Deadbeat dad or child abduction? Why not ask: “Deadbeat mom or blackmailer?” Are such cases always just black and white?
Ms JW wrote:
Please can you explain how Quebec Laws allow fathers and mothers who wish to avoid paying child support emigrate to your beautiful country.
Why is Quebec not part of the REMO treaty with the UK and other countries of the world.
Or hopefully I am totally wrong and you can kindly give me the contact of the correct office to contact and claim maintenance as his father has run away and RETIRED to your country.
Thanking you kindly
Hello Ms JW,
The short answers are, no, I can’t explain it but can only speculate on it, and, yes, I can direct you to sources of the information you seek. However, there is also a more fundamental question that you perhaps should have asked but did not. Why do laws exist that force expunged parents (usually fathers) to pay for “crimes” they did not commit, for children whom they cannot see, and for divorces they did not want or deserve?
Here are the long answers.
I neither reside in Quebec nor speak French. Therefore I am not very familiar with child-support enforcement rules in Quebec and don’t have precise and certain answer to your questions, but it appears to me that Canada has a reciprocal agreement with the UK, in relation to the enforcement of the collection of child support. I do not know that Quebec is exempt from that international agreement.
If Quebec is not part of that agreement, that could be because family- and divorce law in English-speaking Canada and in Quebec evolved differently over time. In English-speaking Canada, jurisprudence is based on English Common Law, while in Quebec, jurisprudence is based on the Code Napoleon. That the evolution of family laws diverged somewhat in various portions of Canada is entirely possible and even a fact, as those laws are largely provincial and not federal matters.
However, that there is a difference such as that which concerns you seems somewhat incongruous. With the aid of lavish and enormously generous government funding derived from taxes paid by all Canadian income earners who were generally totally unaware of the socially destructive unconstitutional laws with which they were about to be hit, the domination and control of Canadian jurisprudence by father- and family-hostile law societies and interest groups were foisted on Canada in the 1960s (e. g.: “no-fault” divorce against the wishes of the other partner in an ostensibly life-long contract, and the legalization of extortion for the financing of the filching of the children of the non-custodial parent – usually the father).
Quebec jurisprudence is even more rabidly father- and family-hostile than is the case in English-speaking Canada and other developed nations. It is incomprehensible that the feminist interest groups and the feminist lawmakers that drive the increasingly totalitarian, anti-family laws in Canada would have overlooked Quebec as a source of profit to be derived from reciprocal child-support enforcement procedures for the UK and Canada. Still, it is possible – however unlikely – that the lawmakers (i. e.: legislators) in Quebec refused to be railroaded into the feminist-desired unconstitutional changes to Canadian family law to the extent that such changes were considered and advertised in international agreements for child-support enforcement. After all, such laws are a national shame.
I suggest that you ask your lawyer the question of why it would be that Quebec is exempt and that you change lawyers if he hasn’t got the answer.
Failing that, you may wish to direct your inquiries to some family-rights organizations in Quebec, although the best avenue of success would probably be to go directly to the Quebec government or to the Canadian Embassy. The most obvious agency that should be able to provide you with the information you seek would be the one you should contact through the web page that you perhaps visited already: http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/case/remo.asp
I copied your information request and my answers to some other pro-family and pro-father activists. Perhaps they will provide more precise information.
Permit me to ask questions. Did either you or your ex-husband break your marriage contract against the objections of the other parent of your children? After separation and divorce, did you regularly and equitably share access to and custody of your children?
If your separation and divorce were the outcome of a mutual agreement between you and him, and if child access and -custody were shared equitably while the father was still present in the UK, then there was really no need for a child-support order. There would then not even have been any motivation for the father of your children to “avoid paying child support [and to] emigrate” to Canada, right? After all, what motivation would there be to escape from something that doesn’t exist?
It appears to me that the father of the children you had by him quite possibly and naturally tried to escape the paying of extortion money for goods and services he can’t enjoy.