When necessary – and only when necessary – the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program can attach (garnish) wages

Alan Forseth ~~ Kamloops, BC ~~ May 15th

Earlier this week (Monday May 13^th) the BC government announced it would be establishing a new Crown agency to oversee the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP).  They indicated that on or before the end of October, the provision of family maintenance services would transition from a contracted service provider, to the newly created Crown agency.

Apparently, this was to ensure that family maintenance enforcement services for vulnerable British Columbians continue uninterrupted.

Seeing this story, reminded me of a woman (we’ll call her Mary Brown) who had email me some time b ack about this very thing, and questions she had about how maintenance enforcement was imposed and enforced.

She said to me, “I’m just curious if you can get any statistics of the homeless men and woman, that have children, that they are paying family maintenance in support of their children”. 

“I am not about to suggest those with children are not responsible for their payments however, Family Maintenance can make it impossible for these men and woman to actually pay rent and live, based on the cost of living and having their wages garnisheed by family maintenance.

Interesting questions I thought, so I inquired of them to the Ministry of the Attorney General, “Are there any statistics regarding the number of people assessed child maintenance, that end up having the payment garnished from their wages?”

Back came the reply, “When necessary – and only when necessary – the program can attach (garnish) wages. At any given time, about 1 payor in 5 will have such action taken”.

But back to the email from Mary Brown, and her wonderings ...

“I would almost guarantee that a very high percentage of homelessness is of those who just could not cope with not being able to survive the financial crush month after month”. 

Unfortunately, according to the Ministry of the Attorney General, the response to this was that they ... do not have these statistics.

That said, as to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) itself, Attorney General David Eby noted that, “The old model was criticized in 2017 by the auditor general as based on a problematic contract tendering process ... about to expire after 10 years of failed negotiations, creating uncertainty about the future of this vital program.”

Eby said, “This new Crown agency will build a foundation for services that are predictable and sustainable for vulnerable families, and make it easier to add new services in the future.”

While Mary Brown is in full agreement that, “... there does need to be accountability from those who have walked away from their payments of their children” -- she also believes that -- “... a review needs to be done on Family Maintenance as well”.

“I believe if payments were more reasonable you may see a change for the better instead of the dead-beat dad or mom syndrome ...”, she said.

When asked about this, however, the Ministry of the Attorney General indicated to me that, “The program has the discretion to accept repayment plans on overdue maintenance, and these plans take into account the financial circumstances of the payor”.

“As the monthly amount is set by the Court”, they indicated to me, “The program cannot override that amount. The program can provide a number of options and referrals to payors on how to vary / change the amount of support that they are required to pay”.

This sounds an awful lot like why Mary contacted me in the first place, and laid out her concerns to me.

“I have watched my nephew go down to the gutter over the last 8 years, due to not being able to survive at his job, and live, so he became homeless and addicted, only to become an empty shell”.

“Over time he crawled out of the gutter and worked under the table to try and get ahead to prepare to start a good job. He did this because he knew family maintenance would be there for garnishee, but he also knew that he would barely be able to feed himself”.

“What I am saying is this system is failed, and seriously needs to be looked at”.

I did ask the Attorney Generals Ministry, of David Eby, about this however there was no direct response.  Instead I was told that the:

“... transition to the new Crown agency is not intended to impact services and outcomes for the families that rely on the program. As with the contracted service provider, the agency will provide services to families and children entitled to child support and spousal support under maintenance orders or agreements. Families will continue to receive the services the way they do today”.

I was also told that for parent being provided services, in terms of Family Maintenance, that:

“It is anticipated that by establishing a closer relationship than is available through a contract, the agency will offer opportunities for enhancements, changes and additional services in the future”. 

Mary Brown is NOT the first person I have heard from, or spoken too, about the hardships that can be imposed on those trying to do the right thing, by providing for their children. It seems however that at times perhaps, a little flexibility could see things go more smoothly.

That instead of, as she said ... making it impossible for these men and woman to actually pay rent and live, based on the cost of living, and having their wages garnisheed by family maintenance

As for now, according to Monday’s media release, the agency will work directly with government to support the goals of increasing access to justice and delivering services to British Columbians in a people-focused way. It will also help improve the process for developing legislation and policies that achieve these goals.

Learn More:

 

• Family Maintenance Enforcement Program: www.fmep.gov.bc.ca/

•  Auditor general’s report about the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program contract: www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2017/audit-contract-family-maintenance-enforcement-program