Deadbeat Mom Sues for Child Support

[Dreadnaught]

But not what you think!

B.C. man being sued by mom for parental support wants case dismissed

BY AMY CHUNG, POSTMEDIA NEWS SEPTEMBER 20, 2011

The lawyer representing a British Columbia man being sued by his estranged elderly mother for parental support is requesting the 12-year-old case be dismissed.

Ken Anderson, 47, said he was abandoned by his parents at 15 when they moved from Osoyoos to the Kootenays and has not be in contact with his mother Shirley, 71, in decades.

In 2000, Shirley sued Anderson and his two siblings for parental support, demanding they pay her $750 per month.

Shirley used Section 90 of the B.C. Family Relations Act, an old statute used in Canadian provincial governments since the 1920s and 1930s to reduce government obligations to provide social assistance to indigenes.

Similar to the spousal support framework, but rarely used, Section 90 allows dependent parents to make applications to be supported by their children.

In 2007, the B.C. Law Institute made a report that asked for Section 90 to be repealed since it created a legal obligation for adult children to support their dependent parents.

"In cases like the Anderson case, where there is a deeper family dispute, these statutes can exasperate these disputes by getting them into court," said the report's author, Kevin Zakreski a staff lawyer at the B.C. Law Institute.

Anderson's lawyer, Stanley Schwartz, said to his knowledge, there have been 10 applications made under Section 90 in the past 40 to 50 years.

Schwartz asked for the case to be dismissed Tuesday since Shirley was unable to provide financial documents ordered by the court.

"After 12 years, both my clients and his siblings are entitled to have this matter resolved. I mean obviously, they've been under stress, they're working people and we gave our arguments in court . . . and the matter is reserved," said Schwartz, who is taking on the case pro bono.

In an interview last year with the Vancouver Sun, Anderson, a logging-truck driver from Oliver, B.C., expressed his frustration and said children who have bad parents should not have to pay for them as they age.

"We lived in a brutal household and there was always trouble going on there and then they left me behind and I just don't believe that you should have to pay when you are left behind at 15 years old. It is just not right," said Anderson, who is raising two teenagers with his wife, Sherry.

"I just wish this nightmare would disappear."

http://www.canada.com/life/being+sue...657/story.html

[GGT]

Ken Anderson, 47, said he was abandoned by his parents at 15 when they moved from Osoyoos to the Kootenays and has not be in contact with his mother Shirley, 71, in decades.

[CitizenCain]

Good to hear that cradle-to-grave social safety net Canadians pay so much in taxes for is doing its usual bang-up job.

Of course, if it weren't for Canada's retarded de-facto gun bans, I bet this particular issue would have resolved itself a decades ago, but I suppose that's to neat and clean and "unCanadian" a resolution. Oh well.

[Khendraja'aro]

Similar position to what my father was in. His father also left when he was a youngster (he was around 5, or so) - and then he had to pay support for him when he could not afford a retirement home on his pension alone.

[Loki]

Taking socialism to a whole new level.

[Khendraja'aro]

Taking socialism to a whole new level.

Well, on the other hand, our family was not to keen on the "let him be homeless" idea, either, which I'm sure you'd have jumped for joy for as a solution?

[Loki]

Why should your family have any more obligation to him than the random man on the street? Why not help some homeless person instead?

[Khendraja'aro]

He may have been a deadbeat, but he still was family.

Nothing you'll understand, considering the stance you're currently displaying in the death penalty thread.

[Loki]

So blood is more important than need? Great socialist you make.

[Aimless]

Jesus Khen, why take the bait?

[CitizenCain]

So blood is more important than need? Great socialist you make.

Duh. Always been that way, ESPECIALLY for the socialists. That's why we need immigration controls, to prevent the needy mud peoples from taking advantage of "our" white man's socialism.

Please, letting needy people take advantage of free help??? That's not what socialism is all about, and you know it.

[Loki]

Amusingly enough, that's not very far from the truth. Support for redistributionist policies falls sharply as ethnic heterogeneity goes up. It's ok for the doped-up white man to be receiving welfare, but God forbid that welfare went to some poor Muslim immigrant with 6 kids.

[Dreadnaught]

I understand the argument for a social safety net for the elderly who can't provide for themselves. I just find it sort of uncomfortable to have a legal obligation for kids to support parents. That seems pretty outside the norm of the social contract between kids and parents.

Yes, we expect our kids to support their parents later in life. But we don't require it by law, as we all know not all kids and parents get along.

[Khendraja'aro]

Jesus Khen, why take the bait?

Well, I'll file this one away under: "Stuff to pull up if Loki ever accuses me of trolling again."

[Aimless]

Duh. Always been that way, ESPECIALLY for the socialists. That's why we need immigration controls, to prevent the needy mud peoples from taking advantage of "our" white man's socialism.

