BC: Behind in child support? You could lose your driver's licence

[Charlemagne]

Behind in child support? You could lose your driver's licence
If bill passes, ICBC could cancel a licence when someone owes more than $3,000

Justin McElroy · CBC News · Posted: Apr 17, 2018 5:16 PM PT | Last Updated: April 18

The B.C. government has introduced a bill that would allow driver's licences to be cancelled when people fall behind in their child or spousal support payments by at least $3,000.

ICBC, the government-owned insurance corporation, can now take action only when a licence is up for renewal.

"There is a potential that someone who just renewed their licence, that isn't paying child support, could say 'you know what, I don't have to pay, because it's three or four years before I have to renew my licence, and that's fine," said Attorney General David Eby after introducing the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.

"They can act more quickly because three or four years is a long time in the life of a child who isn't receiving child support from a parent who's not paying. This is a serious tool."

The government said the revocation of the licence wouldn't be automatic, but another tool the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) could use to put pressure on people to pay, along with the current practices of garnisheeing wages or suspending licences when they expire.

"The concern is a parent who is in significant arrears and refuses to come up with a plan or respond to the reality that their child needs that support," said Eby.

In addition, the legislation would create greater privacy for parents who file a support agreement with the Land Titles Registry to guarantee it against property owned by a former spouse. Only pertinent information would be included in the public record rather than the full child-support agreement.

According to the government, about 70,000 parents are enrolled in the FMEP, with about 92 per cent paying on time. However, in 2014 approximately $538 million was cumulatively unpaid.

The government says that the new guidelines would go into effect within three months if the bill is passed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/child-support-icbc-government-1.4623431

 

[Sieggo]

This is pretty short sighted if you ask me. Lets make it MORE difficult for the owing parent to earn their income. That'll go a long ways in enhancing their ability/desire to pay the arrears. I'll never be a parent so am glad to dodge this bullet.

/s

 

[tml]

Not something Doug Ford would do.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

This is pretty short sighted if you ask me. Lets make it MORE difficult for the owing parent to earn their income. That'll go a long ways in enhancing their ability/desire to pay the arrears.

/s

We're talking about a parent's financial obligation for the care of their child. Most parents in child support arrears are not late because they lack the funds. They are late because they choose not to pay or they choose to spend the funds in a different fashion.

In my view, falling down on one's parental obligations to one's children is one of the lowest offenses anyone can commit. Unless the offender can show true hardship and inability to pay,he or she deserve to have the book thrown at them. If someone chooses to be a parent and then won't keep up with their obligations to an innocent child (or children) then I don't believe any sympathy should go their way.

 

[Sieggo]

This isn't just for child support. It says for child support AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT. I've read of many situations where a payer can't keep up on the payments due to a lopsided payment arrangement based on imputed income. Lets be honest though. How much of the child support actually gets spent on the children?

 

[mandrill]

Licences have been yanked in Ontario over unpaid child and spousal support for DECADES!!!! People are also put in jail. And not rarely either.

It's a hardball world in Family Court.

Some people simply will not pay without being sent to jail.

 

[freedom3]

As soon as the government pulls the driver's licences of women who refuse to abide by custody and access agreements, then I will be all for this as well.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

As soon as the government pulls the driver's licences of women who refuse to abide by custody and access agreements, then I will be all for this as well.

I didn't see anywhere that these laws apply only to men. Women who don't pay would be eligible for the same penalties. Glad to have you on the winning side!

 

[Indiana]

Fortunately so far I have never slid one past the goalie.

 

[mandrill]

I didn't see anywhere that these laws apply only to men. Women who don't pay would be eligible for the same penalties. Glad to have you on the winning side!

Yes. And it happens. Glad to see someone on this board understands that the laws are gender neutral.

BOTH women and men have licenses suspended for non payment of support.

NEITHER women nor men have their licenses suspended for access denial infringements.

 

[freedom3]

BOTH women and men are given free tampons.

NEITHER women nor men are allowed to have beards.

As soon as more than 2% of women are ordered to pay support, then you will have an argument.

What is the female equivalent of "deadbeat dad"? There isn't one because they aren't ordered to pay support.

 

[mandrill]

BOTH women and men are given free tampons.

NEITHER women nor men are allowed to have beards.

As soon as more than 2% of women are ordered to pay support, then you will have an argument.

What is the female equivalent of "deadbeat dad"? There isn't one because they aren't ordered to pay support.

Your argument is silly.

The non custodial parent is the one ordered to pay support. As soon as men start getting custody orders and taking care of children - and paying for that care - then more women will be ordered to pay support. (Assuming your 2% figure is even accurate).

No judge goes into court saying "I'm going to make men pay!" The judge looks at who is taking care of the kids and how much it costs and then makes the non custodial parent kick in his / her share of what it takes.

If a woman has 2 kids living with her and is paying daycare for both kids, why shouldn't the guy be contributing???

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

In our society, it is usually more likely for the male parent to be making more money than the female and it is more often the case that the male parent's career is less able to accommodate being a full time single parent. Add to these facts a perception by many that females are better primary caregivers.

These are the reasons why it is more likely for the woman to be the custodial parent and for the man to be responsible for contributing financially. Since the man is more often the one who is required to pay, it only follows that when some fraction of those fail to pay, more often they will be men. It's not because men are less responsible, it's just there's a much larger pool of men who are required to pay child support.

There's room to argue that some of the underlying causes of these disparities need to be fixed. If men did not benefit from discriminatory advantages in the workplace, perhaps more women would be the primary earners in a relationship. Perhaps more men would have custody if societal perceptions moved ahead to this century from their Victorian biases.

