|Up to now in Canada, when the
powers calculate child-support amounts to be paid by fathers, it has been
customary to ignore that children of a second marriage exist. In such
cases it matters not a bit to the judges or the authorities nested in the
various maintenance enforcement agencies whether those children were
fathered by the husband in that second marriage or were brought by the
second wife into that marriage.
After all, it is thought that the
children from first marriages have priority, and that it is the fathers'
responsibility to make sure that the best interests of those children are
taken care of. For that reason some of those agencies give themselves
euphemistic names, such as "Family Responsibility Office" in Ontario.
Doesn't that make things perfectly clear?
Quebec justice minister Marc Bellemare intends to change that.
Let's hope that the legislation he introduced will address another
aspect of existing child support calculations. The forwarded articles
don't say anything about it. Not only are the needs of children of a
second marriage ignored when determining what a father of children from
his first marriage is capable of paying, but another commonly used
practice is even more onerous. The income of a father's second wife is
added to a father's own gross income to determine the base amount of "his"
gross income on which the calculations of
child support amounts are
presently often based. Can there be anything that is more unjust?
Neither of those presently existing routines for squeezing fathers for
more than they can afford to pay is "in the best interests of the
children" of a second marriage. They are not even in "the best interests
of the children" of the first marriage. Under such circumstances the
father almost inexorably and often has no choice but to default on
support payments and is then penalized by having all his government-issued licences revoked. That will provide such a severe handicap to such fathers
that their families' financial and general well-being, not good to begin
with, then almost invariably founders.
When that happens to a man caught in such circumstances, he will go bankrupt, especially if he
fights for the application of common sense and equitable justice in the
courts. If he then complains about what is being done to him and his
second family, that will cause many judges to consider him to be
"combative", "argumentative" and "given to acrimony",
with predictable outcomes. The father's second
marriage is not likely to survive those outcomes, because it faces far greater
stresses than the one of his that broke up before. Many men then are left
to live in squalor or take the ultimate way out of their dilemma:
They commit suicide.
Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes had very brutal ways by
which they eliminated "enemies of the state". Ours now has far more
sophisticated and "humane" methods for the exploitation of an undesired,
slandered and despised class of people. It appears that the powers feel
that if members of that class decide to do away with themselves rather
than have the state take on that chore, then so much the better.
Today's victims of state-sponsored persecution don't need to be
transported to anywhere for eradication. In the finely tuned system
operated by a massive sector of the bureaucracy dedicated to doing nothing
but that, they are squeezed for everything they've got. The trick is to
squeeze them not too hard, to offer them always a bit of hope that they
can win, to cajole them into believing that it is their duty to pay to the
they've got "in the best interests of their children", and
that better times may be ahead for them if they only behave themselves as
it behooves them.
The most important thing is to prevent fathers from joining the
underground economy or from committing suicide. That would be bad for the
GDP, and far too much tax-revenue would be lost. However, if fathers do
commit suicide, that is the cheapest way for the State to get rid of them.
It saves the State quite a bit if fathers pay for their own demise out of
their own meager resources. If the State were to execute them by the means
that fathers can afford, the State would acquire a bad reputation.
Fathers that do it all by their lonesome selves are considered to be weak,
irrational, not real men and besides, didn't they have it coming?
It is all a matter of keeping things finely balanced and tweaked to
perfection. The suicides even serve a constructive purpose. They spurn
other fathers almost ready to crack to do their best to leave their
children the memory of seeing their mother receive a regular and long
string of cheques paid for by a man who is supposed to be their father
but who apparently wants nothing to do with them other than to make sure
that their mother who most likely kicked the father out receives those
cheques. Isn't that a lot better than to leave children the memory of a
man who paid only for a short string of cheques because he escaped his
responsibility by hiding in a hole six-feet under?
More power to Quebec justice minister Marc Bellemare for attempting to
restore common sense in family matters in the Province of Quebec. Let's
hope that it will be infectious and that the powers in other provinces
catch a little bit of common sense, too.
QUEBEC CITY - Justice minister Marc Bellemare is tabling
legislation to change what he calls the province's discriminatory
child support system.
Children in 25,000 second marriages will be affected by the
changes, which will allow judges to consider children from previous
marriages when deciding on
child support. Judges are currently
prohibited from considering those children in support cases.
Bellemare said that Bill 21 will correct that problem and open
the door to equitable child support for children, no matter how many
half-siblings they have.
