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).

Related

• Using kids as weapons
• Brainwashing the kids to spite the ex

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"

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

Modern Feminism in Canada

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

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.

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/

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.” 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/us/a-civil-union-ends-in-an-abduction-and-questions.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120729

Sarnia Family law rally set for Wednesday

It's nice to see this group getting some publicity for their hard and determined work in Family Law Reform. MJM

The Sarnia Observer

Observer staff


Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:38:12 EDT AM

SARNIA - Canadians for Family Law Reform have a few events set for the next few weeks.
The family law watchdog group will host another public rally at Sarnia City Hall Wednesday. The public is invited out with signs from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m.


The group will next host its monthly public meeting June 6. Anyone who needs support in dealing with the family law system is invited to attend. Meeting will be held at the Ontario Tourist Information Centre, 1455 Venetian Blvd. It runs from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. For more information, visit canadiansforfamilylawreform.com or search “Canadians for Family Law Reform” on Facebook.




http://www.theobserver.ca/2012/05/29/family-law-rally-set-for-wednesday

The law should be helping a child to have two parents

The article shows thinking in the UK is still going on in terms of a child is deserving of two fit parents.  I'm not optimistic this will bear fruit but at least it's still under discussion. Dads are shut out for ideological reasons not the best interest of the child and studies clearly show the negative impacts on children. 


This is very important as Canada still looks to mother England, rightly or wrongly, for guidance with it's own laws.MJM

A host of social problems are made worse by the dismal way that 'contact disputes' are handled by the courts. 

By Alasdair Palmer 6:30PM BST 26 May 2012

Every year, thousands of couples make their way through the courts, trying to resolve disputes about how to share the upbringing of their children. It has become a crushingly expensive way of creating single-parent families. Nearly half the parents (fathers, usually) who go to law in the hope of increasing the contact they have with their offspring end up losing touch with them completely within two years.


The Government is aware that a whole host of social problems are made worse by the dismal way that “contact disputes” are handled by the courts. The statistics show that children deprived of one parent do less well at school, are more likely to end up on benefits, addicted to drugs, or involved in crime.


It’s pretty obvious that a basic goal of policy in this area ought to be to ensure that children have relationships with both their mother and their father. And yet there is nothing in the existing legislation which even encourages the courts to aim for that outcome. So they don’t. The absence of any such requirement is one reason why so many disputes spend years in court without resolution, and lead to the creation of new single-parent families.


A little-noticed provision in the Bill on families and children in the Queen’s Speech earlier this month could help to remedy that depressing situation. It proposes that both parents should have the right to a meaningful relationship with their children, and that the courts should recognise that right – subject to it being compatible with the safety of the child.


This is a momentous change, with the potential dramatically to improve the way the courts process child contact cases. But for reasons that aren’t clear, it generates enormous hostility.
Related Articles


The Coalition was advised against it by the Norgrove Report, which the previous administration commissioned to examine ways of improving family law. Mr Norgrove insisted that evidence from Australia – which introduced legal provision for a “meaningful relationship” with both parents in 2006 – showed that the result was that children were placed in situations where they were at risk of violence. He also said it had led to more litigation.


His claims have been comprehensively demolished by Patrick Parkinson, an Australian professor of family law. Litigation on child custody cases in Australia did not go up: it went down by a third. And an examination of the evidence showed that Norgrove’s claim that the “meaningful relationship” provision had led to children being put at risk of violence was “without foundation”.


The Government is to be congratulated for having had the courage to ignore Norgrove and insert into the Bill a requirement that both parents should have a meaningful relationship with their children. It is an important start – but it is only a start. If a “meaningful relationship” is not itself defined, it will only become an opportunity for more arguments in court about what it means. The result will be that it means nothing, and so does nothing to improve the chances that both parties in a divorce retain secure ties with their children.


The definition does not need to be put into the new statute, and probably could not be. But it can and should be inserted into the guidance that will dictate how the family courts operate.


Norway has a simple default position in divorce cases: the absent parent gets to look after their children every other weekend. Many states in the US have the same sort of rule. Something similar could be introduced here. It would greatly diminish litigation, and increase the chances that children would have a relationship with both of their separated parents.


In opposition, the Conservatives promised to introduce directives that would help the family courts to produce fewer single-parent families. It will be a dreadful indictment of their performance in office if they fail.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9291621/The-law-should-be-helping-a-child-to-have-two-parents.html

When is Pro-Choice not Pro-Choice?

Mara Hvistendahl is pro-choice, except when she is not.

