Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001


New Quebec Child-Support Law Tabled

Children in second marriages do exist and do have needs that need to be addressed.  What about second wives, though?  Quebec's justice minister Bellemare intends to look after second wives, to make sure they help raise Quebec's sagging birth rate.  That's a tall order that not even first wives live up to.  Why should second wives carry that burden?  They already have their hands full coping with the consequences of the government's persecution of their husbands.

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 child 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 State all 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.

New child support law coming

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 Bellemare.

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 Quebec's 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:

  1. 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 endure;

  2. 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

  3. 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 record numbers.

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 rats.

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 itAdolf 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 Führer.")

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.

Additional reading:

Gilbert Claes mentioned the following additional information on Bellemare's move in Quebec (in French)...

The link to the project:

They have included:


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.

The Gazette (Montreal)

(Link to article)

8 November 2003

New rules aim to even out child-support payments

By Allison Hanes <ahanes@thegazette.canwest.com>

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 Bellemare said.

"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 that day.

"It's evident that that father would be required to pay child 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 child-support system.

It especially will help lower-income Quebecers, whose funds are more limited.

"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 said.

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."


whiterose.gif (6796 bytes)The White Rose
Thoughts are Free

Posted 2003 11 09