Ending the feudal family law system is the aim of C-560 in Canada


Scott Brison,

We urge you to vote for family equality on May 27th. Vote for Bill C-560.

Live Free,
Connie Brauer
1061 Mines Rd. RR2
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Phone, 902 791 0958
Email, cbrauer@eastlink.ca

From: ‘Glenn at Cheriton.ca’ glenn@cheriton.ca [CEPC_Members]

Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:43 PM

To: CEPC_Members@yahoogroups.com

Cc: EPOC_NEWS@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [CEPC_Members] Contact your MP before May 27th to end the feudal family law system and vote for Bill C-560

Ending the feudal family law system is the aim of C-560

The foundation of British law is the “Magna Carta” which for the first time, effectively restrained the judgment or discretion of the king.

Parents across Canada have organized to reform family law with latest efforts resulting in a bill in Parliament, C560, expected to get a second reading in May, 2014.

In April, 2013, Supreme Court Judge Thomas Cromwell released a report, commissioned by the Chief Justice, which called for a complete overhaul of family courts, bemoaned the failure of 30 years of “reforms” controlled by the legal profession, and slammed family law for inaccessibility, dismal outcomes and creating disrespect for the legal system. The report called for “consensual decisions” by parents.

Bill C560 aims to implement selected best practices from other jurisdictions to encourage parents to make such “consensual decisions”, to reduce conflict and costly legal battles, and also to ensure that both parents have the option of equal time with their children unless proven unfit.

These reforms are long overdue: A joint Senate-Commons report accepted by Parliament recommended shared parenting and equality of parents in 48 reforms in 1998. Every single recommendation was blocked by legal profession vested interests, who make billions of dollars from the current adversarial system.

When legal profession advocate Nicholas Bala says the system needs more “resources” – he means more money. Thus the choice is clear: either taxpayers pour further dollars into the current dysfunctional system, or we implement a selection of practices which have reduced costs to parents and children in other jurisdictions. Those practices make up Bill C560.       

Advocates of the current sole custody system don’t seem to be able to avoid making two claims: that more money to the existing “stakeholders” will fix the system and promoting unfounded prejudicial stereotypes against fathers. The Supreme Court report dismissed the first claim, so let’s examine one of the unfounded stereotypes:

Claims that large number of abusive fathers are gaining custody are belied by research which consistently shows that children are safer with fathers than with sole maternal custody. Social science also shows that joint custody or equal parenting reduces both conflict and abuse outcomes.

It is time to move beyond simplistic gender stereotypes and do what social science overwhelmingly shows is in children’s best interest: keep both parents unless clear proof of unfitness.

To argue over which is more disadvantaged, the “winners” or the “losers” of child custody cases is pointless: let us agree that a child who goes into family courts with two fit parents and ends up with only one is the real loser. Let us agree that legal and other adversarial professionals who exploit that process to line their pockets are the winners, pious claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Bill C560 is a good initiative to reduce legal incentives to remove a fit parent without substantial evidence. In his book, “Equal Parenting Presumption”, custody expert Edward Kruk shows that at least 40% time sharing (preferably 50%) is the key to making real reforms work and improving outcomes for children and parents. Equal time as the starting point means both parents need not fear arbitrary loss of their kids and in practice most often work out their own parenting plan (which need not be 50/50).

A key point of Bill C560 is to define “best interests of the child” as keeping both parents unless one is proven unfit.

The last reforms parents successfully pushed for (1986) included the “friendly parent rule” which was supposed to presume joint custody by giving preference to the parent who would most encourage parenting by the other parent. Judges generally “read out” this provision of the Divorce Act, inserting the presumption that existence of conflict meant they could exercise judicial discretion and order sole custody. Worse, judges often presume that removing the parent seeking joint custody or equal parenting will stop conflict. It is a feudal system when the decision maker has complete discretion/decision rights without any responsibility for the outcomes. Social science research shows that sole custody generates conflict and disadvantages children, yet judges claim this is in “best interests of the child.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Parents say that outcomes from the adversarial system have not perceptibly changed over the last several decades. Vested interests oppose changes since they make money from adversarial divorce and sole custody.

Bill C-560 brings long overdue non-adversarial reforms to a broken system. It should be supported by all members of Parliament as such reforms are supported by over 80% of the Canadian public.

