I have been fighting the Province of BC, FMEP (family maintenance enforcement program), and others for some ten years. I went to court today and got a judgement (second one, actually, but nobody would recognize the first one from 1997???).

I won. 100%.

It was all wrong from day one, and the judge said so in no uncertain terms. He actually commended me for my tenacity, honesty, and efforts to do the right thing through the 23 years that I have struggled with this. He slammed the State of California, Alameda County District Attorney's office, for their arrogance and inflexibility, and FMEP for helping them be that way. He concluded that "reciprocal agreements" ARE in fact reciprocal, or they aren't valid in law. Thank goodness we have strong ties to British Common Law and the concept of "equity". The Americans have abandoned it, in their legal system, along with their original concepts of freedom and justice for all.

My thanks to the Judge, for actually reading and understanding what was before him in evidence. BIG thanks to Jack Hittrich, for sticking with it, and me, for all these 10 years and not just giving up the fight. He told me today that he had consulted several other lawyers that told him we'd never win. Well, we did. PPFFFFT!

PS: California, one size does NOT fit all, in laws that apply to people. You have to be able to vary according to circumstances. That is a key to the concept of Equity. 

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.