I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Liberal Party of Canada Opposes Equal Parenting through Bill PMB C-560

The Liberal Party of Canada will not support Bill C-560 for the wrong reasons.

From: <Sean.Casey@parl.gc.ca>
Date: 17 April 2014 15:39
Subject: RE: Bill C-560 Divorce Law reform Equal Parenting
To: mjmurphy@???.com

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your email on Bill C-560 which is currently before the House of Commons.

From the outset, I wish to convey to you that I have reviewed the Bill thoroughly and I have sought and heard advice from individuals and groups both for and against this initiative.

As Justice spokesperson for the Liberal Party of Canada, it is my duty to assess any given Bills that touch upon the Justice portfolio.

After careful consideration of the facts, I forwarded my views to my colleagues in our parliamentary caucus. The Liberal Caucus had the opportunity to consider the Bill, from a perspective based in facts, and in this instance, taking into consideration the particular sensitivities that arise when dealing with divorce.

After much discussion in our Caucus, it was recommended that the Liberal Party not support this Bill in its current form. I have included a link to my speech on this Bill given in the House of Commons during this Bill’s First Hour of debate. I provide it for your review and to give you a more in-depth perspective of my concerns with the Bill.

The concerns I raised in my speech, specifically, include the “best interest of the child” approach, which is a view that is shared by the former Justice Minister Rob Nicholson as well as the current Conservative Justice Minister, Mr. MacKay. These two senior Conservative Cabinet Ministers have clearly expressed their concern about changing the standard from the “best interest of the child” to one of equal parenting.

As you likely know, there will be a Second Hour debate on this Bill soon. After that Second Hour debate, there will be a vote at Second Reading. It is not clear whether the Bill will pass Second Reading and make its way to Committee. Should it pass Second Reading, and then go to Committee, I can assure you that the legislation will get a fair and open hearing, from all sides and all parties including an opportunity to hear from experts.

I realise that you support this Bill. I also realise that my opposition to the Bill, and that of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, may be of some disappointment to you. I applaud your efforts to bring forth your views on this important issue. It is the proper role of Parliament to debate tough issues, and more importantly, that the debate be robust and respectful of differing opinions.

Again, thank you for your time in writing me and for making your voice heard.

Sincerely
Sean Casey
Member of Parliament - Charlottetown
Link to my speech in the house: http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/3/25/sean-casey-2/


My response to Mr. Casey:

Subject: Re: Bill C-560 Divorce Law reform Equal Parenting
To: Sean.Casey@parl.gc.ca

April 17, 2014


Thank you for your response to my letter on support for PMB C-560.

There are many myths with respect to shared equal parenting and all have been debunked in jurisdictions where this now occurs. All parents have the best interests of their children as a primary focus while married and in the majority of cases this does not change in divorce. Shutting one parent out, usually the dad, as mom gets sole physical custody in at least 90% of cases in Canada, is not in the best interest of children. It's as though the Liberal Party of Canada were saying dads are not important in their childrens lives after divorce. Social Science says you are wrong. If two fit parents are not equal after divorce, what happened to change that, in your view?

I have attached an analysis by very competent legal minds, accomplished women, and the Canadian Equal Parenting Council who support this bill. I am a member of the CEPC. It walks you through the myths, some of which you are using to oppose the bill, and replaces them with facts. Please review it along with your caucus colleagues for what is really in a child's best interests, that being two fit and equal parents in their lives after divorce. Children are harmed by the current adversarial system both emotionally and financially. Lawyers earn very high incomes in the current adversarial environment much of which would be the children's future college education funding, not to mention basic needs in the current single mom, sole custody environment. Single moms are one of the largest groups in need of social assistance in Canada. Equal parenting may help to drop this significantly.

http://stream1.newswire.ca/media/2014/04/10/20140410_C9348_DOC_EN_39098.pdf

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Bill C-560 opposed by Canadian Bar Association

Second reading of Private Members Bill (PMB) C-560 for equal parenting comes up May 7, 2014.  The following is a rebuttal to the Canadian Bar Association by the sponsoring MP, Maurice Vellacott.

And a fine rebuttal it is to the CBA who, by virtue of their profession, are one of the only lobby groups who can get a Federal Minister of Justice to speak at their annual convention, and are not required to register as a Lobbyist or Lobby group, while they lobby him to not approve Equal Parenting. They did this at an AGM of the CBA in Ireland - yes Ireland -  where the then Justice Minister Nicholson spoke.

They are in it for one thing only - money - and don't let them try to sway anyone otherwise. The damage they cause annually to families, especially children, through their actions is not measurable. For kids it can last a life time.

Mike Murphy


"Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin



Lawyers Say Canadian Bar Association is Mistaken

TORONTO – April 13, 2014. Lawyers for Shared Parenting (L4SP) – (a new group of Canadian lawyers who advocate for shared and equal parenting) reject the Canadian Bar Association’s (CBA) opposition to Bill C-560. The CBA Press Release can be found at: https://www.cba.org/cba/News/2014_Releases/03-24-bill-C560.aspx. Bill C-560 would mandate a rebuttable presumption in favour of equal shared parenting for children whose parents are divorcing. The bill is currently in the midst of 2nd reading in Parliament.

The CBA misinterprets Bill C-560. The mistaken interpretation of the Bill raises concerns as to whether the vested interests of those who make their living from family law litigation might cloud an objective review of the Bill.

