Conference kaosws::canada

    
    
    Correction, the law was found to be discriminatory by the Human
    Rights Commission & the Federal court, not the Quebec Supreme Court
    (King Jacques the First hasn't created this entity yet).

    JP,
    
     While I share your concern for the plight of the women and children,
    I suspect the issue is not as dark as you suggest. On the CBC last
    night they explained that the divorce judge is supposed to take into 
    account the taxes to be paid by the custodial parent, and pad the
    payment to cover that. This is clearly not happening, but is that the
    laws fault, or the male dominated judiciary ? I say the second.
    
     In fact, that law was designed to reduce the total amount of income
    tax paid by the combined parents, subsequently leaving more money to
    raise the children with. If this is the intent and not the result, then
    Mr. Rock is quite correct in saying there will be changes. I myself
    think that the rules are fine (idiot judges will circumvent the intent
    of the new rules just as easily as they did the last set of rules). The
    issue is getting the judges on front lines to smarten up. How to do
    that ? I have no idea.
    
    							Derek.

    
    
    Hi Derek,
    
    Yes your right, Mr. Rock's staff has been studying on how to change the
    law but I'm afraid that now were going to have a very watered down
    arrangement & the women in this situation are simply going to keep
    declaring bankruptcy.
    
    The bottom line is this. The divorce judge goes according to what
    the man is said to afford. I know a musician that pays his ex wife
    twenty bucks a month(no $hit). I know someone else who gets $800.00 a
    month which isn't a whole lot for two kids considereing all the expenses
    involved in raising them & considering the ex-husband is a lawyer that
    pulls in over 150k a year, but in the year of the divorce he filed an
    income tax return claiming he earned 13k. He deducted everything for
    his business, trips & all. He gets a tax break for giving her $800.00
    a month, she has to file for her 37k yearly salary & the $800.00 p/m on
    top of this.
    
    When tax time comes around, she winds up owing between $2000 & $3000
    a year which she can't afford to pay. Over time this snowballs &
    the interest keeps adding up. She had to sell her RRSP, she's not 
    allowed to have such a privilege. Her salary gets seized because she
    owes over $17,000 to both goverments that are demanding about
    4/5 of the $800 per month as a repayment for owed taxes. They call
    her at work & literally harass her like small-time shylocks.
    
    If she did'nt have any support payments, she would be getting back about
    $3000 from Quebec or $5000 if she were an Ontario resident.
    
    This above scenario is not an exception or special situation, it's
    the general rule for any single divorced mother & it's bloody unfair.
    They can tweek or amend any laws they want but the reality of the
    situation is these judges are completely out of touch with what's going
    on.
    
    I think at this point, the only way women can fight back is to sadly
    say at divorce time: "hey you know I love the kids, but I don't want
    to live in poverty for the rest of my life, so let him take care of
    em'. Let him blast his monthly budget because one of the kids blows
    a contact lens or needs $125.00 sneakers, a computer to compete
    with other kids or $500.00 for a graduation. Let him pay for this.
    She can pay her standard monthly $800.00 a month & have no problems,
    get a tax break, no extra clothes to wash & no taxying around. Let
    the guy owe a a massive tax bill he can't pay. Let her play mommy
    once every two months then she can get back to her real life.
    
    I'm sure if enough men we're in this situation, they'd get real pi$$ed
    & you can be sure the laws would be changed to accomodate them in no
    time.
    
    I'm simply stating that this is part of a far deeper problem. Our
    attitude towards women has'nt evolved very much since the time of
    the caveman. We still use brute force to shut them out & not be
    full participants in society. The Thibodeau decision is an affront
    to anybody who has any intelligence. Talk to some of the women
    affected by this decision. Forget the fancy Dan's & law experts
    that claim the process is working. Nobody is listening to the real
    victims. I'm willing to bet anybody who's commented on this issue
    on the tube makes at least 70k a year & his completely disconnected
    from this. Eh, CBC Newsworld this am:, no reports on this whatsoever.
    Just sweep it under the rug, bad for ratings, lets talk about Bernado,
    The Jets & the Nordiques it's less boring.
     