"A father or a mother might not have enough assets to give other
children financial support like he does for the first one," said
Family lawyer Jocelyn Verdon said the new law is overdue.
"Sometimes the husband has no money left when he has to pay the
first alimony," said Verdon. "So this law gives the judge the tools
to make some adjustments."
Bellemare said the current law discriminates against low-income
parents to the point that it may even discourage them from having
children with new partners.
He said that Bill 21 may reverse that trend and give
sagging birth rate* a boost.
*Link provided by Fathers for Life.
However, is that all it takes to restore Quebec to its former glory?
According to Merriam Webster's:
Götterdämmerung: twilight of the gods : a collapse (as of a
society or regime) marked by catastrophic violence and disorder.
That definition should be edited to include silliness as one of the
attributes of the catastrophic collapse of a nation.
As justice minister Bellemare identified as per the Montreal CBC
article shown just above, "the current law discriminates against
low-income parents to the point that it may even discourage them from
having children with new partners," and the article concludes, "He said that Bill 21 may reverse that trend and give Quebec's
sagging birth rate a boost."
There has to be a little more of an incentive for fathers with second
families to save the Nation of Quebec. It is not enough to give just
them no more than recognition that the children in their second families
must live, too, that those children, too, need to eat and be dressed, have
a good education, a home to live in and be fairly well looked after and
cared for, to give anyone reasonable expectations that when those children
become adults, they will be productive, law-abiding citizens with a
presence in large-enough numbers to ensure the continued existence of
Quebec as the nation it declared itself to be just a few days ago.
Justice minister Bellemare intends to entice some
families to do their best to breed in sufficient numbers to
stave off the catastrophic decline of the French-Canadian population in
Quebec. He will achieve no more than a man can who throws a bucket
of water in trying to extinguish the raging blaze that consumes his house
as it is just about to collapse in ruins and ashes.
Quebec's birth rate is arguably the lowest of all nations on Earth.
That cannot be turned around over night, not during the next nine months,
not even during the next ten years. It surely won't be turned around
by giving men with second families the hope that their second families
will get Bellemare's blessing and permission to use some of their income
to feed themselves instead of feeding the leftovers of the broken families
that threw out their fathers and husbands.
Justice minister Bellemare is fiddling while Quebec burns. The
very real problem, namely that the formerly thriving population of Quebec
is vanishing into demographic oblivion, will not be solved by giving a few
thousand low-income, second families an incentive to breed
Quebec's population back to healthy numbers. Those few people can't
do that, although they will without doubt be happy to be relieved a little
from the oppressive and massive exploitation they labour under.
All of the French-Canadian people of marriageable age,
and not just those Bellemare has in mind, could save the
Nation of Quebec, if all of them were willing to make the necessary and
enormous but rewarding sacrifices necessary to have a couple become truly
married for life, to respect and love one another and to fully cooperate
in the raising of their children and the securing of their children's
future. A nation of single mothers whom the State intends to have
provided for by serfs that are forced to pay "child" support "in the best
interest of the children" of whose lives those serfs at best only have
occasional glimpses cannot and will not.
It takes far more than justice minister Bellemare's little
insignificant Band Aid solution. It takes families, functioning
families headed by two married parents, one of each sex. Therefore,
before all else, it takes:
The restoration of the respect and
admiration formerly and justifiably given by the Nation of Quebec to its
men and fathers and that those still deserve but no longer have because
they were robbed of it not the constant scorn, disdain, vilification,
slander, discrimination and oppression that men are being forced to
The offering of guaranties that marriage is
an enforceable contract not one that either "partner" (most often
women, by far, and especially when children are present) can walk out
of at will and against the objections of the other "partner" in marriage,
with the State's active support and blessing, and
That fathers be given once more the support
of society and the State to be fully involved with their children every
day of their children's lives not Draconian measures that drive them
into suicide in ever-increasing
If sufficiently frustrated, lab rats too will acquire ulcers, become
disinterested in copulating and even ultimately kill themselves by
stopping to eat. Although our society no longer permits such extreme
experiments with lab rats to be performed, men and their families
routinely experience conditions that are being deliberately created to
force them into circumstances that we no longer deem to be humane for lab
Justice minister Bellemare toys with the dimensions of Quebec's
Götterdämmerung, in the aftermath of the war against the family, at
the end of the glorious history of a Quebec that no longer is as we once
knew it. Adolf Hitler and his personal secretary Martin
Bormann did the same at the beginning of the last act of the Third Reich,
when the gloom of its Götterdämmerung began to settle in. They,
too, had a plan they wanted to implement in the aftermath of the massive
social destruction they had caused the German people to suffer.
