Father gets $7,800 bill after reuniting with long-lost daughter

[jnelsoninjax]

 A Montreal father was surprised to learn he owed thousands of dollars in retroactive parental fees after he reunited with his long-lost daughter, now 18 years old.

Dean Harper tracked down his daughter, Athena Glusing, after more than a decade apart, only to find out she'd spent her high school years living in a foster home. Harper says administrators at Batshaw Youth and Family Centres never reached out to him as her biological father, despite having all of his contact information on file. Then, when he found her himself, the foster home sent him a "parental contributions" bill for $7,800.

"I don't understand how they could have my daughter, know who I am, not look for me, then send me a bill once I find her," Harper told CTV Montreal.

Glusing has since moved in with her father and the two are catching up on lost time, but they still want to know why Batshaw didn't reunite them sooner.

"I was very upset because they had my name on file. They knew who I was," Harper said. Batshaw told Harper they didn't contact him because they didn't have his birthday on file, he said.

Father and daughter were originally separated 16 years ago, when Glusing's mother took her away.

"She moved and I couldn't find her anymore," Harper said. "I just didn't know where she was, and I searched for 16 years."

Harper found his daughter through some Internet sleuthing on Facebook and Google. He spotted her in a video on Facebook, then used Google Street View to determine the location where the video was shot.

After three years of poring over the video clues, he figured out where Glusing worked and paid her a visit.

"My heart was pounding like you wouldn't believe. I thought for sure Athena could hear my heart pounding," he said. "And I said, 'My name is Dean Harper

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Who would the money go to, the daughter? If so, pay the money and have her transfer it back to him? It's needless red tape, but it would be a simple solution.

If the money is owed to the home though, fight it with the idea that they didn't contact him.

[+DonC Subscriber²]

"And I said, 'My name is Dean Harper

[+devHead Subscriber²]

That's pretty messed up.  Frankly, though, if you name your girl Athena, you probably should be made for fork over a couple grand for that poor name choice.

[Rippleman]

You owe... you pay. It's simple. Even if you give up your parental rights, you STILL have to pay. So many people do not realize or accept the financial responsibility for a child.

[Brandon]

That's pretty messed up.  Frankly, though, if you name your girl Athena, you probably should be made for fork over a couple grand for that poor name choice.

Why is Athena  a bad name?

 

Athena was the Greek virgin goddess of reason, intelligent activity, arts and literature.

[Mr.XXIV]

Why is Athena  a bad name?

 

Athena was the Greek virgin goddess of reason, intelligent activity, arts and literature.

 

He doesn't understand that things actually have a meaning to their names.

[DConnell Member]

Why is Athena  a bad name?

 

Athena was the Greek virgin goddess of reason, intelligent activity, arts and literature.

 

I think it's a rather divine name!

[chrisj1968]

You owe... you pay. It's simple. Even if you give up your parental rights, you STILL have to pay. So many people do not realize or accept the financial responsibility for a child.

 

wow you missed the point. the house or social services had his whereabouts all the time. It was the father who looked for his daughter. either way, if you always had the fathers data and didn't act upon it UNTIL he found her, screw the state, fight.

[pqt]

You owe... you pay. It's simple. Even if you give up your parental rights, you STILL have to pay. So many people do not realize or accept the financial responsibility for a child.

 

He didn't give up parental rights though. Are we reading the same story?

[+ir0nw0lf Subscriber²]

He didn't give up parental rights though. Are we reading the same story?

I wondered myself if the person in question actually read the [entire] story.

[astropheed Veteran]

 Batshaw told Harper they didn't contact him because they didn't have his birthday on file, he said.

 

Ugh, right? I hate when I'm about to call a friend but because I forgot their birthday my fingers forget how to push the buttons. Just one of those things.

[Rippleman]

He didn't give up parental rights though. Are we reading the same story?

 

Just stressing the "have-to-pay" part no matter what the person tries to use as an excuse to try not to.

 

I wondered myself if the person in question actually read the [entire] story.

 

Just stressing the "have-to-pay" part no matter what the person tries to use as an excuse to try not to.

wow you missed the point. the house or social services had his whereabouts all the time. It was the father who looked for his daughter. either way, if you always had the fathers data and didn't act upon it UNTIL he found her, screw the state, fight.

 

your kid, your money. unless you are suggesting you support fathers/mothers not paying for their kids? OR are saying that if your power company doesn't send you a bill for years and years you are not obligated to your responsibility to pay for your power? Amazes me all the time to see how parents try to find any way out of paying for their children. just shocking.