Glenn Cheriton is president of the Canadian Equal Parenting Council (CEPC), a nation-wide organization encompassing numerous groups from across Canada who favour Bill C-560 being passed into law. He says:

Lawyers are required to advocate for the interests of their clients and, in family law, this usually means for one parent and against the other. For the CBA to imply that they are advocating for the best interests of children seems hypocritical or insincere. Lawyers in an adversarial family law system which incentivizes conflict stand to gain from a family law system so flawed that even many lawyers and judges have asserted that reforms are sorely needed.

In their press release, the CBA claims that Bill C-560 would “change the primary focus in custody and access matters from what is best for children to equal parental rights.” But this is a mistake: it is the current adversarial system, which allocates parental time and responsibility post-separation, that is uniquely focused on parental rights. Most custody litigation today is pointless and driven by parents’ self-perceived roles rather than a focus on the best interests of children. Conversely, by making it more difficult for parents seeking “primary parent” status to litigate, Bill C-560 enhances the best interests of children by protecting their right to two parents and two primary relationships. “Parental rights” are not mentioned in the Bill.

Mountains of the latest social science research tell us that children of separation and divorce experience far better outcomes on multiple axes where both parents are intimately involved in terms of shared parenting time and even shared decision-making (where appropriate). Bill C-560 clearly prioritizes children’s rights in light of social science research – and not parental rights, as the CBA claims. In contrast, the Canadian Equal Parenting Council and Leading Women For Shared Parenting (LW4SP) have at their web sites a wealth of studies and data demonstrating the benefits of equal shared parenting.

The CBA erroneously claims that: “The bill is based on the faulty assumption that equal parenting time will work for all families, regardless of abilities, circumstances, needs, history, challenges or attitudes of all those involved”. There is no “faulty assumption” here. Bill C-560 is based on substantial research that two primary parental relationships will work for most families, not all. The Bill’s focus is to reduce litigation which has no upside for children. Further, the CBA fails to note that the Bill only provides a starting point, or “rebuttable presumption” if parents cannot agree on their own parenting plan (which can divide time and responsibility as the parents wish). Therefore, in appropriate cases, after due consideration of the children’s needs and their parents’ ability to meet those needs, Bill C-560 allows for unequal division of parenting time and responsibilities. The focus is solely on proven, not speculative, expected substantial gains for the children of a particular family from disproportionate parenting time.

Bill C-560 incentivizes consensual decisions by parents. Former Attorney General Nicholson stated in a letter that parental agreements work out better for children than court imposed orders. A blue ribbon committee that included Supreme Court of Canada Justice Cromwell recommended such consensual parental decisions.

SUMMARY

Bill C-560 supports kids’ rights by making equal shared parenting a “rebuttable presumption”, not a mandatory result.

Social science research tells us that equal shared parenting works for most kids and parents.

The Bill removes incentives to engage in costly and harmful custody litigation battles.

The current 1985Divorce Act provisions have failed to encourage “maximum contact” between kids and divorced parents. Parliament must now act decisively to stop needless litigation and give kids back both of their parents.

Bill C-560 implements Canada’s international legal obligations.

Public opinion polls show consistently high support for equal shared parenting. Those who benefit from the current system, such as lawyers, are largely opposed to the will of the Canadian public that overwhelmingly supports equal shared parenting.

********************************************************************************

Contact your M.P. and tell him/her that a vote for the Bill is a vote for kids. 2nd Reading debate is slotted for May 7, 2014.

In 1985 Parliament passed amendments to the Divorce Act that included the ‘maximum contact’ and ‘friendly parent’ provisions (sections 16(10) and 17(9)). These provisions should have translated into cooperative non-custodial parents gaining considerably more time with their children to the extent that such expansion of time was consistent with the children’s best interests. However, experience to-date has shown that those reforms did not achieve Parliament’s intent. Societal expectations have advanced far beyond the current jurisprudence based on the 1985 language. It is time to moderately limit judicial discretion and tell the courts that they should be giving far greater consideration to equal parenting. This has nothing to do with parental rights. Rather, it has everything to do with what scores of studies, and the Canadian public, tell us is clearly best for kids. Less litigation is best for children, taxpayers and parents. It is what the Canadian public wants. The vested interests of those opposed to less litigation should be resisted.

L4SP acknowledge that shared parenting is not for everyone. However, severely limiting the time that competent parents are allowed to spend with their children is something that a huge majority of Canadians believe has to be changed. These changes are long overdue. Some lawyers who make their living from our current adversarial system may disagree – but ask those who have been through Canada’s family courts. Few who have been exposed to it think that the current system acts in the best interests of children and families. The current system is far too expensive and creates incentives for custody wars, where the children inevitably lose. It is time for a change.

The CBA claims that legislating a preference for shared parenting would be “contradictory to the stated goals of Canadian family laws as well as Canada’s international obligations. This is patently incorrect. Bill C-560 enhances the best interests of children by limiting litigation to those rare situations that merit the effort. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, (CRC) asserts the right of the child to know and to experience the parenting of both parents.

The CRC places an onus on the State to facilitate that child’s right to a fulsome relationship with both parents. Bill C-560 helps Canada to meet its obligations under the CRC, that the right of children of divorce is to enjoy a meaningful relationship with both parents.

L4SP calls upon all Canadians and especially all parents to let their Member of Parliament know that they stand for justice for children and that Bill C-560 should pass second reading in the House of Commons (it’s coming up for further consideration on May 7th). Nationwide public opinion polls consistently show exceptionally strong support for shared parenting.

