Barbara Kay: Stephen Harper’s last chance to make life fairer for suffering fathers


Barbara Kay: Stephen Harper’s last chance to make life fairer for suffering fathers

Republish Reprint

Barbara Kay | May 26, 2014 | Last Updated: May 23 4:52 PM ET
More from Barbara Kay | @BarbaraRKay

In litigation, although lip service is paid by law associations to the “best interests” of the child, make no mistake: lawyers work to advance their clients’ wishes, not the children’s.http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/26/barbara-kay-stephen-harpers-last-chance-to-make-life-fairer-for-suffering-fathers/

Peter J. Thompson/National PostIn litigation, although lip service is paid by law associations to the “best interests” of the child, make no mistake: lawyers work to advance their clients’ wishes, not the children’s.

Tomorrow, May 27, will feature the conclusion of parliamentary debate on Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott’s private member’s Bill C-560, which proposes an amendment to Canada’s Divorce Act that would protect children’s right, in the absence of proven neglect or abuse, to love and be loved equally by both parents after separation.

Our now-superannuated paradigm — one primary, one secondary parent — is based on the flawed assumption that judges can somehow arrive at the “right” distribution of parenting time. Current social science overwhelmingly deems this an impossible task. Litigation necessarily triangulates the children into their parents’ divorce, encouraging drawn-out, financially crippling and emotionally devastating scenarios from which nobody but lawyers profit. It is an unethical and counterproductive model most Canadians firmly deplore.

All informed critics give our system a failing grade. No other alternative proposed over three decades has proven effective. Mediation has not reduced bitter custody litigation. Neither have collaborative lawyers, costs sanctions, parenting education or any other initiatives. Why? Because litigation remains the ace up the sleeve of the less collaborative parent. Sociological research tells us that what children want after separation is two parents, not one parent and a visitor. But once in litigation, although lip service is paid by law associations to the “best interests” of the child, make no mistake: Lawyers work to advance their clients’ wishes, not the children’s.

Related

If the bill were to make it to the Justice Committee of the House of Commons for further study and review, parents, social scientists and others who understand these issues far better than our elected representatives would have an opportunity to speak to the issue. But from a reliable government source, I am informed that cabinet ministers have been instructed to vote against Bill C-560, which will vitiate the substantial number of caucus votes in favour. This decision would be an unconscionable insult to Mr. Vellacott and a repudiation of the party’s erstwhile platform position. Add the mass NDP nays and the paucity of free-vote yays from Liberals, and a good and necessary reform will founder.

If I thought the bill were failing on its merits after a thorough public airing and debate, I could accept it with grace. But there has been no public debate, and I know from discussions with intelligent people — even those who claim to grasp the principles involved — that misconceptions about equal shared parenting as a default abound. One such friend said he disagreed with the bill because “I think mothers should have a larger role in parenting after separation.” He apparently thought the bill would force all parents to hew to the equal-time model. On the contrary: collaborative parents could make any arrangement they liked. The default would avoid litigation in high-conflict cases.

A document called “Myths and Facts” to correct such misconceptions was circulated to everyone in Parliament. It fully responds to every concern raised by the opposition. But it seems very few MPs have read it.

If mothers were the main victims of our failing system, would this bill not have passed by acclamation many years ago?

The fact that 30 cabinet ministers, many (most?) of whom are not really familiar with the parameters of the proposals, can shoot down this excellent, deeply researched and judicious principle — one approved of by 80% of Canadians — without an opportunity to inform themselves thoroughly on what it actually means, is cruelly arbitrary and unjustified by any reasonable criterion.

It is also personally embittering. I am familiar with hundreds of personal stories of literally ruined lives, tales of children anguished by forced separation from beloved parents because the “winner” took “all.” The “losers” are virtually all dads. Can we speak plainly here? If mothers were the main victims of our failing system, would this bill not have passed by acclamation many years ago? Why are politicians so afraid of ideologues? They don’t represent Canadian women, a majority of whom want to see gender fairness entrenched in family law.

Tomorrow will be the last chance for the Conservative government to do the right thing. I call upon the Prime Minister to allow his ministers a free vote in accordance with their individual conscience, and to send Bill C-560 to committee for the meaningful consideration it deserves.

