News from FMEP

Fathers Battling Injustice


News I got from FMEP

Posted By: Cassandra
Date: Thursday, 29 January 2009, at 2:16 a.m.

The FMEP in BC have stated to my local MLA's office this week information and the MLA's office emailed me this info and I think its really important for the men who are stuck paying for children that are not biologically theirs.

Stated to me in a email was this:

"They feel they have enough on this file to stop the payment at this point. I suspect they will not make any further payments until proof of DNA testing to prove he is the father comes forward. " Thats what the FMEP said and then this:

"The FMEP folks feel that this is a man who has been paying for a child that is not his and that is not what the FMEP is all about. They are there to collect money from biological fathers unless a surrogate father willingly chooses to pay."

Notice they said willingly chooses to pay. I highly suggest you guys contact the FMEP to confirm this and let media know about it.

In my case I always said the payor wasnt the father, he insisted he was. Even now 20 yrs later he insists hes the father but bc I told the FMEP he wasnt the father even though a judge ordered support to be paid (told judge same thing..not the dad 20 yrs ago) they (FMEP) now refuse to enforce the court order stating what they have above that I posted here to you.

This is for the benefit of all you guys who are being made to pay support for children that ARE NOT yours. The FMEP IS STATING YOU DONT HAVE TO PAY THE COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT FOR A CHILD THAT ISNT YOURS!

I have been fighting with them to enforce my 2 support orders for the last 2 yrs..they never bothered at all before and I was fed up. They have lied and are contravening the Family Relations Act and they are not suppose to just arbitrarily change court orders.

Last week they told my 1 ex to hurry and file court docs against me to erase the arrears (only like 6200 left owing, no more payments left). Told me they gave him 2 weeks..already gave him 3 months and he hadnt filed in that time and this whole time they are witholding support payments to me (2700 worth). Then this week they decided since hes not the father he doesnt have to pay support and I'm not getting any monies. All the while hes still insisting hes the father and the judge said well then you pay.

So apparently all you have to say is you filed in court (but didnt)and send them a notice of motion and affidavit (but remember you dont need to file it) and they will stop all payments and enforcement and if that doesnt work just say you are not the kids father bc apparently contrary to the family law act they dont make you pay. They are screwed up and seriously need an overhaul. Everytime I filed a complaint against them they would lie or make excuses to the people I filed my complaints to. Hows that for our tax dollars at work??

Civil rights blog

I have just copied and pasted this from the front page of a great blog, I hope you go there and read it, I am only trying to give him more exposure... Things have got to change!!!!!

CIVIL RIGHTS BLOG



CRB





CANADA

Canadian Charter of Rights

Human rights experts have considered the cases of child support orders in Canada for "children of the marriage" and find that these cases are politically motivated, and another example of a growing trend of authorities using the law to silence inconvenient opposition.

Join our forum and speak out against the abuses against men in Canada by the Canadian Judical System. Why against men because statistics show that the orders are 97% against men.

Contact us by emailing

editor@civilrightsblog.org





Topics are illegal child support orders in the name of Children of the Marriage and unreasonable spousal support orders.

Nobody should pay child support for children of the marriage of for children that are not theirs biologically. This is a financial scam for women against men to collect extra money.

The Biological father should be the one forced to pay more if more child support money is required.

Paying child support in Canada for children of the marriage is illegal and immoral and should be outlawed. Just because the courts order it doesn't make it legal.

Stand up for your civil-rights and say NO!!!! I will not allow you to abuse my rights.

Unsubstantiated spousal support is an other illegal action by the BC-Canadian courts. All claims must be justified by documentation and not accepted by simple affidavits supplied by enraged a ex-spouse.

No one should be made to pay spousal support higher than ones substantiated income.

British Columbia and the Attorney General Wally Opal do nothing and allow polygamy and underage marriage in BC. 2008 (click here for article)

Manitoba AG goes overboard to have men jailed, reputations destroyed and all assets seized as well as outrageous fines for civil disobedience.
What does the Canadian Civil Liberties Association say about child support for children of the marriage. Nothing they won't respond. Does the CCLA not want to challenge any unpopular rulings that may affect their funding sources?.

If all men in Canada that have been ordered to pay child support for their non-biological children (Children of the Marriage) refused to pay then this atrocity of a law against men will go away. The prisons wouldn't be big enough to house them all. Men in Canada why don't you stand up for your civil rights? This is a nothing other than a government driven scam for women to collect money from men.

