I meant to add before I went into my own plan the problems with the current system where some guys are paying five figures a month for one child. There is no way in hell that much money is needed for the kid to lead a comfortable existence, even if the mother doesn’t contribute at all. I don’t think people should be guaranteed the same standard of living they would have had should the relationship between the parents lasted, just that they shouldn’t have to shoulder the entire cost of raising the child. If a millionaire knock up a waittress on a one-night stand, do you really think the offspring should be entitled to live in a mansion?
The court has the ability to order child support other than the guidelines if the guidelines amount would be inappropriate, so there is no need to wing your hands over the plight of wealthy child support payers.
You have expressed concern over a person having to pay five figures in child support for a child. It just happens that one of the leading cases on this issue, Francis v. Baker, 1999 S.C.C., has the support payer paying about 10K per month for two children, which while half the rate that you have complained of, is still in the five figure range, albeit at the bottom. The funny thing is that the fellow paying the support is worth about $78,000,000. Quite frankly, I could not care what-so-ever about the trials and tribulations of a person worth seventy-eight million whinging on about paying a few grand per month per child in support.
What I am concerned about is the welfare of the children being raised by 379,000 impoverished single mothers.
I guess we have different priorities.
The fundamental flaw in your plan is that it targets physical location rather than income.
Simply moving from one locaion to another would throw the entire scheme out of whack. Want an increase in support? Just move to a richer neighbourhood. Hardly fair, don’t you think?
Your plan is also tremendously unfair for people living in economically mixed neighbourhoods, where the people living in rentals and sending their children to public shool would have to pony up with support geared toward large home ownership and private school tuition.
Aside from the unfairness of your plan, due to these two fundamental flaws your plan would not offer predictable results, and this would lead to massive litigation as both support payers and recipients would play “spin the wheel of justice” in hopes of improving their position. In fact, such lack of predictability is one of the main reasons that guidelines were brought in 1997 in the first place.
Rather than look as secondary indicators, such as lifestyle, I suggest that you should first look at the primary indicator, income, and only move to the secondary indicators when the primary does not suffice. Let’s face it, the secondary indicators are no more than reflections of the primary indicator.
You are on the right track in suggesting that guidelines should be based on actual costs, and they are, however the indicators are financial rather than geographical.
Similarly, you are on the right track in suggesting that expenses should be shared. That too is already built into the guidelines. In particular, when special expences are incurred, they are split proportionately between the parents based on the relative incomes of the parents.
You also are on the right track in insisting on a strong appeal process. There already is one in addition to the regular appeals and judical review processes, in the form of variation applications, where all either parent needs to establish to re-open child support is an indication of a change in circumstances.
Now let’s get back on topic. Given the existing legislation, and the existing strengths and weaknesses of the system, precisely what can the OP do to squeeze some minimal support payments out of dribbledick? Remember that this is not a rich suport payer, and not a rich recipient. The amount is truly minimal, but is still not being paid. In practical terms, what can be done?
Let’s find some options that might lead to some success.
A letter campaign to the enforcement department to get off its butt and start doing its job?
A variation based on imputed income to bump up the amount to the point that the enforcement department starts placing a higher priority on this case?
An application to withdraw from enforcement by the enforcement department, followed up by private collection on a contingency basis?
A long term campaign of tax tipoffs in hopes of Revenue Canada re-assessing every once in a while, leading to evidence for use in an arrears application in a few years?
[facetious]A few friends and a well swung baseball bat?[/facetious]
Come on, let’s hear some productive ideas about how to open the pockets of the sperm-at-loose-ends, rather than complaints about rich guys having to pay too much.
This part struck me close to home. When I was growing up, my dad never paid his child support. Hell, 17 years later, he’s still not paying. Next year my sister turns legal, and he’s off the hook for good. But we were always dirt poor growing up, because my mom was going to college, and raising 2 kids on a minimum wage paycheck. We never got our happy meals. Now I work there, and always feel bad for the kids that come in, and order cheeseburgers with waters or whatever, and you can tell their parents can’t afford anything else. If you don’t mind handouts and want to email me your address, I’ll send you some cards for free sandwiches or whatever that you should be able to use at your local McD’s, even if it is out of state. It’s the least I can do 
I guess I can be glad that my ex pays his child support and doesn’t miss visitation with my daughter very often. His child support is deducted automatically from his paycheck every week. He has complained about it being a lot of money and putting a hardship on him but he’s also driving a brand new truck and pissing his money away in the bar 7 nights a week so I don’t feel sorry for him.
My SO’s sperm donor sounds much like your ex. He split after he found out my SO’s mom was pregnant with him. He lived in town for awhile until the court ordered him to pay child support, then he moved to another state. He hasn’t held a job during his lifetime… he has a new wife that supports him. He used to come and pick up my SO’s sister and take her places but he never did anything with my SO. He didn’t want him to be born so he’s never had anything to do with him. Needless to say, my SO went to court to legally change his last name from his Bio-sperm donor’s to his step dad’s last name. He thinks he was better off not knowing his real dad and turned out very well despite everything that happened to his mom, his sister, and him.
Keep trying with the Maintenance Enforcement. I hope they can eventually do something to make this man pay up! Is there any way they can get him to pay back child support??
Pammipoo, and everyone else that has offered, thank you, but I don’t need financial help. I have a really good job, I’m just worried about depleting my savings any further after this move.
Rachelle, arrears are being paid. Just no more are accumulating. He’s paying his court-ordered $75 dollars (ptooie on you, Judge Halifax!) and occasionally an additional $20 or $30 chip out of the arrears.
Muffin, I love you. You have been very helpful.
Ginger,
I have a few friends going up to Whitehorse and Dawson next week.
Big friends.
They like to play.
Want some kneecaps busted?
Um. Meet me out behind the barn later and we’ll talk about it.
He’s in Yellowknife, it’s a pretty big side trip, bernse!
Badz, there is no flat rate for raiseing a child. Or there is, and that is the poverty line. If we were to base child support on the cost of keeping a child ALIVE until they reached 18, then no father would have to pay anything more than the cost of food, really. After all, the mother has to sleep somewhere, and the kid can share whatever bed she’s in, right? And clothes can be bought at goodwill, and free clinics abound. It is really pretty cheap to keep a kid breathing.
The thing is, you have kids living in conditions like I descibed above who are not being neglected: that is the best their parents, married or not, can afford. On the other hand, if you have a kid living in the exact same single room with his mother, wearing the exact same one set of cast-offs from good will that he owns and eating nothing but generic cheerios and Mac ‘n’ Cheese while his father lives in a house and lives a standard middle class life style, well, that does seem like neglect.
As a society we do seem to feel that a child is entitled to live a life style somewhat commiserate with the wealth of thier parents. We would be appaled at married middle class parents who let their children grow up without any of the advantages wealth can bring, why should our standards be different for divorced parents?
Oh duh. You did say NWT. Nevermind… for some reason I was thinking Yukon.
Well, sorry.
