GUILTY Canada - Taliyah Marsman, 5, & Sara Baillie, 34, Calgary, 11 July 2016 #2

[cvaldez1975]

While I am certain you are proud of your daughter (I am proud of her too! That's nothing to shake a stick at w 4 kids!) some ppl just can't do all that for whatever reason. I was a single mom of two for years. I always worked but didn't make a lot (still don't) I just can't do the work/school/mom thing due to ADHD and poor organizational skills and horrible time management (life long) looking back, I should have done what your daughter did and focus on school.

My daughter is a single mom with four children. She is entering her fourth year of a university degree. She started the degree because she had to support four children and is best able to do that with a professional degree. She relies on every government benefit, scholarship, grant, handout, and helping hand that is available. Her husband is habitually thousands of dollars behind in child support. She has no income. It has been really difficult and very tiring for her, but she is determined to offer a good life to her children. The children are happy, well-adjusted, successful in school, and engaged in sports and hobbies.

After she graduates, she will have to pay student loans, but given her situation she can appeal to have that reduced. The first reduction will be 1/3 forgiven loan. If she is lucky, more will be forgiven. Six months after graduation, and assuming she is employed, she will begin repayment of the loan. If she is not employed, she is eligible for an extension of interest free loan.

Single parents, both men and women, must make difficult and challenging choices to manage, but thankfully the really difficult time can be temporary.

 

[yycpaul]

In March, according to CTV, CM was so far behind in child support payments that he owed Taliyah more than $8,000.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/new-revelations-in-mother-daughter-double-homicide-1.3014467

This was not spousal support. It was money that was to assure a stable home for the daughter he says he loved and was independent of any kind of relationship CM may have had with Sara at the time. The money was not a gift given by CM to Sara with the hope it would trickle down to Taliyah. It was not even a gift to Taliyah. It wasn't a birthday or Christmas gift, it was not her allowance. Since federal authorities make a clear distinction between spousal support, child support, and gifts, it seems to me to be pretty reasonable to use their categories when considering some of the aspects this case. This was money which CM had been directed by the courts to pay to maintain the well-being of his young daughter. It was a court ordered requirement which he neglected to fulfill.

And, if, as I think could reasonably be expected, Sara had been expecting those support payments to help pay for the needs and wants of her young daughter, the absence of that money would have left a big hole in her budget. Through his actions, CM had, IMO, made Sara responsible for covering his debt to his daughter. And it was a significant one. It was more than a third of her reported annual income. And who might have stepped in to cover the debt? And under what conditions?

A few days before she was murdered, Sara was in court with CM renegotiating the financial arrangements. Following her murder, CM claimed to CTV that he had paid $5,000 to Sara. So, if that is true, at the time of her death, CM still owed Taliyah, his daughter, more than $3,000.

Again, I want to be clear that this was money that was owed by CM to his daughter, to Taliyah. CM's irresponsible attitude towards the financial stability of his daughter seems at odds with the attempts by his current girlfriend to paint him as an ideal father. It is, however, IMO, in line with the cool regard in which he seemed to be held by the members of Sara's family.

The word "debt" has come up before in this thread, and has, IIRC, been attached to Sara's name in ways which could be seen as giving a negative impression of this young woman. There is, IMO, more than one way of considering how Sara might have come to be in a position in which it was up to her to cover a "debt".

In the vast majority of cases imputing of income by judges is used to make child supports payments higher.... according to document pages shown by CTV that was not the case.
CM had 2014 income $81894 Imputed to $52164, $707 monthly suport changed to $425, and all previous orders were replaced.
Charged man has his own 4 children, support that board panel stated support payments were nonexistent but has defense team that would put most anyone in arrears.
1. March Interm order was based on 2014 income of $81894 = $707 per month and section 3 and 7 arrears $8293.24 exact dispersement not disclosed on page one shown by media.
2. July 7 interm order was based on 2014 imputed income of $52164 = $425 per month, old section 3 and 7 arrears notes atempt was made, new section 7 is 73% his responsibility

 

[Miranda]

Do we know the date that Sara received the 5K from CM? Do we have any confirmation that it was ever received at all?

