"Deadbeat dad" flees to Philippines leaving four kids without support

According to a recent Toronto Star Article, Hans Mills, or the now infamous so called "dead beat dad" is a man with heart of black coals, who abandoned his four little children to go bang pinoy whores in a big ole whore house down in the Philippines leaving his poor four kids without any support.  Further leaving his wife also without any support.  Obviously the story was written by a bias misandronist (man hater brain washed feminist), so lemme break this story for you down piece by piece.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1220096--deadbeat-dad-flees-to-philippines-leaving-four-kids-without-support

To make the long story short.  The man made somewhere above 100k per year, they owned a home worth $1.2 million, with $600k in equity (if the home was sold, this is how much the seller would get in hand before deductions for various expenses like realtor fees, lawyer fees, etcetera.  Further the house had a rental unit on the property that would earn $2000 a month for the family.

Of his 4 kids, 1is a heroin junkie but a legal adult (over 18 in Ontario), the other suffers from depressions (Which almost many Western women will suffer at some point and is a very murky disease because it is unclear from the article if this is a clinical depression or just the kid who is 17 feels depressed.  Mind you 17 is pretty damn close to being an adult.  So what you have really are 2 minors.   A 14 y/o with down syndrome and 10 y/o - who had cancer but appears to be in remission.  Originally, they seemed to have a private deal worked out that seemed a bit in favour of the women, but nonetheless fair as in maybe 53-47.  not a total loss for either party.  The man sold his 300k share to his wife in the $1.2 million house for near half price 175k.  This means if she sold the house she would realize a net gain of 425k, instead of the 300k that she should be entitled to assuming equal splitting of assets.  At this point still slanted to the women, but not grossly unfair.  Since she would get the kids, one could reasonably argue that she should have a larger equity due to that or some argument to that extent.

Well it turns out Ms. Mills, didn't want to work, and 425k in equity and a $2000 stream of rental income and  $2000  a month in child support wasn't enough.  she wanted more, more, more, more.  Essentially the man had given up his share of equity in the house and rental income inexchange for not having to pay alimony.  Seems fair enough, was stated in the contract.  Well turns out the wife claims she never read nor understood the contract and that it meant she'd give up alimony claim.

Well they end up in court and the genius judge decides that he will grant the wife a temporary order for spousal support in the amount of $2k a month, in addition to the 2k a month he already pays in child support.
Further Hans had to pay retroactive payments dating back to the original divorce back in 2005 up until 2012. I am a finance major.  And quick mental math (yes I can do exponents and interest in my head) and with compounding, the 2k per month, over the 7 years it was an order to pay about 317k just on back support.  Then there would be court cost that he was ordered to pay.  Meaning about 50k, for each side.

At that rate, from the new temp order he was already 417k in the hole thanks to the new order from the judge.  And that doesn't count the new 4k per months in payments he must make.

Now using finance I could estimate that he earns between 100k on the low end but closer to 130k on the high end, because back when he bought his house roughly 15 years ago, he'd probably with liar loans have about that income.  It could be as high as 200k, but more realistically 100-130k.

Now none of these payments are tax deductible.  So Even if he earns 150k.  He'd be 417k in debt, he'd have to pay 4k a month in child and alimony, and that doesn't even factor in how much the government would demand he repay the 417k.  It'd basically be a 2nd mortgage and come out to around another 2k per month.  Meaning Hans Mills, who is 53 would have to pay 2k a month just to cover back payments even when he is in his mid 70s.That is he'd likely work to the day he died if he did not want to go to jail.  And that's the other kicker.  If he falls behind too much on his child support or alimony who goes to jail.  Even if he earns 12.5k a month or 150k a year lets look at how that breaks down.

Neither child support of alimony is a tax deduction in Canada or Ontario.
With an average tax rate of about 33%, he'd only take home 99k AFTER income taxes. And he'd lose another 4% of his income to things like EI, it'd be like 93k.

Now deduct 4k in payments + 2k in back payments thanks to the temp order, and you have him paying 6k a month.  So he is paying out 72k per month.

93k-72k = 21k

Now Hans Mills is 53, he lives in the GTA, if he moves out of the gta, he will default on his loans because these kinds of salaries are basically non existent except for in trades for people in Alberta and you cannot just walk in as a 53 y/o into Fort Mac and have 150k rolled out infront of you.

So Hans Mills following the court system would basically bankrupt him.  He;d be able to have no car, so basically be difficult or impossible to work as a consultant as travel is required for his job.  Making less than 2k a month, he won't be able to afford insurance, in GTA never mind a car or gas or repairs.  He'd be lucky to find rent for $1100 a month in Toronto.  and even in the worst of ghetto in Toronto a house/apartment doesn't rent for below that unless it is government subsidized.  O  you make 150k, good luck getting into government housing.  So it'd be a miracle if he were not homeless never mind just being poor and living in the ghetto.  Canada is not like America, even our "ghetto" workers and neighbourhoods have economic mobility.  That is higher min wages mean higher rents, there are no such things as 10k houses in major cities the size of Detroit or Miami in Canada just because they a crime ridden.  Nowhere in Canada is that crime ridden.

Now here is the real kicker, once the obvious fact that to not be homeless, to work, and to eat are taken into account, Mr. Hans Mills, would end up in a position where he is either forced to evade taxes, or forced to not pay child support, either which will continually land him in prison in Canada.  So essentially he is a refugee of Canada's misandrognist justice system.  Some might say fuck him, let him be homeless so his wife can live in a $1.2 million home, and his heroin head junkie son can get his money.  I think dad's should support their kids, but is that really justice, that a dad sleep on the street so that a mother who refuses to work or sell her $1.2 million house can live in an enormous house and collect 6k a month from him in addition to another 2k a month from the government for disability. Maybe she should downgrade her expectations.

So Hans Mills, is he truly a deadbeat.  Well if being a deadbeat means not wanting to work into your 70s and likely your death, to enrich a lazy wife, with no future or prospect in life, no chance of owning a car, home, no chance of moving beyond the deepest of ghetto, likely would end up in prison and jail for much of his life, and old dudes don't do well in prison.  Then I guess he is a deadbeat 10 fold.  But in reality, he isn't a deadbeat, he only opposes paying the outrageous amounts the courts awarded to his wife that would guarantee ruin him.

Then there is the whole issue of the wife greed, she knew that he intended to leave Canada, if such a thing occured, so much so she called up the government and told them to freeze Hans Mills passport and stop him from leaving the country (a violation of his constitutional right to freely leave and enter the country-section 6 of the Canadian Constitution aka mobility rights ).

Hans is not a winner in this case, there is no real winner except the ex-wife- perhaps- and his kids when they reach adulthood, they will understand why he did what he did, for the simple reason that odds are 1 in 4 of them will probably at somepoint have a divorce or experience turbulent relationship.

However this deal with broader issues of bias Canadian courts, and all Canadian men should have a 2nd citizenship, preferably from a country that neither extradites its own citizens nor