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


Judge Finds No Undue Hardship in Cost of False Allegations

Subject:           [EPOC] Judge Finds No Undue Hardship in Cost of False Allegations
    Date:           Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:42:00 -0400
    From:          Susan <sprice@MNSi.Net>

Dateline: Oct. 8/98, Amherst N.S.

Supreme Court Justice Tidman today ruled that the cost of defending against false allegations in custody hearings does not present an undue hardship under Bill C-41, Sec.(10) Guidlines for Child Support.

His Lordship found that, "The cost of $50,000 - $60,000 is not excessive in these kind of hearings.". And that, despite no access for over six years, this does not constitute an undue hardship. What's more, he ruled that the remanet (approx. $12,600), unpaid and unaccounted for in the household budget, was not true "debt" in that it was in the form of unsecured loans from friends & family and carried only a moral obligation.

Justice Tidman seemed to grasp the significance of the case through what he called "compelling argument", but apparently lacked the courage to rule in the affirmative, citing instead his interpretation from the list of examples given as though they were exhaustive. Even so, failure to mount an adequate defense would've resulted in loss of career employment and these do represent costs toward re-establishing access.

"The Catch-22 in all this", said the Petitioner afterward, "is that if a suit for defamation or malicious prosecution were successful, then it would represent an undue hardship upon the children by virtue of reducing the means of the custodial parent.".

Observers in the court were appalled that such an award could be made without considering the step-father's income and the fact that he had stood in the place of a parent, benefiting from their dependency status for seventeen years and using his name exclusively. Now, he will most certainly benefit from an additional $500/mn. in family income, over & above the former support of the children which has always been paid in full.

Parents in similar circumstance, biased by false allegations, will now have to wait until there is a successful challenge of undue hardship, to balance some of the costs incurred against awards made in support of the same children. Courts of other jurisdiction may be more progressive or informed to follow the stated objectives of Bill C-41, Guidelines, and clarify the issue.

Another, more galling aspect of this case, was that an order which had stood for 15 yr. and which, upon review (1994), considered undue costs in upholding it, had to be overturned. Thereby opening up more costs, apart from the children, to future litigation for resolution.

Courtesy of F.B.I.
Susan Price
Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Web Pager:  http://wwp.mirabilis.com/1570073

See False Abuse Allegations for additional links.

See also: Family Law — Table of Contents

2001 02 02 (format changes)
2003 05 02 (added reference to Family Law — Table of Contents