Cardinal Oscar Moncur loves, provides for, and cares for his three daughters, while his wife does nothing for them. Why won’t the courts enforce their divorce agreement?
A version of this article was originally posted on Fathers and Families. Written by Robert Franklin, Esq.
This is the story of one man’s tireless efforts to do one humble thing – get his wife to help support their children. It’s a story of the indifference of courts to that very effort.
Cardinal Oscar Moncur is a Bahamian citizen. He’s a decent, caring man who works hard to support his three girls alone. He’s a school teacher and a religious man whose every email closes with the words “in Jesus Christ.”
Moncur married in 1993, in his wife’s hometown of Florence, South Carolina. They lived there for three years before moving to the Bahamas. They had three daughters in 1996, 1999, and 2002. Both parents worked to support the family, but, around 2005, his wife started absenting herself from the house, staying out late and, as Moncur later learned, having an extramarital affair. All that led to arguments and eventually to his moving out of their house and in with his parents.
That lasted for six months during which his wife had custody of the children and he paid child support even though there was no order for him to do so. He also visited the children almost every day, and it was during those visits that they began complaining to him. Mom often didn’t keep food for them in the house. Sometimes the electricity was turned off. The honor-roll girls began to struggle in school. Eventually, in April of 2007, they asked if they could live with him.
So he went to court to request custody which was granted pending divorce. His wife was ordered to pay $200 per month in child support and half of their youngest daughter’s private education fees.
The hearing on that order was held on September 17, 2007. Since then, Moncur’s ex-wife has paid a total of $100 in child support and nothing toward their youngest’s education. Moreover, despite having court-ordered visitation every weekend, she rarely showed up to see the children.
♦◊♦
Cardinal Moncur is not a wealthy man. As a school teacher with three children to support, he has little money for anything beyond basic expenses. So it was with considerable reluctance that he reached deep into his pockets to hire an attorney to enforce his children’s support order. The necessary documents were filed in the Bahamian court and a hearing was scheduled, but then Moncur made what turned out to be a big mistake.
ZNS, the national television station, asked Moncur to appear and talk about being a single father raising three children, and he agreed. On the program, he discussed the difficulties and rewards of single parenthood, a non-controversial appearance for everyone but the judge in Moncur’s case.
Moncur had filed a petition to enforce his child support order, but at the hearing, the judge, Sir Burton Hall, focused solely on his television appearance. Hall completely ignored the fact that Moncur’s wife wasn’t paying the support she owed, claiming that his appearance on ZNS constituted contempt of court.
By any stretch of the imagination, Hall’s interpretation of Bahamian law was strange. For a finding of contempt, the law requires that the accused attempted to sway the deliberations of a jury. Given that there was no jury in Moncur’s case and could be none since all divorces are tried to a judge, Hall’s claim of contempt on Moncur’s part begins to look like legal legerdemain to conceal his real purpose – denying his motion.
After all, although the entire hearing was devoted, not to Moncur’s motion, but to Judge Hall’s unique theories about contempt, he never found Moncur in contempt for what should be obvious reasons.
With the Bahamian court apparently unwilling to enforce its order to pay support, Moncur’s wife continued to ignore her obligations to her children, and with each passing month, his financial straits grew more dire. Still Moncur tried again.
Over two years from its issuance, it was Judge Rhonda Bain who heard his next motion to enforce the order of child support. She too found an excuse not to. Her odd notion was that Moncur’s attorney hadn’t specified which part of the September 17th order the children’s mother had violated. That of course was patent nonsense. The motion was for enforcement of child support order and nothing else; only one section of the order referred to child support. But Judge Bain was more interested in that legal technicality than she was in the welfare of the children.
They were the ones who were going without. Moncur had just spent most of his money on an attorney whose efforts had gone for naught, and he still wasn’t receiving a penny from his ex. In case he had any ideas about her ever paying, around that time, she decamped for the United States.
♦◊♦
Virtually penniless and struggling to raise three growing girls alone, Moncur was forced to move back in with his parents and cancel the insurance on his life that he’s always maintained for his children’s benefit. Quarters at his parent’s house were cramped and the girls, then aged 13, 11, and 7 suffered from the lack of privacy. They also weren’t getting the medical and dental care they needed due to lack of funds.