     
    Anyway I don't want to ramble on since I tend to have this habit, but
    my heart goes out to the single moms in this country & I hope that
    someday, 200 generations from now, maybe women will be treated on
    a more equal footing, maybe we'll finally pass the chimpanzee stage
    of our evolution.
    
    
                                                 regards J.P.
        

	re .3

>    a contact lens or needs $125.00 sneakers, a computer to compete

	"Need" is surely the wrong word here. The child's need is for
	shoes. It may want expensive sneakers; but it doesn't _need_
	them.

	Tony

    Mr. Ranger:
    
    While I do agree with much of what you have said, I also think that you
    have presented only one side of this situation.  An earlier note
    correctly pointed out that the tax situation is part of the
    determination of how much support payments will be.  This always has
    been the case.  If the tax liability changes sides, then that will be
    reflected in any fair ruling on support payments.  What would be
    potentially very unfair would be to change the tax liability on
    agreements that were already in place and determined before the tax
    changes came into effect.  I therefore agree with the ruling.  What is 
    needed, and this has nothing to do with tax laws, is fairer settlements 
    and absolute enforcement afterwards.
    
    But I really must speak out about your broad brush painting of all men as
    being complete selfish jerks with no consideration of their ex-wives or
    for the children they helped bring into the world.  We are not all like
    that, and each of us has the right to be judged as individuals. 
    Stereotyping us is no different than racism.  For your information, I am a
    divorced father of two who raised the children by myself with
    absolutely no support from anyone, and all the while still made support
    payments (tax deductible) to my ex-wife.  In fairness, I was 
    fortunate enough to have the financial means to provide properly for my
    children.  But I also know other men who have not shirked their
    responsibilities in the least.
    
    Mr Ranger, I share your anger with all the injustice which has occurred
    and continues to occur.  But please, direct your anger to the
    perpetrators and not to the majority of men who have done right by
    their children and ex-wives.
                            

    
    
    Tony,(.4)
    
             Do you have kids of your own? I wonder.
    
        >    "Need" is surely the wrong word here. The child's need is for
        >     shoes. It may want expensive sneakers; but it doesn't _need_
        >     them.
          
         
    
              Contacts cost as much as glasses,
        
              & it's standard practice for many teens to have $125.00 sneakers
              nowadays. If it's not "NIKE or Rebock" they won't wear it.
              If your a parent, I doubt you have the strenght to widthstand
              the pressure of advertizing & the power of the Much-Music-Teen
              Culture, particularly when every other kid on the block has a
              pair.
    
              Kids/teens are very image conscious. You can keep control
              in their early years but that will unravel as they become
              older & more rebellious to your austerity measures.
    
              You're constantly reminded by your child or teen that most have
              it "why can't I?" After you buy the sneakers, then they'll
              grow a little older & become "grunge" & want to wear
              $10.00 sneakers waisting your previous investment, then three
              months later they get in to "Doc Martens" & listen to the music
              of "Ministry" a very melodic & midly right-wing group.
    
              So you can try to reason with them all you want & maintain an
              iron-fist rule but being a single parent will wear you down,
              you don't have that other person to share the responsabilities
              with.
     
              You don't & won't get control & you can't win. The support
              between two people is simply not there & you're expending the
              stress energy of two people as the demands keep growing,
              you're ability to fork the dough diminishes.
     
    
    
              As far as a computer, I did not have one when I was going
              through college & I paid the price. I consider it a major
              advantage for any child to get a head start with technology.
              Particularly in today's new "comp-economy". 
    
              The whole idea here is the children should be able to be
              raised in a nominal financial situation.
    
              Uh, I'm rambling on again....
    
