Debtors Prison for Deadbeats: a Nuclear Bomb for women who choose divorce?

Last night I arrived in Toronto from Montreal. I did not plan to write a post, however, on my way to my first appointment this morning, while driving past Queen’s Park, I changed my mind and I took a detour to the Lakeshore and I shot some “views”, including the one attached.

The situation is this: most of us assume that if we play be the rules, we should be able to avoid our being put in jail. After all, if we work hard, act responsibly and honour our commitments, there should be no problems, right?

Sadly, history has shown there are noble causes perhaps where ultimately and in retrospect the State looks foolish or self-interested. When Cassius Clay / Mohamed Ali was put in jail for avoiding military service in the US, this represented a class / race struggle with respect military service that led to change and the objective of racial equality. There are also situations of injustice because of blatant racial biases, such as Nelson Mandela’s life in prison as a result of decisions made by discriminatory governments in South Africa trying to prolong a very unjust status quo. In these cases the State had no regard for equality or human rights and no qualms about locking up certain persons to perpetuate the self-interested agenda of the State or those who represent the State. This is how these decisions are now judged by history.

Well, this week I discovered that Canada’s judiciary may one day be seen in a way similar to how we lament the previous lack of integrity by the US and in South African governments. Because some of the worst family policy in Canada comes out of Ontario (as well as Supreme Court Justices who have the worst “discrimination ratings”) when it comes to the likelihood of women winning and men losing decisions they adjudicate, my hotel in downtown Toronto is the perfect place for me to explain why all men (even those who never foresee them being affected by a divorce) should be on alert.

This week’s Exclusive interview with Dr. Kenneth Dickie from exile in Bahamas

Did anyone else hear the exclusive radio interview with Dr. Ken Dickie on Chin Radio, 97.9 in Ottawa hosted by Ottawa lawyer and mediator Ernie Tannis? For those interested in exploring which situations in life could lead to one being wrongly incarcerated, I recommend your requesting a transcript.

In this interview, Dr. Dickie broke his silence about his family law case, following much media hysteria in recent weeks celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision about “deadbeat dads”. This was followed by Olivia Chow’s ignorant comments in the House of Commons this week blaming “deadbeats” for child poverty in Canada. Dr. Dickie finally told his side of the story. More than ever, there is no doubt in my mind term “deadbeat” is a euphemism placed in our terminology to legitimise gender biased public decision making by certain governments and the judiciary.

What’s this all about?

Dr. Ken Dickie is the Ontario plastic surgeon and alleged “deadbeat dad” who lives in the Bahamas. He was officially placed in exile two weeks ago by the Supreme Court's decision 9-0 to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal would not hold Dr. Dickie in contempt for not putting up $250,000 in financial security for the education of his grown children because his claims that he cannot pay had not been heard by the Court. The Supreme Court says that doesn’t matter, so now there is jurisprudence saying that matters of civil contempt when information is still missing by a respondent are now punishable by jail. This is unbelievably bold jurisprudence because matters of criminal contempt would never result in jail under similar circumstances.

Now, Dr. Dickie will be put in jail if the Canadian authorities actually get their hands on him. He has lost his passport, which prevents him from leaving the Bahamas. And, perhaps most importantly, the State has made an example out of him personally so that all Canadian men who might consider getting married and/or having children one day should be on alert that any failure to “pay up“ if one‘s marriage ends up in divorce could mean jail.

Rightly or wrongly, decisions like this should cause a decline in the number of marriages and the number of children who are born. Furthermore, because individuals do not have exclusive control over whether their marriages work or not, it might also be prudent for all married and divorced men to now practice how to prudently and defensively pick up the soap in the shower. Or at the very least to be completely safe, just make sure you never drop that soap again.

Why doesn’t Dr. Dickie not just put up the ‘freaking’ money?

Even if it is ‘way over the top’ to put people in jail for civil matters, why does Dr. Dickie just pay? Could it be true that he cannot? Also, was he always a deadbeat? Did he ever pay for his kids?

