No slip betwixt cup and lip!

     I tried to post the entered judgement with The Judge's reasons, but it didn't work. "Relief" doesn't begin to cover how I feel. When injustice is a part of your life for so long, it takes a while to adjust. Of course, I still can't go to California without the risk of being thrown into prison, but hey, I don't have to worry about FMEP cancelling my driver's license (which they did in the past), attaching my wages (ditto), ruining my credit (several dittos, ongoing until now, except for the couple of years that they accepted that I had paid in full before reneging and starting all over again), scooping all my GST rebates ( I was poor, remember???), sending frequent dunning letters ("you are a BAAAD person, and we will do nasty things to you until you send us every cent you have!"), and generally making me relive the horrible experience that I had with the divorce and the California legal system.
     Again, I have to thank my lawyer Jack Hittrich, for taking a big risk with my case, going to California with me to fight there (they refused to let him speak to the case and actually removed him from the court because he was a foreigner, and so had no standing in an "American" courtroom. The Judge wasn't even a real judge! She was a "master", which is a lawyer able to deal with the meaningless trivia that annoys "real" judges in their system: like ordinary peoples' lives. It so smacks of the arrogance of impunity.
     There was a lot that I was uncomfortable with, when I lived in the States. Moving to Canada in 1991 felt like coming home, even though I hadn't lived here very long, and that was as a baby. There is a different feel to Canada. Not to say that Americans are bad people, they're just people. But the culture there is so much more one of constant fear. Americans accept that, Canadians don't, yet.
     I grew up admiring the "Spirit of America." I don't see that spirit anymore. I see a beaten down, and growing, underclass; a shrinking and complacent middle class, pacified with bread and circuses (yes, that IS a Roman Empire reference); and a ravening bunch of wolves that are truly accountable to no one except each other. There are good people in all these groups, but they are powerless against the unaccountable ones.

On Friday, October 21, a  BC judge allowed us to proceed pending personal service on my ex. FMEP has muddied the waters with this issue, but so be it. Mr. Justice Walker also ordered a stay to all enforcement by FMEP until the case is heard (and presumably resolved). FMEP has yet to contact my employer to stop the garnishment of my wages. My lawyer has provided them today with a registered copy of the order. Hopefully that will be sufficient to remove the garnishment from this pay cheque. It is very difficult to support both of us on half of my pay. Also, FMEP stated, in writing, that they would hold the garnished monies until this issue was resolved. Then, in court, their lawyer Alan Leslie admitted that the funds had been forwarded to California, which makes them basically unrecoverable. This unrecoverable amount now totals $9365.

NUMBERS: What should I have paid vs what FMEP wants to enforce

We have entered the following (or will enter, given today's events) into evidence:

Amount I earned from 1992 to 2005, when the youngest son reached majority: $172,733
Amount assessed for child support by California and enforced by FMEP: $193,203
Paid to date by me: $126,362
What I should have paid under wage adjusted guidelines: $27,996
The child support burden imposed by Cali and enforced by BC: 112% of my earned income for the period.

Is something wrong with this picture?

When court is not a hearing.......

Well, The judge considered two points:
1. My ex was named in the writ and should have been served. All the documents were mailed to her, but she was not formally served with a summons.
2. An obscure procedural technicality on time limits from the initiation of the action to the court date today. Both lawyers were ready to proceed. Judge kiboshed.
So, no stay of enforcement. No hearing. We will re-initiate the action, either by renewal or by filing new. We will serve the ex. FMEP now claims that some of the money does go to her, despite earlier contradictory statements from both California and FMEP.
My facts and statements have not changed in 20 years. Cali and FMEP have changed their stories every time they say something.
Can you say "duck and dodge" boys and girls?

COURT SEPT 15

I will be in court at 10am September 15th in New Westminster. FMEP is the respondent.

My opening remarks are below:

In 1991, I was going though a horrible divorce in California. My ex had had the boys out the previous afternoon and brought them back in the evening. There had never been any issue regarding access to the kids during the legal proceedings. That day I came home from work and turned on the TV to watch a show with the boys. The door bell rang. Two sheriffs stood there with their hands on their guns and told me that my children had to go with my ex-wife right then. I asked them what the problem was. They just repeated that the children had to leave right then. I cooperated. I asked them what I could do. They said that I could call the sheriffs and apprehend the children from my ex. Then they asked me if that would be good for the kids.  That was the day I lost my children.

            The next time I went to court, the court appointed “mediator” filed a report to the court that stated that I lived in a one bedroom apartment while my ex was living in her parent’s house. I was actually living in a three bedroom house while my ex was camped in her parent’s living room. Her half brother was living in the only spare bedroom. When I confronted the “mediator” about the error, she replied that it didn’t make any difference and walked away. It was obvious to me at that point that I would not get a fair shake in the California family court system.

            The economy of the state was in the toilet. Corporations were fleeing the state because of ridiculous legislation being passed. Unemployment was going sky high. I had been laid off by one contractor and applied with another. He gave me a test. He later said that I had passed the California Contractors Exam with the highest score he had ever seen. He then said that there was no work to be had.

            I found out that the Canadian economy was booming. I had wanted to return to Canada for years, but my ex was convinced that there was nothing in Canada but snow and Eskimos (a direct quote). I decided that I needed to go where the work was. I did not realize that that decision would cost me  contact with my children.

            FMEP will tell you that the only important issue in this case is money. This case is about several important issues. First is the children, who were cut off from their father by an angry ex-wife who was aided and enabled by the State of California and the Province of British Columbia.

            It is also about me, a father who acted in what he felt was the best interest of the children and has been hounded and harassed for amounts of money that were always beyond his ability to pay for the last twenty years while being denied basic information regarding the children's lives.

            It is also about inter-jurisdictional agreements for enforcement of only one part of court orders: the money. This "reciprocal" agreement allows California to charge BC fathers a rate of interest that is illegal anywhere in Canada, and FMEP will collect it. It does not, in any circumstance, allow a father to modify an order made in California, even provisionally, on any grounds. It does not allow for enforcement of information sharing, correspondence, visitation, or cost sharing. Why is money the only enforceable part of a court order? Why is FMEP enforcing an order that would be illegal in any part of Canada?

            It is about credibility. When asked to provide a final figure, in 2002, that would satisfy the maintenance order in full except for another year of ongoing maintenance on the youngest, FMEP provided a figure. I paid it in full, confirming on the day it was sent, with my FMEP enforcement officer, that the number was correct to bring me up to date. When the ongoing maintenance was completed, and my account was at $0, California, through FMEP, decided that they had made a mistake and began enforcing collection on an additional $40 000, plus. If I were to pay the full amount claimed, would there be another mistake? When does it end?

            The other issue of credibility relates to these monies being referred to as "child support". According to the Alameda County District Attorney, my ex-wife was paid every cent she was due from me in 2002. The new claim is to repay the Government for something. I suspect that the mistake was that FMEP calculated my total payout based on the legal 6% interest rate, and California wants their 10%. FMEP has no answer to what these funds represent, but they WILL enforce.

            The cumulative effect of twenty years of this never-ending story wears on me. I have had periodic bouts of depression, as well as chronic stress related health issues. It has affected my relationships with other people. These episodes occur when FMEP takes a new run at enforcement, or changes the rules. I am 55 years old.