MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

The State Hits Up Dads Again, For It Needs More Men’s MONEY!!

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 12:15 am Wed 2nd August 2006

Dateline: Canada
Author: Pit Bull
From: BC Fathers
Via: The Honor Network

The State Hits Up Dads Again, For It Needs MONEY!!

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled ex-spouses could face retroactive child support payments, if they fail to declare increased earnings. This will affect thousands of fathers across Canada.
In a unanimous: 7-0 vote . The top unelected court decided that fathers, in the vast majority of cases must report increases in income which will therefore boost their court-ordered payments.
“A payor parent who does not increase his-her child support payments to correspond with his-her income will not have fulfilled his-her obligation to his-her children.” “Parents have an obligation to support their children in a way that is commensurate with their income,” said Justice Michel Bastarache, writing the opinion for the Judges that earn well over the average salary of blue collar men.
Retroactive penalties will start hitting fathers across Canada, if they fail to inform their ex-partner about any changes to their income. Families are going to be scurrying around trying to figure out what child support should have been paid over the course of the last decade.
700,000 families could be affected by this decision. It has the potential to have an enormous financial impact on an enormous number of Canadians, keep lawyers making more money off families and string out the Canadian Government a little further avoiding the coming doom.

Pit Bull


  1. This decision does have a good side. Retrospective application of “ups” must be accompanied by retrospective application for “downs”. This opens the entire pandora’s box for ALL issues of fairness about child support, where issues have been ignored in the past. Lets get all of the issues about spousal support/child support sorted out correctly and fairly, not just by a formula that ignores many major issues and thus becomes quite unfair for most parents.

    Murray Bacon.

    Comment by Murray Bacon — Wed 2nd August 2006 @ 10:12 am

  2. Murray,

    must be accompanied by retrospective application for “downs”.

    I would hope so, but I doubt it. Canada CS Nazis are worse than here!

    Good comment. Dont forget to submitt to the Parents for Children Inquiry.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 2nd August 2006 @ 11:34 am

  3. Scrap is right. The ups will be easier than the downs, with the lawyers having a share the 700,000 families’ ups with these changes and a share of another 700,000 families when the challeges come for the downs. Sir Frances Baron wouldn’t approve, but Hog Town cetainly will (Toronto: finacial captial of Canada). Mr. Bacon what is your profession?

    Comment by Intrepid — Wed 2nd August 2006 @ 12:14 pm

  4. Murray is a friend and ally Intrepid.He made detailled submissions on the current CS admendment bill and has done extensive analysis of the canadian/nz situations.




    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 2nd August 2006 @ 12:48 pm

  5. the contribution is fair the playing field is not levelled and balance

    Comment by danies — Thu 3rd August 2006 @ 12:17 am

  6. the contribution is fair the playing field is not levelled and balance

    How anyone can desribe CS contributions as fair is beyond me!
    All formula methods are designed to collect spousal maintenace not to support children.

    The system is unfair, unreasonable and nothing to do with supporting children.

    Aussie call it the Collect and Suicude Agency (Act).



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 3rd August 2006 @ 10:18 am

  7. Sorry should read Collection and Suicide Agency

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 3rd August 2006 @ 10:19 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar