Justice isn't just blind
March 23, 2000
By MARIANNE MEED WARD
TORONTO SUN
As emotional arguments
go, it's hard to beat suicide. You risk appearing cold and
uncaring if you refute
someone using the Suicide Factor in an argument.
Well, get
your arrows ready to pierce my hardened little heart, because I'm about to
try.
Item: A B.C. man kills himself after being ordered to pay twice the
amount of his monthly income in spousal and child support payments. Ergo,
courts are biased against men; the system needs reforming to prevent more
deaths.
The
Parent Child Advocacy Coalition has accused Canada's legal system of "murder(ing)
another father" and is calling for a public inquiry into 34-year-old
Darrin White's suicide. Meanwhile, the Men's Education Support Association Web
site lists White along with 24 other men (one Canadian, the rest mostly
British) who have allegedly taken their lives over support orders.
Emotional
stuff, like I said.
The system may well need reforming, but that should be decided on its
own merits, not on the basis of the Suicide Factor. (People kill themselves
for lots of reasons; and lots of people with huge support orders don't.)
So let's
look at facts.
According to the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth
released in 1999, mothers have sole custody 81% of the time, fathers only 7%.
In joint custody arrangements, two-thirds of children live with their moms.
Meanwhile,
according to the 1999 Survey on Child Support Awards, the father pays support
94% of the time.
Clearly,
courts favour the mother with custody and the father with financial support.
This needs reform.
Now
to White's case.
He was ordered to pay $1,071 a month in child support for three children
and $1,000 in spousal support. He was already paying $439 a month to support a
child from a previous marriage. White's annual income had been assessed at
$60,300 as a railroad locomotive engineer.
According
to federal child support guidelines, someone with that level of income and
three kids is required to pay, surprise, surprise, exactly $1,071. So the
judge stuck to the rules. So far, so good.
But at
the time of White's death, he was earning only $400 a week, or about $20,800
per year, from disability stress pay.
Could not work
According
to his doctor, White was suffering from divorce-related depression, cognitive
impairment and an inability to concentrate. The doctor signed an insurance
form stating White could not even work part-time.
According
to the guidelines, someone with that level of income and three kids is only
required to pay $414 per month, excluding spousal support.
To
reiterate the math here, White was earning about $950 per month after taxes
but owed $2,510 in spousal and child support, not to mention his own living
expenses (he'd long since been ordered to leave the family home).
Makes you
wonder whether justice is mathematically challenged, as well as blind.
The
federal guidelines allow for adjustments in support orders based on
"undue hardship." Such circumstances might include: large debts
incurred to support the family prior to separation, or to earn a living; high
expenses in relation to visiting a child; or a legal duty to support any other
person. Oddly, "change in employment income" doesn't figure in.
Elsewhere, though, the guidelines allow a variation in support orders
for "any change in circumstances."
Clearly,
White's circumstances had changed.
The judge could have adjusted his payments but he refused, concluding
that the change in income was "temporary." Perhaps, but intact
families are not spared the fluctuations in family income caused by illness or
other reasons.
Why
should kids of divorced parents be spared?
Or maybe the judge thought White was simply pretending to be mentally
disabled. Another section in the guidelines gives a judge power to
"impute" an annual income if he thinks the spouse is
"intentionally underemployed or unemployed."
But even
here there are exceptions made for underemployment caused by, among other
things, "the health needs of the spouse." Arguably, White fit the
exception.
Though
the guidelines bring some welcome standardization to family court decisions,
there's room for improvement - not because we think it will prevent suicide
(White was clearly troubled by more than just support payments) but because it
makes sense.
Marianne Meed Ward, a freelance writer with an interest in social and ethical
issues, appears Mondays. Her e-mail is:pward@interlog.com
___________________________________
Ottawa Men's Centre
Ottawa Men's Centre is a non-profit organization that provides divorce resources, impartial attorney referrals and support for men or fathers who are victims of false allegations, parental alienation and or gender bias. Email OttawaMensCentre@hotmail.com Web site
http://www.OttawaMensCentre.com Tel 613-482-1112 or 613-247-9378