Parents and supporters of these reforms should can call their federal MP and ask he or she to vote in favour of C-560. You can call in to radio or contact other media and make the point that your MP ran on the shared parenting policy in the last election and that your vote in the next election depends on how they vote May 27th for second reading.

Glenn Cheriton, President, Canadian Equal Parenting Council

p.s.  Here are some links to help you support equal parenting reforms:

http://canadianepc.org/donate

http://canadianepc.org/membership/advocate-signup/

__._,_.___


Posted by: “Glenn at Cheriton.ca” <Glenn@Cheriton.ca>


Advertisements

DEMAND EQUAL PARENTING REFORMS FROM YOUR CANADIAN ELECTION CANDIDATES!


YouTube – equal parenting election law reform canada divorce.mp4

Calling on all Canadians to DEMAND EQUAL PARENTING REFORMS FROM OUR CANDIDATES.

Calling all people in Canada to stop, look and sign petition for justice.


Canada Petition For Justice | Save our Families from Judicial and government corruption

Sign Here!

Canadian Petition for Justice for Parents.

.addthis_toolbox { float: left; clear: both; width: 860px; padding-bottom: 10px; }.addthis_toolbox.addthis_pill_combo a { float: left; }.addthis_toolbox.addthis_pill_combo a.addthis_button_tweet, .addthis_toolbox.addthis_pill_combo a.addthis_counter { margin-top: -2px; }.addthis_button_compact .at15t_compact { margin-right: 4px; float: left; }.addthis_toolbox a span.FBConnectButton span.FBConnectButton_Text { line-height: 10px; }.addthis_toolbox a span.fb_share_size_Small span.fb_share_count span.fb_share_count_inner { line-height: 10px; }

Goal : 1 / 5000

PETITION
TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED

We, the undersigned, residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

WHEREAS:

1. The Federal Recommended Child Support Guidelines, the Divorce Act, the Matrimonial Property Act and unequal, arbitrary access orders are unconstitutional. They violate Sect. 7, 15.1 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. The judicial system treats divorced parents unequally and discriminates against one parent while systematically rewarding the other parent. This continues until past age of majority.
3. Judges have unlimited power to seize children for any arbitrary reason and adopt them out without evidence of abuse. Judges have unlimited power to interfere in parents lives and control their children.
4. Sect. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is violated. There is no court of competent jurisdiction and there are no judges that uphold the guaranteed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no legal counsel available that offers Charter Rights service in Canada. Victims have no recourse.
5. The police arbitrarily refuse to provide protection to victims if there is a civil case involved, currently or previously, especially in family law.

More Here Now!

Petition against Family Law Corruption

, , , , , , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Calling all people in Canada to stop, look and sign petition for justice.


Canada Petition For Justice | Save our Families from Judicial and government corruption

Sign Here!

Canadian Petition for Justice for Parents.

.addthis_toolbox { float: left; clear: both; width: 860px; padding-bottom: 10px; }.addthis_toolbox.addthis_pill_combo a { float: left; }.addthis_toolbox.addthis_pill_combo a.addthis_button_tweet, .addthis_toolbox.addthis_pill_combo a.addthis_counter { margin-top: -2px; }.addthis_button_compact .at15t_compact { margin-right: 4px; float: left; }.addthis_toolbox a span.FBConnectButton span.FBConnectButton_Text { line-height: 10px; }.addthis_toolbox a span.fb_share_size_Small span.fb_share_count span.fb_share_count_inner { line-height: 10px; }

0Share | | SHARE  | | | 0 | |
Goal : 1 / 5000

PETITION
TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED

We, the undersigned, residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

WHEREAS:

1. The Federal Recommended Child Support Guidelines, the Divorce Act, the Matrimonial Property Act and unequal, arbitrary access orders are unconstitutional. They violate Sect. 7, 15.1 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. The judicial system treats divorced parents unequally and discriminates against one parent while systematically rewarding the other parent. This continues until past age of majority.
3. Judges have unlimited power to seize children for any arbitrary reason and adopt them out without evidence of abuse. Judges have unlimited power to interfere in parents lives and control their children.
4. Sect. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is violated. There is no court of competent jurisdiction and there are no judges that uphold the guaranteed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no legal counsel available that offers Charter Rights service in Canada. Victims have no recourse.
5. The police arbitrarily refuse to provide protection to victims if there is a civil case involved, currently or previously, especially in family law.