                                                     regards J.P.
                                           

    
    > her 37k yearly salary & the $800.00 p/m 
    
    That equates to $46,600 per year or about $18,520 more than a
    couple (both working) would make at minimum wage.  I guess according
    to your budgeting figures they'd better forget about ever having kids.
    
    > When tax time comes around, she winds up owing between $2000 & $3000
    &
    >If she didn't have any support payments, she would be getting back about
    >$3000 from Quebec or $5000 if she were an Ontario resident.
    
    So you're saying that if she lived in Ontario her $9600 extra income 
    would cost $7000 to $8000 in taxes.  I DOUBT IT.  Taxes are bad but
    get real.
    
    Why isn't anyone boohooing for all the poor men who do make there
    support payments as ordered?  I personally know 2 who pay $900 and
    $1150 per month, close to half their monthly take-home from yearly 
    before tax incomes of $42,000 and $51,000 to ex-wives who have since 
    remarried to men making over $100k per year. Now is this fair?
    
    
    Robin

    
    .6:
    
    Minor nit:  I just bought a brand new pair of black NIKE hi-tops
    for $29.99.
    
    Just takes a little shopping around.
    
    :^)
    

    Mr. Ranger,
    
    	Although I understand where your coming from, and agree with a lot 
    of your statements on the subject, I was glad to read .5 (Mr. Traneer's
    note) I'm a divorced man with two children from my first marriage. My
    only comment would be to say that only people who have gone through a
    divorce settlement can understand divorcees...It was the worst episode
    of my life. If you think it's so lopped sided and advantages the man,
    your wrong mon ami...
    
    question: What do you think of all men who tried to get some form of
    		shared custody with equal visitation rights but were turned
    		down simply because the woman couldn't afford it and are
    		forced to seeing their children only every second weekend??
    
    salut.
    
    Ray
    

    
                                                                   
    Dear Wayne,(.5)
    
    
    With all due respect I admire your courage to raise them on your
    own, I would'nt envy the task & I tip my hat to you or to anyone
    in a similar situation. I also know there are many men that fork out
    the dough to their ex & if I've offended anyone with my remarks then
    I'm sorry & was out of line. Thank you for straigthning me out.
    
    I'm only racist towards the bugs that crawl under the rocks & I hear
    there are many. You speak from your personal experience & I from mine.
    The issue is complex & your right there are many sides to a coin but
    the fact remains that a lot women are on the verge of bankruptcy or
    heading there because of this law, to deny this is to be blind. What
    is this goverment going to really do? How do you change the law to make 
    it fairer & what happens to the people who now have an unpayable tax bill? 
    What do other countries do?
    
                                                 Respectfully J.P.
    

    
    Dear Ray,
    
     I live with a divorcee affected by this law. I see first-hand the
     ravages it has on her. She is a person who is honest, hard working
     & budget minded. Not the type of person that free loads
     off the system. She's trying to further her career by attending
     University part-time, doing a degree at night & working full time on
     a very high pressure job. When she tells me Revenue Quebec calls her
     at work & harrasses her over the phone, man I go ballistic, they're a
     bunch of shylocks. Something has to be done about the tax laws in this
     country, they are'nt user-friendly to say the least to anyone
     involved.  
    
     It really breaks my heart to have to see her go through this crap
     & I obviously can't help her at this time but from an emotional
     standpoint. 
      
    
    As far as your question regarding, 
    
    > What do you think of all men who tried to get some form
    > of shared custody with equal visitation rights but were
    > turned down simply because the woman couldn't afford it and
    > are forced to seeing their children only every second
    > weekend??
    
      The only answer I have is from personal experience. The ex in
      my friend's case could'nt be bothered & likes it that way. Every
      2 months sometimes three, but unlike you or Wayne T., he's still
      at the baboon stage of his evolution, & and I still think there's
      a lot of them out there.
      
                   
                                      regards J.P.
    