 

[deugirtni]

The $8K that CM owed to SB back in March would have kept growing during the time between then and the court date in July. I'm not sure how much CM was to pay SB monthly in child support, but tack that onto his debt to her (4 more months worth), plus I'm not sure if interest is tacked on? CM's payment to SB of $5K could have potentially just kept him at the same level of debt, depending on what his monthly payments were.

[h=3]Enter the following information:[/h] Annual gross income of paying parent: (required) $
Number of children (required) :


Province of residence of paying parent (required) :1
The child support amount would be $706.76 a month.
=====================================================

[h=3]Enter the following information:[/h] Annual gross income of paying parent: (required) $
Number of children (required) :


Province of residence of paying parent (required) :1
The child support amount would be $425.57 a month.

=====================================================
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/child-enfant/look-rech.asp

There are so many social programs for single moms to help them become and continue to be contributing members of society, such as assistance with childcare costs so the moms can work, help with healthcare (ie prescriptions, vision care, dental, etc), legal assistance, etc. It sounds like SB had a great network of friends and family as well, who loved her daughter, and were willing to assist her.

I might take a giant leap to guess that many single moms might have to learn to get by with their main living expenses without child support arriving on schedule, it is SO common for dads not to pay, or to not pay the right amount, or to not pay at the exact correct time. It is sad, but true, and is exactly why programs are put in place to enforce child support.

Some people habitually live above their means, and/or have higher expectations for their lives than what reality presents. I think there are likely many here on WS who have been single moms at one time or another in their lives. I am not judging anyone's personal decisions on how they managed financially or otherwise during those times, but how many women would it have occurred to, to become an escort to make extra money when needed?

There are consequences to all of our decisions, whether it be to live with less, work more and be away from your kids too much, get into another relationship good or bad, move in with a relative that perhaps cramps your style, whatever. SB's situation is no different.

 

[yycpaul]

Do we know the date that Sara received the 5K from CM? Do we have any confirmation that it was ever received at all?[/QUOTE

July interm cut new month payment by 40% and removed all but 3 items from section 7 childcare/school/education.

$5000 ( as CTV and father claim ) + $2828 (monthly section 3 total beween appearances) + section 7 (child care + school + education + moving + sports + hobbies)

 

[yycpaul]

It is not common for a judge to reduce section 3 monthly support by almost 40%
It is not common for an interm order to nul and void arrears.
It is not common to reimburse section 7 after mother pays in full
It is not common for section 7 not to include recreation, prescriptions, vision care, dental, and legal

When will there be a common understanding that child support, mental health, legal justice, poverty costs and ignorance on health and education causes gaps, social programs models of delivery are broken?

 

[wendiesan]

This discussion has really brought a focus to some of the most pervasive and complex problems in our communities. We're talking about poverty, access to education, access to childcare, access to housing and finding value in one's own life even after suffering what can be perceived as overwhelming personal rejection. We are talking about how circumstances shape choices, or shape our attitudes as to what our choices really may be. We've been talking about personal finances which I think is still, in many ways, a taboo in our society. The discussion about one's access to and use of financial resources can be very emotional. Thanks to everyone for sharing their experiences and perspectives and observations.

Sara's story is tragic. Taliyah's unspeakably sad.

Here's hoping that the gaps in available resources and the broken models of delivering social programs to those who need them (yycpaul's comments in #226) are fixable, and that the political will can be found to assure that the work is done to repair them.

 

[otto]

Do we know the date that Sara received the 5K from CM? Do we have any confirmation that it was ever received at all?[/QUOTE

July interm cut new month payment by 40% and removed all but 3 items from section 7 childcare/school/education.

$5000 ( as CTV and father claim ) + $2828 (monthly section 3 total beween appearances) + section 7 (child care + school + education + moving + sports + hobbies)

Regarding section 7: it's too bad that she didn't realize that school/education fees are waived for families who cannot afford them, that city sports programs are available free of charge to parents who qualify with low income), and that child care in approved facilities is 100% covered by benefits. Moving is an unusual cost - don't most people with limited income find a friend who knows someone with a truck?