In desperation, Moncur turned to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an arm of the Organization of American States whose mission includes the enforcement of human rights in the region. Since the OAS had adopted the American Convention on Human Rights, and since the Convention guarantees the protection of the family by member states, Moncur sought to put pressure through the IACHR on the Bahamian court to enforce the order it issued. He first petitioned the IACHR on August 3, 2010. Nineteen months later, the IACHR has accomplished nothing on behalf of Moncur’s children. The IACHR’s public information officer, Maria Rivero, informed me that it would likely be another two years before Mr. Moncur’s petition will even be considered by the Commission’s lawyers. Meanwhile, Cardinal Moncur still struggles and his children still go without.
Eventually, Moncur asked Fathers and Families to help and, we were able to connect him with an attorney in Georgia, where his ex-wife had taken up residence. Moncur went into debt to pay his U.S. lawyer. On February 7, 2012, a hearing was held in Marietta, Georgia to attempt to finally get some money for Moncur’s children.
By then their mother’s arrearages had hit the $18,000 mark, but, although courts in the United States are perfectly capable of enforcing orders of foreign courts, the Georgia court declined to do so except in the future. So, past arrearages are now officially no one’s problem but Moncur’s. To date, all enforcement authorities have refused to lift a finger to get their mother to pay the sums she’s owed for over four years to support her children.
But there is now a Georgia court order that Cardinal Moncur’s estranged wife pay the sum of $200 per month to support her kids. So far, she hasn’t paid a penny, but at least now U.S. law applies.
In the United States, non-custodial mothers are less likely to pay what they owe in child support than are non-custodial fathers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, fathers pay 61.7% of what they owe on average while mothers pay 54.6%. Forty-two percent of fathers pay everything they owe despite being ordered to pay more than mothers. Only 34.1% of non-custodial mothers are paid up to date. All that is true despite the fact that mothers are far less likely to be ordered to pay child support than are fathers. Some 54.9% of non-custodial fathers are ordered to pay child support, while only 30.4% of mothers are.
Will Cardinal Moncur ever get the help he and his girls need from their mother? Who knows? She’s certainly capable of paying; in the past, she’s been a clerical worker for the Bahamian government, worked as a medical assistant and for an insurance company. She’s probably not rolling in dough, but $200 a month doesn’t require that.
But the enforcement provisions for child support in the U.S. are draconian, as many a father can attest, so surely Moncur can expect some help. On the other hand, his estranged wife may just move back to the Bahamas where things seem more congenial to her view of what it means to be a mother.
Deeply enculturated ideas about the roles of men and women, the idea that men are born philanderers and women are born nurturers, simply break down in the face of human experience. These unexamined assumptions lead us into error, and as long as our courts and our laws take that kind of received wisdom for granted, they will remain blind to untold numbers of real cases that fail to fit the social narrative. Until then, injustices like the case of the Moncur family will recur. Often children will be the victims.
Photo by lewisha1990/Flickr
So all will know, the mother of Mr. Moncur’s children refused to be interviewed. She did not give a reason for her refusal.
Robert, that is very unfortunate. Given your painting of Mr Moncur as virtually a saint, perhaps Mrs Moncur had reason for declining.
Therefore, we will never know the full story.
An outstanding comment. No, really.
Problem is, if the tables were turned, few people, if any (male or female), would say
“perhaps ***Mister*** Moncur had reason for declining. Therefore, we will never know the full story.”
In that case, it would immediately become hysterical cries of “Deadbeat Dad!!!”
Or, as Stephen Baskerville writes in Taken Into Custody
(The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family)…
(excerpts here:)
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html
…The growth of [the divorce] machinery has been accompanied by a huge propaganda campaign that has served to justify punitive measures against citizens who are not convicted of any crime. “is there a species on the planet who is more unjustly maligned than fathers?” writes columnist Naomi Lakritz. “Fathers are abusers, bullies, deadbeats, molesters, and all-around sexist clods who have a lot of gall wanting a relationship with their children once the initial moment of conception is over.”
For the record, you don’t get “a reason for declining”
You pay or you go to jail, that’s the reality men face and women should have to “man up” and face it as well.
It’s a dramatically written story but at the end of the day, fact is fact: she owes child
support and isn’t paying it.