Please, letting needy people take advantage of free help??? That's not what socialism is all about, and you know it.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/im...-rates-1990-99

[Ominous Gamer]

I just find it sort of uncomfortable to have a legal obligation for kids to support parents. That seems pretty outside the norm of the social contract between kids and parents.
[...]
Yes, we expect our kids to support their parents later in life.

I think you may need to reword this?

[CitizenCain]

Made sense to me - it's not normal for parents to need financial support from their children in later life, but when it happens, we usually expect the kids to provide said support. Unless, of course, there's a good reason not to, like for example, your abusive, deadbeat parents abandoned you as a kid, to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never actually happen.

[Aimless]

Made sense to me - it's not normal for parents to need financial support from their children in later life

It's the norm, even in socialist Sweden.

[Ominous Gamer]

Made sense to me - it's not normal for parents to need financial support from their children in later life, but when it happens, we usually expect the kids to provide said support.

no where did Dread limit it to just financial support, but even then, I've never seen a child completely brush off their parents, even bad ones.

The way he presented it. he is making a poor relationship between the norm, social expectations, and laws.

[Flixy]

Taking socialism to a whole new level.

If anything, it's not enough socialism - she needs family in state of just the state!

Amusingly enough, that's not very far from the truth. Support for redistributionist policies falls sharply as ethnic heterogeneity goes up. It's ok for the doped-up white man to be receiving welfare, but God forbid that welfare went to some poor Muslim immigrant with 6 kids.

Yeah, but how much is that because of 'blood', and not for the fact hat it's easier to support handouts for people who made similar decisions to yourself? No one likes handouts to people who do things they consider stupid (e.g. if you can't afford six children, don't take them! etc.).



Anyway, in some countries it is expected (a form of social contract) that children take care of their parents when they get old. Not that different from expecting parents to pay for their kids. And because some deadbeat parents don't take care of their kids, there are laws to force parents to do so. And because some deadbeat kids don't take care of their parents, apparently Canada has laws to force kids to do so. And now there is one deadbeat parent who tries to abuse the system.. Can't say I'm shocked by that. Only surprising thing has been that the case is lingering for so long, and that the judges don't just recognise that she was never there for him, and now he doesn't have to be there for her.


By the way, if the norm is that kids take care of their parents, presumably the system is also designed to expect that. For example, higher welfare for old people without living family. So that system sortof screws people who do have living family, but whose family refuses to pay them. Hence the law. I could compare it to student grants here: you get more if your parents are poor, because if your parents are not poor the state expects them to support you. So if your parents are not poor, but also do not support you, you are screwed. Which leaves the option of either forcing parents to pay through lawsuits (not pleasant, and timeconsuming), or officially seperating from your parents in also a lawsuit (so that you get a higher student grant, because they don't consider your parents anymore). I know some people who did the latter.

[CitizenCain]

It's the norm, even in socialist Sweden.

Then again, socialist Sweden encourages people to not save enough money to actually fund their own retirement (and probably taxes income too much to make it a viable option anyway ), whereas [at least historically], North Americans are able and even expected to fund their own retirements, should they choose to retire at some point. So, no, over here in the part of the world that freedom hasn't quite completely abandoned yet (), it is not normal to have the government take so much of your money that you need to take from your children to die in relative comfort.

[Nessus]

Don't you guys have that "ponzi scheme" going on for that purpose?

[Loki]

Yeah, but how much is that because of 'blood', and not for the fact hat it's easier to support handouts for people who made similar decisions to yourself? No one likes handouts to people who do things they consider stupid (e.g. if you can't afford six children, don't take them! etc.).

No, it really is blood. It has been proven that support for the provision of public goods rapidly decreases as heterogeneity of society increases. The same Swedes who are perfectly fine giving welfare to a white mother of 6 get outraged when the same assistance is provided to a black or Muslim mother. The same white Europeans who believe in leniency toward white criminals believe in harsh punishments toward non-white (or non-Christian) criminals. The list goes on.

[Nessus]

No, it really is blood. It has been proven that support for the provision of public goods rapidly decreases as heterogeneity of society increases. The same Swedes who are perfectly fine giving welfare to a white mother of 6 get outraged when the same assistance is provided to a black or Muslim mother. The same white Europeans who believe in leniency toward white criminals believe in harsh punishments toward non-white (or non-Christian) criminals. The list goes on.

At least in the case of welfare, why exactly shouldn't a society want to provide for its own members first?

Actually, now I'm curious. Do corporations (and visible corporate figures) donate more to local (let's say limited to the national level) charities than they do to foreign ones?

[Flixy]

No, it really is blood. It has been proven that support for the provision of public goods rapidly decreases as heterogeneity of society increases. The same Swedes who are perfectly fine giving welfare to a white mother of 6 get outraged when the same assistance is provided to a black or Muslim mother. The same white Europeans who believe in leniency toward white criminals believe in harsh punishments toward non-white (or non-Christian) criminals. The list goes on.