Two Toronto family law lawyers and founding members of Lawyers for Shared Parenting have joined the debate: Gene C. Colman and Brian Ludmer state:

“Many family law lawyers and others who profit from our current family law system incorrectly claim that Bill C-560 is about fathers’ or parents’ rights to the detriment of children’s rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Bill represents a serious attempt to improve and reform, in a balanced manner, a dysfunctional system that essentially rewards conflict, intransigence and parental alienation of children’s affections, and which leads to outcomes that marginalize parents. The current system deprives children of family savings that could otherwise go to fund their University education or to helping them get started in life. The cost to the taxpayers of the overburdened Family Court system and to society from distracted and devastated parents unable to focus on their jobs, is a huge waste. While the custody battles rage, children are caught in the middle. BillC-560 will free children from most of the custody wars”.

Canada’s M.P.’s need to be aware that overwhelming public support ( 70% to 80% in 2009 and 2014 public opinion polls) for equal shared parenting crosses all party lines and demographics. It is time for Canada’s elected representatives from all parties to hear the voice of the Canadian public, to stand up for the best interests of children and to resist vested interests by voting in favour of Bill C-560at 2nd reading. Canada’s children deserve no less.

For further information, please contact:
Gene C. Colman: gene@complexfamilylaw.com 416-635-9264
Brian Ludmer : brian@ludmerlaw.com 416-781-0334
Websites : www.L4SP.com Lawyers for SharedParenting
www.LW4SP.org Leading Women for Shared Parenting
www.canadianepc.org Canadian EqualParenting Council"

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

When Private Members Bill C-422 for shared/equal parenting was before Parliament the most vocal opposition was from Feminists. (the ones who say they are for equality) wink, wink, and the Canadian Bar Association, including Feminist members (LEAF). Yet polls show over 80% of Canadians across all political persuasions support it.
What is most perplexing is the CPC, even in their Throne Speech today, with specific mention that families are the bed rock foundation of the country, will not produce a government bill. They allow children to be put in a very negative sole custody model that is harmful to them and costly to society.
Thanks for the updated info on child support payers and custody.

M. J . Murphy

Barbara Kay: Real family-law reform must start with shared parenting




No one in government can use ignorance as an excuse for tolerating Canada’s dysfunctional legal system: Several recent reports have laid the problem bare.
Last April, the federal government released a special-committee report, “Meaningful Change for Family Justice: Beyond Wise Words,” which stated: “Canadians do not have adequate access to family justice.” In August, the Canadian Bar Association released its 50-page “Envisioning Equal Justice” report, describing access to justice as “abysmal.”
Now we have a new report, “Access to Justice: a Roadmap for Change,” the outcome of a project initiated in 2008 by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. The roadmap envisages better dispute-resolution options, more legal-aid funding, plus triage toward appropriate services and other tools for efficiency to help deliver speedier, more tailored service.
We know that family law accounts for 35% of all civil cases; that four of 10 Ontario family law disputes remain unresolved after three years; and that about 50% of family-law litigants represent themselves in court. And yet the Family Justice Working Group’s Report admits, “We lack an empirical understanding of what happens to family cases after they enter the justice system …. how many cases settle, when or why they settle, or after what cost and on what basis they resolve.”
None of the reports examine the most measurable outputs of Canadian family courts: child support, custody and access orders.
The numbers show that the system is unfair to men. Women are primary or equal breadwinners in many families, and about one in three fathers is a primary caregiver. And yet, among the cases surveyed by Statistics Canada in its report “Interjurisdictional cases of spousal and child support, 2010-11,” 96% of support payors were men. Moreover, according to a 2011 Department of Justice publication, “Sharing Custody — When Parents Separate: Further Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth,” only 5.2% of sole custody is granted to fathers.
No province or territory has a department dedicated to ensuring that non-custodial parents (mostly men) have proper access to their children
The bias manifests itself in other ways, too. Government agencies in 13 Canadian provinces and territories dedicate themselves to collecting child support (often with draconian enforcement mechanisms). But no province or territory has a department dedicated to ensuring that non-custodial parents (mostly men) have proper access to their children.
Given this, I don’t believe reform can be accomplished merely by tinkering at the edges, or grafting new services and procedures onto a bad family court system.
Mediation — which all the reports recommend more of — only works where there is no advantage in an adversarial approach to either side. But since women know that their chances in family court are good, many have an interest in escalating the case to full-blown litigation.
The solution is a default presumption of equal shared parenting (rebuttable where there is demonstrable abuse). This was the recommendation put forward 15 years ago by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Child Custody and Access, whose exhaustively researched report promptly was routed to a political oubliette where, shamefully, it still languishes.
The only losers would be lawyers
Children typically want to continue loving both their parents, which requires equal or near-equal physical time with both. Numerous credible studies conclude that this fairest of paradigms meets the best interests of the child, while being equitable to both parents. Influential ideologues may prefer mother-friendly courts, but polls show overwhelming, gender-neutral public support for an equal-parenting default. The only losers would be lawyers.
A default of shared parenting would diminish false allegations of abuse, an all too common strategy for gaining sole custody; and it would ensure the child’s continuing positive engagement with grandparents and other extended family members, who so often are tragically denied access to children they love by custody “winners.”
Divorce itself changed to “no-fault” decades ago. By what logic do post-separation parenting rights yet remain fault-based? All these fancy reports are treating the branches of a sick family-court tree, when the blight is in the tree’s petrified roots.
National Post
bkay@videotron.ca

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Kitchener Waterloo Record doesn't like criticism of CAS (Child Protection) or a columnist named Luisa D’Amato

    This is how it starts with a feminist type of raging using a big hammer against men and dads.            

"D'Amato: Child protection receives short shrift from province

Jul 05, 2013


By Luisa D’Amato

Show me a family where the father beats up the mother, and I'll show you their emotionally abused child.

It makes no difference if the child happens to be at a sleepover the night that the neighbours finally call police. Child-protection workers need to get in there, find out what's going on and help the family.