She believes a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. Except if she is in China or India and wants to abort a female fetus because she was hoping it was a male. In those countries, the toll of “missing” girls is in the millions, despite existing bans on sex-based abortions.

While she said a ban in the Asian context “makes complete sense,” she is solidly against a U.S. bill that would criminalize the practice in America — the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act introduced by anti-abortion Republican Trent Franks last November.

Because it uses the words “child” or “girl” instead of “fetus,” the bill is “more about creating a precedent for a fetus equaling a life … than about restoring the balance of boys and girls in the world,” said the author of last year’s Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men.

And Ms. Hvistendahl supports reproductive rights for women, but not necessarily when it comes to knowing the sex of the fetus she is carrying. A woman should have the choice of whether or not to abort, but not to know all the details about it.

“There’s no real need to know the [sex], and that could be an effective way to fight sex-selective abortion,” she said. She summed up her stance by saying: “You can believe in a right but still believe it has limits.”

The Canadian Medical Association Journal this week also urged Canadian doctors to limit women’s reproductive rights, recommending in an editorial that doctors conceal the sex of a fetus from all pregnant women until 30 weeks of pregnancy to curb the incidence of sex-based abortion in certain immigrant communities....

 more here

 http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/20/sex-based-abortion-divides-pro-choicers-on-rights/

Justice Minister Nicholson gets upended by Same Sex Divorce TouristsNocholson

By Cristin Schmitz    January 27 2012 issue

A Charter challenge aiming to pave the way for foreign domiciled same-sex couples who married here to obtain Canadian divorces has opened up a can of legal worms, says a family law expert.

However, the federal government’s rapid about-face on Jan. 13 in L. and M. v. A.G. Canada and A.G. Ontario also illustrates that, sometimes, the court of public opinion is the highest court in the land.

“Not all cases have to be fought out in the courtroom,” remarked Toronto family law practitioner Martha McCarthy, who represents a married lesbian couple who live abroad and have filed jointly for divorce in Canada.

“I think that Kirk Makin’s article [about the case in The Globe and Mail Jan. 12] was instrumental in changing the government policy and therefore, hopefully, leading to a total resolution of my [clients’] case.”

She said she was contacted by the newspaper, and not the other way around. “There was not some deep strategy in my office about that — ​that’s not how it happened. My reaction when the [federal Crown’s] pleading was served was: ‘This is a horrible mistake and, if and when the press gets a hold of this, this is not going to go well for the government.’ ”

L. and M. were married in Toronto in 2005. They turned to Ontario’s Superior Court last year to dissolve their union because they reside separately in Britain and Florida, where they can’t divorce because neither jurisdiction recognizes their marriage.

As part of their test case, the pair is seeking a constitutional exemption from the one-year Canadian residency requirement in the Divorce Act because they claim it imposes undue hardship on them and violates their Charter sections 7 and 15 rights to liberty and equality.

They were shocked, however, when the federal government responded to their application by stating that the Ontario court couldn’t divorce them because they were never really married in the first place. If true, this would also apply to the thousands of foreign same-sex partners who have flocked to Canada to marry.

McCarthy condemns as “unsavoury and inflammatory” the argument that other experts have said is consistent with well-established principles of private international law. The federal Crown argued that same-sex couples who married in Canada, but who are domiciled in places where same-sex marriage is not legally recognized, “are not legally married under Canadian law.”

Its legal position prompted headlines, and outraged reactions from gays and lesbians, around the world.

Within hours of the story’s publication, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson began backpedaling. He went further the next day, stating: “We want to make it very clear that, in our government’s view, these marriages should be valid.”

He went on to vow that “we will change the Civil Marriage Act so that any marriages performed in Canada that aren’t recognized in the couple’s home jurisdiction will be recognized in Canada. This will apply to all marriages performed in Canada.”

Nicholson’s spokeswoman, Julie Vaux, told The Lawyers Weekly that the minister “will be looking at options to clarify the law so marriages performed in Canada can be undone in Canada.”

She declined to disclose specifics. The Department of Justice lawyer who represented the Crown in L. and M., Sean Gaudet, was not authorized to comment.

However, McCarthy told The Lawyers Weekly she received correspondence from Gaudet on Jan. 17, asking her clients to wait for the enactment of the pledged legislative reforms. She said her sense is that the amendments will be unveiled soon after the House of Commons resumes sitting on Jan. 30.