 

[deugirtni]

It is not common for a judge to reduce section 3 monthly support by almost 40%
It is not common for an interm order to nul and void arrears.
It is not common to reimburse section 7 after mother pays in full
It is not common for section 7 not to include recreation, prescriptions, vision care, dental, and legal

When will there be a common understanding that child support, mental health, legal justice, poverty costs and ignorance on health and education causes gaps, social programs models of delivery are broken?

Is it possible that in the past when the original support order was made, based on the $81894, it was based on incorrect income figures for whatever reason? (ie if CM happened to be behind in filing his tax return for 2014 or something, perhaps the judge based the amount on expected income as if he worked a certain rate for a maximum number of hours, but in reality he didn't work steadily, or changed to a different rate, or something like that?) If he then went to a future court date to revisit his support obligations, and could prove that he made substantially less than what the original order was based on, wouldn't that mean the judge would rightfully have to make an adjustment to the arrears owing? There are likely at least a few reasons why the support amount could have been reduced.

PS Where are those figures and information coming from, I wasn't able to find any court or financial documents?

 

[deugirtni]

Just playing a bit of devil's advocate here...

What would the general consensus be, for a father with say, joint custody of his child, (say he raised his child in his home for half the time, sharing the other half of the child's time with the mother).... which father worked a perhaps minimum wage job as a sales clerk in a retail store trying to make an honest living.. he presented as a loving, doting father.. but wasn't cutting it financially to give his child and himself the life they deserved, so on the side, he had chosen to get into dealing drugs?

His second 'job' brought him into contact with unsavoury types, and perhaps something happened at some point in time where he found himself indebted to HIS dealer and wasn't able to repay it.. and the eventual outcome tragically ended in him being murdered and the child also being killed as collateral damage? I can feel the outrage that the public might have in that situation toward the father, and sympathy for the unknowing mother to lose her child in such a horrible way. If only the dad had allowed the child to reside with the mom while he was into that lifestyle, etc.

Would people be saying he should have foreseen possible consequences? Would they see the father as a victim of poverty and excuse his actions as acceptable? Just food for thought if the shoe were on the other foot?

 

[otto]

Just playing a bit of devil's advocate here...

What would the general consensus be, for a father with say, joint custody of his child, (say he raised his child in his home for half the time, sharing the other half of the child's time with the mother).... which father worked a perhaps minimum wage job as a sales clerk in a retail store trying to make an honest living.. he presented as a loving, doting father.. but wasn't cutting it financially to give his child and himself the life they deserved, so on the side, he had chosen to get into dealing drugs?

His second 'job' brought him into contact with unsavoury types, and perhaps something happened at some point in time where he found himself indebted to HIS dealer and wasn't able to repay it.. and the eventual outcome tragically ended in him being murdered and the child also being killed as collateral damage? I can feel the outrage that the public might have in that situation toward the father, and sympathy for the unknowing mother to lose her child in such a horrible way. If only the dad had allowed the child to reside with the mom while he was into that lifestyle, etc.

Would people be saying he should have foreseen possible consequences? Would they see the father as a victim of poverty and excuse his actions as acceptable? Just food for thought if the shoe were on the other foot?

When a parent's criminal lifestyle leads to the death of a child, the parent - regardless of injury or death - is perceived as being partially responsible. For example, a number of years ago there was a case of a meth lab in the garage. The mother was in the house, the father was in the meth lab with friends, and a small child climbed into a car in the alley. The meth lab exploded, the child was killed. The parents were held liable for the death of the child as a direct result of their criminal activities. That is, if the parents had not been involve in criminal activities, the child's life would not have been at risk.

 

[AceDetective]

When a parent's criminal lifestyle leads to the death of a child, the parent - regardless of injury or death - is perceived as being partially responsible.

Absolute nonsense. In the example you gave, it is the criminal act, and not the lifestyle, that creates the liability. Secondly, are you forgetting the presumed motive at this point? A debt. It is not illegal to owe someone money.

Sara is NOT responsible for the death of her child. That's on the murderer. This continuing victim blaming has to stop. Not only are you wrong, but it is against forum rules.