    
    
    Robin, (.7)
    
    Maybe the #'s are not precise, I meant to say "if she was not taxed
    on support payments", the children would benefit from an extra 2 to
    3k per year -  to pay all the normal expenses & superfluous expenses
    such as:  broken eye glasses, lost shoes, stolen books, social events,
    school activities, braces, Christmas gifts, birthday gifts, expensive
    medication & the list can be quite infinite(while the non-custodial
    parent gets away with a fixed amount allowing to better plan a budget
    with no strings attached & no surprises & rebuild a life, not to
    mention finances. The single parent cannot afford that luxury).
    
    Yet, she gets taxed & he gets an additional break.
    
    The goverment is making a tax grab on money that is
    supposed to go to the children at the expense of the custodial
    parent who has the greater financial burden, 95% are women. Just because
    they are divorced, that does not change the relation of father/child.
    Whether married or divorced, that relationship will never change
    & he will always be responsible for those children.
    
    The goverment would never dream of taxing the mother in a married
    couple for the money the father spends on his children. So why does
    a single custodial parent have to pay the income tax of the
    non-custodial parent? Does that sound fair?
    
    All in all, the goverment knows it's unfair, otherwise Allan Rock
    wouldn't have rushed to meet the media immediately after the
    announcement of the Supreme Court   decision in order to diffuse
    the public outcry that ensued & to promise to change the law.
    
     End of Story....
    
                                        Regards J.P.
                                                                   
    
                                          

    Non-custodial parents making support payments DO NOT get a tax break,
    unless their income after the income deduction for support payments
    happens to put them in a lower tax bracket.  Support payments reduce
    income - they are not a tax credit.
    
    The custodial parent receiving support payments is most likely to be in
    a lower tax bracket than the parent making the parent, therefore the
    support payment amount is (most?) often taxed at a lower rate.  This is
    a benefit unique to divorced couples - I would love to be able to say "I
    spend 30K on raising my kids, so please tax it at 17% instead of 43%!"
    
    If the support payment was fairly set and they are made on time, then
    asking the non-custodial parent to pay the tax, is nothing more than
    greed and an attempt to "take another shot" at the other party!  If 
    the support payment is not fairly set, or the payments are not paid 
    regularly, there is a problem, but it's not one of unfair tax law or 
    discrimination.  Anyone who receives support payments, or any other
    income that is not taxed "at the source", and does not consider the tax
    implications and make arrangements to pay the tax when it is due, has
    either received no or poor advice, or is very niaive (sp?) when it
    comes to taxation.
    
    Finally, if anyone would truly be better off if they did not receive
    support payments after taxation is considered, they should stop taking
    the support payments!  But I would have to see an actual case (complete
    with tax returns calculated with and without support payments) before I 
    would believe it is a wide spread problem.  The only potential problem
    I could see is when the support payments would put the receiver into a
    higher tax bracket, but even then, we don't get taxed at 100%+ rates,
    so yuo still can't lose.
    
    Regards,
    
    Garry

    I'm also amazed at the parallel you draw to a married couple? You're
    joking right? Divorced parents have a number of advantages under the
    tax law that mean that, all other things being equal they pay less tax
    than a married couple. Given that added burden of care placed on
    custodial parents this is not entirely an undeserved benefit. The
    original Thibaudeau decision was wrong, support judgements are
    frequently wrong, two wrongs, as we all know do not make a right. 
    
    Tell your freind to get a dose of reality, I know several married
    couples, both working, that are finacially worse off than her. Its not
    eay for anybody these days.

    Just to go back a bit to the comments of peer pressure in .6 and
    actually to a lot of the whole business of parenting and relationships.
    
    I believe in the law of natural consequences.
    
    Take the sneakers for example ... My children are told that as a parent
    with only so much cash, I will shod them with shoes of adequate quality
    and endurance at a price I can afford.  If they don't like that, they
    can carry on wearing what they have now ...  Eventually those shoes
    pinch and then they accept what we are prepared to buy.
    
