| Bonny's profileBeePhotosBlogLists |  Tools  Help |
|
December 10 MADD mad that it's been exposedMADD rejects `disgruntled' critics
Charity's CEO dismisses volunteers' complaints that so little of donations go to programs
Dec. 10, 2006. 09:15 AM
KEVIN DONOVAN
STAFF REPORTER MADD Canada's top official has called a group of relatives of drunk driving victims who complained about his charity "disgruntled" and lashed out at the Star for exposing its high fundraising and administrative costs.
"The Star's investigation smacks of `gotcha' journalism," chief executive officer Andrew Murie said in a statement released yesterday. "It is unfair and obviously very hurtful to the many thousands of volunteers who put their heart and soul into the organization."
A story published in the Saturday Star revealed that Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada has such high costs that only about 19 cents of every dollar goes to victim services and the fight against drunk driving.
In addition to a detailed analysis of MADD's financial records, the story was based on interviews with leading volunteers of MADD who all work with the charity because they lost a loved one to a drunk driver.
The volunteers believe in the counselling and public awareness work of their local chapters but agreed to speak out against the charity's administration to force a change and restore confidence in what was once a low-cost, grassroots charity.
In his news release, Murie dismissed their complaints and said they are "obviously disgruntled with the organization."
Murie's release (he has refused for the past month to be interviewed in person by the Star) pointed out numerous initiatives his charity has carried out, including its annual Project Red Ribbon campaign which distributes ribbons to drivers, and an involvement in the federal government's plan to bring in impaired driving legislation that targets drugged drivers.
Yesterday, more than 100 MADD donors contacted the Star to say they had been suspicious of MADD's fundraising practices due to the high volume of telemarketing calls and other fundraising contacts they receive, sometimes monthly. MADD has numerous paid fundraising campaigns, using paid telemarketers, a company that sends people knocking on doors, a direct mail company and a company that distributes chocolate mint boxes around the province.
"I am absolutely furious at reading what MADD is doing with donors' dollars," said Joyce Williamson, 77, a widow who has made frequent $25 donations to MADD for many years.
When she learned from the Star article that so little of her cheque was going to charitable works, she decided not to give to MADD again.
She said MADD's paid door and phone canvassers used "emotional blackmail" by pressing her on the phone or at the door with numerous stories of drunk driving fatalities. The Star's story revealed that telemarketers work off a script that encourages them to press prospective donors three successive times after the person has said "no."
Williamson said she and her late husband "worked hard all of our lives" and she is happy to give to charity, but she expects the money to go to charitable works.
The Star's investigation found the paid fundraisers take most of the money, and send the remainder to head office.
However, MADD's local chapters do volunteer fundraising and money sent directly to a chapter is not subject to these high costs.
MADD founder John Bates, who is at odds with CEO Murie, and other long-time volunteers said if people want to donate to MADD they would do well to send the money to local chapters found in many cities and towns.
The Star's story revealed that MADD has been claiming for years that 83.6 per cent of donor dollars is spent on its programs. They claim this by including the high payments to professional fundraisers as charitable works on the theory they educate the public on the dangers of drunk driving when they ask for cash.
Yesterday, Murie continued to stand by this claim, despite a warning from the federal charity regulator in 2003 not to call fundraising expenses charity. This week, Canada's top charity official (speaking about the issue but not MADD specifically) spoke out against the practice, saying fundraising is a way to earn charity money — but it is not charity.
Murie has told the Star many other charities count fundraising expenses as charity and yesterday in his release said it is one of the "acceptable principles" of charity accounting in Canada. This is why I tell the MADD telemarketers to leave me aloneMADD's `exorbitant costs' anger charity's volunteers
Dec. 9, 2006. 08:43 AM
KEVIN DONOVAN
STAFF REPORTER People who donate to Mothers Against Drunk Driving are told by the charity that most of the $12 million it raises annually is spent on good works — stopping drunk driving and helping families traumatized by fatal crashes.
But a Star investigation reveals most of the high-profile charity's money is spent on fundraising and administration, leaving only about 19 cents of each donor dollar for charitable works.
MADD chief executive officer Andrew Murie defends the expenses, saying the paid telemarketers and door-knockers are actually performing good works because they educate the public as they ask for cash. That's a defence Canada's top charity regulator rejects.