Child Support Billing Errors and/or Questionable Practices of Canadian Enforcement Agencies for the Canadian Children of the Marriage Law-Scam.

Would you please distribute this message widely to all interested individuals and groups: It is apparent from our correspondence with statistics Canada that there is no interest into disseminating this information. The Canadian law regarding children of the marriage is nothing other than a financial money grab for the benefit of women and supported by politicians and women's rights groups.

If you feel you have been ordered to pay child support that you believe you do not owe for reasons of Children of the Marriage Law, or you believe you have experienced a questionable practice by a enforcement agency in regard to child support payments, then civilrightsblog.org (CRB) wants to hear from you.

Civilrightsblog (www.civilrightsblog.org), a national nonprofit educational organization, is gathering nationwide information regarding child support billing errors and/or questionable practices of child support agencies in Canada.

Perhaps your credit report has been affected by the alleged child support arrearage or your driver's license or business license has been threatened with suspension. Perhaps your income tax refund has been intercepted or your bank account has been seized when you believe child support was not due. Or, perhaps you have been arrested or threatened with arrest due to what you believe is an error or questionable child support policy.

Maybe you believe your child support payment has been collected by the child support agency, is "stuck in the system," and has not been accurately distributed to the custodial parent.

If you are a custodial parent, perhaps you know that child support money has been paid into the child support agency by the noncustodial parent, but you believe that the collected child support is being held by the agency instead of being forwarded to the custodial parent and children.

There may be any number of scenarios in addition to the above. We want to hear your feedback.

If you have information that you feel would be of interest to civilrightsblog.org regarding child support (children of the marriage), we would like to hear from you also.

Would you please contact the editor by sending an e-mail to: editor@civilrightsblog.org

IMPORTANT: Would you please enclose in your e-mail message to civilrightsblog.org the following information? (All information will be kept confidential).

1. Your name (last name is optional), telephone number and e-mail address.

2. Your province and city in which you live.

3. The city, county, and province where your child support order is from, i.e., where you pay your child support to or your employer sends the garnishments to.

4. Description of your error or concern and the effect it has had on you and your family, including your extended family and your children.

5. Have you or someone you know been wrongfully arrested or threatened with arrest regarding child support? Please describe your experience.

6. Do you give civilrightsblog.org permission to contact you at the e-mail address or phone number you indicated so that we may gather more information from you? Yes? No?

Thank you in advance for your responses to this message. Your help is greatly appreciated. Please note that personal responses to all of your messages will not be possible due to time constraints and the anticipated volume of responses, but all of your responses will be read and appreciated.

Please note: Civilrightsblog.org (CRB) is an educational nonprofit organization. We do not offer legal advice.





No! Canada

Alimony or spousal support for more than one year and child support for non-paternal children is a unconstitutional servitude against men.

The national anthem of Canada – O Canada! – states “true patriot love in all thy sons command” and that citizens “stand on guard for thee.”

“True patriot love?” Hardly.

“Stand on guard?” Absolutely, but not necessarily for the reasons the patriot songwriter intended.

Based on Canada’s track record of abuse and injustice towards many of its populace, it’s more appropriate for Canadians to be shouting No! Canada … or for them to be on guard, looking over their shoulders to see what their often-misguided Government is up to next.

What’s behind these seemingly shocking statements? Canada, under the guise of democracy, is perpetrating International Sovereignty rights abuses against some of its male citizens by having child support orders placed against them … fully knowing that these men are not the paternal parents of the children.

Further, these child support orders can be turned on and off at the whim of a Judge or Master. Not only that, but more than one male can be made to pay child support – the paternal father and SEVERAL stepfathers as the case may be -- if any of the stepfathers decide to separate or divorce. This is a clear abuse of an individual’s civil rights … and for that matter, it is unconstitutional. To have more than one individual, other than the natural father, pay child support is nothing more than a government-backed racket for women.

How can this occur? Canada's Constitution is not a single document as in the United States. It is made up of acts of the British and Canadian Parliaments, as well as legislation, judicial decisions, and agreements between the federal and provincial governments. Therefore, with this multilateral judicial framework, the Canadian government easily can abuse the civil rights of its populace.

Share Your Struggles

This site is dedicated to fighting child support orders placed against no parental individuals and abusive alimony payments not in conformity with reasonable regard for an individual’s ability to pay. This website was created to discuss and take international legal action against countries that allow lawmakers to abuse their powers. The editor of this site believes the world should know how Canada’s laws abuse the civil and human rights of many individuals.

It is also the intent of this website to list rights abuses by corporations. In addition, individual cases will be listed on this web site if information is available.