Perhaps mommy should face jail time if she doesn’t get a job then.
That’s equality after all.
Do you think you would have said the same thing & give the man the benefit of doubt if it was him who wasn’t paying, misandry & men hatred is a fictitious thing, it’s real & has many faces.
Just wondering if organizations like Save the Children, World Vision, CEJIL and amnesty know about about this international case? If they do know, or learn about this case, would they reach out to help this father as they often do for women?
I do not think a father can expect any help from such organizations, which are often pro-feminist orientated.
As a fact, only the Men’s Rights Movement – especially those groups related to father’s rights – are willing to take care of such issues.
I agree Mary, these international organizations are secular and oriented towards the welfare of children – which is of paramount concern and appears to have been lost in arguments here. The Bahamian Courts, could certainly use the contemporary expertise of family aid provided by such organizations.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Save The Children, Oxfam, Amnesty are run by anti-male feminists – what rubbish.
Trust me…mom’s don’t get it all either. My children’s father has only been ordered to pay child support for 1 1/2 of 8 years and is behind $9,000 in medical bills which he just doesn’t want to pay. He has an MBA in finance and is supported by “dad’s rights” organizations. Who can help me? Surely not the dad’s rights groups. Oh yes, he has been reported for child abuse by professionals many times. Nothing works to protect our children which is the most damaged area in divorce.
Yes Cyndi, this is a issue of child support and not a gender issue; sadly, the issue of support is often colored by gender. For instances, if the father is successful with his child support case before the OAS this will affect women, more than men, because women 90% of the times have custody and are awarded child support for the children. Therefore, this father’s case can help pave the way for many women with similar cases.
Unbelievably , there is very little information on the OAS children’s webpage about this or any other pending cases. The webpage needs to be updated as children’s issues are paramount ones.
http://www.cidh.oas.org/Ninez/default_eng.htm
To Mark Neil
(I can’t seem to navigate to your last post, apologies).
I am very concerned about the mother’s side – if you had been reading my posts you would know – in fact the author, Robert Franklin, has been moved to explain that Mrs Moncur refused to be interviewed by him.
You want both non-custodial parents (men and women) to be financially, if not emotionally, responsible for their children? Is that correct?
In an ideal world that would be the case. All we can do is strive for an ideal world.
Well, technically, he never said it was him she refused to interview. Just that she had refused to be interviewed and did not provide a reason. Furthermore, this story isn’t so much about a mother unwilling to pay as it is about a court unwilling to enforce it’s own judgements. How does the mothers story play into a courts unwillingness to uphold the same standards it places on men? This is the point you are refusing to acknowledge. The judge charged the father for contempt for talking on a TV show about being a single father instead of addressing the child support issue, how does the mom’s story have anything to do with that?
Why is it your ignoring this point in favour of persisting in that we should not make any kind of judgement whatsoever because the woman hasn’t spoken, and we should hear from the woman before making a judgement, regardless of the fact it’s the COURT that is the problem here (despite no story about a female victim ever allows for the man’s side of the story. Just look at the McDonnalds incident, where the only reason the guy got a break is because the public was able to see the video for themselves on youtube and didn’t need to rely on the media which usually forgot to mention the women attacked him first and followed him into the kitchen when he retreated.)
“You want both non-custodial parents (men and women) to be financially, if not emotionally, responsible for their children? Is that correct?”
I want both genders to be treated equally, to have the same rights and responsibilities. But everywhere we look, father’s (and children’s) rights are laid squarely in the hands of mothers, without a second thought, and enforced by law, unevenly. I’m actually a strong supporter of the right for a parent to opt out of parenting. Mothers already have several options to do so, all of which make the choice for the father as well, whether he likes it or not. Some of them require shady, underhanded behaviours to accomplish, but if those measures are taken, the court rewards the mothers for it by denying a father his child and the child it’s father, and enforcing sneaky adoptions.
On a larger scale, why does it seems that bad father’s stories, like Dennis Rodman’s, tend to drastically overshadow good father’s stories, like Cardinal Moncur’s – I guess about 70 to 1? We all know that Mr. Rodman is a celebrity and draws attention. However, why is there SO much more bad stories than good stories by the established media about fathers?
