My Point-Of-view: (What the webmaster believes):
Child Access and Support laws should be disconnected from the Divorce Act (Canada)
Access to a child should be equal and seamless, by default, and the responsibility of both parents.
Child Support (CS) should be applied to any situation where one parent is providing over 60% of the guardianship for the child
The system (FRO) should only be a tool when parental responsibilities are shirked and mediation fails.
When the situation or court denies equal access to both parents, financial support is still required. It's a responsibility.
Parents who move to create distance from the NCP or and make visitation difficult should be discouraged through laws and financial impact. Travel costs/efforts must be shared.
Parents who, by their actions, prevent or inhibit a relationship between a parent and child forfeit their right to financial support EXCEPT where a restraining order would legally prevent access to the child due to child endangerment.
Adjustments to the Child Support Order (CSO), the financial support and access, should not be inhibited by the costs of legal fees. Application should be made to a board to review financial statements and make adjustments to support/access as necessary.
The Form 4 Financial Statement is to specific and presumes a level of malice from the payor. A brief form requesting income data and without a focus on assets would be a better first contact method of deteriming the level of support appropriate.
Barring Child Support and Access cases to ascend beyond the Family Court. Instead using the higher courts, as needed, to DIRECT the lower court to amend it's decision on a case-by-case, incident-specific manner.
Support should not be tied to income (elimination of the Guidelines), instead using some percentage of what a Foster Parent would receive per child. The reason this is NOT done is because the gov't feels that it's unfair that CP has a lower income. While this may have been a reality in the 50's it's only a reality now because women have the same opportunities as men.
Women should not be able to cultivate an income from child-bearing. A bolder statement would be inappropriate but obvious to some.
The system has a mandate to enforce the Child Support Order (CSO) through persecution of the NCP without consideration to the NCPs situation. This mandate must change to allow for compassion and understanding of hardship.
The system is biased against men when they are the Non-Custodial Parent (NCP).
Guilty until proven innocent is the system.
The CP has the power to use the system as a means of revenge or vindictiveness.
The judges seem biased or are victims of the perception that deadbeat dads are NCPs are deadbeat dads.
Some judges may have lost touch with the realities of life (i.e. seeking employment, current economic conditions, etc).
There are NCPs that will shirk the responsibility of parenthood. They are the real deadbeats and should be set apart from those who are doing all they can for their children.
The system seems to be designed to support the the mother and child, to equalize lifestyles, rather than covering the costs of the child. The mother need-not take responsibility for achieving financial independence.
The system's focus should include the emotional welfare of the children.
The system does not need to be involved in every case (opting out should be available).
The laws make it possible for a women to abandon parenthood while the man has no such option, this has the potential to hold a man as a financial hostage of a mistake. This needs to change.
Laws are required to protect men from women that deceive men into parenthood.
Ontario, Canada: Child Support Rulings/Orders should not be addressed by the Superior Court system but rather relegated to Family Court to ensure easy access to change. An order issued by the Superior Court cannot be addressed through a simple Family Court Application to Vary.
Support Guidelines and Payment Levels
Many people comment on the disparate values of foster care as compared to child support. Some feel that the NCP shouldn't pay more than 1/2 of the the amount a foster parent would receive. They argue that the current amounts, based on income, are to high and are much more than covering costs but rather supporting the CP's lifestyle. They don't want the child in poverty, but don't feel they should be held responsible for the CP's lack of ambition (ability to earn a decent wage). The government feels that if they don't use wage-indexed support calculations that give more money for support where the NCP is paid more benefits the child by not creating a gap a favouritism based on means. This is beneficial to the child as it prevents money-based influence. Where the CP is working the opportunity to create a safe and viable homelife this is easier.
There may need to be a double standard in this mess. The idea that a man and women that have not been married or are not classed as common-law partners should make a difference. There's no pre-defined history that would suggest the lifestyles should be made similar, so the base amount of 1/2 of the foster parent rate would be fair. Former couples would remain subject to guidelines of some sort. The current guidelines seem to go a little too far and assume the CP is incapable of earning a decent living and so must rely on the man, this is not the rule anymore.
The Maury Povich Show and Paternity Tests
Mr. Povich is an avid supporter of Child Support and has done his best to further the cause by displaying the wosrt of the worst on his show. In all fairness anyone who's caught his shows has seen the tables turn on women who have been the playmate of far too many men to even expect them to spell chastity when they find out their latest target is not the father of her baby, but just another guy.
There have been guys that step up to the challenge, and guys who run from the responsibility like she were an axe murderer. There's good reason to run but if they want to be a father this is their chance, but what if they don't?
Thanks to the free DNA testing provided by Mr. Povich, the men who are now proven to be the fathers are now victims of a woman who has sex for money. She may not have had the intent of being a whore, but the end result is she's going to use the full extent of the law to make a man pay for something he had very little desire to be part of. He had opportunity, he made effort to get intimate with her, but the reality is she wanted the sex as much as he did.
Or did she? Did she want the sympathy and attention of being a mother? Did she know that she will have a free-ride if they guy has a good job and doesn't run? Are these women abusing the system by ensuring they find their cash cow?
It's time laws protected men equally with women. Adoption, Abortion, and Abandonment are all options the mother has, the father is at the mercy of the mother's choices. The father is the first victim. The child is the other.
Accepted Definition: Deadbeat Dad