Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

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 13th) 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:
 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 
Post a Comment
Read more

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Kamloops - North Thompson BC Conservative MLA Ward Stamer speaks to Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today. At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA. Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province. UNDRIP was never originally designed to function ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Labels

Show more