 

[otto]

Absolute nonsense. In the example you gave, it is the criminal act, and not the lifestyle, that creates the liability. Secondly, are you forgetting the presumed motive at this point? A debt. It is not illegal to owe someone money.

Sara is NOT responsible for the death of her child. That's on the murderer. This continuing victim blaming has to stop. Not only are you wrong, but it is against forum rules.

That's what I said - the criminal activity is the key.

 

[ms_x_to_the_m]

Regarding section 7: it's too bad that she didn't realize that school/education fees are waived for families who cannot afford them, that city sports programs are available free of charge to parents who qualify with low income), and that child care in approved facilities is 100% covered by benefits. Moving is an unusual cost - don't most people with limited income find a friend who knows someone with a truck?

I understand that there are programs our there for those on low income. Many times the wait lists are insane.
For example in Toronto the wait list for subsidized housing is average of 10 years. The subsidized daycare wait time is 7 years.
It's not you need it today, you will get it tomorrow.
I know she's not to blame. We as mothers/father's sometimes have to do whatever needs to be done in order to take care of our kids.

 

[yycpaul]

Does anyone have the link to where global downloads entire documents? They had expired domestic document posted but I am unable to locate.

Is it possible that in the past when the original support order was made, based on the $81894, it was based on incorrect income figures for whatever reason? (ie if CM happened to be behind in filing his tax return for 2014 or something, perhaps the judge based the amount on expected income as if he worked a certain rate for a maximum number of hours, but in reality he didn't work steadily, or changed to a different rate, or something like that?) If he then went to a future court date to revisit his support obligations, and could prove that he made substantially less than what the original order was based on, wouldn't that mean the judge would rightfully have to make an adjustment to the arrears owing?
No because the original was drawn by a different Judge in 2012
Judge Mah egregious judicial conduct cost mother 40% of section 3 and penned her own interpretation section 7 and redrew boundaries to include only school/education/
Father represented himself in family court but in the court of public opinion media fail to mention how Judge Mah's imputing income and section 7 order wiped out 40% or 1/5 of moms total income.
Where are those figures and information coming from, I wasn't able to find any court or financial documents?
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=923802
43 seconds March application Judge Mah 51 seconds
There are likely at least a few reasons why the support amount could have been reduced. - Yes and here they are
19(1) The court may impute the amount of income to a parent that
it considers appropriate in the circumstances, and those
circumstances include the following:
(a) the parent is intentionally under-employed or
unemployed, except where the under-employment or
unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the
parents or any child under the age of majority or by the
reasonable educational or health needs of the parent;
(b) the parent is exempt from paying federal or provincial
income tax;
(c) the parent lives in a country that has effective rates of
income tax that are significantly lower than those in
Canada;
(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would
affect the level of child support to be determined under
these Guidelines;
(e) the parent’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate
income;
(f) the parent has failed to provide income information when
under a legal obligation to do so;
(g) the parent unreasonably deducts expenses from income;
(h) the parent derives a significant portion of income from
dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a
lower rate than employment or business income or that are
exempt from tax;
(i) the parent is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in
receipt of income or other benefits from the trust.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1)(g), the reasonableness of an
expense deduction is not solely governed by whether the deduction
is permitted under the Income Tax Act (Canada).

 

[wendiesan]

FWIW. The City of Calgary prepared a report in 2012 about poverty in that city.

Living in poverty means making difficult choices every day between food, transportation, housing costs, childcare, and other basic necessities. It also means not being able to save for the future. The daily challenges faced by someone living in poverty as they try to survive can lead to risky, potentially dangerous working conditions, relationships, or debt levels. For many people living in poverty, their only choice is to spend a significant amount of time and energy to meet their most basic needs. Imagine spending all your spare time brainstorming, budgeting and travelling around the city to access services, just to make sure there is enough food for the week – it can be a full-time job in itself.

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Research-and-strategy/Income-and-Poverty.aspx

For more information about poverty in Calgary or on current actions being taken to address poverty in Calgary, please visit the Enough for All website. Enough for All is Calgary’s community-driven poverty reduction strategy with the goal of cutting poverty in half by 2023.

Some facts and figures from the 2012 report.