“If that’s not the way it goes, I am going to want to have some discussions [with the attorney general’s counsel], because I don’t think my clients should wait a long time,” she said. “I have had discussion with senior members of Cabinet and have been assured that they intend to resolve my matter, in addition to the greater legal issue, on an amicable and expedited basis.”

McCarthy said a settlement might involve a consent order constitutionally exempting her clients from the one-year residency requirement, as well as withdrawal of the government’s answer that contains the “offensive argument.”

Based on Nicholson’s public comment that the impugned marriages “will be recognized in Canada,” a legislative fix would likely address the feds’ argument in L. and M. that “the Superior Court has no jurisdiction to grant a divorce to the joint applicants because they are not legally married under Canadian law.”

As the government explained in its answer to L. and M.’s application, under private international law “in order for a marriage to be legally valid under Canadian law, the parties to the marriage must satisfy both the requirements of the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated (the lex loci celebrationis) with regard to the formal requirements, and the requirements of the law of domicile of the couple with regard to their legal capacity to marry one another. In this case, neither party had the legal capacity to marry a person of the same sex under the laws of their respective domicile — ​Florida and the United Kingdom. As a result, their marriage is not legally valid under Canadian law.”

A leading divorce authority, Julien Payne of Ottawa, told The Lawyers Weekly that, notwithstanding the public controversy, the Crown’s argument is “certainly consistent with the general rules” of private international law. “What the Department of Justice said is not novel. It’s not a creation of their imagination It reflects the law as it’s understood by basically everybody who writes in the field. That’s not to say those rules can’t be changed, although any change is going to generate problems of one kind or another.”

The problem of divorce for non-resident same-sex couples could have been dealt with when the Civil Marriage Act was passed in 2005, he suggested.

He said the problems would not have arisen in the first place if Canada had confined its recognition of same-sex marriages to persons domiciled in Canada.

Payne also suggested “it might be somewhat problematic” to create a special rule under the Divorce Act exempting same-sex married couples, but not opposite-sex couples, from the one-year residency requirement. Moreover, eliminating the residency requirement  could create a divorce haven for foreigners, Payne said.

McCarthy said she doesn’t anticipate that. “I think the amendments that we are talking about are about the dissolution of the marriage. I think it’s pretty simple to draft an amendment, or an additional provision, for the Civil Marriage Act that just allows for dissolution, but doesn’t specifically allow for corollary relief. Nobody is suggesting that this is going to be [opening the door to] bitter divorces involving custody disputes and property in other countries.”

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&volume=31&number=35&article=1http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&volume=31&number=35&article=1

Parental Alienation Day 2012 in Barrie, ON, Canada

Parental alienation rises to surface ‘Children deserve to choose the right to be loved by both parents’ With more than 43% of the Canadian population divorcing, it’s likely you know someone who’s gone through a messy split. When more than half of those divorces involving families with children, the messy factor ratchets up a notch to a painful custody battle where defeated parents will tell you nobody wins. A dozen parents decked out with signs in their hands, and their hearts on their sleeves, met at Centennial Park after holding a small demonstration at the Barrie courthouse demanding change in family law. The real weapons of mass destruction are the family court system, read a placard placed against the climbing equipment at the beach. The dozen parents, equal parts men and women, stood unified in their pain as all admitted they’d lost custody of their children through long, messy court battles. “The status quo has got to go,” said Sharon Neary, using her maiden name. Neary says she has three children, but doesn’t see two of them due to a poor relationship with her ex-husband. “It’s a form of mental and emotional abuse. Everybody knows about it, but now it’s got a name — parental alienation. “Children deserve to chose the right to be loved by both parents.” Paulette MacDonald, a former volunteer with the Parental Alienation group, and now a co-director with the Canadian Equal Parenting Council, said there are 42 organizations across the county pushing for family law reform for equal parenting. “It removes the incentive for single custody in the legal system,” MacDonald said. Once joint custody becomes mandatory, parents won’t use children as weapons against their former spouse and joint custody will ensure both parents play a part in their children’s life, she said. Perched on the children’s playground equipment at the beach, MacDonald read a statement about forgiveness by Dr. Anita Vestal, who offered a free e-book entitled Making Friends with the “F” Word: 20 Practical Ways to Forgive to those in attendance. At the end of the meeting, and perhaps as a metaphor for a child’s fragility, the assembled group blew bubbles into the cold, strong wind before leaving. As the rainbow bubbles floated away, a set of twins in matching toques and coats chased them giggling, to the water’s edge.