If you are experiencing or know of similar abuse, please contact the editor@civilrightsblog.org for possible posting of the information to this web site.

O Canada!: Violating the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

Every day since its signing, Canada violates the human rights treaty agreement it signed at the United Nations. You don't have to go to Nicaragua or Uganda to see civil rights abuses … they occur every day in Canada … in particular, denying passports to males who refuse to pay child support for children that are not their paternal children.

See what Canada violates by reviewing the highlighted sections of the “UN Declaration of Human Rights” link above. Summarized here, key items include:

· Passport Seizure for nonpayment of child support …even when the children aren't your own.

· Social Security seizure for nonpayment of child support … even when the children aren't your own.

Only in Canada is child support for non-parental children forced onto males.

No Help from Hague

The Hague Conference on Private International Law -- at one time a bastion of protection for human and civil rights abuses -- will not review child support and family maintenance abuses by countries. Neither will the Supreme Court of the United States. Is this because those revered institutions know the abuses exist and they don’t want to find countries and themselves in contempt of civil rights? The only thing the Hague is interested in is how countries can enforce each others’ maintenance obligations. Does the end, in this case, justify the means? You decide … visit the Hague website at The Hague.

Illegal, Abusive, Court-Directed Power in Canada

Described in the link above is a perfect example of illegal, abusive, court-directed power: Justice Canada’s abuse with the help of the British Columbia courts. Justice Canada has changed what once was a democracy to a prime example of socialism or communism. Just because the system makes it legal does not necessarily make it moral!

A perfect example of constitutionality and civil rights abuses against a male in Canada is the case of JOANNE GRACE HILTON aka JOANNE GRACE KEDDY of Prince George, British Columbia, Canada … with the help of the British Columbia Supreme Court. In this case, a non-paternal parent is being persecuted internationally to support another man's child. In addition, the non-paternal parent also has had alimony imposed at a rate equivalent to five times more than he earned at the time of the judgment!

O Canada!: A Throwback to Totalitarianism

Not since 1935 and the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler has a country created family laws in the name of justice that circumvent and give powers of Justice Canada to the provinces and then to government enforcement branches.

After creating these family laws, a Gestapo – also know as Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) unit -- is formed, with unlimited powers to seize assets of private individuals without further hearing. These individuals are men that are not the paternal father of children, either by birth or through adoption. The actual father may be paying child support – as perhaps he should -- but a Judge or Master also can order the stepfather, or event stepfathers, to pay … and pay more than the paternal father!

All of the fancy words of constitutionality contained in Canada’s United Nations human rights treaty mean nothing to Justice Canada and its enforcement branches. Even the indirect threat of death is used by the enforcement branches in an attempt to collect child support for non-parental children. If an individual does this to another individual, it is called extortion. In Canada, however, it is legal if the government does it!

O Canada!: Wake Up

O Canada, wake up before it is too late … you have screamed of human rights abuses in Africa but in your own country you turn a deaf ear to similar misbehavior.

Justice Canada says it’s being done for the children but it appears to be more like a play for ultimate power OVER the people – as opposed to the more democratic “power TO the people” -- and nothing else.

Protect Yourself: Know Who You Are!

Both the Supreme Court and the Provincial (Family) Court can -- one might say WILL -- make orders for child support under the Family Relations Act of divorced or separated stepparents … whether these individuals were married or living common-law.

Definitions play an important role in determining eligibility and responsibility (so says Justice Canada) for child support under the Family Relations Act, just as they do under the Divorce Act. Section 88 of the Family Relations Act states that each parent of a child is responsible for the support of that child, and s. 1(1) defines a "child" and a "parent" as follows:

-- "Child" means a person under the age of 19 years
-- "Parent" includes:
-- (a) a guardian or guardian of the person of a child, or
-- (b) a stepparent of a child if
-- (i) the stepparent contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for at least one year.

Legal Racketeers

In addition to the potential to receive child support from multiple males – spouses and who knows how many ex-spouses -- the pay-per-child racket seems to be catching on even more these days!

The most recently elected Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, successfully ran on a political platform that included a Canadian federal government payment of $100 a month per child to mothers of children six years old or less. With this kind of incentive, can a population boom be far behind? Let potential spouses beware!

How Idiotic is Canadian Parliament and Legal system or the new social security for women only. "O Canada" please wake up before its to late. Click here to see.

SPOUSAL SUPPORT OR ALIMONY IN CANADA (The new social security for women only or why we hate men.)

Stats Canada's official view on child support for children of the marriage-non biological parents.