1 in 5 Calgarians are concerned about not having enough money for food.6
1 in 3 Calgarians are concerned about not having enough money for housing.6
1 in 2 Calgarians are concerned about not saving for the future.6
Approximately 35,000 Calgary families face difficulty in affording the cost of adequate housing. Over the past 10 years, housing prices have increased 156%, yet incomes have increased only 34% over that same time.4

 

[otto]

Does anyone have the link to where global downloads entire documents? They had expired domestic document posted but I am unable to locate.

Is it possible that in the past when the original support order was made, based on the $81894, it was based on incorrect income figures for whatever reason? (ie if CM happened to be behind in filing his tax return for 2014 or something, perhaps the judge based the amount on expected income as if he worked a certain rate for a maximum number of hours, but in reality he didn't work steadily, or changed to a different rate, or something like that?) If he then went to a future court date to revisit his support obligations, and could prove that he made substantially less than what the original order was based on, wouldn't that mean the judge would rightfully have to make an adjustment to the arrears owing?
No because the original was drawn by a different Judge in 2012
Judge Mah egregious judicial conduct cost mother 40% of section 3 and penned her own interpretation section 7 and redrew boundaries to include only school/education/
Father represented himself in family court but in the court of public opinion media fail to mention how Judge Mah's imputing income and section 7 order wiped out 40% or 1/5 of moms total income.
Where are those figures and information coming from, I wasn't able to find any court or financial documents?
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=923802
43 seconds March application Judge Mah 51 seconds
There are likely at least a few reasons why the support amount could have been reduced. - Yes and here they are
19(1) The court may impute the amount of income to a parent that
it considers appropriate in the circumstances, and those
circumstances include the following:
(a) the parent is intentionally under-employed or
unemployed, except where the under-employment or
unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the
parents or any child under the age of majority or by the
reasonable educational or health needs of the parent;
(b) the parent is exempt from paying federal or provincial
income tax;
(c) the parent lives in a country that has effective rates of
income tax that are significantly lower than those in
Canada;
(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would
affect the level of child support to be determined under
these Guidelines;
(e) the parent’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate
income;
(f) the parent has failed to provide income information when
under a legal obligation to do so;
(g) the parent unreasonably deducts expenses from income;
(h) the parent derives a significant portion of income from
dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a
lower rate than employment or business income or that are
exempt from tax;
(i) the parent is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in
receipt of income or other benefits from the trust.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1)(g), the reasonableness of an
expense deduction is not solely governed by whether the deduction
is permitted under the Income Tax Act (Canada).

Something is wrong with that information because 40% is not 1/5.

 

[otto]

FWIW. The City of Calgary prepared a report in 2012 about poverty in that city.


http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Research-and-strategy/Income-and-Poverty.aspx



Some facts and figures from the 2012 report.

2012 Calgary housing data is not valid in 2016.

"A glut in supply of apartment units has sent rental prices tumbling, with landlords offering free rent and other perks to lure tenants.

Owners of higher-end rentals, ranging from $2,000 per month and over, have dropped their rents by as much as 30 per cent, said Gerry Baxter, executive director of the Calgary Residential Rental Association.

“For a tenant, it’s a great time to shop around, find a unit of your choice,” Baxter said."

July 21, 2016
http://business.financialpost.com/p...ht-not-seen-in-12-years-amid-economic-turmoil

 

[otto]

We've been looking at all sorts of benefits that are available to single low-income parents, but seeing that Sara did not request a waiver of school fees, or childcare subsidy and free sports programs, I have to wonder whether she qualified. With an income of $19k plus child benefit of $750 and child support of $500, that comes to $2750 income per month. She probably did not qualify.

Given that Sara was trying to leave the job she did for the suspect, I'm inclined to think that the debt was not borrowed money, but instead is the pimp's fee for introducing her to clients.

 

[deugirtni]

I suppose that women must declare their child support payment from their ex partner in their monthly income? And that would be the case whether or not the ex partner was actually paying the stated amount? Or would social services take that into consideration that the partner was not actually paying? And if that *was* taken into consideration and the woman received assistance, and if the partner subsequently ended up paying, would the woman have to pay back the assistance she had received?