National Post

bkay@videotron.ca

Advertisements

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>


Sign the Canadian Petition for Justice!


Canada Petition

PETITION

TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED

We, the undersigned, citizens (or 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.      Canada treats divorced parents unequally and discriminates against one parent while systematically rewarding the other parent.

3.      Judges have unlimited power to seize children for any arbitrary reason and adopt them out without evidence. Judges have unlimited power to interfere in parents lives.

4.      Canada violates Sect. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 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.

5.      The police refuse to provide protection to victims if there is a civil case involved especially family law.

THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament To:

1.      Uphold the GUARANTEED Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and immediately provide competent, legal counsel, absorb all costs, and ensure that all judges are trained and ready to hear complaints.

2.      Repeal the Divorce Act, the Matrimonial Property Act and the Federal Recommended Child Support Guidelines and replace them with spousal and parental consent agreements and fair, negotiated divorce settlements.  We request that this user friendly solution is to supersede any court applications.

3.      Provide financial compensation to all affected, displaced families since the GUARANTEED Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented on April 17, 1982.

4.      Ensure that police serve and protect citizens regardless of pending or current civil action. When a complaint is filed with police they should investigate and proceed with actions without restrictions.

Sign the petition here!

Statement of Grievance or Opinion

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 and the inalienable rights of both parents to raise their own children as they see fit.

2.       That Canada is engaged in a reign of terror against families. It targets divorced and child apprehension ordered families and violates their Canadian Charter Rights and parental rights and destroys their lives forever. Canada treats divorced parents unequally and discriminates against one parent while systematically rewarding the other parent.

3.       Judges have the power to seize children for any arbitrary reason and adopt them out without a valid reason or any criminal conviction against the parents relating to the welfare of the child.

4.       Judges have unlimited power to interfere in parents lives and make all parenting decisions while downloading arbitrary costs onto the parents until long past the age of majority.

5.       Canada violates Sect. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no court of competent jurisdiction and no judge that upholds the GUARANTEED Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no legal counsel available anywhere in Canada that offers Charter Rights service.

6.       Parents and families are victimized by unconstitutional family law practices. Judges violate parents’ rights by awarding complicated, unnatural, unequal, unconstitutional, unending, exclusionary and biased court orders. Canada has implemented a cult of exclusion, entitlement and alienation against the other parent and their families. The parents are completely at the mercy of the judges for very long periods of time. This slavery lasts for years until the family is financially bankrupt and any relationship with the children is completely destroyed. This continues for multiple generations. Canada is committing Crimes against Humanity.

7.       Judges have unlimited power to ruin a family. Judges arbitrarily interfere in a divorced family’s normal daily life.  In addition to mandatory child support, they force parents to pay for unwanted, arbitrary, unnecessary expenses, bogus medical costs, exorbitantly expensive private schools, universities, extended university tuition, and long term child support for adults who have no illness and are not attending post secondary education. Throughout the life of the child and long past the age of majority, the judge is in control and makes all family decisions while downloading all the expenses onto the parents, especially the non custodial parent.

8.       Divorced parents do not have the right to enter into their own negotiated divorce settlement and negotiated child parenting plan as the Federal Child Support Guidelines are mandatory.

9.       Canada and the police are not protecting people under the law, especially in family court and in criminal court. Victims are not getting help from the police and the courts when a crime(s) are committed against them. They refuse to lay charges.

10.   Divorced spouses are treated differently. One parent/spouse loses everything and the other parent/spouse gets everything, all the time. Children, home, assets and income are unfairly seized and redistributed to the other spouse without any consideration for the displaced parent. This is unconstitutional and violates Sect. 7, 15.1 and 28 of the GUARANTEED Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

11.   Canada has implemented mandatory child support. It is a huge incentive to deny the other parent access to children on an equal shared custody basis. Spouses who provide equal shared custody could lose their child support. Both parents should be responsible for their own child care expenses.

12.   Canada has violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in particular, Sect. 24 of the GUARANTEED Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no court of competent jurisdiction and no judge that upholds the GUARANTEED Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no conflict – free, competent, legal counsel or law firm that will provide Charter Rights service to the victims. There is no funding. Canadians are not protected. There is no GUARANTEED Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the biggest fraud committed against Canadians by the government of Canada.