More Here Now!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Calling on all Canadians to stop, look and sign petition for justice!


Canadian Petition for Justice for Parents.

 

PETITION
TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED

We, the undersigned, residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

WHEREAS:

1. The Federal Recommended Child Support Guidelines, the Divorce Act, the Matrimonial Property Act and unequal, arbitrary access orders are unconstitutional. They violate Sect. 7, 15.1 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. The judicial system treats divorced parents unequally and discriminates against one parent while systematically rewarding the other parent. This continues until past age of majority.
3. Judges have unlimited power to seize children for any arbitrary reason and adopt them out without evidence of abuse. Judges have unlimited power to interfere in parents lives and control their children.
4. Sect. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is violated. There is no court of competent jurisdiction and there are no judges that uphold the guaranteed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no legal counsel available that offers Charter Rights service in Canada. Victims have no recourse.
5. The police arbitrarily refuse to provide protection to victims if there is a civil case involved, currently or previously, especially in family law.

To sign petition and read more, click here now.

How “Liberty” is eviscerated by Canada’s Courts.


A golden opportunity to kill human-rights censorship :: Canadian Constitution Foundation

A golden opportunity to kill human-rights censorship

With the Whatcott case, a 20-year-old Supreme Court precedent may finally be overturned

Karen Selick
National Post, November 3, 2010

«Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal» «CCF Publications» «Court of Appeal Judgement» «Press Releases» «CCF Factum» «Related Audio»

 

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to reconsider 20-year-old jurisprudence that limits free speech. The case under appeal is The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission vs. William Whatcott.

Back in 2001 and 2002, Whatcott, a social conservative activist, distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon bearing headings such as “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools” and “Sodomites in our Public Schools.”

He was hauled before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for having “exposed to hatred, ridiculed, belittled or affronted the dignity” of gays and lesbians, and was ordered to pay compensation totaling $17,500 to four complainants. That decision was upheld on its first appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench in 2007. But in February, 2010, three members of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned it.

While the Court of Appeal’s decision was a victory, of sorts, for free speech, the court had to twist itself into contortions to reach it. On any objective reading of Whatcott’s flyers, he did ridicule and belittle gays — and he probably even exposed them to hatred. What rankles free-speechers is the more fundamental question: Why should this be against the law? After all, don’t we have a Charter of Rights that guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression?

But the Court of Appeal declined to strike down the offending portions of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code as inconsistent with the Charter. The problem lay in the fact that in 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada had considered similar human rights legislation and had decided that those censorship provisions were permissible despite the Charter’s free-expression guarantee.

That case, known as Taylor, attempted to set some guidelines or standards as to when censorship laws designed to deter “hate speech” would be acceptable. Hatred or contempt, wrote then-chief justice Dickson, “refers only to unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification.”

Then, with inexplicable confidence in the niceness of the universe, justice Dickson opined that so long as human rights tribunals paid heed to the extreme degree of hatred necessary

to justify censorship, there would be “little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness” would trump free speech.

But events over the last few years have demonstrated that the danger characterized by justice Dickson in 1990 as “little” is anything but. Accusations of anti-Muslim hate-mongering have been levelled against Maclean’s magazine for Mark Steyn’s commentary on immigration policy; and against Western Standard magazine and its publisher Ezra Levant merely for printing the notorious “Muhammad cartoons” as part of its news coverage.

Even B’nai Brith, a Jewish organization known for supporting the anti-hate provisions of human rights legislation, has been hit with a complaint.

While the complaints against Maclean’s and Levant ultimately were dismissed, the accused parties had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars upholding their innocence — money they’ll never get back. Worse yet is the chilling impact those prosecutions have had on less stalwart souls than Steyn and Levant. The risk of being put through such an ordeal, even if one is ultimately vindicated, undoubtedly has diverted many a commentator into less hazardous topics of discussion.

Even the history of the Whatcott decision itself demonstrates how subjective justice Dickson’s test is. Of those who have sat in judgment on Mr. Whatcott’s comments to date, two have said he violated the law while three have said he didn’t. That’s hardly a demonstration that the standards are crystal clear.

See the rest of the story here. http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/article.php/208