Close Topic Options

For Those Who Do Not Pay Child Support

ONTARIO WEBSITE AIMS TO SHAME DEADBEAT PARENTS

Deadbeat dads and moms in Ontario could face a new embarrassment as the province aims to shame them into paying outstanding family support by posting their pictures online.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...at-parents.html

Support Child Pay Not Who For

I can see why they want to target the non paying parents in this way, but I feel that the children will shoulder some of this embarrassment by making the public aware of exactly who is not paying for their children, especially as the parents are going to be 'named and shamed' with a photo!

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but this does seem to be a bit harsh as well as extreme!

For Those Who Do Not Pay Child Support History & Civil Business Politics

I am sure the rational of it is which is worst: a little embarrassment or no food on the table? What is more amazing is that a father or mother would allow for it to reach this stage where their photo has to be posted online as though they are a wanted criminal (in some respects they are).

Support Child Pay Not Who For

Excuse me?They arecriminals since a court determined that they should pay child support and they are not doing it. It is both a legal and moral responsibility. Now, the issue here is not about a guy/woman who does not pay child support only, this is about a guy/woman who does not pay child support AND nobody knows how to find him/her because they mysteriously disappeared, THEN the picture comes into place and people helps in locating these people. Why do the children must suffer because of it? I think the idea is great.

Support Child Pay Not Who For

I have a proposal -- let's turn the tables. In the USA fathers are generally stripped of their rights by courts which are predisposed to institutionalized sexism; women get lighter sentences than men for the same crimes "Oh, I killed my children because I suffered from post-partum depression...I'm the victim.", women rarely are given the death penalty and men generally do not get custody of their children even if they fight for it.

Instead of going after what is generally men "deadbeat dads" (how often do you hear about deadbeat moms?) let's look to our Islamic friends and give first priority to the fathers when custody is concerned. Children need their fathers -- and boys need a father maybe more so than the mother once they are past the infant stage. Posting pics that will generally be of men (beause by default they ARE the ones sentenced to pay support and become every-other-weekend fathers) is just another attack on men.

If you want men to pay more support then make child support tax deductable and give men more custody in court decisions.

For Those Who Do Not Pay Child Support

I wont say that this will solve all the problems on collection, but why doesn't the court set the child support level and order that there be proof of a electronic transfer of money within a certain time or there will be a fine levied. Failure to pay the fine results in jail time. Make the jail time significant enough, up front, to deter anyone from experiencing the sitiuation.

Stepping back and looking at the situation, it is obvious that the relationship between the man and woman broke down, so there will be little effort or will on his/her part to put the effort in routinely to keep up their end of the agreement (one they may not agree on). You need to make this action as effortless as humanly possible without allowing them to skip payment...electronic transfer.

This idea would not add much time to the court as well. They are already reviewing suits from "deadbeat" dad's and this might lessen the load. It really isn't a inconvience for the bank or the person responsible for paying. The one time payment setup is easily made up for instead of hand delivering or personally sending cash.

For Who Not Pay Child Support

Fiannan said:

You are using the same rationalization indirectly "Oh poor me, I am a deadbeat dad that I cannot afford to pay child support". Nonsense, if someone decided to engage in a sexual activity that produced a CHILD, then they MUST PAY to maintain that child, period! Whether they have full custody of the child or not, has absolutely nothing to do with his responsibilities towards his own kids, now if he (the "deadbeat dad") wants to rationalize it then he was NEVER interested in the first place.

I am speaking from experience as a daughter of a father who NEVER EVER payed child support. The custody thing has nothing to do with him sending money to his child for his needs.

Excuse me? More support? These guys do NOT pay child support at all, I do not know what you mean by "more" support when you have these jerks walking around, having other kids in some instances and forgetting they have children who they need to support. Again, court decision must not be mixing with his legal and moral responsibilities.

For Who Not Pay Child Support Politics Business Civil & History

What I am trying to get at is that many, many men are highly resentful to a court system that strips them of their rights. In most of Europe if there is a divorce (and no abuse was involved) then both the man and the woman (or in the Netherlands maybe both women) are given equal custody rights -- and they can make whatever arrangements they want in regards to how much time the children spend with each. In this way these nations are far ahead of the 1950s institutionalized sexism that still pervaides family courts.

It is sad that children suffer but many men when abused by the US "justice" system then do whatever they can to avoid what the courts have thrown at them. If that means under-reporting income or working under the table, or any other variety of methods, they will do it -- especially if the mother is not accountable for how she uses the money INTENDED for the children.

Just to clarrify, I am not a father paying child support -- my family is intact. However, I have seen many men who have had the treatment. One good friend eventually killed himself over his divorce and losing his kids. So no, I have zero respect for the American model.

Again, why should a woman be able to spend the child support on herself? Then the man cannot take the money off his taxes OR use his children as tax deductions. And often the man has no right to make educational choices for his children or influence the religious practices (or lack thereof) his children will receive.

I have to say, after seeing what I have seen when I hear of Arab males marrying American women (and eventually a divroce takes place) and these men taking their children (which an American court gave custody to the mother) back to their native countries where the husband is given full rights I applaud these men for their commitment to fatherhood.

That's my two cents on the issue.