Subject: Child support orders against non biological fathers.

Question:
To whom it may concern at Stats Canada.

As you are aware Canada as most countries have child support orders that are issued by various court in Canada.

We are trying to establish a breakdown of those #'s by how many child support orders have been issued in Canada against non-biological parents, eg: children of the marriage- stepparents versus biological parents.

If this information is not disseminated or available can you advise as to why it isn't.

Answer:

Thank you for contacting Statistics Canada.

In regard to your request on orders on children of the marriage-non biological fathers, we have contacted the division that oversees this subject matter and they have provided the following information:

"We have consulted our senior analyst for the Child Support and Maintenance Enforcement Survey and unfortunately, the our survey does not collect the variables - step parent, or biological parent. When a survey is being developed, consultations take place with all of our partners in the provinces and territories and set data requirements are established following these consultations. The step-parent or biological parent was not brought forth as a requirement in the provincial/territorial/federal consultations.

However, remains that some provinces might have a need for this type of info and will retain this variable and store the information while others may not have any need for this variable so it is not document nor stored electronically. Are you interested in a particular province, if so, we have the contact name of the Director of each provincial/territorial program which I can share with you. Please advise".

If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to contact us at info stats@statcan.ca or at 1 800 263 1136.

Regards,

Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
National Contact Centre | Centre national de contact
Client Services Division | Division des services à la clientèle
R.H. Coats Building 1 W | Immeuble R.-H.-Coats 1 O
100 Tunney's Pasture Driveway | 100, promenade du Pré Tunney | Ottawa, ON, K1A 0T6
613-951-8116 | toll free/sans frais 1-800-263-1136 (Canada and/et USA)
facsimile / télécopieur 613-951-0581 or/ou 1-877-267-4369
TTY / ATS 800-363-7629
infostats@statcan.gc.ca
www.statcan.ca
Government of Canada | Government du Canada



The names of individuals falsifying records and then perjuring themselves at FMEP of British Columbia are CATHI BASHI, Enforcement Manager, and DIANE COURSER, a commissioner for taking affidavits for the British Columbia FMEP. For the rest of the story, visit Illegal, Abusive, Court-Directed Power in Canada



Statistics Canada Child and Spousal Support:
Maintenance Enforcement Survey Statistics 2000-2005

This survey is so flawed and unrealistic that it only goes to show that a government such as Canada would create employment to prepare this type of report.

There are perhaps only a few interesting points that have come out of this survey and I will attempt to post them and some appropriate unanswered questions.

1) Of the 39,783 cases in British Columbia, 97% are male payers.
2) Of the 39,783 cases in British Columbia, only 3% are female payers.
3) Of the 39,783 cases in British Columbia, 1% are listed as “other”.

Unfortunately, after the above numbers, additional statistics mean less or are completely inaccurate in the report.

Of all the cases in British Columbia, 94% of the FMEP caseload involves children.


The question, then, is of all those cases how many are “children of the marriage” and not paternal children?

The next question is, how many males are paying child support for the same child?

There is also a major error Statistics Canada misreports. It states that British Columbia is an opt-in province for enforcement. This is incorrect. The truth is that if you receive any social assistance or the payer is in arrears, then you are automatically enrolled in FMEP enforcement cases in British Columbia.

Statistics Canada, as usual, produces useless and incorrect information.

Question: How many of the child support cases handled by FMEP are for children that have more than one order against a male for payment of child support? In Canada, many men have and will be court-ordered to pay child support for the same child whether the paternal parent or not. So again, the statistics are skewed. Naturally, Canada will not divulge this information for fear of having the United Nations review them for human rights abuses on the issue.

It is the Editor’s opinion that ordering a nonpaternal parent, as well as the paternal parent, to pay child support at the same time is illegal and a direct violation of civil and human rights.




Can this happen in the USA? Can Child support be ordered against a non-biological father in the US? Well click here to find out how this nightmare is starting to unravel even in the US.

Remember the intentions may be good but the fallout will eventually allow for child support scams against men in the US as is the case in Canada.

