Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:36:30.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Punishing Our Way Out of Poverty: The Prosecution of Child-Support Debt in Alberta, Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Paul Millar
Paul Millar
Affiliation:
School of Criminal Justice, Nipissing University, 100 College Drive, Box 5002 North Bay Ontario P1B [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes the emergence of imprisonment as part of the collection of child-support debt in Alberta, Canada. This approach to child poverty arose in the context of political conservatism, a shift in the feminist movement, and changes in the legal environment. Findings indicate that incarceration for support debt is increasing and that Blacks, Aboriginals, the unemployed, and those without post-secondary education are over-represented among those imprisoned for support debt. It is argued that child-support enforcement as an implement of social policy has limits, especially among low-income payors.

Résumé

Cet article examine l'émergence de l'emprisonnement comme un outil dans le recouvrement des pensions alimentaires pour enfants en Alberta, Canada. Cette approche envers la pauvreté des enfants est survenue dans un climat politique conservateur, à une époque marquée par un changement de priorités dans le mouvement féministe ainsi que des changements dans l'environnement juridique. Cet article démontre que les incarcérations pour des dettes liées aux pensions alimentaires sont de plus en plus fréquentes et que les Noirs, les Autochtones, les individus en chômage ainsi que les personnes sans education post-secondaire sont surreprésentés parmi ceux emprisonnés pour ce type de dettes. Nous soutenons que l'exécution des ordonnances alimentaires possède des limites en tant qu'instrument politico-social, notamment parmi les débiteurs à faible revenu.

Keywords

maintenance enforcementchild supportfamily lawAlbertadue processCharter of Rights and Freedomspovertyincarcerationexécution des ordonnances alimentairespensions alimentaires pour enfantsdroit de la familleAlbertaapplication régulière de la loiChartes des droits et libertéspauvretéincarcération
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , August 2010 , pp. 149 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Federal/Provincial/Territorial Family Law Committee, Federal/Provincial/Territorial Family Law Committee's Report and Recommendations on Child Support (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1995), 1Google Scholar.

2 Boyd, Susan and Sheehy, Elizabeth A., “Feminism and the Law in Canada: Overview,” in Law and Society: A Critical Perspective, ed. Caputo, Tullio, Kennady, Mark, Reasons, Charles E., and Brannigan, Augustine (Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989), 255Google Scholar.

3 A similar alliance between feminists and conservatives with respect to sexuality and the law is reported in Halley, Janet E., Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

4 Weitzman, Lenore J. and Dixon, Ruth B., “The Alimony Myth: Does No-Fault Divorce Make a Difference?” Family Law Quarterly 14 (1980), 141Google Scholar; Weitzman, Lenore J. and Dixon, Ruth B., “Evaluating the Impact of No-Fault Divorce in California,” Family Relations 29 (1980), 297Google Scholar; Weitzman, Lenore, “The Economics of Divorce: Social and Economic Consequences of Property, Alimony and Child Support Awards,” UCLA Law Review 28 (1981), 1181Google Scholar.

5 Pask, E. Diane, Mahoney, Kathleen E., and Brown, Catherine A., eds., Women, Law, and the Economy (Toronto: Butterworths, 1985)Google Scholar. Some of these papers cited Weitzman's work, ibid.

6 Peterson, R.R., “A Re-evaluation of the Economic Consequences of Divorce,” American Sociological Review 61 (1996), 529CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Weitzman, Lenore, The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America (New York: Free Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

8 Martin, Sheilah L. and Mahoney, Kathleen E., eds., Equality and Judicial Neutrality (Toronto: Carswell, 1987)Google Scholar.

9 Maintenance Enforcement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-1.

10 Millar, Paul and Gauthier, Anne H., “What Were They Thinking? The Development of the Canadian Child Support Guidelines,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 17 (2002), 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Guidelines Amending the Federal Child Support Guidelines, 139:25 Canada Gazette Part II, 2005-12-14, 3006 at 3089.

12 See, e.g., Finnie, Ross, “The Government's Child Support Package,” Canadian Family Law Quarterly 15 (1997), 79Google Scholar.

13 A case can be made for this as debtor's prison as well. See Mitchell, John B. and Kunsch, Kelly, “Of Driver's Licenses and Debtor's Prison,” Seattle Journal of Social Justice 4 (2005), 493Google Scholar. Even the Criminal Code now provides for consideration of the offender's ability to pay: R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, s. 734.

14 Warner, Richard, “Excluding Reasons: Impossible Comparisons and the Law,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 15 (1995), 448CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Cohen, J., “The History of Imprisonment for Debt and Its Relation to the Development of Discharge in Bankruptcy,” Journal of Legal History 3 (1982), 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Peterson, “Re-evaluation of the Economic Consequences of Divorce.”

17 Department of Justice, Evaluation of the Divorce Act, Phase II: Monitoring and Evaluation (Canada: Bureau of Review, 1990)Google Scholar.

18 Stripinis, D., Study on the Levels of Child Support Awards in Selected Sites in Canada: Report TR1994-6e (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1994)Google Scholar.

19 Millar and Gauthier, What Were They Thinking?”

20 Ursel, Jane, Private Lives, Public Policy: 100 Years of State Intervention in the Family (Toronto: Women's Press, 1992), 368Google Scholar.