13.   Canadian non custodial parents’ rights have been irreparably violated and abused by the Canadian judicial system when it comes to their parental rights, their children, their homes and their incomes. They have suffered extreme mental, family, social, alienation and financial destruction to their families. This destruction will continue into the next generations of children and their families. Their children have been taken away either by force, alienation or greed and they will never, ever recover.

Sign here! Warning! Canada is not safe for families!

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43582.html

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43582.html

Connie Brauer and Victor Harris

For all the people of Canada who want to raise their own children  and live in peace!

Falmouth, NS Canada

cbrauer@eastlink.ca

Police make a peaceful demonstration, unsafe for everybody.


Following sent to CTV News

Go to the following url and read the Press Release by the Toronto
Police with respect to the F4J Demonstration at Jack LAYTON’s office
on 08 Aug 08.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/14711.pdf

Go to the following url and view the photos of the men on the roof of
Jack LAYTON’s office. NOTE: The police refer to this as a house. Note
that Plywoodman is wearing a safety harness. Could this be confused
with a noose in full daylight. Do persons threatening suicide
normally wear a full safety harness.

Your full raw footage may also be viewed. I know it will produce
nothing to support the Toronto Police Press Release.

http://www.f4jcanada.com/OntarioPages/No_Dads_Party_August_08_08.html

The arrest of Mr. BOGAN was filmed and broadcast by your Toronto
station. Did any of your personnel on scene obtain footage of
a “noose”

Below find the text of a letter sent to the 55 Division. Confirmed
received by phone on the evening of 08 August, 2008.
Toronto Police Service
Officer in Charge, 55 Division

Via Fax 416-808-5502

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have received information that you are holding two of our
members in custody resulting from what began as a peaceful non
criminal demonstration, and was escalated into dangerous incident by
the actions of the Toronto Police.

In this letter I will not belabour the doctrine of reasonable
and probable grounds. I am sure you are well versed in them and in
the haste to create a spectacle they were simply forgotten and or
ignored by your members.

I have heard reports that our members will be charged. The
proposed charges on the news reports are trespassing and or mischief.
I have also heard “interfering with public property” I will write
that off as either a very inexperienced police officer or a media
error. I have also heard “vandalism” which would in effect be
mischief. To my knowledge there was no damage done by our members.

With respect to the proposed charge of trespassing, the only
criminal charges with respect to trespassing would be trespass by
night, at or near a dwelling house. From the information I have
received it appears that the building involved in this is a
commercial building, in any event the time involved is the daylight
hours thus negating any criminal charge.

With respect to a possible charge of mischief. Two protesters
on a flat roof protesting for their civil rights in no way interferes
with anyone. The only interference in this incident was actions of
members of the Toronto Police Service.

In a free and democratic society it is the right of all
citizens to peacefully protest. There are of course laws limiting
that right. The proper procedure in the case of this trespass would
be for the owner of the property in question to, either directly
themselves, or by an authorized agent, request that the protesters
leave their property. If the protesters refused the next step would
be for the owner to apply for an injunction in the Superior Court of
Justice compelling the protesters to vacate the property. Once the
protesters were informed of the court injunction and if they then
still refused to leave then the matter would be a matter for police
action in enforcing the Superior Court injunction.

The police are agents of the State, not a private security
agency. Your officers do not and should not deal with matters which
are not a breach of the peace and involve civil matters. As stated
above, if your services are required it is the jurisdiction of the
courts to give you such direction.

I therefore demand the immediate release of our members. As
the Officer in charge of 55 Division we, as of the time of receipt of
this letter, hold you personally responsible for the unlawful
detention of our members Denis VanDecker, and Mark Bogan. Your
personal responsibility in this matter does not of course absolve the
Toronto Police Service of liability for the continued unlawful
detention as a result of unlawful arrest of our aforsaid members.

A subsequent release of our members by the courts under any
conditions does not absolve you and or the Toronto Police Service of
liability in this unlawful arrest and detention.

You may contact me at (778) 837-1224

Hal Legere, VP and Director of Legal Affairs
Fathers-4-Justice (Canada)