To contribute to or comment about the content of this site, contact the editor at editor@civilrightsblog.org.

http://civilrightsblog.org

The Great FMEP System

Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, FMEP of British Columbia, Canada

FMEP is a third party interloper debt collector, an extortion racket that is ripping away human rights from the majority of males that are involved.
The majorities that are enrolled into these types of programs have no say and are contracted in without CONSENT.
The bases to any payment program are a statute or act that many provincial courts act upon, but yet, there has been no consent prior to adjudication for any action(s) to commence.
Easy terms to remember for court actions to commence:
Civil Action = Breach of contract – None Exist in the majority of cases.
Criminal Action = Injured Party – There is no injury here, it has to bodily harm.
Now where does this child support payment come in, criminal or civil ?
Is this a democracy or dictatorship ? Based on the above information I just mentioned, what do you think ?
Now if I tell you that you owe me $100 and there is no contract in place, how can you enforce that ?
Yet it happens all the time, without contracts and without consent.
I'm not saying parents of a separation or divorce should not take care of their children, but it is a private affair.
Why should children of a divorced marriage have more than children of a so called intact family unit ?
Let me explain, it is happening, and has been happening for so many years. The woman (which is about 98 % of the time) of a divorced will have primary residence and the non custodial parent is granted access. The woman is allowed to go out and get work and make a certain amount of income, entitled to benefits, tax breaks , collects child support that is not taxable, getting remarried and having another contributor.
So he/she makes a good income, the non custodial parent makes ok “money” and has to pay into the pot of the custodial parent.
Custodial parent = Income 40k per year
Non Custodial parent = 40k per year
Custodial parent = 40k per year plus let say $370.00 per month per child, annual income now is 44,440k per year, and entitled to relief. The consideration of a new contributor is never taking into account. Take into consideration, when married, the mother may be a stay at home Mom and the annual income for the family would have been only 40k per year.
Non Custodial parent = 40kper year minus 4,440k per year = 35,560k per year, not entitled to relief.
Do those numbers make any sense ? And they call it a monthly award, so does the government encourage separation or divorce? Because it seems that way to me, they get an award if they get a divorce. Check the child support guidelines online, yes this may seem a play on words, but isn’t everything a PLAY on words.
Also, the non custodial parent only has "access", what is that ? The non custodial parent has now become a visitor in their child’s life ?
The non custodial parent has a right (100%) to their child, and there should be no adjudication from a private corporation that called themselves PROVINCIAL COURT doing business in Canada.
Yes that is correct, the law society and Provincial courts are a private organization forcing business onto citizens or “persons”. Park your vehicle in front of a court house one day and check out the times of operation, probably would say Monday to Friday from 9:00am to 4:00pm, a business, YES.
Why does this so called society have its own dictionary, and why must you hire a lawyer to decipher it ?
The meanings in their dictionary are not on par with a normal English dictionary. They have purposely created this book to have its own meaning which may look to be the same word, but not have the same meaning.
Look up the legal definition of “person” then tell me if that is what you are, a corporation ?
Are we actually basing anything on LAW, and who’s law is it anyway ? The court system is basing decisions on opinions, and opinions of people doing business as the legislative body. They are making this decision by gaining jurisdiction in a deceptive way.
Yet if you check the criminal code closely, you will see a few sections in there that can rectify these issues, yet, the system will not even recognize their own rules or obey them. I will not get into specific sections of the criminal code that is a whole other topic.
Now, get behind on your “payments” and you are in a world of trouble, drivers licenses suspended, passports revoked, jail time and many other wonderful things. This is cruel and unusual punishment, and for what ? MONEY ? I call it another form of slavery !!!
Several things happen when you fall into a so called category of “dead beat parent”:
1. You either run, which causes you to lose contact with your child, and for what ? The fear of being put in jail. This one comes under section 279 of the criminal code forcible confinement against the persons will. What more is there to say ?
2. You try to make up the “payments” by getting another job, now having even less time with your children or your new family, you basically burn out.
3. You try to negotiate with the non negotiators (FMEP), which leads to more stress.
4. Many men will not come forward for the fear of being called “dead beat” thus putting a strain on their mental health.
5. Forced to take public transit, but if you are self employed, it is impossible to take your tools on public transit.
6. Your credit report gets destroyed.
7. Not entitled to go on vacation, and how could the non custodial parent have a vacation anymore, unless he/she is rich. Does not help getting your passport revoked.
8. You lose your job because of emotional stress.
9. There is an increase in male suicide, out of desperation. Many say men have no emotions when it comes to certain things, so why an increase in suicide ?