This seems like common sense to me. But in a provincial audit of Waterloo Region's Family and Children's Services, it is suggested that this idea costs too much."      

I took issue with that opening salvo and responded with comments as follows:

"Wow. This is no better than an ad written by a spend thrift, misandrist, feminist.

Look how it starts:

"Show me a family where the father beats up the mother, and I'll show you their emotionally abused child. "

The precipitation of non-reciprocal Intimate Partner Violence is going to be more likely from the female. Why you ask? Because she can - most men do not hit back. Multiple studies confirm this. http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Carney-M.M.-Buttell-F.-Dutton-D.G.-2007-Women-who-perpetrate-intimate-violence.pdf

Stats Can, a pretty credible body for most things, shows the following:

Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2009.

Of the nearly 19 million Canadians who had a current or former spouse in 2009, 6.2% or 1.2 million reported they had been victimized physically or sexually by their partner or spouse during the five years prior to the survey. This proportion was stable from 2004 (6.6%), the last time the victimization survey was conducted, and down from 1999 (7.4%).

A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women."

The Daily summary:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm


Please note it is near equal.

When it comes to children in countries who keep non-gender biased statistics the mom is the more likely parent to maltreat or kill her progeny. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cm_datasheet2012-a.pdf

Turning child abuse or spousal abuse into a gender issue clouds the problem and is unhelpful for the child."

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/3878638-child-protection-receives-short-shrift-from-province/

Factual rebuttal in not part of this newspapers view of democracy. They puled my comments and then closed it off completely to rebuttal or agreement.  Could it be the policy of this paper, like quite a number of small town rags, is a liberal dose of political correctness.  

I am awaiting commentary from the 2 editors still on duty.  Lynn Haddrall Editor-in-Chief 519-895-5600 is apparently away until July 15 so I am waiting to hear from Managing Editor, Melinda Marks  mmarks@therecord.com.or  Editorial Page Editor John Roe at jroe@therecord.com.
                  

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Clorox seems to hate Dads

Clorox, a company I am currently boycotting, used a clueless dad it seems, to write their copy for ads. The following screen shot of an ad they have since pulled was written by one.  The one thing I dislike more than ideological feminists are self-loathing men.

Here is a good story on it by Josh Levi at CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/27/living/cnn-parents-dads-clorox/index.html

Here is another on the Űber Liberal Huffington Post who copied a dad blogger's post, which gives strong economic arguments on the stupidity of Clorox.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/clorox-insults-dads_n_3511423.html




Here is the link to the Google cached page.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:940dBrdwSyEJ:www.clorox.com/cleaning-and-laundry-tips/articles/6-mistakes-new-dads-make/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Here is the text involved:

6 mistakes new dads make

Saying ‘No-no’ is not just for baby. Like dogs or other house pets, new Dads are filled with good intentions but lacking the judgment and fine motor skills to execute well. Here are a few dangerous no-nos new Dads might make, and some training tips.

1. Forgetting weather gear: About 10 minutes into a cold, brisk, rain-soaked stroller walk he might ask himself ‘why is this baby crying so much?’ Then, he might notice the short-sleeved summer onesie Li’l Peach is dressed in and it might dawn on him to bundle that baby.


2. Backwards clothes: Ok, so the clothes might be clean. But is it baby’s jumper fitting oddly? he might notice but he’ll probably think it’s just the style the kids are all wearing. Better educate him that for safety purposes, hip-hop fashions should wait a couple of years.


3. Inappropriate screen time: Does an infant really need to watch reality shows? For that matter, does anyone? Prudence won’t stop Daddy from relaxing with a brew and blaring inappropriate shows while baby stares in horror/awe/wonder at the colorful moving yell-box. Tell Dad to embrace parental sacrifice and crack a book.


4. Forgetting to wipe (face): Baby can’t be blamed for eating like a spastic Harlem Shake dancer. But Dad can be blamed for not noticing the caked-on layer of dried yellowish crust (applesauce? sweet potato? Play-Doh?) surrounding Baby’s mouth and spattered baby food onto her bib.


5. Letting baby eat off floor: If a toy or bit of dried food falls onto the floor, it should really be washed off before baby puts it in his mouth. If Dad is the type to eat food off the floor himself, you have your work cut out for you. At least get him to enforce a 5-second rule.


6. Casino: Some new dads have been inspired by raunchy comedies to bring babies to inappropriate places like casinos, pool halls, and poetry readings. None of these places are healthy for baby. If Dad needs persuading, just tell him that babies are terrible tippers and can never make bank shots.


Hopefully, your new Dad will learn to exercise good judgment in time for baby 2.




Thursday, May 23, 2013

DSM-5 and Parental Alienation:


Dr. William Bernet's sleuthing in DSM-5 (see more detail below) has unearthed several areas that relate directly to PA as a form of child abuse. The impact on children is terrible and as Dr. Amy Baker found in her research and book, life lasting.

Not to be lost as well is the psychological condition of a parent who would use a child as a pawn in their own insecure world. A parent who would do this is suffering an illness as no sane person would deliberately brainwash a child into hating 50% of their DNA.

He describes the following:

"Factitious disorder imposed on another is the DSM-5 terminology for factitious disorder by proxy or Munchausen disorder by proxy. Its definition is "falsification of physical or psychological signs or symptoms, or induction of injury or disease, in another, associated with identified deception." 

In some cases, that would describe the behavior of the alienating parent. Delusional symptoms in partner of individual with delusional disorder is the DSM-5 terminology for shared psychotic disorder or folie a deux. 

The definition is: "In the context of a relationship, the delusional  material from the dominant partner provides content for delusional  belief by the individual who may not otherwise entirely meet criteria  for delusional disorder."