Copyright © 2012 The Barrie Examiner

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/PrintArticle.aspx?e=3544544

Shared Parenting bill from Canadian Senator Anne Cools?

Four in ten Canadian marriages end in divorce, and many of those breakups are not amicable - especially when children are involved. Things can get even more messy if parents aren't able to settle their own differences, and can't agree on the issue of custody. In those cases, it's up to a judge to decide an arrangement based on "the best interests of the child." And in Canada, that typically has meant awarding one parent with primary care.

The latest data from the Department of Justice shows mothers received sole custody in 77 percent of cases, and father in only 9 percent of the cases.  (Note from M. Murphy" To be verified as this is different than Stats Can info, but latter is older)

After making dozens of trips to the Alberta Law Courts for a variety of issues relating to the custody of his two children, Russ McNeill believes the current system isn't working.

"I don't think the judicial system treated me fairly. I don't think it treats any man fairly. I think it's designed to put everybody into a cookie cutter that basically says dads get every second weekend and a mid-week visit," he says.

In addition to draining him and his ex-wife emotionally, McNeill says the system pits the parents against each other.

"I don't see that actually stopping the conflict. If anything it increases the conflict because the other parent feels they're being removed from their children unjustly and they're very angry so they will look harder to find anything possible to find fault with the other parent," McNeill adds.

He would like to see the current model be changed to adopt more of a shared parenting arrangement.
"Go to mediation. Stay away from lawyers."

Dr. Edward Kruk, an associate professor of social work, has been studying the family court system and the effects sole custody decisions have on parents.

"We have kind of a indeterminate or shall we say a discretionary best interest of the child standard where judges are just guided by their own idiosyncratic biases and sort of subjective views of what's best for a child," Dr. Kruk says.

He says what's needed is an approach that still focuses on the best interest of the child, but from the perspective of the child.

"And children are telling us clearly that their best interests are served by equal time with each parent."

Dr. Kruk argues that a parent should not be separated from a child unless there's a proven history of violence.

Senator Anne Cools, who has spent decades studying the psychological effects of separating a child from a parent, is also an advocate of shared parenting.

In 1998, she was a member of a special joint committee that looked at issues of parental custody and access to children. The committee's principal recommendation was that shared parenting should be presumed in family court - a recommendation which has not been accepted by successive governments.

But Senator Cools is not giving up her fight, and is currently working on a bill that would have a regime of shared parenting.

"I want balance and equilibrium and fairness because those children haven an entitlement to meaningful involvement and continuing involvement with each and both of their parents," she says.

Until that happens, McNeill has a piece of advice for other parents who are going through a divorce: "Go to mediation. Stay away from lawyers."
With files from Slav Kornik, Global News

This is part of a two-part series. On Sunday in the second part, we will look at the emotional and psychological effects on parents and children when separated.

© Shaw Media Inc., 2012. All rights reserved.

Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | Examining child custody issues in Canada: Part One

Part 2:    

Parents to share child custody in Switzerland

Another country looks at the best interest of children and determines having contact with both parents on a relatively equal basis, just like in marriage, is appropriate.  Please take note Canadian politicians and judges.MJM

The Local

Parents to share child custody in Switzerland

Published: 18 Nov 2011 11:38 GMT+1
Updated: 18 Nov 2011 11:24 GMT+1
Online: http://www.thelocal.ch/1802/20111118/

The Swiss government has decided separated parents should automatically have joint custody of their children except in cases involving the specific protection of the child.

When a couple splits or gets divorced, custody of their children will be shared without the need for a prior agreement or the approval of a judge.

Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga said on Thursday that the Federal Council considered the move obvious, since a child has the right to build an autonomous relationship with both father and mother.

All political parties, as well as fathers’ and men’s associations, welcomed Sommaruga’s proposal, which is widely expected top pass into law when voted on in parliament in the coming weeks.

But while joint custody is set to become the norm, a judge will still have to sign off on the suitability of both parents to take responsibility for their children. A parent may be denied custody for reasons including infirmity, a history of violence or absence.

Currently, when a couple divorces, one parent generally gets sole custody. If the couple is not married, the mother is the legal custodian. For now, joint custody is only possible if both parties sign an agreement on how they plan to distribute and share alimony and childcare.

The draft proposal also regulates the question of residency. If a parent wishes to move, either alone or with the child, he or she will need the consent of the other party. If there is no agreement, a judge will have to intervene to protect the well-being of the child.

Every year, about 14,000 children in Swizerland are confronted with their parents’ divorce or separation.

Meritxell Mir (news@thelocal.ch)