[trag3dy]

Just stressing the "have-to-pay" part no matter what the person tries to use as an excuse to try not to.

 

 

Just stressing the "have-to-pay" part no matter what the person tries to use as an excuse to try not to.

 

your kid, your money. unless you are suggesting you support fathers/mothers not paying for their kids? OR are saying that if your power company doesn't send you a bill for years and years you are not obligated to your responsibility to pay for your power? Amazes me all the time to see how parents try to find any way out of paying for their children. just shocking.

 

So you'd be happy to pay up because someone else made a mistake? You wouldn't question it at all?

 

Do you go out to a bar, get a bill for $300 even though you only ordered one beer and just say "well ######, it's on the bill, better pay up"?

 

It's some weird kind of logic going on there.

[Intersect]

You owe... you pay. It's simple. Even if you give up your parental rights, you STILL have to pay. So many people do not realize or accept the financial responsibility for a child.

its a shame that logic applies in the UK where people are happy to spawn like horny rabbits and then not bother to take responsibility for their actions.

[astropheed Veteran]

So you'd be happy to pay up because someone else made a mistake? You wouldn't question it at all?

 

Do you go out to a bar, get a bill for $300 even though you only ordered a beer and just say "well ######, it's on the bill, better pay up"?

 

It's some weird kind of logic going on there.

 

I believe his logic is that many people make excuses for not paying for their children, and now he's so adamant that everything is an excuse that there is no grey area for a case when in actuality you should be going, "hey wait a minute, that doesn't seem right"; like, for example, this case.

 

I'm not saying he shouldn't pay the money, but imagine his relief if the Company not only informed him that the money needs to be paid but also the whereabouts of his daughter. He's also being whacked with this rather large bill because it's been so long when it should have been in installments.

 

Also, "where is the money going?", is an important question.

[Raa]

Ugh, right? I hate when I'm about to call a friend but because I forgot their birthday my fingers forget how to push the buttons. Just one of those things.

That will cost you 7 thousand dollars.

[trag3dy]

I believe his logic is that many people make excuses for not paying for their children, and now he's so adamant that everything is an excuse that there is no grey area for a case when in actuality you should be going, "hey wait a minute, that doesn't seem right"; like, for example, this case.

 

I'm not saying he shouldn't pay the money, but imagine his relief if the Company not only informed him that the money needs to be paid but also the whereabouts of his daughter. He's also being whacked with this rather large bill because it's been so long when it should have been in installments.

 

Also, "where is the money going?", is an important question.

 

I get it, but I question the need for the bill altogether. If they had his contact information the entire time she was missing and they didn't bother simply because they didn't have his birthday. That's all kinds of stupid and messed up. There would have been no bill if they had done about 5 minutes of due diligence 16 years prior. 

 

All they had to do was call him and ask. Instead not only did they rob this man of 16 years of time with his daughter they now want him to pay for it too. All because they didn't have his birth day.

 

The problem is theirs and not his.

[Rippleman]

So you'd be happy to pay up because someone else made a mistake? You wouldn't question it at all?

 

Do you go out to a bar, get a bill for $300 even though you only ordered one beer and just say "well ######, it's on the bill, better pay up"?

 

It's some weird kind of logic going on there.

 

but he didn't order one drink... he had a child that cost taxpayers for years. Why would the taxpayer have to foot his bill? Those years existed whether or not he participated or not.

There would have been no bill if they had done about 5 minutes of due diligence 16 years prior. 

???

 

No. The costs are there not matter the circumstances. Infact, most of the time it would be 10X that amount more.... To raise a child is very expensive. He is getting one hell of a sweet deal.

[chrisj1968]

Just stressing the "have-to-pay" part no matter what the person tries to use as an excuse to try not to.

 

 

Just stressing the "have-to-pay" part no matter what the person tries to use as an excuse to try not to.

 

your kid, your money. unless you are suggesting you support fathers/mothers not paying for their kids? OR are saying that if your power company doesn't send you a bill for years and years you are not obligated to your responsibility to pay for your power? Amazes me all the time to see how parents try to find any way out of paying for their children. just shocking.

