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.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Katelyn Sampsons Death results in changes focussing on evil men

The death of Katelyn Sampson brought some of the flaws of the Ontario "Justice" System, and Family Law in particular, exposed - like turning over a dead log and seeing the rot underneath complete with the various kinds of multiple legged arthropods reducing the log to its natural state. The decomposition of the family law system and the family itself, however, is still ongoing.

Think of the decomposers running around in the underground labyrinth below and within the log as many - but not all - of your family lawyers eating away at your money and the fabric of our family structure.


Lawyers will tell you they are only doing their job and so it is with the insects under and in the log. They are only doing their job until the fabric of the wood is destroyed and it collapses into the earth. The family is the basic building block of civilization. It is, therefore, the most important link in the ecosystem of humanity. It is being destroyed! Are we seeing the results of over two decades of no fault divorce with over a 1.4 million single parent family households, mostly female, affecting over 3 million children. Is the gang violence and gun use a result of this? Children do far worse in a single family female household. Why?

Families as we know them are changing and the stability of our children impacted by the changes. Here are a few recent facts on families from Stats Can and you can check them out here: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/famhouse/index.cfm

The data shows 51.5 per cent of people over age 15 were unmarried in 2006, marking the first time married people have been outnumbered in the census, which began nationally in 1871.
In the last census, in 2001, 49.9 per cent were unmarried.
The details on marital status were part of a package of census data released about Canada's families, living arrangements and households. Statistics Canada calls this information its "family portrait" of Canadians.
Census highlights include:
  • For the first time, there were more families without children (42.7 per cent) than with children (41.4 per cent).
  • The number of common-law families surged 18.9 per cent since 2001, to nearly 1.4 million families.
  • Common-law families now make up 15.5 per cent of families, while 20 years ago, they only represented 7.2 per cent.
  • Twenty-six per cent of families with children are headed by a single parent.
  • Of the 1.4 million single-parent families, about 20 per cent are headed by men. The number of men at the head of single-parent families is growing more than twice as fast as the number of women.


Over 25% of families are "broken" and given our basic building block of stable society is the family unit it is worrisome. The trend for single family households headed by men going up does not give me cause for celebration unless the mom is very directly involved on more than a regular access schedule. Both parents need to be involved on an equal basis barring abuse or an intransigent partner. The latter is not conducive to helping the children unless a tightly written and enforceable parenting plan is in play.

Bentley's changes to the family law of this jurisdiction will continue destruction of the family although getting criminal records checks of prospective foster parents is a good step. Why not criminal records checks for parents seeking custody? Does no fault divorce mean being a criminal is OK if you are a parent?


A little girl was killed - put in jeopardy by two drug addicted females who lost control of their lives to chemical abuse and were alleged to have resorted to prostitution to raise cash for their addictions. The AG of Ontario then comes out with legislation, the centre piece of which, is criminalizing restraining orders against men. What is wrong with this picture?

The facts are clear but not politically correct to discuss: Females kill or abuse their children in far greater numbers than men; intimate partner violence is initiated in almost equal quantities by males and females against each other; lesbian's have a higher rate of DV than hetero couples and a higher rate than when one of the former female partners was with a male. (For those Politically Correct types or politicians not astute enough to catch my drift - Lesbians are female)

Are we seeing pandering by Bentley to minimize the political damage from letting two hookers sell/trade a child in his courts and then let her die under our current badly broken family law system. Surely a good fiberal like Bentley, a trained lawyer, wouldn't be so unethical by diverting attention to the evil men from the incompetence found in his department and family law? Surely there is no misandry intended in his lead off press release focusing on men as the perpetrators as follows.

Remember, this was a case of two badly damaged and incompetent females bartering for a little girl. They truly believed women have intrinsic "ownership" rights of children as does our current family court system and all its subsidiary support services devoted to women. The bolding is mine.

Given the tone and nature of Bentley's press release supported by his demeanor at the press conference while wearing a white ribbon it is clear his, and the Liberal government's agenda, is to continue to marginalize men. I have downloaded the forms for filing a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and will give filing one serious thought based on gender bias. One other area not part of this sexist proposed legislation, of many, that is clearly as blatantly gender biased is Breast Cancer screening and Prostate Cancer screening. The former is free, there is massive awareness and campaign(s) to support the cure or treatment of Breast Cancer, there is a special day to focus on it. Prostate Cancer kills more men than does Breast Cancer women. It costs over $70.00 to get a screening. Where is the research, special day and support for eradicating this evil killer? You are right - it doesn't exist. Breasts are far more popular with our politicians - especially the males - to the detriment of their own health and well being!

NEWS
Ministry of the Attorney General
STRENGTHENING CHILD AND FAMILY PROTECTION
McGuinty Government Reforming Family Justice For Ontarians


November 24, 2008

Ontario plans to introduce family law reforms today that would, if passed, better protect women and children and reduce the cost and stress of family court proceedings for Ontarians.

