears. Perhaps the Family Responsibility Office (the Ontario Government) should be better enforcing Courts Orders and there wouln't be such a high national unpaid support across the country.........$2.7 billion..........come on FRO tighen up your belt!!!!!! :)

Well, I've been married for 2 decades now...by reading all of this, I"m very thankful.
I"m against divorce, mainly because it hurts the kids but also because of crap I've heard from those around me and then there's the crap I just read too. In my opinion, the guy has got to be pretty bad or I would never consider going through these hassles. I'm thinking, we all make mistakes, why can't you stay?
To anyone blaming the court systems, it's not up to anyone else to sort "correctly" the mess you just made. The court systems are forced to, but they shouldn't have to do any of this.
To the person who said the payments are on based on the "lifestyle" during the relationship. Well, there is your reason why women will go to great extent to find a "high class" man in many cases.
Now, I do understand you don't want to be with a drunk or someone who wastes all the money. However, I can't understand how females can be so stupid as to not know BEFORE you get pregnant, what the guy is like. How do so many people get themselves in such messes? This sounds like an obvious question to me but I"m going to ask it anyway, do you not THINK before getting pregnant? Do you not use birth control that has been around for decades now?
To the men, there are condoms now. Use them. Again, I simply don't get the stupidity.

how about doing an article on all the dead beat moms out there??? and how about makeing the FRO keep prober records of payments and take a proper amount of time to process that info instead of takeing 6 to 9 month to update records...i almost lost my licence and job because of the problems they caused for me. it wasn't a matter of me not paying...I WAS PAID UP TO DATE...the problem was the @%$$&^$ i was married to was lieing her face off and the FRO wasn't updateing the info, so i had to go to court and pressent all my evidence all over again and i still ended up haveing to wait almost 10 month for them to update there records, and through the whole process my boss was getting very anoid and almost fired me for being too much of a problem...being gone to court so much. FIX THE $#% SYSTEM!!!

There is a lot of good comments on this article and figured I would put my 2 cents in. I am a 3rd generation SINGLE FATHER. My grandfather was a single parent, my father was a single parent and I am a single father. The system is broken. I hate to say it but it is. I know not all women are bad, as well as men. What counts is the parent/parents that do take responsibility in raising their children. I have great respect for anyone male or female that can raise children on there own because they are the number one priority.

@Bcardi. Case in point of what I have been saying......$1900.00 a month for 3 kids.....wow 2 families could live off of that!!!. Now, had the amount set by the system been more realistic I can almost bet that he would have met his payments. How much does one have to make to be able to afford $1900.00 a month, and be able to live himself. I notice that the courts ask for financial statements when the whole b.s of divorce starts. The payor (father) lists his income and expenses in that financial. For what???? They don't even look at ONE'S VERY BASIC expenses such as FOOD, SHELTER & CLOTHING. The only thing that they look at is INCOME!!!! and ONE"S support payments are based on GROSS INCOME. Well, let's understand and agree upon TWO OVERLOOKED FACTS that POSSIBLY the system has OVERLOOKED!!!
1.) One does not take home GROSS INCOME..!!!! One's income is their NET TAKE HOME PAY>>>>PERIOD!!!!!!
2.)Does the payor (father) not have a RIGHT to live, eat and clothe himself......Well based on my personal experience, I don't think the system thinks so. And from what Bcardi states above, if the father had to pay $1900.00 a month in support alone, how much did this man have to make NET TAKE HOME to be able to survive himself in order to be able to make those payments?
Another point I would like to bring out. The recipient (mother) also submits a financial statement to the courts. Well heck, they don't even look at hers, let alone base any calculations on her income. So why even bother asking her to supply one.
Funny howe the government thinks a whole family can survive on $1200.00 a month when it comes to them having to make payments (social assistance), yet they feel 3 children need $1900.00 to live!!!
This is what I am saying about the whole system. Something is VERY WRONG, and it gets support payors (the majority of whom are fathers) pissed off and then they take the attitude that they do. Do you blame them.
And Bcardi, it is people with your attitude that adds fuel to the fire. It really does not help the sitution by what they do. The ONLY solution is to become more realistic in setting support payments AND having the custodial parent SHARE the financial responsibility of the upbringing of the child/ren. Yes she takes care of the children, but the saying that she needs shelter for them, my answer is she needs shelter for herself aswell and so does the father for himself!! As for taking care of the children, that is the LEGAL SYSTEM that is at fault. I am sure a lot of fathers would only be too happy to share that EQUALLY with the mother, and then the whole financial need would be totally different. Each parent would be equally financially responsible and the need for support payments would be erased and not needed!!!!
The system is OPENLY BIASED AND UNFAIR........PERIOD

A large part of the problem is government endorsed extortion. Until Bill C-422 gets passed (if ever), this will continue.