The controversy over squandered millions has many MADD Canada volunteers — typically people whose relative or friend was killed or injured by a drunk driver — calling for the charity to clean up its act.
"These are exorbitant costs," said Sue Storey, whose mother was killed and father injured when their car was hit by a drunk driver in 1999. Storey is the co-founder of MADD's Dufferin chapter. "I feel like I have been let down."
Judy Gerrard Simmons, a former MADD board member and local chapter president, said the claims from MADD's head office are misleading. "This is the public's money. They have a right to know where it really goes," said Gerrard Simmons, whose 15-year-old daughter and first husband were killed by a drunk driver in 1986.
"All of these millions of dollars roll in to MADD because the public has such a heart. The money comes in because of the deaths of our daughters, sons, husbands and wives," said Gerrard Simmons.
She and Storey are two of thousands of volunteers who counsel families victimized by drunk driving. They find it offensive that MADD raises so much money, only to have most of it stay with three paid fundraising companies. Storey said the charity's backbone is its counselling and advocacy work, which is done by unpaid volunteers with personal knowledge of the tragedies too many drinks and a car can cause.
For years MADD has been claiming it spends donor money well — fundraising pitches say "83.6 per cent of your donation is spent directly on MADD Canada programs." When the Star obtained MADD's financial statements, it was clear that millions of dollars in payments to the fundraising firms made up a big chunk of its charitable programs.
Veteran volunteers who built the charity from its grassroots days are locked in a struggle with CEO Murie over what they consider deceitful fundraising practices. They are also concerned that Murie won't reveal MADD finances — salaries and administrative expenses — to the volunteers. But they say their complaints have fallen on deaf ears.
A groundbreaking charity series by the Star in 2002 revealed that one in six charities spent more on fundraising and administration than they did on charitable work. The Star's investigation developed a standard that many Canadian charities have adopted: Good charities devote at least 60 per cent of their annual expenditure to good works, with the best ones devoting 80 per cent or more.
Charity in Canada is regulated by the Canada Revenue Agency's Charities Directorate, run by director-general Elizabeth Tromp.
This week, the Star told Tromp that MADD was counting the work of professional fundraisers as charity. Tromp is not allowed to comment on individual charities but she said the practice is definitely not allowed. "When a professional fundraiser has been retained, it can reasonably be inferred that the intent of the expenditure is fundraising."
MADD's Murie said the regulator gave him permission to count the expenses as charity.
"We view these millions of one-on-one personal contacts with the public to be vital to our mission. It ensures that individual members of the Canadian public are informed about the seriousness of impaired driving," Murie said in a written statement to the Star. He said this is approved by the federal regulator and is practised by many other charities.
Tromp said the regulator has never condoned this approach.
Long-time MADD volunteers say fundraising is not charity. Visiting a victim at home or giving a talk to students about their personal experience is.
MADD Canada founder John Bates, who received the Order of Canada for his anti-drunk driving work, said the group created at his kitchen table many years ago has lost its way. He and other volunteers have raised this issue with Murie over the past year.
"We started off with no money at all. Now MADD has become a money machine working on fear and scare tactics," said Bates, the one-time chairman who now has an honorary position on the board but no voting power. "There are wonderful people doing great volunteer work in MADD chapters across Canada but MADD head office has taken a national tragedy and turned it into a fundraising machine."
Bates started the anti-drunk driving campaign in 1982 when his daughter's friend, Casey Frayne (son of author/activist June Callwood and famed sportswriter Trent Frayne), was killed by a drunk driver. The woman was fined $500 and her driver's licence suspended for three months after she was found guilty of careless driving. The woman was originally charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving and refusing to take a breathalyzer test.
After the accident, Bates and others in the community set up PRIDE (People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) and quickly made a big impact, forcing a change in attitude and laws.
In 1990, MADD USA expressed interest in coming to Canada. Bates and leaders of two other anti-drunk driving groups joined together, invited participation from the American group, and MADD Canada was born. By the late 1990s the organization started becoming more corporate. More staff were hired, salaries were increased, nicer offices rented and contracts signed with companies to run telemarketing campaigns, knock on doors, send out mail and issue tax receipts.