Side stepping the issue of child support right now – I take your point about bad news father’s stories and I wish Dennis Rodman well. A few days ago I saw a blog with over 6,000 post (mostly negitive ones) about him. Curiously, if Dennis Rodman had a good news father’s story would he get over 6,000 post from one blog site? I don’t think so.
Do not expect any help or changes EVER on this subject. Why ? because the family courts are a illegal court system that by-passes due process. Yes! the government makes illegal laws all the time, the problem is that most people do not know the difference. If you know the history of the family courts you will understand. The family courts need to make someone the scapegoat, that’s how they receive the sympathy of the public and their federal funds. They cannot start making the mothers’ the scapegoats too. Come on people ! And as far as this Feminization of real men project called ” Good Man Project “, all they will do is what they train men and young boys to do, ” Complain and do nothing like women do “. It is a NWO project to make strong men weak little by little. Child Support is actually 4 debts combined in one under the heading ” Child Support ” . 1- actual child support paid to the custodial parent for the child’s expenses. 2- the interest charges on the actual child support ( yes, all must pay this fee and yes you are paying interest on a human being ). 3- Money owed to the state . 4- interest on the money owed to the state. I point this out because 99.9% of the public do not even know this simply fact and think child support is just actual child support.
While it last – you are suggesting that men should just be macho and be quite on family issues. I know of a man that held your similar macho and quite beliefs ; twelve years ago his wife walked out of their home leaving him behind with 4 teenage children to take care of, which he did.
With the teens now all grown up the departed woman as returned as has filed a law suit petitioning for 1/2 the value of the martial home she once shared with the gentlemen.
Look at where being macho and quite can lead men. Some of us women can be cruel. I am glad that the Good men Project helps to provide a voice for good men.
Mary: What I am suggesting is that men be men. Not macho or feminized men. It is simple. You are thinking with too much emotion. I think men should not think with emotion so much. They should use more logic and not worry so much when women play the victim. Men should stop being the heroes. They should take care of themselves first., because when the man is weak ( financially ) all the family will be weak. Now, lets talk about the issue at hand, child support. What I said in my last comment is that the child support system is fixed and corrupt in the USA ( all states ) along with their international treaties. The system hurts men, women and the kids. why ? because it is a collection agency that charges illegal fees that are not child support that make men and now women poor. It puts them into a perceptual debt that has no statue of limitations or relief under bankruptcy. I am not talking about ” actual child support “, I am taking about the other illegal fees; interest, and money to the state. I know men and women who payed child support and when they finished paying the last payments, the DCSS charged them interest for 18 years and states fees and interest on that, and called it ” child support ” therefore it is not discharge able. I can go on and on. It has nothing to do with helping families. It is about getting more money into the DCSS general fund, which is used to buy equipment and increase salaries ( they can use as they please ) and getting more federal funds each year. Therefore, this website is just crying out loud, which is like women and not men. Men should get angry and change the system so that it is fair and correct for all. But, they are so feminized that they will just do nothing and be satisfied that they ” talked about it “. Good men; should do the changes even if women start complaining, and even if they are not seen as heroes. Trust me. if a real man started to change the system it will be extremely hard, because no one understands how the system actually works. Plus the system will say that they are macho, deadbeats, etc and want to get out of paying.
While it last – The story about the woman leaving home and returning twelve years later is not emotions, but a fact.
Furthermore, your overwhelming priority is to change the child support system in the USA. To this end, you characterize ALL men who do not share your views or desire on changing the child support system as not being real men who should just be quiet. Making general statements can be problematic.
Obviously, you have turned your back on Mr. Moncur’s international case before the IACHR. I trust you know how the IACHR system works? This case can be a small start for child support reform in this part of the world, something that is your passion.