Financial issues and child custody arrangements need to be separated from each other. Many mothers use spousal support (aka husband supported unemployment insurance), chattels and other financial aspects as leverage. They know they have an upper-hand at getting full custody and make unreasonable or unfair demands in those other aspects which force fathers to cave in if they want to have reasonable access to their children.

The idea of child support is to provide for the children, not the mother.

The courts need to address the children before money issues. Except in cases of neglect or abuse, the presumption should be equal parenting. Then deal with financial issues.

What about Dads who are self-employed, have lots of money and just lie about it. In Canada it has been my experience that who ever has the most money to pay a lawyer gets away with paying the least support. My x pays 25.00 a week. He lives in a massive home with his wife. He has two step children whom he has helped put through Queens College. One of them drives a mini cooper. He has a maid clean his house because its so big. He has his own website. In court he claims he is just a poor farmer. He has land and nine horses he can write off a lot of things.You wonder how much it costs to feed a horse and take care of a horse x 9. He has spent 170,000 grand just on a tractor. You should see the toys. A race car he put 30,000. in. He refuses to let me see his income taxes even though it is part of the agreement so that child support could be adjusted. Yet when its time to go to court he always has money for a lawyer. Yea our daughter goes to his place and compares the mega difference in our homes. Child support? What a joke.

Clearly the reaction to this web article cited the deep rooted social issues with separation and divorce. The husbands, wives and children are all victims to varied degrees and unique scenarios. The fact remains the family law system is flawed, financial gain of lawyers (to those who can afford them) and the Atypical stay at home mom have tipped the scales to unbelievable limits. 100's of thousand of parents have desperate stories some with tragic endings.
If you want to heighten awareness on this subject and help the masses, perhaps consider ( Fathers For Justice F4J articles) or (Families need fathers FNF articles) and unearth the root of the problem and ask our Canadian Gov't what happened to BILL 422 ? seeing it fell off the proverbial table. The system doesn't work and needs more attention than buying new replacements for CF-18 fighters or supporting a war efforts!
To those readers in this trench - Dont loose hope and remember they need you :)
"If there be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may live in peace" - Thomas Paine 1737 1809

I think that if there was a birth control for men, fathers would take their sons to the doctor as soon as they became sexually active. There would be very few accidents and alot fewer problems as a result. The FRO and ME systems ARE flawed. Remember that this is just a job that gives the people that work a wage, they have nothing emotionally or financially involved in getting payments/updates right. Like all government run organizations its all about their bottom line and keeping their jobs. Until you can find ways to penalize the system and the people that work/run it there will continue to be problems with payments whether it is the dad or the mom.

I agree with BCARDI - POST PICs OF THEM ALL OVER THE INTERNET, trust me is has been with great retraint that I havn't mentioned the name of who I am talking about on this very blog.
He is a mortgage agent downtown Toronto. Would you use him as a mortage agent is I gave you his name? lol He used to make over $100,000 but now only brings in $25,000 - seriouly who are you kidding? It is father's like that who purposelys are underemployed and not paying child support that are causing the problem, not the courts. BASICALLY THEY ARE MAKING THE CONSCIOUS DECISION TO NOT PAY FOR THEIR CHILDREN, what kind of parent are they? Deadbeat! Let the world know - post it on a milk carton, on the internet, all over the place.......in hopes that shame of what they are doing will make them pay; whatever it takes! :)

@marion mccumber sound like you need to bring him back to court and as for his income to be imputed he is obviouly living the life while paying next to nothing for child support

The system is completely biased. The woman is looked upon in favour and as having been exploited and abused. My experience with the system tells me the system is more adversarial than beneficial. It makes bitter enemies out of former lovers. Kids are pawns who are used in a vicsious cylce to gain control. One former spouse over another. It is assumed that the mother is the better parent and to prove otherwise the courts demand ransom through lawyers etc. My experience tells me the one who has the most amount of money and the lawyer who can drag it out the longest is the parent who wins. In most cases i have seen the woman plead poverty and abuse without proof and ends up with the taxpayers dollar to back her in her efforts to bleed out the father.
There is much truth to "hell hath no furry over a woman scorned". There is no reason or logic in a womans thinking. She has only one concern on her mind and that is revenge.
I have seen and experienced time and time again where the mother has no concern for her children. Her only concern is based on fear and how she can manipulate the circumstance. She will use whatever means is necesary to further her vengefull fight. She will lie and show no remorse when caught in her lies. She will use her children, she will use her tears, she will use her lawyer, and never admit wrong. Her concern is not over her children. her concern is simply over how she is going to feed herself.