Barbara Kay in the National Post: May 23, 2013


Teaching children to hate the ex




The great Victorian novelist Charles Dickens was doubly traumatized in early youth by a feckless father and a harsh social system with scant appreciation for children’s tender psyches.
Dickens’ soul-searing experience at age 12 in a shoe-blacking factory provided a cornucopia of creative inspiration for his novels, into which he decanted much empathy for his fictional child alter-egos. Yet as Robert Gottlieb writes in his new book, “Great Expectations: The Sons and Daughters of Charles Dickens,” the author could be cruel in his personal life. And those closest to him carried their own scars as a result.

When Dickens’s last child, youngest of a large brood, was six years old, Dickens, who’d fallen in love with the actress Ellen Ternan, expelled his wife Catherine from his life, and demanded that his children do the same. He justified his brutality against his wife with claims that Catherine was an unloving mother – not true – and that the children did not love her – a much more pernicious lie.

This grotesque emotional behaviour — inciting one’s children to hate their other parent — is a form of alienation that did not have a name in 1850. But today, it is well understood by experts, as well as those unlucky enough to be a “target parent” like Catherine Dickens. The term used to describe the phenomenon, as it affects children, is parental alienation syndrome (PAS).
Thanks to the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), launched last week, PAS is now almost logged in as an official disorder. I say “almost” because those exact words are not in the DSM-5 (this was a deliberate and much-discussed decision). However, the new broader category of “child psychological abuse” is defined as “non-accidental verbal or symbolic acts by a child’s parent or caregiver that result, or have reasonable potential to result, in significant psychological harm to the child.”

More here:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/23/barbara-kay-teaching-children-to-hate-the-ex/

Dr Bernet's full statement:

"Finally, DSM-5 was published today. The DSM-5 Task Force told us 2 or 3 years ago that they did not want parental alienation to be a separate diagnosis in DSM-5, but they thought that parental alienation could be considered an example of other diagnoses that are in DSM-5.

The actual words "parental alienation" are not in DSM-5, but there are several diagnose...s that can be used in these cases. I would say the "spirit" of parental alienation is in DSM-5, even if the words are not.

Parent-child relational problem now has a discussion in DSM-5, not just a label. The discussion explains that cognitive problems in parent-child relational problem "may include negative attributions of the other's intentions, hostility toward or scapegoating of the other, and unwarranted feelings of estrangement." That is a pretty good description of a child's view of the alienated parent, although it is an unfortunate use of the word "estrangement."

Child psychological abuse is a new diagnosis in DSM-5. It is defined as "nonaccidental verbal or symbolic acts by a child's parent or caregiver that result, or have reasonable potential to result, in significant psychological harm to the child." In many instances, the behavior of the alienating parent constitutes child psychological abuse.

Child affected by parental relationship distress is another new diagnosis in DSM-5. It should be used "when the focus of clinical attention if the negative effects of parental relationship discord (e.g., high levels of conflict, distress, or disparagement) on a child in the family, including effects on the child's mental or other physical disorders." That is also a good description of how parental alienation comes about.

Factitious disorder imposed on another is the DSM-5 terminology for factitious disorder by proxy or Munchausen disorder by proxy. Its definition is "falsification of physical or psychological signs or symptoms, or induction of injury or disease, in another, associated with identified deception." In some cases, that would describe the behavior of the alienating parent.

Delusional symptoms in partner of individual with delusional disorder is the DSM-5 terminology for shared psychotic disorder or folie a deux. The definition is: "In the context of a relationship, the delusional material from the dominant partner provides content for delusional belief by the individual who may not otherwise entirely meet criteria for delusional disorder."

In discussing this topic, I would say that the concept of parental alienation is clearly in DSM-5, although the actual words are not. This is a great improvement over DSM-IV-TR, especially with the addition of the new diagnoses, child psychological abuse and child affected by parental relationship distress.

Best wishes, Bill

William Bernet, M.D.
Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Nashville, Tennessee"







Monday, May 20, 2013

Blogger dads increase clout as parents


Although not directly related to equal parenting the following Toronto Star editorial gives light to the growing clout of stay at home dads. I left comments to give light to the dysfunction of Family Law in Family Courts and wanted to show the sheer discrimination by gender going on. As a former 10 year stay-at-home parent I have direct experience. It is not a ticket to equality if your spouse is after sole custody and its entitlements.

I was a stay-at-home dad for 10 years raising 2 girls from infancy and, as it turned out, very good at it despite my own initial trepidation. As a boy I grew up in an era where dad was provider and there were different gender roles. My transition was not without some fear I might lack certain ingredients to be successful. I worked from home as the tech guy and graphics producer. On the weekend and some evenings and holidays I worked behind the counter in the retail side of our business. My day was flexible allowing for volunteer time at schools and handling client work after the kids were in bed.

I blogged about some of this going back to 2003, mostly for two older daughters who lived a great distance from us but could get updates on dad's new adventures.

Having said all that if one gets divorced and has a non-cooperative female spouse who won't equally share parenting after divorce most dads are out of luck and will be marginalized by Family Law Courts.

In over 90% of cases, in Canada, mom will get sole physical custody of the children, marginalizing dads, including those who raised his children. Mom can be cleverly hostile, aided and abetted by lawyers, but appear to be quite affable and cooperative to the judge. The very fact she will not share equally the custody of children with a fit dad is hostile. This usually involves making dad the stereotypical bad male who can be abusive and not to be trusted with children.

