THE ISSUES

Issues

A. In 2002, FMEP provided me a final figure on arrears. One would have assumed that they conferred with California to arrive at this amount. When paid the full amount, they reneged and added another $40,000+. This amount is, in fact, a real problem for them. It is the result of two things:

1.    California did some creative accounting, where they split the arrears into two accounts and only applied payments to the newest amounts owing.

2.    California charges 10% interest. The legal maximum in BC is 6%. FMEP had calculated the final payment based on the legal 6%

So, the extra $40,000, which has ballooned to $65,000, is in fact interest on illegal interest. FMEP is enforcing laws that are illegal in Canada. The California District Attorney confirmed to me that this is the case. There are no more monies due to my ex-wife. All of this money goes straight into state coffers.

B. California Family Code section 3692 states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, or any other law, a support order may not be set aside simply because the court finds that it was inequitable when made nor simply because subsequent circumstances caused the order to become excessive or inadequate.

So, it matters not that my ex lied to the court about my financial situation. It matters not that circumstances changed over time. It matters not that the court did not have full and honest disclosure upon which to base said order. Once made it cannot be changed. Equity and fairness be damned!

One problem: in Canada, and specifically BC, we have principles of equity and fairness firmly entrenched in law. That was part of Judge Waurynchuk’s reasoning when he made the 1997 Order erasing my arrears and setting child support at a reasonable level. Once again, FMEP is enforcing laws that are illegal in Canada, this time in the face of a BC Court Order.

C. California refuses to accept that with enforcement comes jurisdiction. If British Columbia is enforcing a court order, then it has jurisdiction over that order, and may proceed within BC and Canadian Law. This occurred in 1997, when Judge Waurynchuk of the BC Court accepted jurisdiction and made a provisional order in line with Canadian  and BC Law. California has been ducking that order ever since. They have refused to admit ever having received it despite the best efforts of the BC Court and even FMEP. They simply dismiss a BC order, yet they expect us to enforce theirs. Kind of a one-way “reciprocal” agreement. I wonder how many times California has modified a BC court order?

Oh, did I mention that a flood destroyed the records of the original hearing, or that the court reporter is now dead and all her notes long gone to the dumpster?  We can never see what was actually said to the original California Judge.

D. The final issue is the one that hurts the most. California and FMEP have been relentless and ruthless in their pursuit of child support monies, even after the children are adults and my repeated attempts to satisfy them, even after a BC Court said I didn’t have to. Neither jurisdiction has raised a finger to enforce custody, contact, or visitation. FMEP stated baldly that they didn’t have anything to do with that. The Alameda County District Attorney said the same thing. They allowed my ex-wife to cut contact off between my children and I. They did not enforce the part of the California Family Code that requires one parent to notify the other of grades, injuries, accomplishments, or even the fact that they were overseas fighting in a war. What ever happened to both parties being held responsible. Who gets to pick and choose which laws will be enforced? On this issue, both jurisdictions are abject failures, so I guess they have that much in common. It’s the only thing that IS similar.

Summary

The big problem with all of this is that the reciprocal agreement is based upon the principle that the legal framework of the two jurisdictions is fundamentally similar.

A.     4% is not similar, it is twice what the average savings account pays you to use your money for a year. Yet 4% is the difference between the two jurisdictions.

B.     California Family Code is completely incompatible with any Canadian law, because it rules out any possibility of adjusting if new facts or circumstances come to light, including misrepresentation, which is apparently just fine under California law. It can be done to you and you have no recourse. That is NOT similar to Canadian law. I have a BC Court Order that says so.

C.     With the right to enforcement come a duty to jurisdiction. A one-way reciprocal agreement is not reciprocal.

D.    Enforcement of one part of a law or order should presuppose enforcement of ALL parts of a law or order. Failure to do so erodes the authority to enforce anything.