Apparently, Dr. Dickie and his ex-wife signed a separation agreement at the time of the divorce in the early 1990s that made him responsible to pay her $1.25 million dollars over 10 years plus a $120,000 educational account for the kids. Both parties had sought independent legal advice at the time.

He contends that he paid his ex wife the agreed $1.25 million and the $120K for the kids education. He also claims that after making all these payments and after the ups and downs of his plastic surgery business in both Canada (which he shut down) and now in the Bahamas, he does not have the money/ equity to secure with a bank a “guarantee” to pay in security another 250K for the future education of children.

If it has been 15 years, how old are his kids? A deal is a deal, right?

Dr. Dickie was one month away from having fulfilled that separation agreement when his wife’s legal counsel sought to re-open a ten year agreement on the eve of its completion. After receiving monies from her ex that amount to what many people don’t earn in a lifetime, Mrs. Dickie retained Toronto family divorce lawyer, Mr. Niman, who went after more money to pay for the education of Dr. Dickie’s children. By this point, his kids were all in their late teenage years and early twenties. Some of them had jobs, even though the mainstream media covering the story continues to publish pictures of Mrs. Dickie with young children leading most readers and viewers to believe Dr. Dickie left his family in the lurch.

Dr. Dickie’s lawyer, Rochelle Cantor, explains that Dr. Dickie’s children are now all in their 20s. They have been in and out of school, they all have “trust funds” set up previously by Dr. Dickie to pay for their education. They have all been close to being adults since before Mrs. Dickie sought to reopen the separation agreement - for example, at least one has taken 6 years to pursue 3 year degrees, etc; and another is travelling the world in lieu of attending school using monies from savings and a “trust fund” to fund the experience.

Mr. Niman by reputation is a lawyer who specialises “lifestyle family law“. Some call this the exclusive practice of helping wealthy, sometimes angry divorcees take their ex-husbands for everything they are worth. Because collecting legal fees on a contingency basis is not accepted practice in Canada, Mr. Niman allegedly took on Mrs. Dickie’s case pro-bono. After all, further jurisprudence in family law that would create even more incentives for women to divorce would logically help Mr. Niman’s practice. Would this be an alternative way for Mr. Niman to recover fees in the future for the time put into Mrs. Dickie’s case?

Well apparently, Mrs. Dickie also declared bankruptcy, which, if he were to choose, would have allowed Mr. Niman to write off “paper receivables” from his income tax . So, it seems Mr. Niman not only may pay less tax to Canada and Ontario by representing Mrs. Dickie, he got very valauable jurisprudence (for someone who practices this kind of law) by the Supreme Court of Canada preserving and extending the profitability of his genre of law in the future.

To top it all off, federal monies allocated to the Status of Women funding paid for Mr. Niman to take this case to the Supreme Court. This dangerous jurisprudence was funded by the Legal Education Action Fund (Leaf) which was set up in 1985 following the Charter to push for equal rights for women.

The irony is, this decision makes Canada less equal for men who are “totally exposed” if they choose to marry or to have children. Therefore, federal monies were used to put the interests of women forward at the expense of men who become divorced, which is arguably when advocacy monies become a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The “Nuclear Bomb” for Women and continued profits for the legal industry

According to Rochelle Cantor, one of Mr. Niman’s arguments to the Supreme Court in pleading for them to allow for this jurisprudence via the Dickie vs Dickie case, was that it “gives women a “nuclear weapon in matters of the family”.

Does anyone else have trouble with how this has developed? What is the real point of all of this? Is this really about poor Mrs. Dickie, who is currently working as a nurse in Alberta? Or, is this about those deprived Dickie children who are grown, who have trust funds barely depleted and who are either working or have been in an out of school this entire millennium?

Or, is this about feeding the pockets of the legal industry who have more tools to terrorise further the lives of those men who end up getting divorced, their second families and the children of second families?