Family Law is not as quick to change as are companies marketing a product, unfortunately. A lot of this is directly related to Lawyers who almost everywhere it is proposed, oppose equal shared parenting. Their feminist cohorts, such as LEAF in Ontario do likewise.

There is one thing I have discovered through my own experience, research, and observation. Men are the most versatile of all life forms on the planet. You will find us in the most dangerous jobs on earth and nurturing our treasured children.

"Blogger dads for truth in diapering: Editorial

Dads who devote their days to their kids have created a powerful online community that is rapidly getting attention from marketing companies.
After mastering the art of the stay-at-home dad, father bloggers are now fighting against the archaic gender-insulting notions perpetuated in television commercials that men can’t handle a wet diaper, much less a week alone with the kids.

By airing their complaints online, dads who devote their days to their children have created a powerful voice that is rapidly getting attention from the marketing companies that create those antiquated ads. And that’s a good thing.

As Fatima Arkin writes in the Star, their blogging power has jolted companies like Huggies and Playskool into a new era of marketing that acknowledges fathers as capable parents and even better, valued shoppers.

Stay-at-home dads — those who let moms pursue careers or at least a work-life balance — have the commercial clout to demand a certain truth in advertising, even if it is self-serving.

They are also part of a societal change. After all, in 2011, 60,000 Canadian fathers stayed home with the kids, triple the number in the 1970s."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/05/19/blogger_dads_for_truth_in_diapering_editorial.html

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Modern Feminism in Canada

Feminists, male and female, try to disrupt a Canadian Association for Equality meeting at the University of Toronto in 2013

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Arkansas recognizes share and equal parenting .



Arkansas has improved its legislation to allow for equal time sharing in child custody cases. It still leaves a great deal of discretion in the judges hands but is a clear step in the right direction.  Also note the simplicity of the language as opposed to C-422, our former PMB.

State of Arkansas As Engrossed: S3/21/13
89th General Assembly

A Bill  

Regular Session, 2013 SENATE BILL 901

By: Senators J. Woods, J. English

By: Representatives Lowery, Alexander, Neal, E. Armstrong, Baine, Ballinger  

For An Act To Be Entitled  
AN ACT CONCERNING CHILD CUSTODY PRESUMPTIONS IN 9 DIVORCE CASES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  


Subtitle 13
CONCERNING CHILD CUSTODY PRESUMPTIONS IN DIVORCE CASES.  


BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:

SECTION 1. Arkansas Code § 9-13-101(a)(1)(A), concerning awarding child custody, is amended to read as follows:  

(a)(1)(A)(i) In an action for divorce, the award of custody of a child of the marriage shall be made without regard to the sex of a parent but  solely in accordance with the welfare and best interest of the child.
  
(ii) In determining the best interest of the child,  the court may consider the preferences of the child if the child is of a  sufficient age and mental capacity to reason, regardless of chronological age.

(iii) In an action for divorce, an award of joint  custody is favored in Arkansas.

SECTION 2. Arkansas Code § 9-13-101(a), concerning awarding child custody, is amended to add an additional subdivision to read as follows:  
(5) As used in this section, "joint custody" means the  approximate and reasonable equal division of time with the child by both parents individually as agreed to by the parents or as ordered by the court.

 As Engrossed: S3/21/13 SB901 2 03-08-2013 09:25:26 SAG239

SECTION 3. Arkansas Code § 9-13-101(b)(1)(A), concerning joint custody, is amended to read as follows:  

(b)(1)(A)(i) When in the best interests interest of a child, custody shall be awarded in such a way so as to assure the frequent and continuing  contact of the child with both parents consistent with subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section.

(ii) To this effect, the circuit court may consider awarding joint custody of a child to the parents in making an order for custody.

(iii) If, at any time, the circuit court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that one (1) parent demonstrates a pattern of willfully creating conflict in an attempt to disrupt a current or pending 13 joint-custody arrangement, the circuit court may deem such behavior as a  material change of circumstances and may change a joint custody order to an order of primary custody to the nondisruptive parent.

(iv) Child support under a joint custody order is  issued at the discretion of the court and shall:  
(a) Be consistent with Administrative Order 19 No. 10 - Child Support Guidelines; or  
(b) Deviate from Administrative Order No. 10 -  Child Support Guidelines as permitted by the rule.  

/s/J. Woods

APPROVED: 04/11/2013 27 

Why do Bar Associations oppose shared/equal parenting?


There are several consistencies in any jurisdiction in the English speaking world when equal parenting is under discussion.

State, Provincial and National Bar Associations will oppose it. Feminist Lawyers, particularly in Canada, will write briefs to oppose it. The Domestic Violence Industry will raise all kinds of myths about how dangerous dads are. (The latter is very interesting because it is moms most likely to maltreat or kill their children in the US).

Evidence also shows DV is near equal in Canada. Recent studies in the US show, in some cases related to non-reciprocal violence the female will instigate it in over 70% of cases, http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=111137

According to Statistics Canada's latest social survey in 2009, A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women.

The Daily summary:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm

The points raised by SherryNE are also used as excuses. Kids who love both parents adapt quickly to changes. In some cases where parents truly put their children first they switch while the children stay put. Others ensure they live close by so friends and schools remain the same.

Loving parents want what is best for the children. Selfish parents find any excuse they can to control their ex's. Children are the ultimate weapon. All jurisdictions should recognize the best interests of children is to keep both fit parents in their lives. If the old memes of abuse arise then substantive proof should be produced. Eliminating a parent is one of the most emotionally unhealthy things that can happen to children yet dads are marginalized as visitors in Canada in over 90% of cases giving mom sole physical custody and over 80% in the US.

It is a form of gender apartheid and needs to stop.

