New2view's Blog   Life on The Blue Marble

Please note; This post applies specifically to potential financial consequences of divorce in B.C. Canada.

That said; imho divorce is undesirable no matter when or where. The following experience and information is intended for education purposes, If it discourages divorce, it has served its purpose.

One of the most damaging consequences of divorce, beyond family relations, are financial issues. In B.C. as in other jurisdictions, there is a legislated organization to enforce court ordered support payments. This agency is the FMEP (family maintenance enforcement program), it is under the Attorney General’s Ministry. Personnel are government authorized ‘collection agents‘* which I believe contribute to a breakdown of family relations and hence society itself!

True, support enforcement is usually a ‘result’ of divorce, not the ’cause’ of such. However the authority mandated and exercised by employees of this agency, called *’Enforcement Officers‘ goes way beyond what licensed collection agency actions are permitted. This government agency operates in secrecy from an undisclosed location for good reason. Even telephone calls are carefully monitored and restricted, callers being required to use a code before talking to *EO’s.

FMEP collection officers are authorized to literally wreak havoc on payors, meaning their actions can and do contribute to substantially altering lives of payors, and bear in mind payors are usually innocent B.C. citizens!

FMEP legislated authority comes within the ‘Family Maintenance Enforcement Act’ (FMEA), established for the expressed purpose of enforcing support payments ordered by the Courts. If you aren’t sure of the extent of enforcement you should read this act, its online here: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96127_01

Court Ordered support decisions are supposedly made for the benefit of disadvantaged parties to a divorce, usually wives and/or children. Sounds high-minded doesn’t it?  But  court decisions often have a major detrimental impact on the lives of divorced mates and parents, usually husbands and fathers. Regardless of that fact, ‘payors’ are simply ‘collateral damage’ to Enforcement Officers!

Whenever a government assumes the role of enforcer of its citizens, red flags should be flying. There are inherent and significant dangers for society in this kind of legislation. At the very least, healthy public oversight should prevail from beginning to end.

Punitive FMEP enforcement powers include everything from serious invasions of privacy, to cleaning out personal bank accounts, imposing liens on homes, cars, and any other material assets, cancellation of passports and even drivers’ license renewals, and crippling credit ratings, to name some of the highly destructive tools available to them! Even CPP, Old Age Pensions, and UI, can be garnisheed by FMEP agents. To say these actions are life-changing is an understatement!

How did this arbitrary and abusive enforcement authority get started? Think about it; “Do governments ever prioritize the public interest over ‘their own’ best interests?!  For example, if divorcees weren’t forced to pay support to unemployed former spouses, it would fall to the government to eventually provide some form of safety-net. That may explain an underlying motive for law-makers passing this legislation in the first place. They have a big stake in forcing non-criminal citizens to pay support since that relieves the government from taking social responsibility.

Ironically, in recent years moral judgments have been disregarded in favor of a secular approach under the Canada Divorce Act.

Divorced spouses are not judged on the basis of morality, under that act they are simply instructed to realistically ‘become self-supporting as soon as possible following divorce’.

So from a Federal point of view, the marriage is viewed much as any other ‘contract’. Here’s a link to Federal Spousal Support Rules:  http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/spousal-epoux/ss-pae.html

Yet, in spite of this Divorce Act’s secular approach, Provincial court decisions continue to impose financial burdens on payors’ as if they, the courts, are the ‘moral judge’ of the parties, the very opposite of how they must deal with contract disputes.

The effect of such ‘moral’ decisions go far beyond mere secular obligations. They deeply affect the lives of divorced parties, mostly payors. I believe this is also clearly detrimental for society as a whole.

There is no argument that its necessary to fairly divide a family’s material things at the time of divorce, especially taking into consideration any underage children involved. However, imposing the burden of long-term financial support for the sole benefit of a former spouse with no handicaps or children to care for, is simply unwarranted!

Support for divorced wives may have been necessary a century ago, but those historic conditions are out of date. Women have equal employment opportunities (sometimes more and sometimes less), and the Federally legislated obligation to become self-supporting!

Forcing a former spouse to pay long-lasting support inevitably fosters animosity, no doubt providing an actual incentive for self-seeking wives to initiate divorce in the first place! If that sounds bitter, so be it.

In summary; Provincial Court support orders fly in the face of the Federal Divorce Act which treats the failed marriage as a broken contract, which it arguably is. Imposing an ongoing burden of debt and unconscionable sanctions on former husbands contributes to divorce actions and has a debilitating effect on society as a whole. Its divisive, contentious, and in many cases, grossly unfair as countless men will testify.

This is an ugly truth, made more so by the excessive collection powers granted to a handful of government bureaucrats.

Adding insult to injury once those support orders are made it becomes a debilitating drain on payors to mount a court challenge attempting to alter their support order. Courts are very reluctant to make changes to orders issued by their peers, regardless of any difficulties and changes in the lives of the men burdened by them.

Courts regard most changes as merely the ‘choice’ of the payor, irrelevant to the ordered support payments. In other words genuine free choice is no longer possible for payors. Is that not an abuse of human rights and freedoms?! Is it even remotely possible for imperfect Judges to stipulate a completely fair and balanced support order? A true ongoing ball and chain effect that will not have a major impact on payors for five, ten, or even twenty years in the future..? Hardly!

So stressed by court imposed support orders, distraught payors have sometimes even committed suicide. (And that’s not even mentioning the trauma of child custody issues.)

No, I certainly don’t have all the answers to these difficult divorce issues, but the present methods of placing the burden of support on one divorcee is clearly not the answer and should not be left up to the courts.

Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the quasi-police powers which have been given to the FMEP bureaucracy by the government. Why doesn’t this agency have open public oversight?

They can, and do, abuse innocent citizens with little disregard for the charter of rights and freedoms.In fact its very questionable if the Family Maintenance Act would be able to withstand a Supreme Court of Canada legal challenge.

The FMEP agents are not even accountable to a provincial ombudsmen! They can and do blithely enforce flawed court decisions with impunity. The have been given powers well beyond those allowed for mere debt-collectors. This is blind-folded justice and frankly; it stinks!  There are few benefits to society from granting such authority to mere public employees. This system is not working well, and never will work well; I rest my case.