Government gives, but is quick to take away
Problem: NDP makes persuasive case that clawback of child support payments is unfair
If there’s a more perverse policy on social assistance than the one dramatized by the Opposition this past week, I can’t think what it would be.
Here’s a case study, as described in the legislature by New Democratic Party MLA Michelle Mungall:
“Sheila Joseph, a single mom in Kamloops, has three children. Her seven- year- old receives child support from her father. But because Sheila receives income support, the little girl never sees the help her father sends to pay for school clothes, books and healthy food. Sheila wants to know why the ministry went through all the trouble of getting child support for her daughter only to take it away from her every month.”
The policy is not without its bitter ironies.
The government does indeed go to some length to ensure that where marriages break up, the fathers — and they are mostly fathers — pay child support.
But in cases where the breakup leaves the mothers — and they are mostly mothers — on social assistance, the government will then deduct the equivalent amount of the support payments from the monthly welfare cheque.
The money is supposed to benefit the child. It rightly belongs to the child. But it never gets there. What one hand of government gives, the other takes away.
The clawback can also exacerbate an already difficult relationship between the estranged spouses. Witness the following scenario supplied to me by Mungall.
Step one: court orders father to pay $ 100 in monthly child support, based on his ability to pay. Father agrees, however reluctantly, to pay up.
Step two: the government promptly reduces mother’s monthly social assistance cheque by $ 100, leaving her no better off than before to pay rent, groceries and other expenses.
Step three: father, exercising access rights to his child, hears from him/ her that he/ she has no money for clothing, school supplies, whatever.
Step four: father accuses mother of squandering child support on her own needs, not the purposes that prompted the court order.
Step five: mother protests that the government clawed back the money. Father refuses to believe her: not even the government would be that crazy.
Only it is. Mungall and her MLA colleague, Maurine Karagianis, invited a half- dozen women to the legislature this week with a view to providing the media with some reportable examples of the problem.
They also went after the Liberals in question period, torquing the issue as Opposition members are wont to do. Mungall got ruled out of order Thursday when she challenged Premier Christy Clark to “stop smirking” during her question. ( Clark was smirking, though probably not about the matter at hand).
But the Liberals for the most part failed to take the issue seriously. Check out this fruitless exchange from question period Wednesday:
Mungall: “Tabatha Naismith ( is) a Surrey mom who’s struggling to raise her one- year- old daughter on $ 642 a month after rent. The B. C. Liberals are clawing the $ 100 that her daughter is supposed to be getting in child support payments. They are clawing that back every month. And it is wrong. Instead of doing the wrong thing, will the premier do the right thing? End the clawback of child support payments, and give B. C.’ s poorest kids their money back.”
Premier Christy Clark: “We live in a rich country; we live in a rich province. And the fact, the sad fact, is that many people still do not fully participate in that wealth. We have an obligation as a generation to ensure that everyone across the province has an equal opportunity to take part in the economic growth that is coming in our province. We believe that the best way out of poverty is to make sure that people are participating in the economic growth and that they have the skills that they need to take those jobs. In the meantime, we also have to make sure that that social safety net is there to protect people who need that protection when they are enduring poverty in our province ...”
She continued in that vein for another minute or two, but never got around to addressing the point of Mungall’s question.
In defence of their policy, the B. C. Liberals did put out a fact sheet with the following justification: “To be eligible for income assistance, people are expected to pursue all other forms of income first — this includes maintenance payments from former partners who are legally obligated and financially able to contribute ... This ensures that people are accessing all other forms of income before relying on taxpayer- funded income.”
They also said that to forgo the amount they scoop every year in family maintenance payments would cost $ 17 million, the equivalent of one per cent of the entire budget for social assistance and money the ministry does not have.
But the New Democrats left open the possibility of something other than a blanket exemption for all child support payments. For instance, government could allow single parents on social assistance to keep the first $ 100 in child support and half of any amount over that up to a maximum of, say, $ 300.
The New Democrats make a persuasive case that the clawback imposes significant hardship on single parents and children alike. Instead of dismissing the criticism out of hand, the Liberals ought to explore if there’s an affordable middle ground between all or nothing.