    We are teaching our children that if this causes them grief with peers
    and peer pressure then this in not their problem, but rather a problem
    that belongs with their friends ... that if the friends cannot accept
    my children for the people they are, then that is the so-called friends
    loss.  A few episodes of this have occured already and surprise
    surprise, my kids can recognize it for themselves now.
    
    
    So JP, you don't have to go out and spend $100+ on sneakers that sit in
    the closet ...  As a parent we think we should control our children,
    but children are just like any other person ... You cannot control any
    one but yourself.  So, you set up an environment for the person you
    want to influence to help them understand why you want to influence
    them ... and do it openly and above board.  It's only if you do it
    covertly that the resentment appears.
    
    I wish that this was perfect, but it's not, but I sure like to think
    that as my eldest is now into year two of the dreaded teens, she will
    have the tools to cope with peer pressure etc ... and I'm proud of her
    so far because she's doing a darned good job of it (and silently
    patting myself on the back, albeit gently, that we've been fairly
    successful).
    
    This law of natural consequences and the hard realization that only one
    person is responsible for the way we feel and what we do, would do an
    amazing amount for the passage of any family for the trauma of
    separation and divorce (spoken as someone who saw his parents divorce
    in kis early adult years).
    
    Sorry, I've waxed too long on this and I know it's easier to say than
    do ... but nobody said life was easy.  But taking this approach the
    control of one's life returns to the owner of the life. I also don't
    want to diminish anyone's experience who'se gone through any of this
    stuff, but isn't it the case that you feel you didn't have control ?
    Perhaps you were trying to control things you had no control over.
    
    If ever there was something that should be taught in schools ...
    
    There ... my 2++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ cents worth !
    
    Stuart

    JP:
    
    	I prefer to focus in on the 'name calling' you give to parents who
    don not pay child support, leaving the tax situations to guys like
    Gary, who know a lot more about things like that than I ever will.
    
    	I don't support at all people who don't pay alimony, but in a case
    of a divorce, it's not always as cut and dry at it might seem. Take
    this case for example;
    
    	A travelling saleperson comes home one night and catches his wife
    in bed with his best friend. he later finds out that this has been
    going on for several years...They seperate, go through a divorce, and
    the man ends up paying $ 900.00 child support / per month and has
    visitation rights every second weekend, simply because he can't take
    care of his kids on week nights because of his travelling schedule/
    job. Meanwhile, the x-wife is having a great time with her second
    'flame'...
    
    	What do you think of this 'low life no good for nothing scum ball
    person' who sometimes has a difficult time signing his by-monthly
    check on time and hand it over to his x-wife (or x-friend if he happens
    to open the door) ???
    
    The point is JP, that although it's not your business or mine why a
    seperation/divorce happened, it could help us determine why some people
    don't pay alimony, instead of putting them all in one category and
    calling them names...We are dealing with human being here with
    frustrations, deceptions, anger, revenge, and all sorts of other things
    on their minds...
    
    Ray.
    
      
    

    <--- Excellent point Ray. Getting out of the hockey file has done you a
    world of good. 8^)

    Tha taxes must be paid on the income, there is a fixed amount of cash.
    What difference does it make wether it is paid be the income earner or
    the spouse ?  Doesn't it make sense for the person with the lesser
    income to claim it ?? (less taxes paid)
    
    I am the sole income earner for my family, making field service wages.
    So when does the government give me a break.
    
    If my wife was working we could claim child care expenses, but as is I 
    can't claim any child care expenses.
    
    If we were divorsed I could write off my payments to her and should
    would them claim them at a lower income tax rate.
    
    These poor women see oppression domination and discrimination at every
    turn. Truely some of them may be getting a raw deal but as pointed out
    earlier this is a result of court assesments and not the tax system.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    

    
     If I may interject:
    
     Many good points are being made in this thread, but no one has
    mentioned that the non-custodial parent will most likely consider
     a new family at some point, and the alimony payments should be
    determined with this in mind.
    
     Everyone seems to stereotype the male in the household as the
    financial provider, so will he not have to re-assume this role
     in his next family.
     Won't that large monthly alimony payment affect the 
     non-custodial parents' possibility of succesfully raising
     a 2nd family.
    
