🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <k3HJ4B1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>Well, the taxpayer-funded, privately operated FMEP did it again.
>
>After just shy of a year in their program, I withdrew due to my lack of
>amusement with their infamous Comedy of Errors operations, etc.. I had
>figured out that -- in my case anyway -- I stood a much better chance (once
>withdrawn from FMEP) of recovering from my ex-husband several thousand dollars
>in child support arrears, on my own.  Their records show that my enrollment was
>withdrawn effective February 22, 1993.
>
>I have recently received disclosure that some funds from the federal government
>owed to my ex were garnisheed (for child support arrears) by the FMEP on
>January 16 and 29, 1993 and again on February 13, 1993.
>
>As I have never received such funds and am back in court on Monday, May 17, to
>address the matter of arrears, I called the FMEP to enquire as to what had
>become of those said federal funds garnisheed on behalf of our children?  I
>was told that those funds had been returned to my ex as a result of my
>withdrawal from the program!  Please note that those monies were garnisheed
>36 days, 24 days and 9 days respectively, *prior* to my withdrawal from the
>program!  The garnisheed amount in question?  $468.75 TOTAL.  (Oooh, ahh)
>
>As my ex has disclosed only that the funds were garnisheed and has not
>disclosed the fact that they were subsequently returned to him, I asked the
>FMEP to advise me of when those funds were returned to him.  They then informed
>me that as I was no longer enrolled with them, they would not give me that
>information.  They are aware of the fact that my court proceedings concerning
>the matter of child support arrears will resume this Monday.  In other words,
>my ex has copies of the chequestubs reflecting the garnishees -- and therefore,
>indicating payments towards arrears -- while I have nothing to show that those
>funds were subsequently returned to him by the FMEP.
>
>I told the FMEP that I do not recall anything in the Family Maintenance
>Enforcement Act that indicates they can return garnisheed amounts to the
>debtor parent, provided arrears are known to be owed and as long as the
>creditor parent is enrolled.  The staff I spoke with acknowledged that there
>is not such a clause in the said Act.  I then asked her where in the FMEP's
>policy and procedures manual it contained any such clause, assuming that they
>must have one in their manual that is not covered by governing legislative
>Acts.  She said she "could not" (would not?) answer that question for me.
>
>B.C.'s taxpayers pay over $6 million a year to fund the FMEP.  The FMEP's
>"success rate" is a mere 26%.  Their caseworkers have an average caseload of
>1100 - 1300 clients per worker.  Needless to say, the program is hardly
>efficient in most cases.
>
>It seems terribly apparent to me that the program is yet another bureaucracy
>working to cover their own privately owned, publicly funded asses and not
>one dedicated to the role it was supposedly intended to assume -- that of
>recovering court ordered support from delinquent debtor parents, for their
>children.
>
>Also, the few debtor parents who have experienced firsthand the other side of
>the FMEP coin, that I know, have been garnisheed for funds they didn't owe;
>treated like criminals if and when they were laid off, etc. from work *even
>when they had been paying full and regular support prior to that time, through
>the program*; and so on.
>
>I certainly maintain that there needs to be a system in place for the
>enforcement of child support orders, for cases in which the debtor parent fails
>to but has the ability to pay, assuming the Order itself is reasonable.
>Unfortunately,  it seems that an additional system is needed to make sure the
>enforcement agency is truly doing its job efficiently and intelligently.  (Now
>there's an oxymoron, "government intelligence"!)
>
>At the same time, the last thing we need is more government bureaucracies and
>more taxes!  Sigh...
>
>Lisa (Graham) Lambeth
>
>---
>Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
>Nanaimo, B.C.
>Canada                                   NEXT?


	You know, *I* have never been "given" anything.  I support
	myself (and several hundred others).  and my wife is from the
	same "school".

	I don't think that anyone wants to receive public assisitance
	of any kind;  it's degrading.

	But there are people who have nothing better to do with their
	time than graze around looking for "free stuff".  Things they
	can coolect on to better their own lot, rather than just
	living and working like everyone else.  It's the basis
	for our "sue crazed" society, and 90% of the lawyer commercials
	we see on TV.

	When are people going to live within their own economic
	means, rather than always looking for cash-cows?

	Answer?  Never.  It was rhetorical.

	My income tax returns were stolen in the late 80's.  After
	losing the deduction for my son, and a few bucks that no one
	can accuont for, my $1300 return turned into about $500,
	about 6 months later.  I was one of the lucky ones.

	I'm tired of people skulking around examining me and what
	they think they *MIGHT* be able to get from me.

	And if I could make a loud, clear, crisp, affirmative
	statement to this whole net, if I could know EXACTLY
	how much I was required to pay for HOW LONG, then
	at least half of my aggressive pissed off attutude
	would dissapear.

	It's people like this.  People who stalk people financially.
	That have pissed me off so much.


	I'm DIVORCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

	My ex needs to look up that definition.  And my income, and
	my money are none of her, or anybody elses business anymore!
 
-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
 	DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
        solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......