Part 2
Editor: Part 1 ran in the ill-fated May 1995 issue. (The first issue that was NOT published in hard copy.) You can find part 1 of this article there.Statistics Canada tells us in intact families fathers do on average 1/3 of the work around the house, including parenting. This child support initiative assumes non-custodial parents, mostly fathers, will be solely responsible for financial support and that custodial parents, mostly mothers, will be solely responsible for parenting. NAANCP seeks to make both parents responsible for post-marital child support and post-martial parenting to create a successful co- parenting model paralleling the successful intact family model.
This proposal increases the "win" of the custodial parent and the "loss" of the non- custodial parent. Divorce lawyers and mediators predict custody battles will become increasingly bitter and extreme, with increased use of false accusations and Parental Alienation Syndrome. All Canadians will pay for the social costs of children damaged by these battles.
A surprisingly high portion of fathers pay support but also take care of the children most or all of the time. These fathers (NAANCP has yet to find a case of a mother facing such double jeopardy) will face huge increases in support which will leave them with less money to feed and clothe their children. Generally, the proposed child support formula ignores the parenting costs of all non-custodial parents.
In a story in the Ottawa Citizen of February 16, 1995, lawyer Jack King and reporter Andrew Allentuck predict custodial parents will have an incentive move to areas of low costs of living (and low employment possibilities) and away from the parent who must work to pay the bills. Gender apartheid.
Statistically speaking, the only self-sufficient societal economic unit is the balanced family. Single mothers consume more services than they pay for in taxes. Single people don't produce the next generation needed to pay for our future pensions. Increasingly, some single men feel having children would make their income a target for expropriation. They are deciding against parenting and marriage because it appears the government intends to arbitrarily override court orders on the dissolution of a marriage partnership to benefit women. Men are avoiding this "partnership" because of this perceived imbalance of power. Citing the "shortage of good men", CBC and powerful feminist ideological interests are glorifying and promoting women having children on their own. The implication for Canada's financial future is bleak: on average, children without fathers will be a tax burden rather than have the ability to contribute to society. American surveys have shown that as many as 70 percent of prison inmates had little or no fathering. This child support increase, targeted at men, will discourage fathering. Canada needs economic measures to encourage fathering and reduce economic warfare between the genders.
The effects of this 30-65 percent increase in support are as predictable as a 30-65 percent increase in government taxation -- increased inability to pay, increased government bureaucracy to collect the uncollectable, increasingly extreme measures by the collectors, increased underground economy, increased disrespect for government, courts and politicians, and, most importantly, an uncontrollable increase in the deficit to pay for all this.
The Balance formula: A Canadian magazine, Balance from Edmonton, printed an article in Fall 1994 about a child support formula which, NAANCP feels, solves most of the problems of the existing and the proposed approach. It was developed by an employee of the U.S. Government to standardize the many U.S. courts. The formula needs to be adapted to reflect Canadian living costs and taxation but does consider income and parenting costs of both custodial and non-custodial parents. It encourages self-sufficiency by not penalizing income earned over a certain time per week. It reflects the actual proportion of time each parent has the child or children, rather than simply looking at "custody", which treats one parent as the "owner" of the child, "renting" to the non-custodial parent. The Balance formula allows courts to insert actual costs, which vary by region, rather than arbitrary percentages. It considers the income both parents are capable of earning rather than ignoring it if one parent quits a job simply to stay home and loaf. The Balance formula has the unique advantage that parents could agree to applying this formula each year, reflecting changes in income, costs of living and portion of parenting, rather than having to return to court and incur significant legal fees to get any adjustment. NAANCP has submitted this formula to the Canadian Departments of Justice and Finance. Although we have received no reply, it remains to be seen whether the Liberal government will choose an arbitrary and unworkable "30-65 percent" formula over a balanced one which can potentially solve this problem.
If you are interested in helping the NAANCP message we encourage you to join (or form) a local non-custodial or associate group and have your group join our alliance.