 

I would be quite interested in hearing the daughter in court. she's the victim in this mad game. I don't mean game as games are concerned just in the sense of maniacal situations as these. "IF" the state was looking out for the interests of this girl, why didn't they contact him since they had his whereabouts? we live in a sick world where the government thinks its everyones mother and father. Most governments are so stupid that, they can't even keep their own affairs in order yet expect every citizen to have theirs in order. The daughter can do her dad justice as this is an obvious manipulation and miscarraige of justice. the state gives the young woman the cash, then she in turn gives it back to her dad.

 

question: if the OP can follow up on this, where is the mom? I'm interested in how she "LOST" her daughter to the government. willing to screw this child over by taking her away from her dad but loses her in the end to the government. these mothers are disgraceful.

[Zidane]

but he didn't order one drink... he had a child that cost taxpayers for years. Why would the taxpayer have to foot his bill? Those years existed whether or not he participated or not.

???

 

No. The costs are there not matter the circumstances. Infact, most of the time it would be 10X that amount more.... To raise a child is very expensive. He is getting one hell of a sweet deal.

 

Actually, you are right...someone has to pay for this child so he can go ahead and do so.

 

...and then he can turn right around and sue the hell out of the state and get FAR more than that $7000 or so due to their negligence. Yay taxpayers get their money back JUST to pay it 10 fold or more back to this father. He is getting one hell of a sweet deal.

[rfirth]

but he didn't order one drink... he had a child that cost taxpayers for years. Why would the taxpayer have to foot his bill? Those years existed whether or not he participated or not.

 

Taxpayers should foot the bill because the government didn't do any due diligence. In fact, if they had started billing him years ago, he could have prevented all this.

 

She never should have been in that foster home in the first place.

[Rippleman]

I would be quite interested in hearing the daughter in court. she's the victim in this mad game. I don't mean game as games are concerned just in the sense of maniacal situations as these. "IF" the state was looking out for the interests of this girl, why didn't they contact him since they had his whereabouts? we live in a sick world where the government thinks its everyones mother and father. Most governments are so stupid that, they can't even keep their own affairs in order yet expect every citizen to have theirs in order. The daughter can do her dad justice as this is an obvious manipulation and miscarraige of justice. the state gives the young woman the cash, then she in turn gives it back to her dad.

 

question: if the OP can follow up on this, where is the mom? I'm interested in how she "LOST" her daughter to the government. willing to screw this child over by taking her away from her dad but loses her in the end to the government. these mothers are disgraceful.

 

remember, I am not saying the he is at fault... I am only saying regardless of whose fault it is, the cost must be paid. he could even have a lawsuit on his side for all we know. I only speak of what I know about the system from stories from colleges who are on both sides of the fence and even my own experience. (example: I got divorced with 2 kids. The mother took off. I put money in her bank account regardless of not knowing where they were are if I would see them again until the courts found her. It was almost a year before I found her and sued for custody. Luckily, because i paid money to her monthly, they court's seen that I was paying on my end even without getting the benefits.). In the end, a father/mother is the financial bearer if the ability exists.

Actually, you are right...someone has to pay for this child so he can go ahead and do so.

 

...and then he can turn right around and sue the hell out of the state and get FAR more than that $7000 or so due to their negligence. Yay taxpayers get their money back JUST to pay it 10 fold or more back to this father. He is getting one hell of a sweet deal.

 

while you were posting this, I actually was writing that he could possibly sue if what he claims is factually true.

Taxpayers should foot the bill because the government didn't do any due diligence. In fact, if they had started billing him years ago, he could have prevented all this.

 

She never should have been in that foster home in the first place.

 

remember, you are only hearing one side of this. Everything you are accepting as fact could be fabricated to benefit only the side telling the storey.

[trag3dy]

but he didn't order one drink... he had a child that cost taxpayers for years. Why would the taxpayer have to foot his bill? Those years existed whether or not he participated or not.

???

 

No. The costs are there not matter the circumstances. Infact, most of the time it would be 10X that amount more.... To raise a child is very expensive. He is getting one hell of a sweet deal.

 

I'm genuinely confused what this has to do with taxes. The bill is from the foster care people. No one has mentioned taxes but you.

 

Unless I'm just misreading things..?

 

Then, when he found her himself, the foster home sent him a "parental contributions" bill for $7,800.

The foster home that had his contact information for 16 years. Like I said, had they done 5 minutes of due diligence 16 years prior there would not have been a bill.

[rfirth]

remember, you are only hearing one side of this. Everything you are accepting as fact could be fabricated to benefit only the side telling the storey.

 

That's true. But I can only speculate based on the facts presented. If they aren't true, he should pay.