The MADD story highlights an issue that national opinion polls have shown concerns donors: charities that hire professional fundraisers to do all, or almost all, their fundraising. Fundraisers typically take 70-90 cents of each dollar. That's what is happening at MADD, with the money turned over to the charity then being eaten up by administrative expenses and head office salaries. A portion of those salaries can be claimed as good works if the charity executives — as Murie and others do — carry out charitable activities in addition to running an office. For example, part of MADD's mandate is to lobby for better laws.
But it's in the area of fundraising where MADD spends a great deal of money.
Donors across Canada gave $5.4 million over the last year when the charity's telemarketers called. MADD's financial statements show 76 per cent ($4.1 million) was kept by the telemarketer. Part of the remaining 24 per cent ($1.3 million) was eaten up by other charity expenses such as administration, leaving little for good works.
Fundraising by volunteers, which many Canadian charities carry out, earns far more money for the chosen cause. Examples include the annual Terry Fox Run where volunteers raise money for cancer research. MADD does only a small amount of volunteer fundraising.
Murie said there is nothing wrong with using paid fundraisers because they are educating the public as well as asking for cash. He said MADD counts the words in each fundraising request and apportions expenses based on that: when the telemarketer or paid door-knocker gives prospective donors a "victim's story" that is public awareness and part of the charity's mission — not fundraising — even though the story is told to get a donation. The charity uses the same method of accounting for its mail fundraising drive.
A telemarketing script provided to the Star by MADD indicates that the fundraiser's call is made to get a donation, though some information on the drunk driving problem is provided.
In the script, the paid fundraiser begins with a statistical overview of drunk driving in Canada, then describes volunteer-based services the charity provides. At this point, the fundraiser asks for a minimum donation of $50. If the prospective donor agrees, the telemarketer asks for a credit card number. If the donor says "no" then the fundraiser launches into a description of how MADD is pushing for tougher court penalties. Again, the fundraiser asks for a donation. If the prospective donor agrees, a credit card number is requested. If the answer is "no" more statistics are provided followed by one final pitch for money.
Murie said this is the charity's public awareness and education campaign.
Ironically, the Star found, the person who does not donate gets the most "public awareness" because the fundraiser continues providing information.
In 2003, MADD was cautioned by the Charities Directorate for confusing fundraising and charitable works following an audit.
"(MADD) made incorrect allocations of expenditures between those incurred of a fundraising nature from those funds spent on charitable activities," reads a letter to Murie from the directorate. It notes that charitable programs do not include "purely fundraising expenses such as door-to-door, direct mail and telemarketing fees."
Murie said that after the audit, MADD worked to "enhance the accountability of our expense allocations." He said they developed the "word count" method which he maintains was approved by the regulator.
Charity regulator Tromp said this accounting method is not approved. "We don't go by words," Tromp said, adding charities must carefully distinguish their good works from their fundraising campaigns. Tromp said she was speaking about charities in general and not commenting on MADD.
MADD's financials came to light as part of a Star investigation into charity in Canada. It is unclear how many charities use contracted fundraisers because not all charities report this information to the government. Of the 800 charities that currently report using contracted fundraisers, MADD raises the most by this means and leaves the most in the fundraiser's coffers.
MADD's operations have led to a significant war chest, the Star found. Financial statements show the charity has $5.3 million in cash and investments. This is at odds with government strategy on charity which typically requires a group to spend most of its money on its cause.
There's no doubt MADD Canada does good work. The Star interviewed a dozen leading volunteers (many of them current or past chapter presidents) and heard stories of how they rush to the aid of the newly bereaved, drawing on their own experiences to provide comfort and guidance. At the community chapter level, volunteers counsel the bereaved, monitor impaired driving court cases and provide pamphlets to the public. MADD also receives a government grant it uses to help train police on how to notify victims' families; it monitors drunk driving court cases; and provides pamphlets on various issues to the public.
Another source of income for MADD is a multimedia presentation on the dangers of drinking and driving it charges high schools to view. Schools pay about $800 per showing. The financial statements show it costs MADD about $650,000 a year to mount the presentations, and it makes about $100,000 profit each year from the school fees.
Nancy Codlin of MADD's Durham Region chapter lost her 18-year-old niece to a drunk driver six years ago and frequently helps counsel new victims.
But she is distressed at the fundraising and the lack of response from Murie and MADD's board to their complaints. After volunteers raised the issue last spring at a highly emotional meeting, complaint letters were sent to the board. But Codlin and others interviewed say the board did not properly respond.