After my previously posting this and this about gender bias by our judiciary, I am starting to wonder whether the politicisation of judicial appointments and the controversy surrounding this issue currently raised by the Liberals about the Conservatives does not need to be looked at more holistically. Previous judicial appointments by Liberal governments are failing it seems and are no better than the anticipated results from the current process proposed by the Conservatives to select judges.

If judges individually or collectively make decisions while on the bench implicitly or explicitly because of their own preferences, way of viewing the world, or a subliminal desire to indirectly facilitate more future business to the legal industry at the expense of gender equality, human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the whole system (as well as those currently presiding) requires a complete overhaul.

Bad news, good news Charest: how do Quebec Liberal fortunes translate federally?

Voters in the Province Quebec have very different ways of determining who to vote for at election time. Left-right ideological distinctions between parties come second to how political parties view Quebec's role within Canada.

The provincial Liberals vary greatly as far as who they shadow federally and whether their ideologies more closely resemble federal Liberals or federal Conservatives. Jean Charest, a former federal Progressive Conservative, is the only federalist option for Quebecers. Some say his party has moved way right, which will not stop left leaning federal Liberals (who live and vote in Quebec) from voting for Charest, even if there is an ideological disconnect.

The Parti Quebecois, led by the controversial Andre Boisclair, is traditionally a left of centre party and is known to have traditionally supported very good social policy consistent with the ideological centre of Quebecers (apart from the language issue). At voting time the PQ attracts support by those who seek sovereignty and some soft-nationalists (who seem to go back and forth between the Liberals and the Parti Quebecois) depending upon political climate in Quebec at the time in relation to Canada and how important ideology is in relation to federalism and Quebec culture at any given time.

The ADQ led by Mario Dumont has sought to find a place in the midst of this federalist -separatist debate. Dumont is arguably the most dangerous of the three, even if he is not looking for Quebec to separate. He is attractive to Quebecers who believe in the 'melting pot' and protecting Quebec traditions, language and culture in a united, albeit, a very decentralised Canada. Dumont is going after the rural vote on promises that he will strengthen and protect traditional Quebec culture and values via a Quebec Constitution. The resolution to ban hejabs in Herouxville, Quebec on behalf of Muslim women is seen as a "shot across the bow" on behalf of the protectionist thinking Dumont is spreading.

A provincial election in Quebec is anticipated to be called this week by Premier Jean Charest. What makes it scary for federal Liberals that Jean Charest have governed since 2003 according to the conservative style "bad news then good news agenda". Even though Premier Charest has been behind in the polls for almost his entire term in office, he seems poised to win a March election because his recent good news strategy has worked, as have political tactics, strategy, a superior organisation and good timing. The PQ, the only party of the others that conceivably could challenge Charest to govern Quebec, does not seem ready for an election and recently lost its lead in the polls to Charest's Liberals.

Charest seems to be just getting stronger now that his "good news agenda" has reached 'full speed'. Today Charest launched his election platform. In it his government takes credit for honouring a promise to improve health care. Charest also promises personal tax cuts if re-elected.

What does this mean for Liberals federally? Are Quebec Liberals more like provincial "Conservatives" because they have that latitude to manoeuvre from the left to the right and back without losing their core support? Do federal Liberals naturally gravitate to the provincial Liberals because of ideology or is it just to protect federalism?

What should federal Liberals be hoping for in Quebec? Do Charest and Harper have a plan to help each other to continue governing?

Following an election victory will Charest be deploying his 'organisation' in Quebec to help Harper's Conservatives win more seats federally. Or, will provincial Liberal organisers help federal Liberals, the federal Conservatives or neither depending upon who is running in which ridings (and what deals can be struck?)

It would be nice to know that any assistance provided by federal Liberals to provincial Liberals will not indirectly be helping Harper. Both seem to be quite good at tactics and strategy.

It is too bad that these ‘smoke and mirrors’ approaches both federally and provincially in Quebec will play such a large role in who gets elected in different jurisdictions in 2007.

In the end I trust 'good ideas' will prevail over tactics, manipulation, and 'matters of timing' in deciding who governs next federally.