The proposed family law legislation would strengthen child and family protection in times of family breakdown and distress by:

(Note the lead off item targeting men)
• Strengthening abuse prevention for women and children by prosecuting breaches of restraining orders as criminal offences

• Protecting children by ensuring information about a violent history is before the court when making decisions to transfer custody to a non-parent

(The following is also targeted at men - generally speaking and trust me it will only exacerbate conflict not help it. What if a valuation is placed on a pension that is far less in value due to things like stock market collapses. Will the man have to pay regardless. Let's wait and see.)
• Eliminating costly battles over the division of pensions by simplifying the rules


(Does the following mean a father will, if laid off or loses his job, or is homeless have child support reduced to account for his loss of financial stability? Lets hope so but why am I cynical?)
• Reducing family court battles and providing fair child support through automatic annual financial disclosure.

QUOTES
“No one should live in fear in their own homes, which is why we propose to change child custody and restraining order laws to protect Ontario’s women and children,” said Attorney General Chris Bentley. “These reforms would also help families going through separation spend less on family court proceedings, and more on getting on with their lives.” (How will we do this Mr. Bentley - please elaborate on your logic. Please elucidate for those of us who do not understand your scribbles. Do you mean the female won't have to go back to court and can lie through her teeth to further eviscerate a former lover - but you said "help families" - are dads not part of families?)


“This new legislation would give women better access to restraining orders, helping to protect them and their children,” said Deb Matthews, the Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues.
“By expanding eligibility and prosecuting breaches as criminal offences, we will have better tools to stop woman and child abuse.”
(Interesting how they keep using women and their children. Given my comments above, which are supported by hundreds of peer reviewed studies linked in this blog that intimate partner violence is perpetrated equally by both sexes and women are more likely, by a wide margin, to kill or injure their children than men - where is the logic? Oh - sorry - it is only PC to blame the man.)

QUICK FACTS
Under the proposed legislation:
• Prosecuting restraining order breaches under the Criminal Code would allow for tougher enforcement and stricter bail conditions
• Restraining order eligibility would be expanded to those living together in a relationship for fewer than three years
• Non-parental child custody applicants would need to provide a sworn statement on how they propose to care for the child, a summary of involvement from a Children’s Aid Society, and a police records check.

LEARN MORE
Check out what others are saying about the proposed family law reforms.
(If you do go to the website you will find not one comment from a mens or fathers rights group. Only self serving lawyers and feminist oriented advocates of women's rights)


Unfair family law reform
National Post Published: Thursday, November 27, 2008
Re: Ontario To Reform Family Law, Nov. 25.
What Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley proposes is to give the courts the right to impose a restraining order which "will be accessible in an emergency from a family judge without the other party being there." The court then has the further right to "prosecute restraining-order breaches under the Criminal Code." Finally: "Anyone applying for custody or access to a child will be required to complete a sworn statement, including how he or she proposes to care for the child."
Let us say, for argument's sake, that a mother seeks to divorce her husband and gain sole custody of, and access to, the children of the marriage. Mr. Bentley has now opened a new door to facilitate this, irrespective of the best interests of the children. All the mother need do is fabricate a spurious charge against her husband, appear before a judge without the husband even being notified and obtain a restraining order.
The husband, being not even aware of the order, may now no longer see his children; if he does, he faces criminal conviction on a charge he did not even know existed. Under the proposed new regulations, not only is it the case that interim custody (to the mother) will determine final custody 90% of the time, as is the current status, but the father will now have to sign a sworn statement declaring his criminal conviction if he is to be allowed to have any access to his children.
Obviously, admission of such criminality will assure his lack of custody or access to his children.
Mr. Bentley's proposal will do more to protect vindictive spouses than children.
Robert Wittes,
Thornhill, Ont.
======================================================================================================================
REFERENCE
Ontario To Reform Family Law
Protect Children
Jordana Huber, Canwest News Service
Published: Tuesday, November 25, 2008

The government of Ontario will make it easier to obtain a restraining order, and will come down harder on those who breach such directives, Attorney-General Chris Bentley said yesterday as he introduced a series of family-law reforms.
Ontario will prosecute restraining-order breaches under the Criminal Code and will increase sentences for contravening an order, Mr. Bentley said.
There also will be new rules regarding child-support payments, division of pensions and custodial arrangements where non-parents are granted guardianship.
"We are going to reform our laws to make sure they work in the difficult times," Mr. Bentley said. "Families in the course of breakup, where one lives in fear, where children live in fear, need the legal supports to protect them."
Under the proposed changes, the eligibility to apply for a restraining order will be expanded to include those who lived together in a relationship for fewer than three years, and will be accessible in an emergency from a family judge without the other party being there.
Mr. Bentley said there are "serious challenges" to enforcing existing restraining-order provisions, and it is unclear how quickly an order can be sought or enforced.
He said the proposed legislation would also make children safer by requiring more evidence for judges to consider when determining the best interests of a child in custody decisions. Anyone applying for custody or access to a child will be required to complete a sworn statement, including how he or she proposes to care for the child, he said.
Non-parents applying for custody also will be required to submit to a police check, and to provide information to the court about any involvement with the Children's Aid Society.
The changes will "strengthen the decision-making process" in the wake of such tragic cases as that of Katelynn Sampson, Mr. Bentley said.
The seven-year-old child was found dead on Aug. 3, in the Toronto apartment she shared with her mother's friend, who had been granted legal guardianship only months earlier.