In a letter from MADD chair Senator Marjory LeBreton earlier this year, chapter leaders were told only that MADD's accounting method for its fundraising expense (calling it programs and services) was approved by the board and therefore correct.
LeBreton, who is leader of the Conservative government in the Senate, lost her daughter and grandson 10 years ago in a drunk driving accident. She would not agree to an interview for this story, but sent an email encouraging the Star to speak to CEO Murie.
LeBreton wrote: "I am so proud of MADD's success on a number of fronts — the highly successful public awareness campaigns; the extensive work with federal, provincial and territorial lawmakers to strengthen our laws; and most significantly, the heartbreaking but crucial work in support of the victims of these senseless criminal acts."
Despite numerous requests over the past month, Murie would not agree to an interview, but accepted questions by email.
The CEO would not reveal his salary or that of other staff, saying it is personal information. Volunteers have been seeking an accounting of the $2 million-plus salary and administrative expenses at the charity's Oakville head office. May 26 Black Guy Singing 纏綿遊戲Pretty amazing. He sounds just like Edmund!
For comparison purposes, here is the original version by 梁漢文:
May 02 Wes Anderson Amex CommercialCheck out this cool Amex commercial made by Wes Anderson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spCknVcaSHg
April 03 "It stretches the paint"A few months ago, my Dad and I went to Cowell Volkswagen in Richmond, BC to look at the "new" jetta. While talking to the salesperson I asked whether they sell a tow hitch for the jetta. The sales guy said VW didn't sell one for the jetta and that I'd have to get an aftermarket one if I really want to tow stuff. But, he warned me that towing would "void the paint warranty". I asked why and he said:
"it stretches the paint".
Come again????
A Harper GroupieIt is true. Unlike alligators in the underground sewage system, Harper groupies do exist: here's photographic proof - http://tamara.spacemonkeys.ca/blog_photos/20050712/harper.jpg
(by the way, I found that picture by going to google image search and typing "stupid harper" (without the quotes) and it's at the bottom of page 1)
This is her blog: http://rantastic.spacemonkeys.ca/categories/11-Politics. Original thoughts are lacking, and she parrots Mr. Harper quite a bit. But it offers some insights as to how easy people get caught up in their own little world and develop a complete inability to see things from other people's perspective. For example, this girl honestly sees not having a "fancy house", a second car, and yearly tropical vacation as "sacrifices". April 01 Bald Eagle Nest - Live Web CamThis is better than any reality shows (not that I've had the patience to sit through an entire episode of any of those shows). Check out the live webcam featuring a bald eagle's nest on Hornby Island, British Columbia. A pair of eagles are hatching their eggs, which according to the website will (hopefully) hatch on April 26 and 30.
If you access the links at night-time (PST), you won't be able to see anything (because it's pitch dark); but sometimes they stream previous day's footage. It's fascinating seeing how patient and caring these birds (both parents take turns sitting on the eggs) are. Most of the time they just sit still. About an hour ago I saw one of the birds turn the eggs, sit back down, and tuck the branches and leaves on the nest closer to him/her, presumbly to better insulate the eggs.
Here's information on the eagles (not named yet):
Jailing ReportersI suppose if we accept Harper's "my party forms the government that means we have the mandate to do whatever we please" argument, Canadians gave the tories the thumbs-up to jailing journalists that they don't like.
Reporters from the National Post are exempted, of course.
Best Buddies: Bush & HarperI don't know if anyone else noticed, but hidden in a CP report regarding the recent meeting between Bush and Harper is the following scary, scary notion:
So what did Harper accomplish during the meeting? At the very least, it was a low-stress introduction to the world of high-level international meetings, and a chance to build a relationship with Bush. He and Bush seemed to have a cordial, friendly relationship, and agreed they were coming from the same page when it came to core values.
That should be a wake-up call, or at least a jolt anyway, for those Canadians who are optimistic enough to want to believe that Stephen Harper is not the crazy, bible-thumbing right-winger that he is. Bush and Harper sharing "core values"? I shudder to think about what those "core values" may be, and that Harper is going to claim that Canadians, by virtue of some of us having voted for his party, share those very same values and gave him a "mandate" to do whatever his "values" dictate.
These values, apparently, includes barring reporters' access to cabinet ministers, who cannot be trusted to talk to the press and not screw up. Screw up being revealing what kind of right wing nuts this party is made up of and scaring the hell out of the public.
