Hi Everyone,
Well, Monday was an interesting day in more than one way. For starters, I went to Legal Aid and had someone review my papers. That went well. I came home and then the day got, well, interesting. This is what I mean.
After I arrived home, I decided to take some time out for myself and actually eat something as I watched some TV. With my belly full, I watched some more TV when I received a phone call from the Canadian Judicial Council, (I blogged about that yesterday, here’s the link, http://arebelsrant.com/the-canadian-judicial-council/ ). By that time, I was at home for about an hour. Shortly after that the telephone rang again. As usual, I answered it. Since my telephone is connected to the buzzer of my apartment building, the telephone rang because there was someone at my door. It was a courier.
Now one of the first things I do when I arrive home is put on some comfortable clothes. My thinking is, I’m doing so many uncomfortable things, I might as well be comfortable doing them so I change, immediately. The next thing I do is remove ALL of my make-up and start applying my skin care products. When the courier arrived, I changed into a pair of jeans and put on a zip up hoodie. She seemed nice as she handed me some legal documents from daughter’s father’s lawyer. Just so everyone knows, I was expected them.
One of the documents that I received is called, Factum of The Respondent. That is a document which states the following. Part I: The Facts, Part II: The Law and Part III: Orders Requested. Here we go.
Part I: The Facts has three points and they aren’t 100% accurate. Point 4 is up for debate.
Part II: The Law has 6 points. The first of those points is #5 and it says, “Dependent” means a person to whom another has an obligation to provide support under this Part.’” (The typo isn’t mine, just for the record. It’s theirs.)
I thought that was an interesting point for my daughter’s father’s lawyer to put in the Factum of The Respondent since his client has actively and knowingly AVOIDED that obligation since January 1, 2000, because her father was hiding money! You know the money that was to support his ONLY child because he was legally bound to! On a side note: It is rumoured that my daughter’s father and his wife have been trying to have a child but can’t she can’t seem to conceive. I would like to also add that HE contributes to World Vision on a monthly basis. It would appear that he doesn’t seem to have a problem supporting one or more children he doesn’t know, he just doesn’t want to pay child support for his only child that he chose not to know when he gave up visitation that he took me to court for.
Who knows, maybe he thinks that if he supports one or more children it will help them have a child of their own. If that’s his thinking, it’s wrong! The Universe doesn’t work like that. The Universe believes in KARMA!!! And it serves everyone what they deserve! As I understand Karma and the Universe, he chose not to support his child, so he doesn’t get anymore. Bon appetite! If they want children, the only way they’ll have one or more is if they pay the support! It’s a universal law. Just saying!
Point #6 is equally interesting. It says, “Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so.” Hmmm. Let me see if I understand that correctly. His lawyer is stating the above and his lawyer knows that his client didn’t do ANY of the above! In fact his client did any and everything in his power not too! Even The Respondent and his family know he didn’t do the above. Back to KARMA!!! Points #7-8 are well, there.
Point #9 says, “A court making an order for the support of a child shall do so in accordance with the child support guidelines.” Well, that one pissed me off! For one, the COURTS allowed him to get away with NOT showing his financials so he DIDN’T pay child support as per the child support guideline! Point #10 is there and Point #11 has two cases which I have already read!
Part III: Orders Requested is something they could have put a bit more thought into. There were two other documents in the “sealed envelope” but they are more of the above, just written another way.
So what does all of the above mean? It means that EVEN THOUGH HE chose not to follow the rule of the law because it was financially beneficial for him; he now wants the court to follow the rule of the law because it is financially beneficial to him. I have a few thoughts on that, but I will keep them to myself. Okay, here’s one thought, or question really. Should someone who has ROBBED their only child of child support in order to build their wealth by not following the rule of the law, be allowed to now demand that the law be enforced as a means of protecting them from what they should have been doing all along?
Thank you for reading, A. Rebel’s Rant! ;D
by 
by