There is much more, but the media only exposes what others will see as being unfair to a child or making the non custodial parent look bad to create hatred amongst ourselves. You see this all the time, and now steps in the Attorney General to be the hero in these situations, getting tough on Dead beat parents, everyone laps it up, pathetic we are. If the media is controlled by corporations and if the media can expose issues that will keep the eyes off the corporations so the corporations can gain control and have their way, then they will do it, and are doing it. The children are being used as pawns to exploit humans, fashion, life styles the food they eat, you name it, it is a big target for the media, so why not USE them, just like in our judicial system.
It is stressful enough going through a separation or divorce and trying to start over, and providing for your child, which, if living with the custodial parent has food, a roof over their head and clothing already. Yet the non custodial parent has to sacrifice his/her life to support him/her and pay on top of it. Heaven forbid the non custodial parent gets into a new relationship, so now he/she has to support 2 families.
There are many issues to be dealt with, when you are being deceived right in front of your eyes. Once again, that would be a topic all on its own, to really show Canadians why and how they have been mislead on purpose.
So you see, it is not just about child support, it is about the so called system that its primary goal was to serve and protect. I see none of this happening, only to charge and administer force against a person’s for the purpose of collecting money or control.

Is this how humans were intended to live their lives, under the control of another ?

The government or the system is telling everyone that they are not competent to handle their own affairs, yet clearly many do have the capability to handle their own affairs, PRIVATELY.

The only OBLIGATION you have to your CHILD is to be in his or her life and make sound decisions as a parent that could affect their future and to make sure their needs are met.

Yours Truly,

Remaining anonymous for now ,

Peace



You may contact us by writing to editor@civilrightsblog.org with any comments or ideas for this forum site.
http://civilrightsblog.org/FMEP-BC%20Canada.html

Spousal Support in Canada

Aug

Family Law’s Crapshoot: Is Canada Ready for Spousal Support Reform?

Posted August 20, 2011 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law. 2 Comments


Family law lawyers across Canada will tell you that the payment of spousal support or alimony (as it was once called) is still the most difficult issue to resolve between spouses.

Up until 2006 spousal support awards were notoriously inconsistent. The outcome of a spousal support case depended on what day it was heard, what judge heard the case, and who counsel were on the case. It was family law’s crapshoot.

In 2006 Canada’s Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (www.justice.gc.ca) were released, after the federal government empowered leading family law professors Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson to analyze and assess the nuances of spousal support and provide recommendations and guidelines that would help lawyers and judges determine who was entitled to support, how much should be paid and for how long it should be paid.

Today these Guidelines have the force of law, even though our legislators have never passed the Guidelines into law.

A calculation of spousal support under the Guidelines is based on the payor’s gross income (usually the husband) and the wife’s gross income, including common law spouses in most Provinces.

The general rule is that spouses who are entitled to support will receive it for a minimum of one half the length of the marriage and cohabitation and a maximum of all the years of the marriage or cohabitation.

So, if you were married or cohabited for ten years, you would receive support for a minimum of five years and a maximum of ten years. Herein lies one of the resolution dilemmas. Of course, husbands only want to pay for five years, while wives demand ten years of support.

The reality is, however, that judges in Canada are reluctant to make support orders that terminate on a fixed date, and routinely order that spousal support be “reviewed”, even though the Supreme Court of Canada in Leskun v. Leskun 2006 SCC 25 (www.scc.lexum.org) criticized the use of review orders.

A review of spousal support is an expensive process that entitles the recipient spouse to take a second crack at an indefinite spousal support order, as entitlement to support, amount of support and duration of support, are all up for grabs again.

For marriages twenty years or more, support is paid indefinitely, subject to a “material change in circumstances”, a legal test that rarely releases payor spouses from their support obligations.

Are Canadians supportive of the current alimony laws? While men’s rights groups criticize laws they say are unfair or prejudicial to them, the groundswell for the reform of alimony laws that is emerging in the United States has not yet crossed the border into Canada.

Most noteworthy are the reforms passed by the State of Massachusetts last month in their new Alimony Reform Act of 2011, (www.massalimonyreform.org) heralded as the end of lifetime alimony in that state. Should Canada’s spousal support laws also be amended to promote independence after divorce and fairness for both spouses?

In Massachusetts’ groundbreaking new law, the following reforms have been passed by the House and the Senate:

1. Spouses shall only receive support for 60% of the number of months of marriage. In Canada a spouse will be supported for between 50% and 100% of the months of marriage or cohabitation with many support orders being of an indefinite duration.

2. For marriages between ten and fifteen years, the maximum term for support is 70% of the months of marriage and for marriages between fifteen years and twenty years, the maximum length for alimony is 80%of the months of marriage. In Canada a marriage in excess of twenty years results in an “indefinite” award of support, a more polite term for “permanent” support.

3. A second wife’s income and assets are excluded. Frequently Canadian courts allow evidence of a new partner’s financial circumstances, particularly where the payor spouse’s income has been reduced.