Harper's latest victim: the "One Tonne Challenge" program. That should come as no surprise given his Kyoto-bashing speeches in the waning days of the election campaign.
March 31 Prayer Proven to have no Effect on Condition of PatientsNow this is a surprise...
Would you like some cheese with that wine?The guy who won $30 million in the lottery and refused to share any of the windfall with his two ex-wives, children he fathered, and the woman to whom he was married when he won is now whining about how hard his life is and pondering a move from Canada because "he's had enough".
Which begs the question: if it's really that bad, why doesn't he? It's not like he can't afford to hire movers.
How many people actually still remember this guy? Maybe my intellect is not up to stuff, but if you ask me out of the blue who Raymond Sobeski is, I would have no idea. And to say that the media has been criticizing him "for two years" is definitely an overstatement. The only hit I get on Google news search with the term "Raymond Sobeski" is the article in which he whinned about the media villifying him (see below).
And, it seems to me that, for a guy who thinks the media's been unkind to him, he's awfully generous in giving an interview thereby providing more fodder for the media to "villify" him. Is someone suffering from withdrawal from his 15 minutes of fame and notoriety?
If he does decide to move though, hopefully he has enough sense to eliminate Mexico as a choice, as "professional Canadian hitman/woman" are known to travel down there to do their thing, says the Mexican police, attorney general and president. But of course the place is otherwise "as safe as Canada".
Refusing a PandaWho would say no the gift of a pair of cuddly endangered species? Apparently the Taiwanese government doesn't want anything to do with them. Maybe they're scared that the pandas are actually spies in disguise, or something.
I don't really get it: what sort of message is this supposed to send? I understand that these guys dislike and distrust the Chinese government, which they're entitled to; but rejecting a goodwill gesture in such a rude manner? It's hard to imagine that this is anything other than a sort of childish "I won't play with you" statement whose sole purpose is to snub the Chinese government at the first chance it gets. I hope they had fun doing it, because if they keep acting this way, things are going to get a lot less fun in a hurry.
March 17 Killing Seals vs. Killing PeopleAn American family wrote a letter to Canadian senators to say they cancelled a vacation in Canada because of the seal hunt, which they called "horrible" and "inhumane". One senator fired back, saying that what she found horrible was "the daily massacre of innocent people in Iraq, the execution of prisoners – mainly blacks – in American prisons, the massive sale of handguns to Americans, the destabilization of the entire world by the American government's aggressive foreign policy, etc."
A few things come to mind:
First, agree as I may with what the senator said about the US, it is not really a valid response to the issues raised by the American family. If you are going to support the seal hunt, at least come up with some valid arguments!
Secondly, seems like this is another case of Americans thinking that they can tell others what to do, without first examining their own world. If that American family is so disgusted by the killing of seals that they cannot bear to set foot in Canada on a vacation, I wonder how they can bear to live in the country that features capital punishment? I can only imagine that their suffering is great and constant.
(Have they seen "Dancer in the Dark"?)
Perhaps this is a case of them trying to make themselves feel better. As in: "Hey, it's not so bad here. Sure we kill people, but look at the normally mild-manner Canadians -- they kill cute helpless little seal pups!"
Finally, I have never understood the argument, made by many seal hunt advocates, that "the seal population, if left unchecked, will affect the ecological balance". I have heard people parrot this supposed "ecological" argument without ever explaining the underlying science or logic of it.
Some people say seals are bad because they eat all the fish, and that screws up the "ecological balance". Really? But if that is the case, wouldn't the lack of food naturally cause the seal population to go down, without burly seal hunters clubbing and skinng them alive? Highschool biology and the Discovery Channel both tell us that's how the ecosystem works. Are they wrong? Should we re-write the biology textbooks? Sue Discovery Channel?
And what is the inherent value of this alleged "ecological balance" anyway? What are the adverse effects of a "ballooning" seal population? Overcrowded ice floats? Too many applications to immigrate to the San Diego Zoo? No one ever say anything about that.
Other people say it's because seals are a threat to the fishery industry. What fishery industry? The one that was eliminated in some places and endangered in others by overfishing?