Interesting, from people I know it's more of an 'if you can't get a job because you don't speak the language it's your own fault that you're unemployed and shouldn't get benefits'. But yeah, there's been a load of xenofobia lately, good thing we (at least in principle) have a constitution that makes it illegal to punish foreigners more harshly for a crime than a native.

[Aimless]

Then again, socialist Sweden encourages people to not save enough money to actually fund their own retirement (and probably taxes income too much to make it a viable option anyway ), whereas [at least historically], North Americans are able and even expected to fund their own retirements, should they choose to retire at some point. So, no, over here in the part of the world that freedom hasn't quite completely abandoned yet (), it is not normal to have the government take so much of your money that you need to take from your children to die in relative comfort.

No no no, I meant that supporting your parents in various ways is the norm. I didn't notice you'd specified financial support. The elderly rely on their pensions and on govt. assistance for that. It's easier when you don't have to pay for healthcare

The same Swedes who are perfectly fine giving welfare to a white mother of 6 get outraged when the same assistance is provided to a black or Muslim mother.

Yes, the same ten Swedes never mind that Sweden's elected officials have for several decades been letting hordes of darkies into the country. No-one's going to pretend that racism and xenophobia don't exist in Sweden but let's have some intellectual honesty eh.

[CitizenCain]

Don't you guys have that "ponzi scheme" going on for that purpose?

Not really, no. SS isn't designed to, nor is it really possible to live/retire on as your sole source of income. It's supplemental, at best. All this, of course, due to the fact that the whole SS pyramid scheme was a band-aid that was supposed to be dismantled after the end of the Great Depression, and didn't the government just do a great job of keeping their word on that.

At least in the case of welfare, why exactly shouldn't a society want to provide for its own members first?

Nothing, but it does kind of invalidate the alleged justification for those programs, which are that it's cruel and inhumane to let a needy person fend for themselves and maybe starve/freeze when you can give them other people's money instead. Oh, wait, we only care about needy people based on some arbitrary criterion I disagree with, who aren't really in any real danger of dying from lack of food or shelter anyway? Well, take your bullshit that you're trying to pass off as humanitarian compassion and shove it, then. (As far as I'm concerned anyway.)

Actually, now I'm curious. Do corporations (and visible corporate figures) donate more to local (let's say limited to the national level) charities than they do to foreign ones?

Depends on the corporation or philanthropist. Bill Gates has given away billions to 3rd world causes (Malaria and HIV in Africa, literacy and sanitation in rural India, basic education in Latin America(? IIRC), etc.), but the local Home Depot has big ass signs about how they donate >$10,000 a week to local charities and have constructed x number of homes for local homeless families. I'd think the corporate deal would be more local because that makes for better PR and photo ops, but the incredibly wealthy (9 or 10 figure net worth club) tend to focus their efforts on the truly needy (who happen to be in far off lands), which the "poor" in 1st world nations simply are not.

[Nessus]

Not really, no. SS isn't designed to, nor is it really possible to live/retire on as your sole source of income. It's supplemental, at best. All this, of course, due to the fact that the whole SS pyramid scheme was a band-aid that was supposed to be dismantled after the end of the Great Depression, and didn't the government just do a great job of keeping their word on that.

Not really that well-read on US history to comment on your lament, but either way it's a mechanism for the working to subsidize the living of the no longer working, right? It's not enough for living because every dollar you take from someone is an unnatural, heinous dollar that ought no longer exist, but either way.

Nothing, but it does kind of invalidate the alleged justification for those programs, which are that it's cruel and inhumane to let a needy person fend for themselves and maybe starve/freeze when you can give them other people's money instead. Oh, wait, we only care about needy people based on some arbitrary criterion I disagree with, who aren't really in any real danger of dying from lack of food or shelter anyway? Well, take your bullshit that you're trying to pass off as humanitarian compassion and shove it, then. (As far as I'm concerned anyway.)

I'm curious, when was the last time I asked you about moving to Somalia? How did that go over?

Depends on the corporation or philanthropist. Bill Gates has given away billions to 3rd world causes (Malaria and HIV in Africa, literacy and sanitation in rural India, basic education in Latin America(? IIRC), etc.), but the local Home Depot has big ass signs about how they donate >$10,000 a week to local charities and have constructed x number of homes for local homeless families. I'd think the corporate deal would be more local because that makes for better PR and photo ops, but the incredibly wealthy (9 or 10 figure net worth club) tend to focus their efforts on the truly needy (who happen to be in far off lands), which the "poor" in 1st world nations simply are not.

I was looking for statistics, but thanks.

[Steely Glint]

The kids are digging up a brand new hole
Where they put their deadbeat mom
Grampa's happy watching video porn
With the closed caption on

[CitizenCain]

I'm curious, when was the last time I asked you about moving to Somalia? How did that go over?

Well, it's as relevant an argument/question as ever, if you're looking for a silver lining.