@ kewldad2 seriously??? Who's bitter here really? YOU! Women don't make the laws a court ruling is a court ruling - the law is the law....you sound like you hate your ex.......hence you don't want to pay....your obviosly looking at it the wrong way! You are an ex husband, you have children, pay child support, be a good father - your ex will always be your ex duhhhhhhhhhh that's why your not with her anymore, you don't like her - that has nothing to do with the fact that you must pay child support! ..............and trust me as a mother her first though is how she'd feed her children, not herself you just hate her that's why you talk that way - take you and her out of the equation - think only of your children and that your duty as a father is to pay for them.

i paid custody money for years to my wife....then when my son left his mothers home and wanted to go to college i asked her to help..she was in a good paying government job..she said no..so i had to take her to court..ask the judge to make an order for her to help with our sons education
even though she was ordered to pay and is in arrears over 10,000.00 no one has gone after her not even from the FRO..so call it gender bias...and you will not there are many many more women who are in arrears and no one goes after them.

I am on the outside looking at this situation, kind of. I have been married and had 2 children with my first husband. A bad marriage from the start but I stuck it out for the benefit of my children. Mainly due to the fear of not being able to support the kids and I feel that the kids needed both parents to raise them. When they left home the marriage went south. I have since divorced and remarried, this time to a great loving gentlemen who has been divorced with 2 sons. Both of his sons live their mother and my hubby makes his child support payments faithfully, has his weekends and many phone calls (all long distance) with his boys, but yet he is classified as a dead beat dad because he pays child support. What really ticks me and him off is that his sons aren't getting the school trips and sports (which in the court agreement his child support is for), and both the mother and the common law husband work full time. She has been banking the money not for the kids, but for herself! She told the boys that she can support them on her own, they don't need the extras that dad is paying for. The oldest boy moved in with us, finished his schooling when to college (on his own dime) and is out making a living, the youngest is half way through highschool. My husband has been sending her a lot of money every month, for her to bank for herself. Selfish comes to mind, and when we found out, she went to the local FR(family responsiblity office) and told them he wasn't paying the child support and now has it off his paycheck. Not a big deal, but the principal of the matter is what makes me mad. The money is for the children, not herself. I do agree there are parents who don't pay, and they should pay, what I hate is that anytime when one parent pays, they are frowned upon in society as a dead beat.
Just sounding off, I am sure there are far worse stories out there.

@Claudia: "I think that if there was a birth control for men, fathers would take their sons to the doctor as soon as they became sexually active. There would be very few accidents and alot fewer problems as a result."

Are you serious? First of all there is birth control for men it's in last I checked final stages of testing, but more importantly there has been birth control for women for the last couple decades, what kinda comment is the above quoted? A person could easly shoot back why were YOU not on birth control? The onus isn't on one person or the other, both people should make an informed choice before choosing to become parents. It takes two to make a life, cut this crap about the men should go get birth control or the women should go get birth control. What we need is informed people who take 8 seconds out of their oh so busy life to think ahead a bit about what kinda world they are making to bring a child into.....

The system is too old to be effective in current world. There are always exceptions, however, the natural instinct of majority of parents whether the family is broken or united, is to care for the wellbeing of their offspring. That is just so human.
What breaks this natural human course of life is the only unnatural relationship the humans can ever have, i.e., MARRIAGE. Combine this unnatural relationship with antique social traditions and antique legal regulations governing the family affairs, it concocts the perfect formula to create the DEADBEATS we are discussing here.
With this changing world and lifestyle women's claim of equity has been granted by modern societies around the world and there also needs to be equity in social responsibilities for both gender. If I was the parent paying child support I would hate to see my hard earned money to be spent in a designer boutique, OLG slots or LCBO shops.
In my opinion, our CHILDREN are the people in real need of support from parents and are most effected by how things work out in their parent's lives. In current world that we live in, SPOUSAL BENEFITS SHOULD BE ABOLISHED ALTOGETHER and usage of child care benefit should be monitored by a regulatory body.