Sometimes I wish seal hunt advocates would just come out and say that "the seal hunt is OK because it's OK to use animals to suit our needs". Then at least we can get a real argument going. Let's really talk about whether it's OK to kill and use animals just because we want to and we can, and why. Stop acting as if the seal hunters with their clubs and hooks and whatever torture instrument they use to kill and skin the seal pups are just giving Mother Nature a helping hand.
March 16 Dancer in the DarkI've Seen it All
I've seen it all, I have seen the trees,
I've seen the willow leaves dancing in the breeze I've seen a man killed by his best friend, And lives that were over before they were spent. I've seen what I was - I know what I'll be I've seen it all - there is no more to see! You haven't seen elephants, kings or Peru! I'm happy to say I had better to do What about China? Have you seen the Great Wall? All walls are great, if the roof doesn't fall! And the man you will marry? The home you will share? To be honest, I really don't care... You've never been to Niagara Falls? I have seen water, its water, that's all... The Eiffel Tower, the Empire State? My pulse was as high on my very first date! Your grandson's hand as he plays with your hair? To be honest, I really don't care... I've seen it all, I've seen the dark I've seen the brightness in one little spark. I've seen what I chose and I've seen what I need, And that is enough, to want more would be greed. I've seen what I was and I know what I'll be I've seen it all - there is no more to see! You've seen it all and all you have seen You can always review on your own little screen The light and the dark, the big and the small Just keep in mind - you need no more at all You've seen what you were and know what you'll be You've seen it all - there is no more to see! Mel Gibson's Response to Brokeback MountainI would not be surprised if this is being seriously considered
by folks at this point in time:
March 15 The Dutch Don't Want You if You Don't Like Gay PeopleInteresting article in the Globe & Mail on how the Dutch is screening out potential immigrants with "undesirable attitudes".
Seems to me this is the opposite of tolerance -- you're not welcomed unless you have the same values we do -- but no doubt justifiable on the basis that no one has the right to enter so it's perfectly legitimate to screen out people who are undesirable. It's not really different from rejecting people who are too poor / unskilled / sick.
And interestingly, refugee claimants, high income people and people from presumably "nice" countries are exempt from this. Canadians can breath a sigh of relief that we're on the "nice" list... although Japan, who's not exactly known for its liberal social attitude, is also on that list...? I suppose they do have Hello Kitty, whose gender is an eternal mystery but is embraced by the people nonetheless. That should count for something!
The Deadbeat Dad Strikes Back: Man (man?) Seeks Right to Abandon DaughterMen are used to having things their way, aren't they?
The biological and practical reality is, men can have sex with a woman, have a nice time, and not have to deal with the sometimes unplesasant side effect of being pregnant.
In the event of an unintended pregnancy, the woman is burdened with the choice of either bearing and giving birth to a child and then raising it (for years and years) or giving it up for adoption, or undergoing an abortion. It is one of the most difficult, emotionally charged decision a woman can ever make, the effects of which can stay with her for a lifetime.
And this dude, Matt Dubay of Saginaw, MI would have us believe that having to pay $500 per month to help support his baby daughter is equally as hard, and that somehow it is unfair for him to bear some of the natural and completely forseeable consequences of sexual intercourse. He said that his ex-gf told him that "she could not get pregnant because of a condition".
Hello? What's the first thing they tell you about contraception? There is no such thing as 100% effectiveness. People who have undergone sterilization get pregnant all the time. I guess Mr. Dubay was too stupid to remember that from highschool sex-ed. Or was too eager to have sex and decided to take the risk.
Considering the fact that he was one of two voluntary participants of the act, I would think that he got off easy by having only to pay $500 a month in child support. She is the one who has to wake up in the middle of the night to feed the baby, take her to the doctor when she's sick, register for kindergarten, arrange for childcare, potentially have her career and earning capacity adversely affected because of childcare responsibilities... etc. And Mattie boy here thinks he's gotten the short end of the stick because "he never intended to have a child". Well, neither did she, and she surely could not have done it on her own.
Of course, the woman is not entirely blameless -- her fault lies in the very poor choice of a partner. If you want a man, GET A MAN instead of this sorry excuse for a human being. Too bad natural selection let this one fall through the cracks.
"My name is Matt Dubay.
I had a 8-month-old baby girl with my ex-girlfriend but
I don't want to pay $500/month in child support.
But hey, I'm not a horrible person - look, I have a cat! Isn't he cute?"
|
|
|
