NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/can/general/5443

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-24 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky can.general:5443 bc.general:535
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!cs.ubc.ca!mala.bc.ca!oneb!kmcvay
Newsgroups: can.general,bc.general
Subject: Re: Making child suppo work - was: PARENTS REALIZING CHILD SUPPORT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 03:36:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Mercer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Mcvay) writes:

>>In my daughter's case, this is not remotely correct - she has consistently
>>provided access when requested, and I applaud her for that.
>
>your daughter's case is one in thousands.  are there statistics that show that
>NCP consistently don't pay their support?

Frankly, my dear, to quote Mr. Gable, I don't give a damn. Nowhere in this
thread have I suggested that all NCP's fit the same mold, so I'd appreciate
it if you'd keep that in mind. I am concerned about the folks who do their
utmost to avoid their legal responsibilities, and there are more than just a
few of them.

>it is unfortunate that in divorce, the child/ren get treated like assets.

Don't patronize me - I've been through it, and won't argue the point, except
to say that it isn't remotely germaine to the situation under discussion.

>>In my daughter's case, the ex makes enough to support a comfortable
>>lifestyle, while my daughter is having a very difficult time. Legal Aid will
>>not provide assistance _in any case_ to enforce maintenance orders - period.
>
>there are not a small number of NCP's who have a difficult time too.

Again, so what? In my daughter's case, this isn't remotely true. Although I
can't repeat the figures I've seen, for reasons of confidentiality, I can
assure you that anyone making what my ex-SIL has made in the past four years
has _absolutely_, repeat, _absolutely_, no excuse for avoiding his
responsibility to his children, and to the law.

He has defrauded the federal government through bogus UIC claims (yes, UIC
is investigating, and I'm delighted to have had a part in that - it put paid
to one of his scams, which was working under the table while collecting
UI... and, I might add, the FMEP won't attach under-table wages, so he
killed several birds with one illegal act.), and done a good many other
things for which I sincerely hope he spends some jail time.

>before you get upset about "all" those non-paying NCP's, please think about
>what your actions are going to do to those who are paying.

Absolutely nothing. If they are meeting their legal and moral obligations,
nothing I do will have any affect upon them whatsoever. They are not my
target, nor will they ever be.

>my ex and i are amenible, we talk, i don't begrudge her the support,
>(although i would like to address the debt thing).  if all of a sudden
>i am to be lumped in with "the deadbeat dads", i am going to be very upset.

I certainly haven't done that, nor do I intend to. I suspect my daughter
will tell you exactly the same thing. I won't, however, sit quietly back
while my grand-children suffer because of the selfish and illegal actions of
their father.

>this is akin to saying that all men are potential rapists.

Phooey - nothing I have said justifies such silliness.

--
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     [phone] (v32) [phone] (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...
                          Grannies gratified....