4. Cohabitation with a new partner for a continuous period of three months suspends, reduces or terminates alimony. In Canada cohabitation will only result in a change in support payment if the recipient spouse lives with a wealthy partner who fully supports him/her. Try proving that.

5. For the purposes of an alimony order, the court shall exclude from its income calculation gross income the court has already considered for setting a child support order. In Canada child support is calculated first, and the amount of child support ordered can result in a decreased amount of spousal support, subject to an increase when the child support has decreased or terminated.

6. Alimony should not exceed the recipient’s need or 30% to 35% of the difference between the parties gross incomes. Canadian courts consider “need” but favour an equalization of income between spouses that reflects the marital standard of living.

7. A second job or overtime income shall be excluded from the income calculation where the spouse works more than a single full-time equivalent position or the second job or overtime commenced after the initial spousal support order. Canadian payors must pay support on all income, including, in some instances, pension income that has already been divided between the spouses.

8. A payor spouse’s payment of health insurance or life insurance for a recipient spouse shall reduce the payor’s support payments. These payments are rarely taken into account by Canadian courts.

9. Alimony extensions are limited and require clear and convincing evidence. Extensions of spousal support are the norm in Canada.

10. Alimony ends with the remarriage of the recipient. Not in Canada. A payor spouse has the onus of proving to the court that a recipient spouse no longer needs support.

Will there be a grassroots movement in Canada to rethink spousal support in light of the reforms south of the border? I think it’s inevitable. Laws that are paternalistic and punitive have no place in modern Canadian society, however, stay-at-home moms must maintain their elevated position, even in the face of spousal support reforms.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Collaborative Divorce....?

A legal phenomenon called collaborative divorce is sweeping across North America and is being sold as the answer to the age-old question: “How can we get divorced quickly, fairly and cheaply?” Family law lawyers who have embraced the doctrine of collaboration are effusive in their praise and defence of this new process for divorcing couples. There are websites galore extolling its virtues.

Many of them list a myriad of reasons why separating spouses should reject traditional family law lawyers in favour of collaborative lawyers. Very few of these sites discuss the downside or the disadvantages of collaborative family law. At least one site declares there are no disadvantages to collaborative divorce.

So, what is collaborative divorce and where did it come from? In 1990 lawyer Stuart Webb of Minnesota decried the emotional and financial devastation experienced by many of his family law clients. He wondered if divorce could be done in a kinder, gentler way and thought it could.

He devised a process where a divorcing couple would each retain a collaboratively trained lawyer and sign an agreement that provided each spouse would enter into interest-based negotiations with the assistance of their lawyers. Meetings would be scheduled where spouses and lawyers would discuss and settle all issues related to their divorce including property, custody, and child and spousal support.

To experienced family law lawyers there was nothing new about four-way settlement meetings. They had been the basis for settlement discussions for decades. But the collaborative process introduced an additional feature. The agreement signed by the spouses and their lawyers stipulated if the collaborative process was not successful, their lawyers could no longer represent them and they would be compelled to “start over” with regular family law lawyers, otherwise known as litigators.

This “court is not an option” approach is a critical component of the process, expected to compel adversarial spouses to settle, rather than face the prospects of new lawyers armed for court battle.

It all sounds wonderful and for some divorcing couples it is effective. Whether it can be said to be less expensive is another issue, because the collaborative process also provides much-needed work for underemployed counsellors, child psychologists, domestic abuse specialists and financial experts.

It has also led to the growth of professionals who call themselves divorce coaches and parenting coordinators. With the addition of one or more of these “experts”, one can easily imagine spiralling costs. In one case involving a short marriage with no children, the collaborative process cost a couple $55,000.

This is not intended as a criticism of divorce coaches or parenting coordinators, who can each play an important role, however, to suggest this parade of professionals comes cheap is disingenuous at best and outright misleading at worst.

On website, “collaborativedivorce.net” the authors point out that “No one should be in a hurry to reach issues quickly because of time constraints”. This reminds me of the unspoken philosophy behind mediation, where couples could spend years with a mediator who was apparently skilled at bringing divorcing couples to “yes”, but not in a timely fashion. In certain instances, couples could be done and divorced for the same price-tag as the marathon mediation.

This same website encourages collaborative participants to “control the meeting”. This is a disturbing admonition for a process that is intended to promote fairness, cooperation and a level playing field.