Mary: I find your argument on this subject healthy. I will say this about the story you wrote of the women leaving the man for dead. He should have been a strong man and sued her for child support. He should have put the house in the estate for the children, before she came back to lay claim. That is a legal and logical view of your story. The emotional part is what you talked about, because it is not based on reasoning. It is merely a story of emotions, laced with past-tense. Nevertheless, you should know that I have two kids, who are now grown and I am a paralegal. I paid thousands of dollars in actual child support and thousands of dollars in fees that did not go to the children. My ex was also a drug addict and using the money for drugs. I know how the system works and I seen first hand what men do and do not do about this subject. I talked to many of them and I have written a book about child support to help them. I have written one for the women too. I have talked with men in the UK and it is really, really bad for them there. Men are committing suicide because they are tired of being bullied by the DCSS ( department of child support services ). I understand the international laws and treaties the countries have going on and in the works. I will tell you that it is only getting worse. what I mean about the general statement, is that most men will not tackle the issue in full force because they are afraid of the public calling them deadbeats. They just want to pay and get it over with. This is against their warrior instincts. When men go against their warrior instincts they pay the price of enslavement. And this is what they will get. What I am saying is that men need to be warriors not worriers. And yes, I am guilty as charged too, I am not perfect, but I learn fast. Peace to you.
With over 50% of homes in the Bahamas being run by single parents, child support is an extremely important issue here. Elections here are less then three weeks away, and to my knowledge, no opposition political party have seen the need to speak of Cardinal Moncur’s OAS child support case. If the opposition political parties say that they are not aware of this case – which is on the internet, face-book and tweeter, they are not connected.
As was spoken pubically by the political opposition here in front of thousands regarding the USA’s Secret Service scandal at the OAS Summit in Columbia, South America – of an issue importance -, the opposition can speak about the apparent judicial scandal alleged by Mr. Moncur before the OAS. The opposition can request an investigation in to this matter by the Bahamas government, just like how an investigation is being done in the apparent Columbia scandal by the USA government.
I am a supporter of the governing party of the Bahamas, however I endorse what Mario suggests, an investigation into this alleged judicial scandal. The government should take the initiative and move swiftly to do its own investigations – as I believe we have a good government with perhaps some unworthy judicial officials.
Like some of the US Secret Service Agents involved in the Columbia scandal if these allegations here are proven correct the judicial officials involved in this alleged scandal should resign or be removed.
Mario, if your facts are right, I agree with you.
It is puzzling as to why any opposition or government in the islands would not advocate for better child support rights given the over 50% single- parents homes rate you speak of.
I notice that some people are quick to say that men only want to be in their children’s lives in order to control them and/or hurt the mom. This accusation even gets applied to MRAs and FRAs. The thing is some of those folks would like for the courts to enforce the very orders they are making rather than just enforcing them when they see fit.
yeah. It’s not an uncommon ploy by the gender feminists to attempt to turn any positive act of love, compassion, etc into a maliciously motivated act of control, terrorism or misogyny. I’ve even heard the sacrifice of the men on the titanic described as disrespecting women, men only gave women the seats on the lifeboat because they considered women weak, helpless and beneath men. Anything that promotes the idea that men can actually be good must be trampled and assigned a malicious motive.
This happens because courts aren’t interested in the best interests of the child, they’re interested in the best interests of the woman. Just look at any court case. Judges, juries, and even prosecutors will bend over backwards to justify woman’s behavior and protect ten. Just look at the amount of women who lived on the titanic and the amount of children that lived.
It was never about the children.
While I agree with your assertion, and think there are plenty of examples to demonstrate it, the Titanic is not one of them.
While a larger percentage of women may have survived the titanic’s sinking, that is largely due to the number and distribution of the women and children aboard the ship. There were perhaps a dozen children in first and second class combined, all but one of which survived. And of the third class women and children, about 50% of each survived. The discrepancy comes from, when you lose 50% of third class children, which make up almost all of the children on board, you lose about half the children on board, but when you lose 50% of 1/3 of the women on board, you’ve only lost about 1/6 of the women on board.
Hey fair enough, Mark. I wasn’t there so I don’t know for sure.
What I do know is that I often hear arguments being made for the “best interests of the child” for things that are clearly only in the best interests of the mother. For instance, a paternity test at birth is in the best interests of the child. A child should know who their biological father is. But this is shot down by legislators claiming that mandatory paternity testing at birth is not in the best interests of the child. They really mean that it is not in the best interests of the mother, especially considering that data has shown over 10% of children are not related to their stated biological father.
In fairness, I will provide another example for this (to compensate for the titanic example I opposed).
