The just of the article is that a women with three started getting $750 in new income in the form of monthly support payments from her ex-boyfriend and because of this the Manitoba government has reduced her $1,279.19 in social assistance accordingly.
The WFP starts this poor reporting with the statement, "A Gimli woman has initiated a class-action lawsuit against the province for forcing mothers on welfare to turn over child-support payments." While the byline and another line or two, mention this is simply a reduction of payment due to a new source of income, the WFP repeatedly makes absurd statements that somehow the government is taking money from this women.
Also, the entitlement this mother just oozes is a sorry statement on society. She actually states:
"What right does the government have to take that money and use it for bridges and streets and things?"
Re-read that sentence. Now think about it for a second.
What kind of spoiled, entitled brat do you have to be to say something like that? Taxpayers provide her with over a $1000 a month (likely not including all the other benefits, such as child tax benefits, she gets from the taxpayers), then the government (rightfully) forces her boyfriend to pay $750 a month to care for her kids, and she complains that she is being stolen from so that the government can use taxpayer's money to benefit taxpayers. It's mind-boggling.
The government even resumed full payments when her boyfriend stopped paying. Mind-boggling.
"The monthly budget is difficult to live on as it is but when they withheld my support payments, it made it really tough," Miyai said. "I'm behind on all my bills. I'm spending the money my parents set aside for university."Her income didn't change, so she fell behind on her bills. I'm sure this is somehow the government's fault.
(Also, look closely at the background of the picture; there might better reasons why she is behind on her bills).
The legal argument being made her is one of the most ludicrous I've heard of in a while.
"Miyai states child-support payments belong to the children, but the province's Family Services Department considers the money as income for the parent and deducts that amount from regular income-assistance cheques."I don't know what more to say about it. I hope this case gets thrown out and both she and her lawyer get penalized for wasting the courts' time and resources.
In court documents, Miyai states the province's seizure of the child-support payments is a violation of the children's charter rights, and wants the court to rule it unlawful.