21 I would like to thank the people from the Alberta Department of the Solicitor General for their cooperation and support in the provision of this data.

22 That is, since the legislation was first enacted; the first person was imprisoned in 1987.

23 Note that ethnic identity and especially Aboriginal identity are far from simple concepts and are subject to variability and migration. See Robitaille, Norbert and Guimond, Eric, “La Situation demographique des groupes autochtones du Quebec,” Recherches Sociographiques 35 (1994), 433CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guimond, Eric, Robitaille, Norbert, and Senécal, Sacha, Fuzzy Definitions and Demographic Explosion of Aboriginal Populations in Canada from 1986 to 2001 (Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1997)Google Scholar, http://www.policyresearch.gc.ca/doclib/PS_PWFC_Guimond_200712_e.pdf.

24 Some inmates serve time for more than one charge.

25 Thomas, M., “Adult Criminal Court Statistics, 2003/04,” Juristat 24:12 (2004), 20Google Scholar. Averages are for the period 2003/2004.

26 On average, 37% for Criminal Code offences in the period 2003/2004. Ibid.

27 Discussed below.

28 De Champlain, Annie, Child and Spousal Support: Maintenance Enforcement Survey Statistics 2005/2006, Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 85-228-XIE (Ottawa. Minister of Industry, 2007)Google Scholar.

29 A listing of the cases from the docket for this hearing is available from the author.

30 A telephone call to the Centre for Justice Statistics confirmed that this was the number reported by Alberta Justice (i.e., it was not a mistake). Alberta has recently revised the environment under which debtors are prosecuted. While most of the elements of the legislation appear to be the same, the recently implemented new environment will have to be the subject of a future study.

31 A Freedom of Information request for this information from Alberta Justice was denied on the grounds that such a report for previous years would be too difficult to produce.

32 Johnson, S., “Adult Correctional Services in Canada, 2002/03,” Juristat 24:20 (2004), 18Google Scholar.

33 Analysis and resulting graph not shown, available from the author.

34 A recent Supreme Court ruling has given some guidance on how to deal with increased income on the part of the payor. See D.B.S. v. S.R.G., L.J.W. v. T.A.R., Henry v. Henry, and Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231.

35 Cherry v. Cherry, [1996] 22 R.F.L. (4th) 432.

36 Formerly called a garnishee.

37 For upper income ranges, the income-tax and support deduction combine to over 90% of income.

38 Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Regulations, R.S.A. 2000, s. 13(2).

39 Tanovich, David M., The Colour of Justice: Policing Race in Canada (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2006)Google Scholar.

40 Drozda, Christopher, Men's Experiences with Child Support Payments: An Exploratory Study into Father's Interactions within Default Hearings (Calgary: Men's Educational Support Association, 2006)Google Scholar.

41 This unusual procedure is prescribed by the Alberta MEA, s. 28.

42 Ibid. The reverse onus is stipulated in the legislation. Note that the judge can also (more rarely) hold the case over to a longer hearing where the debtor can be sworn before testifying.

43 In civil litigation, the plaintiff must prove the contention to the balance of probabilities.

44 Mewett, A.W. & Nakatsuru, S., An Introduction to the Criminal Process in Canada, 4th ed. (Scarborough, ON: Carswell, 2000), 32Google Scholar.

45 Any action by the Department of Maintenance Enforcement may, however, be subject to review by the court after the fact by an application of the debtor.

46 R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541, extended the benefits of some Charter protections “to provide procedural safeguards in proceedings which may attract penal consequences even if not criminal in the strict sense.”

47 The defendant is assumed to be guilty, whereas civil standards place the onus on the plaintiff to prove the defendant's guilt on the balance of probabilities.

48 This was a main issue in a widely reported case that resulted in the current tax treatment: see Thibaudeau v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627.

49 For example, Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250, involved a household income of about $1 million per year; Rick v. Brandsema, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 295, a divorce settlement of $1 million that was deemed unconscionably low; and Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670, an airline pilot with a six-figure income. There are exceptions, such as the first two sub-cases of D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231; Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; and Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420, but the balance of cases reflects the high cost of participation in review by appellate courts.

50 Dickie v. Dickie, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 346.

51 Alberta has recently created such a program, administered by its Maintenance Enforcement Program. See Alberta Family Law Act, R.S.A. 2003, c. F-45, ss. 55.1-8. Despite this response, however, financial adversity is still likely to produce punishments such as loss of driver's licence, because the new agencies, like the courts before then, are slow to reduce payments or cancel arrears. Nonetheless, it is an improvement.

52 See D.B.S. v. S.R.G. et al. These precedents relate to increases in income, rather than decreases. With the advent of perilous economic times, the lack of a precedent for reducing support represents a gap in the administrative framework.

53 MacQueen, K., “Everybody Loves Us,” Maclean's, 21 November 2007, 51Google Scholar.

54 Skinner, Christine and Davidson, Jacqueline, “Recent Trends in Child Maintenance Schemes in 14 Countries,” International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family 23 (2009), 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Robson, Krista. “Good Responsible Parenting: Child-Support Guidelines in an Era of Neo-liberalism,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 25 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.