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.

BACKGROUND FACTS - PART 2

I applied for legal aid and retained a Rick Strahl, who proceeded with an application to cancel all arrears and set a reasonable child support amount going forward. I had voluntarily paid small amounts over the years that amounted to a substantial sum by this point.

On January 23, 1997, the Honourable Judge Waurynchuk cancelled all outstanding arrears, and reduced my child support to $150 per month from August, 1996 onward.

The order has been sent at least 7 times over the years to the California Central Registry. FMEP was also sent copies, and asked to forward them to the reciprocating jurisdiction for a confirmation hearing. I have a copy of a letter from the Reciprocal Office of the Family Justice Program, Attorney General, Victoria, B.C., to the California Central Registry, dated June 25, 1997, including all the necessary documents and requesting that the documents be forwarded to a court of competent jurisdiction for confirmation hearings.

As of 2005, California had still refused to admit receipt of this order.

 At this point in 1997, I was lead to believe, by FMEP and my attorney, that everything was in order and taken care of, unless I was required to attend the confirmation hearing, which was unlikely.

I graduated from S.F.U. in 1997, with a B.A., and enrolled in the U.B.C. Teacher Education Program starting in September, 1997.

In June, 1998, I went to California to see my children and personally handed a copy of the B.C. Order to my ex-wife. She laughed and, phone in hand, threatened to call the police on me as a “deadbeat dad.”

While still in California, I called the California Attorney General, Family Justice Center, but no one seemed able to help me.

Returning to B.C., I spoke with supervisor Colin Miller of FMEP, who advised that he would look into it. I also spoke later with a Mike Redding, who said he would look into it.

On October 19, 1998 Colin Miller called me and said that contact had been made with California.

I have copies of correspondence between FMEP and California District Attorney, Family Support Division dated October, November, and December 1998 stating they were sending me, and later that they had received back an application for a modification review, signed by a Daniel Lungren. I have no recollection, or copies of having received or replied to correspondence such as this. I would not have submitted to a review by the California D.A., as I believed, and still believe, that the would be anything but impartial. They are the enforcement people. They put people in jail if they can’t pay.

I completed my BEd in November 1998, and took a position teaching in Bella Coola, B.C., where I remained through June, 2000.

My tax return for 1998 states I earned $11,214. As soon as I began receiving a paycheque, I began making monthly child support payments through FMEP. At this time, all garnishments had been removed and I thought that everything was taken care of.

In 1999, FMEP recommenced collection efforts on the 1991/2 California Order.  I received correspondence from FMEP stating that I still owed all of the arrears under the 1991/2 California Order.

In 1999, I made $34,215.

In February, 2000, my mother passed away. I travelled to California to handle her affairs. I spoke to the attorney handling my mother’s probate, and asked him to recommend a competent lawyer to look into a family court issue. He sent me to a Ron Augustinsky and he agreed to act for me. He stated that we merely needed to bring an application to vary the original Order. I left it with him and returned to my job in Bella Coola.

Augustinsky attempted to obtain the original hearing records. He was told that there had been a flood at the courthouse that destroyed the records, and that the court reporter was dead, so copies of her notes were gone as well.

Throughout 2000-2001, I called Augustinsky every couple of months. He kept saying that he really should be filing something and that he was collecting documents. The good news was that he was not sending me bills for the lack of progress.

Earnings from 2000: $29,306; 2001:$9,555

In 2002, FMEP filed a lien against my home and instructed the B.C. government to withhold issuance of my driver’s license. I phoned FMEP and asked what it would take to clear up all the arrears. I was advised that the total arrears was $95, 182.78, if paid the next day. I felt that I had no choice and proceeded to use a large portion of my mother’s legacy to purchase a bank draft for that amount. I have a copy of this draft, dated August 29, 2002. It was couriered to FMEP. FMEP, for some reason, chose not to record the $95,182.78 payment as received until October 15, 2002.

FMEP WITHDREW ALL LIENS AND ATTACHMENTS.

FMEP documents show that I paid through them a total of $117,137.04 from 1997 through July 14, 2004.

During this same period, under the B.C. Order of Judge Warynchuk, I should have paid a total of $12, 350.

