A rant by: Anonymous

I’m writing because I have a concern about Child Support Act and how areas of it are handled.

Note: All numbers used for the following comparisons are just round figures being used to better explain different situations. All these examples are in the Province of Manitoba.

Scenario A:

Parent A is working at a job and making $1000 per month while raising one child. Parent B who is also working and makes enough where the Guidelines say that parent needs to pay $200 per month towards the care of the child they are a parent of. This means parent A now has $1200 each month, which means they have more to raise and support their child.

Scenario B:

Parent A is unemployed and getting $1000 from the Federal Government through Employment Assistance. Same as first example, Parent B pays $200 per month. Again, Parent A has $1200 each month for the same reasons as first example.

Scenario C:

Parent A is unemployed and is on Employment and Income Assistance (Welfare), and gets $1000 per month. Parent B pays $200 per month for Child Support. But in this example, Parent A only has $1000 each month. This is because the $200 from Parent B is going to the Government of Manitoba. The Government of Manitoba in turn deducts $200 from the assistance Parent A gets and uses Parent B’s money to make up the difference. This time around, the child is no better off.

Taken from the Federal Child Support Guidelines found at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/ligfed.html it says…

“1. The objectives of these Guidelines are

(a) to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation;”

Taken from the Province of Manitoba’s website at http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/family/guide2004/part_a/a.html

“Child support is money paid by one parent to the other when the parents do not live together. It is paid to help with the support of the child or children living with the other parent.”

For the purposes of this letter, the key area from the Federal Government is, “benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation”. And from the Government of Manitoba, it is, “help with the support of the child or children living with the other parent”.

In Scenario C, neither of the above is happening. The child is no better off then they were to start. Parent A still has only the $1000 they originally started with.

Just because one parent doesn’t work and is supported by the Province, why should the child be forced to suffer? The child in Scenario B has a parent being supported by the Federal Government and is benefiting from the support Parent B is paying.

The only one the benefits in Scenario C is the Provincial Government. The money from Parent B is going to help the Province support it’s own obligations that it mandated itself to have to do.

One would make the argument saying that why should their tax dollars go to support the child in Scenario C. They would say that yes, the Province should be taking the money that goes for Child Support.

But for all the taxpayers that want to use that argument, let’s look at Federal tax dollars.

Look at the number of people that have worked for 20, 30 or even 40 years and have paid into something they have never drawn from. I highly doubt the Federal Government saves their money in a fund for when that person needs it. It all goes into the pool and all payouts are drawn from it. This means that these people’s tax dollars are going towards supporting people and their families who are unemployed. Plus, EI pays a person more if they have a family to support. This causing the amount of tax money being used to increase.

In the Taxation Year of 2004, the Federal Government collected $17,809,000,000 from all sources towards Employment Assistance. But to the unemployed on EI, the Federal Government paid towards Employment Assistance and Employment Programs like training to get people back to work. There is a difference of that taxpayers have to pay.

To go back to the start of this, Child Support Payments are to help better a child that does not have the benefit of having both biological parents living together as a family. In Scenario C, this child is not benefiting from the Child Support Parent B is paying. The Government is benefiting at the end of the day.

In both Scenarios B and C, one parent is unemployed and getting financial assistance from taxpayers.

I think the make up of Scenario C is wrong and harmful towards the child.

I am in the same shoes as Parent B in Scenario C. I in no way feel I shouldn’t pay Child Support. I am 100 % for Child Support and the reasons for it. I feel my money should help my child, not the Government. I pay enough taxes to start with. Why should I have to pay another? In the end, that’s all this is. A tax or user fee pretty much.

<< Back    Add a Comment