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/local-view-why-does-nebraska-state-bar-oppose-shared-parenting/article_14378fbd-72be-54b5-86f3-f704743bfb1c.html

Local View: Why does Nebraska State Bar oppose shared parenting?

BY LES VESKRNA(3) Comments




More than three dozen medical studies indicate that shared parenting arrangements after divorce – joint decision making and near-equal parenting time -- provide the best outcomes for children. These studies also show that every-other-weekend parenting time arrangements, which are commonly ordered by Nebraska judges, are harmful to children.

Shared parenting reform bills have been introduced in the Unicameral every year for the past several years. Despite the strong consensus in the mental health literature in favor of shared parenting, the Nebraska State Bar Association has opposed every shared parenting reform bill. You might ask what vital interest of lawyers causes the NSBA to oppose these bills.

Shared parenting laws have been shown to reduce the level of conflict between parents. This is important because conflict between parents creates an enormous amount of stress for the kids, which can lead to emotional and medical problems. However, lawyers like conflict because it gives them things to fight about and increases their fees. Lawyers dislike shared parenting laws because it reduces their fees. Shared parenting -- good for kids, bad for lawyers.

Is this why the NSBA opposes shared parenting proposals time and time again? The NSBA has been asked numerous times to make a proposal -– any proposal -– to help kids caught in custody disputes but they haven’t offered any. Not one.

Shared parenting laws reduce the ability of parents to use kids as leverage in property and child support disputes. One of the more unseemly aspects of family law is the buying and selling of children. This usually takes the form of “You want more time with the kids, then you need to increase my child support.” In extreme cases, one parent may abduct the kids or deny access to them unless the other parent agrees to make a payment. While rarely discussed outside the court house, the buying and selling of children is a routine part of Nebraska divorces. Shared parenting laws treat kids as human beings instead of chattel that can be bought and sold. By making it harder to buy and sell kids, shared parenting makes it harder for one parent to extort property from the other. Shared parenting -- good for kids, bad for lawyers.

Shared parenting laws reduce the incidence of divorce. According to the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, "two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. [However,] in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower." One study found shared parenting was associated with a lowering of divorce rates in 19 states surveyed. Divorce is extremely harmful to children and reducing divorce rates would improve outcomes for many children. However, it would also reduce the need for divorce lawyers. Shared parenting -- good for kids, bad for lawyers.

Shared parenting provides the best outcomes for kids. Isn’t it time the Nebraska State Bar Association put the kids first?

Dr. Les Veskrna is a Lincoln family physician and executive director of the Children’s Rights Council.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Earl Silverman's Suicide





Earl was a persistent force over the years in lobbying governments at all levels to obtain funding for male victims of DV. He ran into brick walls from each level of government who are, to this day, in denial the problem even exists. Part of this denial is from entrenched feminists working for these governments or those who receive government funding, otherwise they would not be able to find jobs based on their Wymen's Studies degrees. One of the fears of feminists is if male DV victimization is recognized they believe their cause will be diminished.

One of the sad components of Earl's efforts is the stats are on his side.

Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2009.

"Of the nearly 19 million Canadians who had a current or former spouse in 2009, 6.2% or 1.2 million reported they had been victimized physically or sexually by their partner or spouse during the five years prior to the survey. This proportion was stable from 2004 (6.6%), the last time the victimization survey was conducted, and down from 1999 (7.4%).

A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, 
compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women."

The Daily summary:


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm




There are over 550 DV shelters for women in Canada with 10's of millions of tax dollars to support them. Given the statistical evidence it is pretty clear governments are overlooking big problems with DV as well as Family Law in general which favour females. Moms get over 90% of sole physical custody marginalizing dads.
An average of 8 men kill themselves every day of the year in Canada. If this were the flu it would be considered a pandemic. Many of these deaths are related directly to the marginalization of men who are supposedly able to overcome these obstacles all by themselves. Men are strong but not super heroes. Many can be broken by a variety of factors including having to live in your vehicle because most of the income goes to your ex for spousal and child support.

RIP Earl, we had our own differences but in the passionate realm of human rights there was always respect for the importance of different battles within the movement. I have a passion for equal parenting, allowing children to love and be with both parents, yours was males victimized by both DV and a system who wouldn't believe it is a problem.

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Family Law in Canada a Social Program by government for Women





 In the column below by Kirk Makin relating to reform  of Family Law  in Canada I've made the following observation:

Not one word on a rebuttal presumption of equal parenting for fit parents in cases of child custody.

Trying to tear one parent from their children is a sure way to create tension right at the start. I'm not sure they get the real problem yet


Today's Family law regime is a social program designed by government as a transfer of wealth from men to women along with physical custody of the children to mom, which occurs in 90% of cases. If any other outcome involving 90% to a certain special interest group occurred there would be screaming from the rafters. Given it is men being marginalized, not so much as an eyelash out of place in the MSM or legal profession.

It is a system designed for women (note the mention only of women and children, in the same breath) but not men in the report. That is a clear hint it will do nothing to help children love and see both mom and dad after separation and divorce in equal parenting for fit parents.

Accordingly if dad wants to try and be equal he will have to spend 10's of thousands of dollars in an adversarial legal system stacked against him from the start. His success rate is not much higher than if he had just walked away from court and acquiesced with the highly sexist operation of Family Law. That hurts the kids and they may carry the scars for years, if not for life. After all if mom doesn't want to share equally with a fit dad - who is being adversarial?




KIRK MAKIN

Report to Supreme Court chief justice calls for family law overhaul


The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Mar. 27 2013, 6:00 AM EDT

Last updated Wednesday, Mar. 27 2013, 11:56 AM EDT
177 comments

An unreleased report commissioned by the country’s top judge is urging a radical overhaul of Canada’s family law system.

