Fathers' and Childrens' Rights. Open Letter to BC Legislature,  Karen, 2009-03-30 

From: Karen
Sent: March 30, 2009 10:55 AM
Subject: Fathers' and Childrens' Rights

To: carole.james.mla@leg.bc.ca ; ron.cantelon.mla@leg.bc.ca ; partyleader@conservativesbc.com ; rob.fleming.mla@leg.bc.ca ; nicholas.simons.mla@leg.bc.ca; jenny.kwan.mla@leg.bc.ca; stan.hagen.mla@leg.bc.ca; wally.oppal.mla@leg.bc.ca; Layton.J@parl.gc.ca ; billndp@gmail.com; info@equalparenting-bc.ca; northern_sky@ckpg.net; info@parentswhocare

Cc: familyrules@bcjusticereviewforum.ca ; info@michaelignatieff.ca ;  MCF.Minister@gov.bc.ca

March 30, 2009

 Would each of you please read and "listen" to my letter?

 Re:  Rights of the Father and what happens in between with the Children?

 I am aware of a Recipient of child support, (for children who are being alienated to the extreme by that Recipient), who has lied about finances and more, under oath before a supreme court judge. 

Briefly, a Payor has been ordered by a judge to pay child support based on false information provided by the Recipient.  Launching an appeal is not an option as there is no available funding for it and the Payor will not qualify for legal aid because the said Payor’s income is apparently too high.  The Payor's income shows as being high as child support is based on Payor GROSS income while on the Recipient’s, it is based on NET income.  Therefore, the Payor would not qualify for legal aid.

The Recipient has lied in court, filed false documents (financial figures) and made false claims.  One of the lies is the Recipient claims to be at work when said Recipient is not, all the while claiming daycare from the Payor. It seems very strange that nothing to prove hours of work and remuneration received by the Recipient was demanded to be produced in court.  The Payor’s income is diminished and the Payor is left with a deficit after child support payments are made to the Recipient.  The Payor is expected to be able to cover the Payor’s own basic living expenses to include food, mortgage, utilities, travel to work, car payment and the like.  How?
 
If the Payor applies to a judge for undue hardship, the Recipient will again present false documentation and lie under oath.  The Recipient has "gotten away with this" already in court so the Recipient will get away with it again and the world goes 'round!

What is the Payor to do in this set of circumstances? 

How is it that the Recipient can blatantly lie under oath without recourse?

How is it that the Recipient can blatantly lie under oath without recourse?

The Payor now has over $24,000.00 debt for fees and costs.  This was caused by the Recipient.  For example, the Recipient chose to ignore Rules and failed to provide the required financial statement in a timely manner, (took months), and the Recipient continuously caused delay through making numerous last minute court adjournments.  

In this case, the Recipient is responsible for such legal fees; not the Payor but unfortunately the Payor has been left with that responsibility for the Recipient.  Frankly, it is quite clear that the Recipient has no regard for the legal system, does not care one iota about anyone else, has a very frivolous attitude toward this “case” and thinks it is amusing and something that is simply a game of entertainment!  One very much doubts if the Recipient cares or is even aware of what the dire consequences are for committing perjury. How is the Payor now able to pay the excessive child support for the children.  Be clear, the Payor is more than agreeable to contributing a FAIR share to the support and care of the children.

Had the Recipient been compelled to be forthright and honest and not allowed to be greedy and deceitful, the dilemma of the Payor being a prime example of undue hardship would not now be presenting itself.  It is very apparent that the Recipient clearly does not want to work or move forward with life.  The Recipient thrives on instigating and causing continuous conflict.   If a case of undue hardship is brought before a judge, again the falsified information will be submitted by the Recipient.

For the purpose of child support, what justifies the Recipient's base income to be NET income and the Payor's base income to be GROSS income?

For the purpose of child support, what justifies the Recipient's base income to be NET income and the Payor's base income to be GROSS income?

With all the government offices and officials available, there must be a way for the Provincial and Canadian governments to take immediate measures and positive, sincere efforts to effect fair and equitable rights to the Payors of child support both provincially and federally.  I write not only about fairness and equity in child support but also such issues as counseling for the children and more particularly, for the Recipient and the disgusting, cruel alienation by the Recipient in this instance regarding the Payor.  There are already an abundance of papers, suggestions, opinions, plans and ongoing forums on this subject.  What is needed is for the governments to attend to putting it into effect so people can move on and the unfairness cease.

 Had the Recipient not been permitted to lie and manipulate (allowed in court), when equitable remedies could quite properly and lawfully have been put into place, there would instead now be money available that could be contributed to the best interests of the children rather than having been wasted away in the legal system.

May I please have your response with guidance and direction in this matter at your very earliest opportunity. There is much urgency as I write.  Peoples’ lives are quite rapidly falling apart and I have extremely serious concerns for their future and obviously for the children in this very sad, hurtful and unjustified situation that, if having been considered seriously, equitably and lawfully as well as through use of common sense, would not exist today.

 Thank you.

 Karen