How far is too far, and how little is too little. I have been researching the Parental situations that exist after breakup, the child support system and how well it doesn’t work.
In Canada our courts and the child maintenance act look after our family problems. A problem that should be common sense has become complex and difficult. Entwined with child welfare and the force of political power, our families have become little more than pawns in a big business deal and psychological power play.
The government in all its wisdom has decided to step in to the fray and using some old psychology has completely gone off track with children and families. The laws regarding maintenance and children are the most out of whack. The government should have hired an accounting consultant to tell them what to do.
For example: A man earning 1800 dollars take home (net)(about 14.00 per hour) is paying (by law) 40% of his gross (of about 26,000.00 a year) which works out to about $8000.00 take that away from a net of $21,000.00 a year equals $13,600.00 a year net take home. Considering rents at about an average 6 -800 dollars per month..that leaves about $4000.00 to $5,000.00 a year to pay car insurance, food and telephone and any medical bills. That leaves exactly nothing.
Men who have undergone this bureaucratic nightmare find that the system enforces them into being poor, their “children” receiving payments once a month through a “lawful” enforcement system, although the other parent recieves the money in actuality. The men have nowhere to go and often go under the table to get income to survive with.
In most cases spouses remarry or move in with a new boyfriend. In some cases they are not doing well but in cases where the spouse has access to large amounts of funding and does not need the high level of income.
Men know something should be done and are organizing. This law is not fair. In fact many men have jumped ship and moved out of country because of the law. Not a nice thought to have to leave your kids behind and throw away your lifetime of work.
Men have had car insurance pulled so they cannot drive, or even a fishing license, and with so little to live on getting to work really means the difference between surviving and living under a bridge. The law is draconian and it is justified by the fact that there were a few men who tried to avoid their responsibilities.
Antagonistic spouses love this law. Males find themselves with no access, outright lies and even the misleading of the legal system to get even. This does not bode well for a man trying to make a living. Most men love their kids and will support them, they do not want to support an antagonistic spouse. Access is the important part and as long as they have it men will continue to pay even if it is unfair. Reduced time with the children should result in less payment to the children, that would force spouses to keep their times, supply the children often and keep the peace.
To sum up this law or set of laws needs to be simplified and to fit the realitys of daily life in Canada. Paying all of ones excess income does not allow for error, cost of living, medical problems or loss of work. It has to be paid or else. And I wonder how many men suicide as a result of their failure to pay.
More on this subject in the future..