The report to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, scheduled for release next month, calls for restructuring the family law system from the ground up, with a focus on streamlining the court process and ending a fixation on combat.

The report, from a committee headed by Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell, goes on to make more than two dozen recommendations, including the creation of specialized judges who can shepherd a family law dispute from beginning to end.

The family law system has been under attack for much of the past two or three decades over litigation that drags out and the destructive effect of the adversarial process on couples who are vulnerable and prone to go on the attack. And the inordinate costs of litigation have led to a massive increase in the number of litigants who represent themselves – now as much as 70 or 80 per cent.

A copy of the report, obtained by The Globe and Mail, says that estranged spouses and their children are seriously damaged by the adversarial system; and that judges, lawyers and law schools must embrace a culture of mediation and settlement.

The ground-breaking report also recommends the imposition of painful cost awards against litigants who behave badly or impede settlements.

It says that law schools have to stop minimizing the importance of family law in their curricula and that legal aid for family law cases must be sharply increased.

“Cuts to family legal aid have a disproportionate effect on women and children, particularly those who are most vulnerable – e.g. aboriginal, immigrant and disabled women,” the report notes. “Even middle-income levels typically cannot support the cost of any significant amount of legal representation.”

The report also recommends the creation of unified family court branches across the country to provide one-stop shopping for litigants who must currently navigate between the provincial and federal court systems.

Chief Justice McLachlin struck the committee out of concern that justice is fast becoming inaccessible to a vast proportion of the country. She asked her Supreme Court colleague, Mr. Justice Thomas Cromwell, to head the group – known as the Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters. Judge Cromwell is expected to unveil the report and its 31 recommendations next month.

Another of the report’s recommendations urges that estranged spouses be forced to attend one session with a qualified professional mediator before they are permitted to proceed toward a trial.

The working group states that the failure of the adversarial model to resolve family law disputes has taken an enormous toll on the finances and mental equilibrium of litigants.

“Adversarialism is a deep habit of our culture,” it says. “It is a default position, an attitude that people in Western cultures learn early and tend to employ quite automatically.”

Family law disputes affect more Canadians than any other single area of law, the report states, yet law schools treat it as an afterthought because they have become so geared to pleasing the demands of large law firms.

“There is a causal relationship between unresolved legal problems and increased health, social welfare and economic problems,” the report says. “We wonder at the ultimate impact this will have on public confidence in the justice system and on civil society.”

The Chief Justice’s committee applauds a number of efforts that have been made in various jurisdictions to speed up and mediate family law disputes, but says they have been piecemeal and not well co-ordinated.

It says the court system needs fewer generalist judges who merely “umpire” family disputes, and more specially designated judges with the expertise and commitment to prod litigants toward a negotiated settlement early in the process.

The committee says the press, with its innate love of stories involving conflict and emotion, also play a key role in maintaining a public perception that the family law system is a forum for “trial by combat.”

It says judges, practitioners and bar associations can help reverse this psychology by throwing themselves behind public education programs. Court personnel, it says, can also play a role by providing mandatory information sessions and user-friendly services in courthouses, allowing self-represented litigants to learn about the legal process and the mechanisms available to settle cases quickly, peacefully and at minimal cost.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/report-to-supreme-court-chief-justice-calls-for-family-law-overhaul/article10421526/

Also in talking points some comments from the original article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/letters/the-conversation-march-30-letters-and-the-talking-point-of-the-week-the-family-law-system/article10563706/comments/


Sunday, July 29, 2012

Will same sex couples accelerate the need for Equal Parenting


The NY Times article linked below is a longish look at the greater complications of same sex custody disputes. if you ever wondered if they would be more civil than hetero wonder no more. They are far more complex for a host of reasons, including the fact only one parent is biological. I have been following this one for years, first through attention given it by Glenn Sacks, in the USA.

I have always wondered if same sex disputes would accelerate the political process to equal parenting given they are part of a politically and socially protected group. I hope it does so children are not put through these kinds of divisive and dysfunctional, not to mention expensive, court battles and they are free to love and be with both parents.


This is not the only battle to occur with Lesbians getting divorces or breaking up from a partnership , civil union, or marriage but it is one of the first to garner this kind of MSM attention.


 




Cheryl Senter for The New York Times

July 28, 2012


 MANAGUA, Nicaragua — Lisa A. Miller and her daughter, Isabella, started their fugitive lives here in the fall of 2009, disguised in the white scarves and long blue dresses of the Mennonites who spirited them out of the United States and adopting the aliases Sarah and Lydia.

“We wanted to have a family and spend the rest of our lives together,” said Janet Jenkins, whose former partner, Lisa A. Miller, underwent a born-again conversion to conservative Christianity and took their child to Nicaragua. 


Now 10, Isabella Miller-Jenkins has spent her last three birthdays on the run, “bouncing around the barrios of Nicaragua,” as one federal agent put it, a lively blond girl and her mother trying to blend in and elude the United States marshals who have traveled to the country in pursuit.

She can now chatter in Spanish, but her time in Nicaragua has often been lonely, those who have met her say, long on prayer but isolated. She has been told that she could be wrenched from her mother if they are caught. She has also been told that the other woman she once called “Mama,” Ms. Miller’s former partner from a civil union in Vermont that she has since renounced, cannot go to heaven because she lives in sin with women.


Isabella’s tumultuous life has embodied some of America’s bitterest culture wars — a choice, as Ms. Miller said in a courtroom plea, shortly before their desperate flight, “between two diametrically opposed worldviews on parentage and family.”