When they told me I wasn't a father anymore they told the wrong father.
The reports all maintained I was a good enough father to be stay a father.
The reports were not allowed into evidence as the courts already had things planned. I received the following treatment because I objected to my children's denied access to me.
I now have a 25 year old struggling single mother and a burger flipping high school drop out 22 year old son.
In 1996 I was so shook that my children and I were being abused with temporary sole custody, I started an investigation by sitting in court for 3 years following other family trials. Diagnosed with cancer in the spring and placed my share of the home sale to cover any payments I might miss. The judge said it was unusually that I pay during a life threatening illness but I told him, "they're my kids and I'll pay for them", 1996 constant denied access even though I was fully paid up in child support.
After surgery I was given a 50% chance of living while cancer recovery was lengthened due to added concerns for my children as access in 1997 was shut down, the kids were beaten to the ground every time they asked to see me.
In 1998 the divorce trial was held. My lawyer quit that day and I was subpoenaed by her lawyer as his witness. That means I cant say anything unless its to answer a question he asks. The section 15 custody and access recommended split custody was not allowed into evidence even though the judge referenced it in her decision as an excuse for denied access. Even though the plaintiff said she had never denied access in the section 15 she admitted many frivolous instances. The judge excused the lie and the report with "she must have had a reason", but supplied no reason. Must be the same reason my children had to grow up without their father, still waiting for that answer.
In 1999 an ex parte hearing the same judge decided that the lawyer should be paid the child support the courts held. The government says the most important thing to a child is child support yet this judge decided the it was more important the lawyer got paid rather than support the children.
FMEP didn't even follow standard collection agency protocol in contacting me to see if I was healthy and looking for a job before launching into their poison pen campaign, the intent is obvious as I refused to abandoned my children until they were beaten to the ground when they asked to see me, I left to protect them from not only an abusive mother as the ministry of families just patted her on the back.
I've worked my way to the top of the 3 main industries over a 35 year period by working for a large number of diversified companies and slowing down to a 60 hr week for a rest with all of them. After many interviews and not landing any work I got the news. The collection agency had sent letters to all of them basically making me out as a dead beat when I was still out of the workforce recovering from cancer. Had they contacted me as required under collection agency protocol I would have told them I'll have np paying it off quickly as soon as I was healthy.
The mandate allows the collection agency to take action to insure payment. The action they took, and have an over whelming history of taking made payment impossible. I have repeatedly asked both FMEP and government supply the mandate that authorizes this type of punitive action knowingly removing employment and causing non-payment. Last November I went on a hunger strike for 26 to bring this issue to light. Twice they sent the police out on the pretext I was intent on harming myself. I don't think the police were impressed by being used by government in the hopes of discrediting the documented issues with a mental health card. A hunger strike has a purpose, a plan and a result of which harm is not the desired result. Obviously no one won the office pool on how long I'd last.
The final answer from the Attorney General of British Columbia, they did nothing wrong but suggest I seek redress in the courts. I had to ask him if I would be allowed to present evidence or even defend any accusation used in their defence, no reply so I moved it to the federal level. Their reply, take it back to the provincial level we don't care how or even if our laws are administered legally and with the intent they were approved under.