Part 2: Dion's Plan: are all Liberals 'tous ensemble' on our running more women?

On Friday I wrote about a backlash against Stephane Dion's plan to run more women in the next federal election by some questionable characters. Joan Bryden's CP story was picked up by some of the print media and it opened the door to some dissent. Questions were raised by some Liberal bloggers who seemed to be having trouble with Stephane Dion's plan, even though any perceived 'in fighting' does not bode well for the next election. Nevertheless, these things can happen and can still be of no consequence if they live for a few days and then go away.

At first, I thought this might have to do with Stephane Dion reserving the right to appoint, where necessary. Then, I thought this might have to do with some ambitious Liberal men who might find themselves being passed up right now for nominations, thus making Stephane Dion's July 2006 promise to run women in 33% of ridings in the next federal election a bitter reality. After that, I started to see some dissent from Liberal men whose time has not yet come where they could run, but who feel threatened that Dion's follow up to his promise might thwart their political ambitions in the future.

What does Michael Ignatieff think? I would like to know because he, like all the leadership candidates, made a policy. Michael's promise described here was to run 25% women candidates and the next election and 35% women in ridings where there is no incumbent or where the incumbent is not seeking re-election. So, Mr. Ignatieff had committed to running slightly fewer women than Dion, but he still set firm quotas nevertheless.

Unfortunately, I am starting to see a pattern on the part of former Michael Ignatieff supporters from Stephane Dion's home province. For example, after multiple subtle shots at Dion's current challenge to run women in 33% of federal ridings, Antonio at Fuddle Duddle makes public on Liblogs this conservative blog by 'blogging tories' Chuckercanuk complaining about this same issue (for a CPC audience).

Does this overt promotion of dissent elsewhere stop with Antonio or does this also represent the attitudes of other former Ignatieff organisers? What about their elected mentors? Do Mr. Rodriquez and M. Coderre quietly support this type of seeming dissent by Antonio because of their own private ambitions? Are they in 'love' still with and would prefer as leader Mr. Ignatieff? Does a failed Dion attempt to govern make Michael the 'heir apparent' and is this what these mega organisers would prefer for next time?

Before going too much further down the road towards an election (which will mean allot of hard work), I would like to know who I can count on and who I cannot. Where does the dissent start and where does it end?

So, in the spirit of leadership, I think it is essential that Michael Ignatieff make a statement in support of M. Dion's plan for women in the next election to show we are really 'tous ensemble'.

Thanks Antonio. The last thing we really need is another albatross within the Liberal party because your nose is 'out of joint' still. We are either 'tous ensemble' or not. To mitigate the damage the onus is now on your 'idol'. There have been rivalries in the Liberal party for too long and it is very important that we promptly 'nip this one in the bud'

Many thanks Dr. Dickie… for setting the rest of us back even further

There was plenty of media coverage yesterday about Dr. Kenneth Dickie, the plastic surgeon who moved to the Bahamas with his new wife in part to escape child and spousal support obligations. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (like they often do on child support issues like here because of this) that Mr. Dickie be held accountable and it looks like he is f-cked if he ever returns to Canada.

Thanks for the bad publicity, buddy… there are many of us who are working hard to fix a broken family law system that caused you to bolt. Now, the myth of the “deadbeat dad” is alive and well it is also “top-of mind“. Special interests who lobby hard for the need to have more and more enforcement of child support unnecessarily will use people like you to further their arguments.

On the other hand, from a policy perspective, there is an argument to be made that your departure from Canada, from the lives of you kids, job and friends could be viewed also as evidence that family policy is broken. After all, one measure of a successful policy is the extent to which those who are served and affected by policy comply with it voluntarily.

Dr. Dickie, either you are the ass that those who strategically use the euphemism “deadbeat” want to portray you as, or you discovered what many men themselves affected by family policy have already discovered : that the formula used to calculate child support according to the tables is based on flawed principles that not only make it unaffordable, make it so that it also benefits higher income mothers at the expense of lower income and who really need it. Why? The women’s groups who inputed into the process to create the tables focussed on mostly on themselves and the needs of higher income earning mothers, like lawyers.