In custody cases, where the mother was granted primary custody and the father 1 night plus every second weekend… If the mother decides to move away for a new job, it will be deemed “in the child’s best interest” to go with the mother, rather than stay in the same city (possibly in the same neighbourhood), with the same school, the same friends, access to all the extended family they already know and love, their father and a home they are comfortable in (from there 1 night a week and every second weekend visits). The mother alone is determined to be in the child’s best interests compared to ALL those other factors? I don’t think so, that’s clearly the mothers best interest.
The hallmark of The Good Men Project is to show the positive in good men. Just today, I came across a Ms. Magazine’s article written by Kyle Bachan and most of the bloggers to this article feel that The GMP has taken more of a turn towards MRAs. The GMP is still in my opinion about providing good articles about good men – and Mr. Moncur’s story is a prime example of that.
On the other hand, feminist like Karl Bachan, who may consider themselves to be fair minded in nature, should embrace and praise The GMP effects in this regard, and in certain instances write about these good men stories. But then again, I do not see that happening, because good men stories are only branded by feminists as MRA stories.
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/02/07/interview-rewriting-masculinity-with-the-good-men-project/
What bothers me about the comments on that article is that they start with equating MRAs with hatred of women and misogyny and anti-feminism and of course equate feminism with all that is good and right in the universe. Basically they are intentionally casting this place as “enemy territory” and then wailing on about how terrible it is. Which is precisely what feminists will scream the bloodiest of murder over when done to them.
I read that article and the comments as well. It seem to be the same old hard-line feminist rhetoric: that if men are criticizing feminism or advocating for men’s rights that they must be “vicious misogynists.”
I wasn’t aware that feminism was a perfect movement that had never harmed anyone. I also wasn’t aware that advocating for men’s rights automatically means you must hate women.
I don’t think anyone actually believes this. But I think this is very much a zero-sum game to many feminists and they feel threatened. They realize that if the genders were truly 50/50 equal that women would lose many of the provisions they currently have, and they don’t want that at all.
The GoodMenProject is neither pro-feminist nor pro-MRA.
It seems the GoodMenProject is accepting any contribution and comments from both sides without editing them. And what’s wrong with that?
If Hugo Schwyzer or other feminists do not want to comment anymore on the GoodMenProject it’s up to them.
As far as I know, Hugo is not banned to comment on the GoodMenProject.
However he and other feminists must accept the fact, that the GoodMenProject is NOT a feminist-only publication. Other opinions, including those of MRAs, will also be published.
Might be that some feminists do not like that. And? So what?
I guess what Mary is saying is that – where are the views of the main- stream feminists, like Kyle Bachan and from Yohan perspective Hugo Schwyzer on this matter of child support for fathers. The silence from feminists on TGMP is deafening on this issue.
I guess what Mary is saying is that – where are the views of the main- stream feminists…
Not to sound mean JayLong but frankly there are tons of mainstream feminist spaces so I don’t see why TGMP should be expected to cater to them. I don’t recall mainstream feminists being too welcoming of men’s views (unless said men worked their way into the good graces of feminists first) so why should they have a place reserved for them over here now?
Hugo chose to leave GMP and from what I can tell Amanda Marcotte chose to leave as well.
And frankly given that Hugo semi-defends paternity fraud I can’t imagine anything he has to say on child support for fathers being much good.
Maybe if those mainstream feminists would quit trying to paint the illusion that if its not feminist then its bad they would be more welcome around these parts. And it would help if they would quit trying to paint the illusion that if its pro-male or MRA then it must be anti-woman also.
Danny, are you fearful of having a healthy debate with mainstream feminists on TGMP? Healthy debates are often good.
Separately, I wonder if Mr. Moncur is receiving any legal assistance from any father’s rights organisation; this case is at the OAS level and can affect many other fathers’ cases in lots of other legal jurisdictions.
No not fearful just fed up with rolling the dice on if a given mainstream feminist is going to be fairminded or not and the result being not a bit too often. Funny thing is I’ve learned over the years that the further from the (current) mainstream a given feminist is, the more likely I am to see common ground with them.
I agree healthy debate is good and I’ve had plenty of them. Its just that when it comes to mainstream feminists they don’t seem to have that great of a track record on being fair minded. Or at least they don’t when it comes to men.
Interfering with parental access should be punished far more harshly than child support.
Money pales in comparison to the needs of the child to have a loving relationship with both parents.
Put mommy in jail.