Open letter from Danny Guspie to the Governments of Canada: "ISN'T CHILD SUPPORT FOR THE CHILD?" I was inspired to ask yet again for an accounting of where the increased tax revenue dollars go since the implementation of the Child Support Guidelines in 1997.
Heidi and I met with the Department of Finance who could not give us these answers 9 years ago. Hopefully they've had time to do the books ;-)
An open letter: "ISN'T CHILD SUPPORT FOR THE CHILD?"
- All Provincial Premiers
- The Provincial Attorney General's,
- Provincial Finance Ministers and Auditor Generals
- The Prime Minister
- Ministers of Justice & Finance
- Auditor General of Canada
A few quick questions. Please provide a 3 sentence answer below each question, indicating your office and jurisdiction before your answer.
1. How much additional tax revenue has been raised by the child support guidelines in your respective jurisdictions since their introduction in 1997?
2. Where precisely does this tax revenue go?
3. Are any of the following scenarios taking place in your jurisdictions?
4. Are the monies that provincial and Federal judges award, enforce and collect is directly proportional to how much it receives from the federal government as incentive reimbursement funding?
5,. Isn't it a fact that amount is in the several tens of millions of dollars?
6, Where this money is spent by support recipients is not subject to any accounting?
7. Can a Judge make such an order, requiring an accounting of where child support is spent?
8. If not, can you help me to understand why the dead get a passing of accounts in probate Court, but children get no accounting of where child support money goes?
9. Can you please clarify if there are no financial controls for child support, trust mechanisms nor passing of accounts why do the dead have more rights than living children?
10. Isn't it true that the monies the state receives for child support enforcement has no strings attached; is used to fund area's other than direct and/or indirect child support?
11. Does that not constitute a conflict of interest?
12. Isn't this racketeering?
13. Any of this money go into any political coffers ie the funding of services for women.
14 And where do men go for similarly funded services in your jurisdiction?
15. If none are funded, I believe our non-profit programs would qualify for consideration - What is the process to access such funding?
16. If inequities exist, what are you doing to address these inequities?
Inquiring minds want to know. I would be very grateful for an immediate and expedited response.
Danny Guspie - Executive Director
Fathers Resources International
NOTES: Credit for inspiration:
Child Support Enforcement A Fraud By Bruce Eden
February 28, 2006 - SEX & METROPOLIS BlogWonks.com
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville and Gibson v. Berryhill that judges cannot sit on cases where they have a pecuniary interest in them because it would be a demonstration of actual bias.
The state talks a good story about how all the increased child support enforcement and collections benefits the children. This is pure fantasy.
The monies that the state awards, enforcesw much it receives from the federal government as incentive reimbursement funding. And that amount is in the several hundreds of millions of dollars. The monies that the state receives for child support enforcement and collects is directly proportional to how much it receives from the federal government as incentive reimbursement funding. And that amount is in the several hundreds of millions of dollars. The monies that the state receives for child support enforcement has no strings attached. The state uses this funding to bolster their state employee and judicial pension plans.