Some say this issue is all about the money and to preserve the flow of monies from men to women, often inappropriately.

How are the tables out of whack and what are the signs that this arguably corrupt policy design process created an incentive (or no other choice) for Dr. Dickie to flee the jurisdiction and become a fugative on the run? What would Tie Domi think now that he has felt the intrusiveness of this system?

Here are the top five:

1. Where child support was previously tax deductible for fathers and income for mothers, in 1995, a Supreme Court decision changed this. Rather than making child support tax deductible for fathers and income for children (the intended recipients) which would make it tax free under $8600, the government did a tax grab and shifted the tax burden to fathers squeezing many even further.

2. Where child support is supposed to be for children of divorce to maintain their lifestyles in a way similar to how they would evolve in an intact family, the income of the mother is not taken into account by the child support tables - so the burden of paying for children lies solely on the father even if the mother’s income is higher (except in Quebec where the difference in incomes between mothers and fathers dictates the table calculation which is arguably the correct interpretation of the policy). Furthermore, these monies are paid to the mother who often use it to litigate against the child support paying father to selfishly keep him away from the children.

3. Child support according to the tables does not consider that in divorce families have to increase the number of homes supported by the same incomes from one home to two. Therefore, non-residential parents expenses go up because of the cost of housing, transportation infrastructure, and spending money for activities on weekends when the children will typically visit that is not considered when the table amounts were set.

4. Child support obligations can get in the way of non-residential parents being able to enforce access to their children, since a lack of federal policy makes it so that there is no non-litigious way to enforce access to children where a primary caregiver arbitrarily “denies it“. The cost of bringing a motion or a trial can become inaccessible for many who are already stretched to the limit by artificially high federal child support table figures.

5. While monies spent on litigation to collect child support are tax deductible while monies spent on litigation to enforce access are not. Family Responsibility Offices (FRO) are already there to enforce child support, with the power to remove driver’s licences, garnish bank accounts, incarcerate fathers and now, in Ontario, post the pictures of “deadbeats” on the internet. These same deadbeats (assuming like the State seems to do they are in the highest tax bracket) are paying 1 dollar to the lawyer and 1 dollar to the tax department to enforce access with their children via the courts. There is no institutional support for fathers enforcing access, notwithstanding that the FROs provide free enforcement to those who collect child support, 90% of whom are women.

There are many other indicators of failed and even gender biased policy, but this is not my point. My only other substantive comment is that the only way this case got to the Supreme Court was via advocacy funding from the Status of Women who give money to the Women’s Legal Action Fund (Leaf) to support litigation on issues such as this.

What about the 37.7% of fathers who don’t see their children because enforcing access for many men (with all these child support obligations a need to rely solely on slow, expensive and arguably biased family courts) is simply unaffordable? Proponents of change say there is just not enough money to do everything and financial support paid to mothers trumps relationship support for child/father relationships every time.

Also, with zero funding support from “Leaf” type organizations, is the administration of family policy also gender discriminatory on the basis of who gets funding and who doesn’t? Does the government have a role to play to help men in enforcing the frivolous denial of access by women who do it because the system is broken and they can without consequence? Or, does the State have an obligation to create institutional support to enforce child access much like other institutions previously set up to help enforce child support?

Yes, I am really pissed at Dr. Dickie, but for different reasons than those persons who like to use the words like “deadbeats”. At the same time, I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees that corresponding rules that affect child support (a policy for women because of how custody is awarded) and access (a policy for men because of how custody is awarded) are out of balance.

Is Dr. Dickie is a complete “ass” who deserved to be divorced, shamed, ostracised by society, aliented from his children and also locked up because he is cheap and doesn’t give a "rat’s ass" about his children? Or, were the financial obligations too much? Is it this that forced a man who was once respected and admired to go away in a form of "exile"? Is a system set up by and for wealthy (lawyer) women with access to billions of dollars in advocacy funds to lobby governments too out of balance for persons like Dr. Dickie to live comfortably in Canada?