     As Ray mentioned, there are many reasons why divorces happen.
    Unless we know all the details of each individual case, hope can
     anyone pass judgement. It isn't always the male in these cases
     that initiates or is responsible for the divorce.
    
     Alternatively, the custodial parent will, in most likelihood,
    link up with another financial provider and be able to resume
     the lifestyle she/he was accustomed to.
    
     It seems a lot fairer to me when the above is taken into
     consideration.

    
    
    In the House of Commons this afternoon, Allan Rock announced that
    he intends to introduce a new bill to change the law before the summer
    break.
    
    Notwithstanding the court's decision, the goverment holds the power
    to change the law.
    
    Maybe the court interpreted the law correctly, but the goverment recognizes
    that the L A W was W R O N G & needs to be fixed!
    
    By the way the opposition parties are in agreement with the goverment.
    
    So to whom it may concern expect some changes on your next tax return
    & have a nice day!
    
                                           Sincerely, J.P.
     
                                                      

    
    Dear Ray,
    
    re: .16
    
    I would sympathize with someone in that situation.  Divorce usually
    happens under painful circumstances.  However, the issue is about
    providing a decent livelihood for one's children, not about revenge
    against a former spouse.  
    
    With regards to me employing the expression "deadbeat" dads? I
    can't take credit for the expression. It sounds like something
    a cop would have thought of. The press probably picked it up
    from someone. I only used it in context with the anger I was feeling
    when the "Thibodeau" decision was handed down. I admit, maybe I
    should have waited a few days to write a more sober note yet my
    feelings on the issue I assure you would have remained intact.
    
    As I stated in an earlier note, my criticism may have seemed harsh
    & some portrayed me as being non-receptive to the other side.
    
    I fully realize, that there is another side. But the general facts
    :i�� ��
    
    
    
    

    J.P. Ranger,
    
    Roch (and the rest of the government) and the opposition are now acting in
    the politically correct manner which I actually expected the Supreme
    Court to do.  You can expect a lot of resistance to making the
    non-custodial parent pay the taxes and when the custodial parents learn
    that they will be loosing a significant tax and economic advantage, I 
    believe they will also backtrack from their position.
    
    But sine this doesn't really affect me, my wife or our children, what
    do I care - all it means to me is that the government will be
    collecting more taxes, from someone other than me!
    
    

    About the taxes:
    
    	I don't know if this is a regular procedure or not, but when I went
    through my divorce, the lawyers and the judge took into consideration
    the different tax scenarios my x-wife and I would have to endure /
    enjoy before making the alimony judgement. (ex: The judge asked how
    much money I would get back from my tax return if I paid "x" amount,
    and how would this amount effect my x-wife at tax time...). They then
    based the judgement on the NET amount paid after tax returns etc...
    
    	This might be 'far fetched' but one alternative would be to have
    both parties agree mutually on a 'fair' monthly alimony amount non
    taxable...(ex: if a person pays 900.00 today, maybe a 700.00 alimony
    'under the table' amount could replace it...). I know some folks who
    do this and everyone's happy (including the children). The only thing
    you need to accomplish this is TRUST!!!
    
    Ray.
    

	Dear J.P.

	If you let your children feed you a line that they need $130
	running shoes to 'fit in' in the '90's, then clearly you
	are a gullable man.

	I tried the same line on my parents in the '70's and ya know
	what I got instead of my three stripe Adidas? A boot in the arse
	and a pair of $10 K-Mart copies.

	A computer, a second hand one at a couple hundred dollars will
	do them fine... and make them pay half!

	Charlie_who_worked_for_his_motorbike/stereo...