But make no mistake. Despite what you may have heard, collaborative lawyers are still out to get the best deal they can for their clients. In one respect they are like “wolves in sheep’s clothing” as they implement strategies usually reserved for “bulldog” lawyers, including the dreaded “Nothing is settled until everything is settled” and “We refuse to counter”, driving one party to negotiate against him or herself.

As for me, the jury is still out. Oh yes, I have always practiced family law collaboratively, I just didn’t adopt the tag.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Judges pay cut might help with shortages

writen in July 28th, 2011 edition
Kamloops Daily News
by Robert Koopmans


COURT NOTES

Judges' pay cutmight help with (court) shortages

There's much ado these days about the lack of court resources, and how shortages of clerks, sheriffs, Crown lawyers and judges impact our right to timely justice.

In Kamloops, courtrooms are closing. Just the other day two courtrooms merged into one because there were not enough court clerks. Clearly, B.C.'s justice system is struggling through a financial crisis. What area of government isn't?

Judges lately have taken to criticizing government for the lack of resources. Not long ago a Kamloops judge denounced staff shortages while staying impaired driving charges in a case that had stretched out far too long.

Ironically, however, judges are part of the problem. Why? They are extremely expensive civil servants, and the way their salaries are determined ensures their compensation

Provincial court judges in B.C. make about $235,000 a year, while B.C. Supreme Court justices earn roughly $280,000. Federal judges are guaranteed wage increases equal to the cost of living, typically around one to three per cent per year.

Provincial judges want more pay equity with federal judges and continually push to close the gap. B.C.'s prosecutor salaries are directly tied to judges' salaries. As a result, the bill for the top end of justice services must always grow.

The argument for big judicial salaries suggests such money is needed to attract the best legal minds from the pool of lawyers but at the pace judicial salaries are rising, such an argument starts to run thin.

The average lawyer in B.C. makes about $100,000 a year, according to the stats. Yes, some lawyers make more - perhaps even much more - but not many. Judge's salaries have been powerfully attractive to lawyers for quite some time. As a further perk, judges don't have to manage offices, billings, bills, collections and other expenses.

Compare judges to other publicly funded professions. B.C. MLAs earn about $101,000 a year. The premier makes about $190,000. Federal MPs earn about $160,000, while Canada's prime minister earns $317,000.

We have only one Prime Minister. There are hundreds of federal judges in Canada, all of them earning nearly the same amount. Not far off, all those judges will make more than Stephen Harper...

Family doctors In B.C. bill the government an average of about $232,000 gross a year, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Specialists in B.C. gross bill on average about $308,000 per year. They must still pay their operational expenses, making personal earnings much less.

Do judges need to make so much more than everyone else?

If judges in B.C. want to make a meaningful contribution to the shortage of justice resources, here's a suggestion: volunteer a pay cut.

If each provincial court judge took a 20-per-cent cut - still an annual salary of more than $190,000 - the province could make up on many of those missing clerks and sheriffs and keep more courtrooms open.

As justice-system and community leaders, surely they can recognize the issue and make a sacrifice, with public service in mind.



Robert Koopmans covers the courts for The Daily News. He can be reached at
250-372-2331, or by email: rkoopmans@kamloopsnews.ca

One small paper talking about the court system

Justice System Won't Be Fixed With Only Money
July 26th, 2011 | Doug Collins



Our justice system is like our health care system - it's not going to be fixed by simply throwing more money at it. Critics are suggesting the appointment of five new provincial court judges won't be enough to address the serious crisis facing B.C.'s justice system. Delays in the court system are resulting in judges throwing out cases because of the length of time it takes to get cases to court. The B.C. Crown Counsel Association says the new appointments won't address other resource shortages, such as increasing the numbers of Crown Lawyers, sheriffs and court staff. And all of this is true.



But what needs to be taken on is a complete review of the system and how it operates. It's fine for judges to throw cases out, but how much of the problem is created by the judges themselves? And they do create part of the problem. And how about the lawyers themselves? They're part of the problem too. So many delays are created because lawyers maybe take on too much and juggle too many cases and things continually get put off and put off for convenience sake. A lawyer tells the judge he'll be away or isn't ready, and the case is put over, and after that happens several times, the judge throws the case out. That's not the fault of a lack of resources - that's the fault of the people within the system.



I am not suggesting for a moment that more resources don't have to be committed. But those within the system already have to be accountable and own up to their part in the failure of the system to work. And the only way we can change things is for everyone to be a part of putting a new plan in place that will make significant changes. The same old same old, and just throwing money into an already broke system will do for the legal system what it's doing for the health care system-absolutely nothing.