Barbara Kay: Courts get a new way to discriminate against fathers
  November 9, 2010 – 10:40 am


GREG WOOD/AFP/Getty Images

Wait a minute ... a man with a stroller? You mean men are parents too? But why should men have access to their children? This is weird.

“They throw guys in jail for non-support all the time, and when they do, the guys serve the whole 30, 60 or 90-day sentence (the term keeps lengthening), even though cocaine dealers routinely get out of jail after serving half their time.”

Ontario’s Family Responsibility Office, which is responsible for ensuring that custodial parents don’t get stiffed for child support payments by the non-custodial parent, has a lot of power.

Starting Dec. 1, someone (read “father”) in arrears on their support payments can have their car impounded. That’s about the stupidest punishment for non-payment one can imagine, since most people need their cars in order to work. As Lloyd Gorling, a father’s rights activist put it, “How are you going to make support payments if you can’t get to work? If you can’t make support payments, does the government really think you’re going to be taking a taxi every day to work?”

If you’re going for irrational responses to non-payment, why not just throw the guy in jail –– but oh wait, they already do that. They throw guys in jail for non-support all the time, and when they do, the guys serve the whole 30, 60 or 90-day sentence (the term keeps lengthening), even though cocaine dealers routinely get out of jail after serving half their time.

In 2004 an FRO staff member didn’t bother waiting for a court date to review the financial status of an out-of-work truck driver. He just suspended his license because – hey, because he could, you see. But the guy couldn’t pay, because he had no job, you FRO idiot. He had no money to pay with, you FRO moron. He was looking for work, and the FRO decided that the best way to deal with a non-paying parent was to make it impossible to find a job so he could pay the support. Nice going, FRO. His suicide note lamented that he didn’t see any way out of his situation and had lost hope. And did anyone pay for that? Of course not. The FRO is accountable to no one.


Let’s look at the bigger picture, though. What is the guy paying child support for? Yeah yeah, to support his children. But that means they are, you know, sort of his children, right? Not necessarily. The custodial parent, almost always the ex-wife, although supposed to grant agreed-upon access rights to the children’s father, can arbitrarily decide she doesn’t want to allow access, and for any old reason — oh sorry, little Jimmy has a play date, oh sorry little Emma has too much homework, oh sorry, I just don’t want to — can deny the father access. And does she pay for that? No. Oh, she might get a scolding from the judge, but there is no downside for her. No custodial mom has ever spent a night in jail or had her licence suspended for refusing her children’s father legal access to them. If they have, enlighten me. I have never heard of such an outcome.

You want to impose draconian punishments for non-support? Fine. But be rational about them. The arbitrary car-licence suspension is simply stupid. It punishes the children. But reluctance to punish children is the rationale for not jailing mothers who refuse access to fathers. Judges continually say they can’t put the mother in jail, because how would it look for the kids to see their mothers punished? One might ask the same question about their dads, no? Or does nobody care how it is for children to know their dads are in jail because they couldn’t give their mothers money? Rhetorical question. Of course nobody cares how a father’s suffering impacts on children, because only mothers’ suffering has the attention of family courts, police and the FRO.

If I were paying money for child support – and by the way, no custodial parent is obliged to say how she spends the money she gets for the children; she could be using it for spa days and nobody at the FRO would care – I wouldn’t be much encouraged to carry on with it if I never got to see my kids. It would occur to me that the state considers money more important to children than fathering. If the state feels that way, maybe society does too. Kind of an incentive-suppressant for fathers.

This story is about a lot more than car licences or what the appropriate punishment should be for failure to pay child support. Double standards abound in the custody industry. The FRO is a very scary agency characterized by way too much power, and far too little intelligence.

National Post


Thanks to Barara Kay for bringing us this article.
The FRO is tantamount to an instrument of terror, its part of a the Ontario Male Sharia Law
part of what is an escalating "war on men" who don't have legal rights.

The Ontario Draconian "legislation" is written by extreme man hating feminists who are engaged in a war on men. Its designed to totally remove the legal rights of men.

It needs to be compared to the law as it is implied in civilized countries where the Rule of Law actually does apply in a more impartial and objective fashion.

If you think Paul Bernardo and Russel Williams are psychopaths, you need to see the "underbelly of the judiciary in action. Just come to Ottawa, 161 Elgin Street where every lawyer will recognize the description of "The Worst Judge Ever" as being Justice Allan Sheffield who makes orders putting fathers in jail, for simply asking for access.



Sheffield will order support when there is NO income, where there is NOT even evidence of any income whatsoever! he will also make it impossible to vary his order with orders for "vexatious litigant orders" "orders for security for costs" that must be paid, and or appealed, before any variation can occur.

Ontario has a system that "orders support" but makes it tantamount to IMPOSSIBLE to vary those orders.
As a result, genuine loving devoted hard working fathers get thrown in jail for six months at a time simply to make sure a child NEVER has a father, to CRIMINALIZE a father to a child and
allow a crazy violent mentally ill woman to criminalize a father in the eyes of an innocent child
so she can tell the child, well, your daddy has been in jail..

The very worst scum in society are not fathers thrown in jail but those in black gowns who flagrantly bring the administration of justice and the judiciary into "ill -repute". Its the most vile of society who have the personality and the willingness of psychopaths to abuse that are attracted to the judiciary and some of them make it.

The very 'worst of the worst" are very well known, just ask any lawyer in Ottawa.

Other judges such as Catherine Aitken are known for being bitter vindictive divorced man extreme man haters who practice the ill-legal principle of law called "the process of justification", thats what child abusers and professional criminals use to justify their crimes against society.

We need a police for the judiciary, we need a total overhaul of the Child Support Guidelines that are acknowledged by experts as containing "spousal support".

The fact is, the number of men, receiving spousal support in Ontario probably exist on one hand if that, and yet, increasingly more women more earn than men.

We need a legal presumption of equal parenting that reflects reality, not the crazy notion of professional man haters and the private members bills of the No Dads party that are just part of the extended war on men.