Readers, you decide ...but please remember, it could also happen to you.

Dion’s plan: Tory media and self-interested Liberals show their stripes

A self-interested backlash?

As someone who has written about gender discrimination against men frequently, I was surprised by the uproar in the media and on the blogs today about Stephane Dion’s plan to field more women candidates in the next federal election. After all, M. Dion announced in July that as leader he would run 33% women candidates in the next election. He also expressed a willingness to use the power of appointment if necessary to ensure that women can run in winnable ridings.

What is the big deal now? Much of it was driven by conservative elements in Canadian media. However, there has also been criticism by some Liberals. Are complaints about gender discrimination against men on the issue of political nominations about self-interest by ambitious male Liberals? Is this backlash because some men feel they have been left out this time in spite of merit, or that their “time has passed” now that quotas have been set?

Much of the time I am out there alone on the issue of gender equitability (on certain issues pertaining to the family). I have frequently argued that men are not treated fairly by family courts. When I released to the blogging community on New Year's Day a new report showing gender discrimination against men on the part of all 22 Ontario Court of Appeal judges, where were these people who were today taking issue with Dion? Is this proof that many some people are apathetic to blatantly unfair practices that they do not foresee ever affecting them?

Is it right what Dion is doing?

About Dion’s approach, I agree with the objective of gender equitability for both men and women. The House of Commons should be no different. Stephane is focussing on reaching his 33% objective for now preferably by nomination (but also by appointment where necessary). How much progress has been made in the percentage of women sitting in the House in the 25 years that have passed since the adoption of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Should the pursuit of parity in Parliament be sought more aggressively in order to elicit results more quickly? Are we behind schedule?

You’ve come a long way baby, or have you?

Proponents like me who are seeking change to Canada’s child custody and access system would argue that reverse-discrimination against men exists in the way custody is awarded. I am also the first to admit that on issues affecting women (other than family policy) such as pay equity and top job opportunities in politics or elsewhere, women are still not at par with men.

I am aware though that that progress for women has been made over the last 100 years. When my 95 year old grandmother was born, women still could not vote and were not even considered "persons". Even if there has been much progress, the lack of parity in Parliament is telling. I am not surprised there are still gender problems. Along with a lack of parity comes the question as to whether our political leaders have an obligation to intervene when necessary to encourage a Parliament made up of members representing the demographics of Canada. All Liberal leadership Candidates brought forward a plan to help more women sit in the House next time. I was very impressed with Ken Dryden’s Action Plan for Women in Public Life.

Am I a hypocrite, or are you?

With all that being said, I am a hypocrite if I complain that there is gender discrimination in how child custody is awarded if I don't recognise that 20% of women in parliament is too low. This is simply "residue" that is left over from a time when patriarchal principles dominated who could work and be fairly paid and what roles parents played in their children's lives. Arguably this is also evidence that the State has not done enough to create appropriate conditions for true equitability on either front.

Part of the problem is that issues of the family have been allowed to remain discriminatory against men and second families because of who profits currently from the status quo. Ironically, predominantly male decision makers (lobbied largely by special interests and by the legal industry) use gender discrimination against men on issues of divorce and the family as a "token issue" that tends to offset the many areas where women still come up short. Who benefits most from this, it seems, "trade off" of mutually discriminatory practices affecting different elements of both genders in parallel and in different ways.

The best part of Dion’s plan

The best part of Dion’s plan is that it could solve two problems at once. It should serve to increase the number of women representing federal ridings in the House of Commons. The plan may also help to evaluate and set the agenda for changes to the Divorce Act that would alleviate aspects considered by some to be gender discriminatory against men.

After all, Dion as prime minister commits to subjecting “all government policies and programs moving forward undergo a thorough gender analysis to evaluate their impact on men and women in Canada”.

This proposed process should identify and remedy family policy in Canada that currently discriminates against men. This will be as much a victory for those who yearn for a fair and just society as will be gender parity in Parliament.