Their plan for what
needed to be done, after their Götterdämmerung was over, was to
entice not just a few but all German people of fertile age to do their
best after the war to breed the German nation back to greatness, for what
they advertised as their ultimate victory over the enemy nations.
When the slogan began to circulate "Honey, let's go at it; let's make
babies for the Leader,"* Hitler and Bormann became the laughing
stock of their nation. (* In the
original German: "Liebchen, komm wir wollen reiten, Kinder machen für den
Let justice minister Bellemare take care that his handlers may not lead
him to become the laughing stock of his nation because he tries to burden
low-income second families with the duty to save Quebec's population from
its looming extinction.
Gilbert Claes mentioned the following additional information on
move in Quebec (in French)...
link to the project:
They have included:
DE L'OBLIGATION ALIMENTAIRE
585. Les epoux et conjoints unis civilement de meme que les parents
en ligne directe au premier degre se doivent des aliments. 1991, c. 64,
a. 585; 1996, c. 28, a. 1; 2002, c. 6, a. 36.
586. Le recours alimentaire de l'enfant mineur peut etre exerce par
le titulaire de l'autorite parentale, par son tuteur ou par toute autre
personne qui en a la garde, selon les circonstances. Le tribunal peut
declarer les aliments payables a la personne qui a la garde de l'enfant.
"ou au mandataire de l'enfant majeur". 1991, c. 64, a. 586. "Un parent
qui subvient en partie aux besoins de son enfant majeur qui n'est pas en
mesure d'assurer sa propre subsistance peut exercer pour lui un recours
alimentaire. En ce cas, ce parent est presume mandataire de l'enfant." ;
587. Les aliments sont accordes en tenant compte des besoins et des
facultes des parties, des circonstances dans lesquelles elles se
trouvent et, s'il y a lieu, du temps necessaire au creancier pour
acquerir une autonomie suffisante. 1991, c. 64, a. 587.
587.1. En ce qui concerne l'obligation alimentaire des parents a
l'egard de leur enfant, la contribution alimentaire parentale de base,
etablie conformement aux regles de fixation des pensions alimentaires
pour enfants edictees en application du Code de procedure civile, est
presumee correspondre aux besoins de l'enfant et aux facultes des
parents. Cette contribution alimentaire peut etre augmentee pour tenir
compte de certains frais relatifs a l'enfant prevus par ces regles, dans
la mesure ou ceux-ci sont raisonnables eu egard aux besoins et facultes
de chacun. 1996, c. 68, a. 1.
8 November 2003
New rules aim to even out child-support payments
By Allison Hanes
Recognizing the realities facing blended families in Quebec, the
Justice Minister has tabled a bill that he says will spread
child-support payments more equally among siblings and be less
devastating for lower income alimony-paying parents.
It aims to give judges in family court more discretion in
calculating the amount of child-support payments by allowing them to
take into account the number of other children a father or mother
has from previous or current marriages, Justice Minister Marc
"Here's a concrete example," he said. "A child born as a result
of a union is considered by the court. The judge must determine the
level of child support for that child. Right now, he looks at the
capacity to pay of both the parents.
"But imagine the father has another child, or two other children,
from another union, previous or current. But the judge is confined
to looking only at the family situation of the couple in question
"It's evident that that father would be required to pay
support as if he only had one child and it would be higher than if
he had three children."
The bill will help resolve the tricky situations facing about
24,500 blended families in Quebec - about 10 per cent of divorce
cases, said Jocelyn Verdon, an expert on family law, who was
consulted for a government committee that examined the province's
It especially will help lower-income Quebecers, whose funds are
"Imagine a father who has three children, one from a previous
union and two from a new union and an income of $26,000," Verdon
Bellemare said the aim is not to lower support payments for
first-born children, but to make sure subsequent children don't
suffer from their parents' previous obligations.
He said he hopes it will have the side effect of encouraging more
Quebecers to have or reconstitute families.
"I think the current situation can deter people's will to
reconstitute or have new families," he said. "And in my opinion,
what is fundamental in a society is to allow people to have children
and to have equity among their children with rules that take into
account responsibilities toward all children."