April 2011: FMEP files a wage attachment  of $800 per month, and a lien against my vehicle.

 The “children” are now 25, 27, and 28. Two of them served in Iraq with the U.S. Army.

Background facts - PART 1

Chronology of events:

October of 1990: My wife and I separated and the 3 kids were living with me, while she was supposedly finishing her last semester of her teaching degree. I was working as a union painter full time, earning about $22.84/hr. I was paying $300/mo child support, paying off debts from our marriage, I signed over to my ex-wife my half interest in our 4 acre property in Oregon, was paying all costs of daycare for our children, and paying for a psychologist to help our sons deal with the break-up of the marriage.

December 1990: Work had fallen off and I could no longer afford my family lawyer, John Staley. My soon to be ex-wife began refusing access to my children.

On the first Monday of January, 1991, I was given layoff notice by my employer. I immediately informed my ex-wife of this event. The economy in California, at this time, was a disaster. Major corporations were fleeing the state because of draconian  anti-corporate legislation. There were no jobs in my trade and the situation looked likely to deteriorate further. In fact, it did. 

January 22, 1991: California Judgment made in my absence setting child support at $300 per month.

By late spring of 1991, I decided to return to my birth country, Canada, and look for work. I arrived in British Columbia with $60 in my pocket, a 1981 pickup truck, my tools and a few personal effects. I immediately found work and notified my ex-wife and children where I was.

September 29, 1992: 1991 California order finally dated and entered, and somehow modified to $550 per month.

Despite ongoing communication between myself and my ex-wife, Catherine Godric, I was not informed of either of the above legal actions until sometime in 1996. During this period I had made voluntary payments as I was able.

During the first half of 1992, I worked as a painter sporadically until June, when I was injured on a job. My doctor advised me to find another line of work, due to the likelihood of chronic episodes which would get progressively worse. I was periodically on welfare. I did not apply for disability assistance. Instead, I enrolled in East Kootenay Community College to complete my education.

I had three years of university credits from the late 1970s. During my marriage, I had an agreement with my ex-wife that I would work to support the family, and she could finish her degree. When she was working, it would supposedly be my turn to get my degree.

Total earnings from tax records from 1992: $5,574; 1993: $5,147; 1994: $3,495.

In July of 1994 I graduated with honors from E.K.C.C., now College of the Rockies, with an Associate of Arts. During this time I lived on student loans.

I applied to Simon Fraser University and was accepted for the Fall term. I moved to Burnaby. I was living on student loans until my graduation, supplemented by some part time work.

Total income for 1995 from tax records: $915; 1996: $1,967; 1997: $7,027

During the period 1993-1997, my ex-wife only allowed visitation once or twice per year with only one child at a time. I bore the entire expense of these visits, including travel.

During one of these visits, one of my kids remarked that he had overheard his mom bragging to someone on the phone that she had “lied to the Court.” Both my son and I assumed that she was talking about the 1991/92 hearings and Order.

In the spring of 1996, I was notified that a California Court Order, which I believe to be the 1991/1992 order, had been registered with the B.C. Family Maintenance Enforcement Program. According to B.C. Court records, the California Order was registered in B.C. on or about February 24, 1994. I have a copy of a letter from the B.C. Attorney General designating the Provincial Court in Kimberley, B.C. as the registration court.

The stress of four years straight of post secondary studies, living on student loans, not being allowed to see my children, and finally the immediate threat of enforcement of a court order that I could not possibly pay, and firmly believe to have been fraudulently obtained, caused me to have an emotional breakdown, midterm. I took the rest of the semester and the summer off, to recover and try to deal with the legal issues.

Here we go again! this time it's me........

I've been taking the background on this blog, mainly because it was Nanc's story, Nanc's journey, and Nanc's past. Now that is completely resolved, but sure enough, another dragon raised its head.