    
    
    Charlie,
    
     Please, give me a break with the sneakers, it was a dumb example on my
     part. I was trying to demonstrate a point about peer pressure between
     teens, something I've actually seen, besides I spoke to the person in
     question yesterday, she never bought the child $130.00 sneakers,
     my mistake, so I'll live with it. But I guess to some here, the sneakers
     were the single & most important issue in this thread & certainly the key
     to unlocking the entire mystery, yes, you must be great at
     murder/mysteries.
    
    
     As far as how the Fed's plan to rectify law & backing down, we'll see.
     Roch seems to be pretty good at sticking to his "guns" in line
     of recent fire. 
    
     It seems the goverment may order the non-custodial parents to
     send the alimony cheque directly to them. Late charges would
     be laid for past due payments & the tax would be deducted at the
     source. If not enough money is left over, a subsequent court
     settlement would be warranted.
     
    
     I hope this makes the situation fairer for both parties & does not
     create another lopsided situation for the honorable people who do
     make their payments.
    
     I learned from this note & hope you did too. This will be my last
     contribution to the topic & I thank all the people who participated
     whether for or against the issue.
    
                                            Until the next battle
    
    
                                            Respectfully  J.P.
    
    
                                            

	Glen(n),

	Where are you when I need some tissues...I think am going
	to weep.

	Angela L.

    
    
    	It was not lost on me that Mr. Lacaille uses the less
    expensive "tissues" versus the Kleenex that his peers might
    pressure him into.
    
    	Mme.Quatre Jours
    
    	PS the problem with not buying your kids Reeboks is that
    the parents have to wear the GT Express models also. :^(
    

	Hi'ya Stu,

	Actually, I never buy tissues period. I simply steal your
	Kleenex's....BTW, you wanna start buying white from now on?
	The colo(u)ring in the ones you buy cause my alergies to
	flair.

	Respectfully and Sincerly,

	Mr I. Pleurer

    Monsewer Plutt
    
    I thin you'se confoosed yer Stuarts / Stewarts ...  I ain't on
    KAOFS ... but Candace is ...
    
    Yo buy tishoos ?  I thowt y'all'd use shairt slivs ... afta aw them wuz
    made fust.
    
    Baaaa frown de Sayouth-wayest.
    
    Stuart

	Oh darn, I meant Stew...how stu-pid of me.

	In a broth,

	Bro Colli

From:	US3RMC::"[email protected]"  6-DEC-1995 11:44:35.88
Subj:	The Daily - December 06, 1995 (fwd)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition home survey
May 31, 1995
 
More than 2,300 women, accompanied by 2,200 children, were living in shelters
that offer housing for abused women and their children on May 31, 1995,
according to the 1994/95 Transition Home Survey.
   Eight out of 10 of the women were there to escape abuse. Of those cases, 70%
involved physical abuse, typically from a current or former spouse or partner.
   In the 12 months up to May 31, these shelters recorded more than 85,000
admissions. In addition, on a typical day they received approximately 3,000
requests for services from non-residents.
   Nearly one in four of the women fleeing abuse (23%) was under the age of 25,
and 43% were aged 25 to 34. Most of the children accompanying these women were
under 10 years of age. One in 10 was an infant under one year of age, and about
a third were aged between one and four years.
   A third of the women who had been abused had reported the latest incident to
the police. Charges had been laid in just over half of these cases.
   On May 31, 1995, a total of 405 residential facilities in the provinces and
territories were providing services for abused women and their children. The
majority of these facilities (74%) were transition homes that offer secure
housing for the short- or medium-term (1 day to 11 weeks).
   The next most common type of facility (10%) was second-stage houses that
offer longer-term (3 to 12 months) residence. Seven percent of facilities were
emergency shelters that provide one to three days of respite for a broader
population, not necessarily limited to abused women. Another 5% were safe home
networks that offer very short-term housing for abused women and their children
in private homes. A variety of other types of shelter made up the remaining 4%
of establishments.
   The most common services offered by the shelters for the benefit of children
were individual counselling for children (75%) and parenting skills (73%).
Culturally sensitive services for Aboriginal children or for ethnic and visible
minorities were available in half the facilities.