However, while we work on correcting these problems, it remains unacceptable for a father or a mother to hold back on their child support responsibilities. And if punishment is one of the ways we help encourage them to pay up, then it's better to pick a punishment that really impacts.

 

[mandrill]

In our society, it is usually more likely for the male parent to be making more money than the female and it is more often the case that the male parent's career is less able to accommodate being a full time single parent. Add to these facts a perception by many that females are better primary caregivers.

These are the reasons why it is more likely for the woman to be the custodial parent and for the man to be responsible for contributing financially. Since the man is more often the one who is required to pay, it only follows that when some fraction of those fail to pay, more often they will be men. It's not because men are less responsible, it's just there's a much larger pool of men who are required to pay child support.

There's room to argue that some of the underlying causes of these disparities need to be fixed. If men did not benefit from discriminatory advantages in the workplace, perhaps more women would be the primary earners in a relationship. Perhaps more men would have custody if societal perceptions moved ahead to this century from their Victorian biases.

However, while we work on correcting these problems, it remains unacceptable for a father or a mother to hold back on their child support responsibilities. And if punishment is one of the ways we help encourage them to pay up, then it's better to pick a punishment that really impacts.

You would be surprised that Family Court judges are in the forefront of changing the bias against men as primary custodians. Indeed, the problem is often quite the contrary.

I have sometimes had problems with doctrinally rigid judges attempting to force a primary shared custodial role on irresponsible or disinterested guys when I am representing women. I explain to the judge that these guys are not genuinely interested in parenting and will only use their position to fuck up and / or do outrageous things to the mother. But until a couple of disasters have occurred in the file, often the judge is very hard to convince.

 

[The Hof]

Fair or not, a judgement was passed and payments must be made or further action must be taken.

What bothers me in this instance is how the action is being taken. The government throwing its hands in the air and applying universal punishment while giving up on fixing what it obviously deems to be a failure in the rule of law.

The original judgement is applied on a case by case basis in a court of law with at least some form of fair representation of all parties involved. Of course there's problems in this space, but its the basis of the laws governing our society. The judgements arent all the same because the cases aren't. Outside of the court system, which is in place as a pillar of civil society, the government is applying equal punishment for all with no representation possible, no assessment or weighing of the facts etc. Instead of addressing what they deem to be problems with the court system the government is indicating they don't believe the courts can be either responsible or effective in carrying out their charge as a branch of democratic governance.

Thers a reason religion, governance, law and such are separate from each other. When the lines blur, or worse yet disappear, we erode the base of a means of living together that has been uniquely beneficial to the majority in comparison to pretty much all of history.

 

[mandrill]

Fair or not, a judgement was passed and payments must be made or further action must be taken.

What bothers me in this instance is how the action is being taken. The government throwing its hands in the air and applying universal punishment while giving up on fixing what it obviously deems to be a failure in the rule of law.

The original judgement is applied on a case by case basis in a court of law with at least some form of fair representation of all parties involved. Of course there's problems in this space, but its the basis of the laws governing our society. The judgements arent all the same because the cases aren't. Outside of the court system, which is in place as a pillar of civil society, the government is applying equal punishment for all with no representation possible, no assessment or weighing of the facts etc. Instead of addressing what they deem to be problems with the court system the government is indicating they don't believe the courts can be either responsible or effective in carrying out their charge as a branch of democratic governance.

Thers a reason religion, governance, law and such are separate from each other. When the lines blur, or worse yet disappear, we erode the base of a means of living together that has been uniquely beneficial to the majority in comparison to pretty much all of history.

Not so. The debtor gets a separate trial on how / whether he should be punished for non payment of support. If he / she falls into default, FRO brings "Enforcement Proceedings" which include a penalty component. The debtor can dispute all aspects of this, including ability to pay and whether any punishment should be imposed. He / she gets a whole new day in court.

 

[HEYHEY]

Good

 

[freedom3]

Your argument is silly.

The non custodial parent is the one ordered to pay support. As soon as men start getting custody orders and taking care of children - and paying for that care - then more women will be ordered to pay support. (Assuming your 2% figure is even accurate).

No judge goes into court saying "I'm going to make men pay!" The judge looks at who is taking care of the kids and how much it costs and then makes the non custodial parent kick in his / her share of what it takes.

If a woman has 2 kids living with her and is paying daycare for both kids, why shouldn't the guy be contributing???

And if that woman doesn't comply with court ordered access, why isn't her driver's licence suspended?

And your argument, Mr. Silly, is as stupid as you are.

 

[mandrill]

And if that woman doesn't comply with court ordered access, why isn't her driver's licence suspended?

And your argument, Mr. Silly, is as stupid as you are.

People get sent to jail occasionally for access denial. Usually they back down under pressure from the judge.

Most judges are going to say that putting a custodial parent in jail for access denial is going to hurt the kids and just give the jailed parent a podium to play the victim from. However, judges will do it and have gone so far as to flip custody to the access parent in cases of hardcore alienation or access denial. It's not taken lightly.

 

[Samranchoi]

If I were a betting man, I would hazard to guess that there are both men and women on this board who know many women that are responsible for paying child and/or spousal support. This can occur in sole custody or joint custody situations. I know for a fact of a friend, who is a woman, that was responsible for paying child support to her ex-spouse as he had full custody of the children. I have seen numerous Separation Agreements where the woman was responsible for paying her ex-spouse support payments, both child and spousal. I guess I must have come across the only women in Canada who are paying spousal and child support based upon what others believe, lol.