This one's on me. It's the ongoing saga of the tragic breakup of my first family, my ex-wife's duplicity, the insane bureaucracy and avarice of the California Family Support division and the Alameda County District Attorney's office. British Columbia's Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, AKA: FMEP plays a major role by their blind enforcement of an illegal order from California, one that was proved to a B.C. Judge's satisfaction to be improperly obtained, unjust, unfair, and unenforceable in B.C.. Yet FMEP continues on, periodically. I say the last bit, because I have attempted to satisfy FMEP several times, and explained the legal issue several times, but they keep coming back. Probably with each new generation of eager young enforcers out to make a name in the organisation.

Nanc's story was that of a battered woman who fought back against the forces trying to push her into exmarital oblivion with as little justice and compensation as possible.

Mine is the man's version of systemic injustice in a marital break up. I will tell you how my children were legally taken away from me during the divorce process, and how I was denied any real access to them. I will tell you all about how the "system" of family justice in two jurisdictions with incompatible laws, supports each other and enforces issues involving money, but NOT any issues of custody, visitation, or even contact. I will expose some of the techniques California uses to make sure that a father NEVER stops having to pay.

I am 55 years old this year. My kids are now 25, 27, and 28. Two of them served in Iraq with the U.S. Army. FMEP just garnished my wages and put a lien on my car. They have been taking my tax returns and GST rebates for decades. I've had enough. It's time for one man to stand up and break the reciprocal agreement between B.C. and California. My case will do it. There is just too much wrong in what has been done.

Here we go, I will be posting a chronology of events and a list of the legal issues on point.

Meus Verum is David Oliver-Godric

Chilliwack Progress - Local group benefits from court victory

Chilliwack Progress - Local group benefits from court victory

Supreme Court case winner donates $15,000 to group running shelter for battered women

Supreme Court case winner donates $15,000 to group running shelter for battered women

Nanc gives to other women

Nanc Rick will be presenting a donation to Bobbi Jacobs of the Ann Davis Society on Monday, April 19 at 10am. The address is 9475 Williams St. in Chilliwack.

Ms Rick recently won a landmark family law case (Rick v Brandsema) at the Supreme Court of Canada. Rick is most commonly cited for its discussion of the importance of meaningful legal advice in spousal negotiations, its emphasis on the duty to make full and honest disclosure, and its call for deference to findings by trial judges, including conclusions about vulnerability and exploitation in the family setting.

"Another important principle established in this case," says West Coast LEAF (Legal Education And Action Fund, an intervenor in Rick) Executive Director Alison Brewin, "is a firm statement that getting legal advice does not automatically mean both parties are equal. The Supreme Court recognized that having some legal advice does not ensure a fair agreement. Too often, women in BC can only access a few hours of legal representation. If the Court of Appeal decision had stood, imagine what it might have meant for women trying to challenge an unfair agreement."

Finally, her eight year battle won, Ms Rick desires to give further assistance to women in situations like hers. She has chosen the Ann Davis Society of Chilliwack as a worthy recipient of funds that will make a real difference in some women’s lives.

Members of the public and the press are welcome to the presentation and Ms Rick will be available for comment.

Our thanks to all!

Nanc and I would like to wish everyone who has read this blog and stood by us throughout this ordeal a MERRY CHRISTMAS! (and other holidays!) We know that you are many and diverse. We thank you with all our hearts. We hope that our efforts, and those who helped us, will make life a little better for some.

Churchill WAS right when he said: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Good Luck to all those who stand up for what is right, put everything on the line, and move the stakes a little further down the road to a truly just and civilized society....

and kick some narcissistic sociopaths in the ass!

FOR THOSE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS ALL OVER...

This nightmare continues, but Nanc won again today. Meanwhile, the abuser bought two farms this year. Who came out ahead? Thank God for the wisdom of the Justices on the SCC, or Nanc would have had nothing but her scars.

FROM THE SCC

MOTION FOR RE-HEARING / DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE AUDITION :

32098 Nancy Rick, also known as Nanc Rick v. Berend Brandsema, also known as Ben Brandsema, and Brandy Farms Inc. - and - Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (B.C.)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

The motion for an extension of time is dismissed. Had the motion for an extension of time been granted, the respondents’ application for a rehearing on the issue of costs and for an order that the trial judge’s order on costs be restored would have been dismissed. The appellant is entitled to her costs of the motions.