Male, female abuse victims to be treated equally, ruling states



Download story podcast


10:00 PM PST on Saturday, November 29, 2008
By SANDRA STOKLEY
The Press-Enterprise

Programs that receive state funding to help victims of domestic violence must provide equal services to men and women, under a state appeals court decision that took effect this month.
But several organizations that help Inland-area residents said this week that they are already providing help to men involved in violent relationships.
The decision by the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California domestic violence laws violated men's rights because they provided funding only for women and their children.
"We applaud the ruling," said Protima Pandey, a board member for San Bernardino's Option House, which provides services including emergency housing, transitional housing, counseling and assistance with getting a restraining order.
Domestic violence crosses cultural, racial, religious, income and class lines, and organizations must be prepared to help all who show up at their doors, Pandey said.
"Option House is fortunate enough to have facilities that if a male victim shows up with children, we can provide him with protection," she said.
In its decision, the court said services must be equal but do not have to be identical. For example, an agency that maintains a battered women's shelter can provide a man with a hotel voucher.
The California Department of Public Health's Center for Family Health's domestic violence program is budgeted to receive $20.6 million in 2008-09. That money funds 94 domestic violence shelters.
San Diego attorney Marc Angelucci filed the lawsuit in 2005 on behalf of four men and one of their daughters who were denied accommodations when they tried to leave violent relationships.
Angelucci said that studies show that women are just as likely as men to perpetrate physical violence against their partners.
"It is a huge problem and a very hidden problem," Angelucci said. "But men are less likely than women to report it."
According to the California Department of Justice, in 2007 101 women and 18 men were killed by their spouse, ex-spouse or intimate partner.
"A lot of men are afraid to call police," he said. "They are afraid they will be laughed at or that they will be arrested."
And while women are more likely to seriously injured in a violent relationship, any type of violence has a devastating impact on children exposed to it, Angelucci said.
"It becomes a model for kids to follow," Angelucci said. "Unless you get the men coming forward and give them services, you are continuing the cycle."
KIDS AT RISK
Darryl Evey, director of the High Desert Domestic Violence Program in Victorville, said men who sought help did so out of fear for their children's safety.
Out of 2,011 clients the program helped in 2007-2008, about 20, or 1 percent, were men, Evey said.
"Most of the men who came to us didn't come because they were afraid for their life or feared being put in a hospital," Evey said. "Their fear was abuse against the children."
Because the shelter has accommodations only for women and children, the men are offered vouchers or sent to Valley Oasis, a program that provides shelter for men in abusive relationships.
Eliza Daniely-Woolfolk, chief executive officer of Alternatives to Domestic Violence in Riverside, said her agency has been providing counseling and other services to men for about 11 years.
The agency runs a shelter and provides one-on-one counseling, support groups, anger management programs and therapists who work with both men and women.
DISCRIMINATORY
Angelucci said that as word of the court decision spreads, services provided to battered men should improve.
But he said there is still more to be done.
Web sites for agencies and organizations that offer services to domestic violence victims predominantly feature photos of women and their children.
A Web page with information about spousal abuse on the California attorney general's Web site refers to "she" and "her" exclusively.
"I think it's absolutely outrageous that they stigmatize male victims that way," Angelucci said. "I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am because I thought things were changing."
Reach Sandra Stokley at 951-368-9647 or sstokley@PE.com


Here is some reaction from the real winners in family destruction and the proposed changes to Ontario law , the lawyers, including my ex's.


The Lawyer's Weekly


Ontario Bar welcomes family law overhaul

By Cristin Schmitz
Ottawa
December 05 2008




Ont. A.G. Chris Bentley announces planned reforms Nov. 24 in Toronto that he says will protect women and children from violence and make family law litigation cheaper, fairer and speedier. (Photo courtesy of Jason George)
Click here to see full sized version.


























Ontario has unveiled a package of reforms that family law practitioners say should cut clients’ costs and improve fairness in the areas of child support, pensions and matrimonial property division.

Bill 133, tabled Nov. 24 by Attorney General Chris Bentley, would also make substantial changes to other aspects of family law, including estates, child custody, restraining orders, and changing children’s surnames.

Many of the proposed amendments were the product of province-wide consultation with family law practitioners, Bentley told The Lawyers Weekly. “They have a broad consensus within the Bar and they will make a measurable difference in making, for example, the family law more affordable [and] faster – and I would point to the pension law changes and others.”

The proposed measures were welcomed by the organized Bar, who described them as “a welcome first step” in updating a provincial family law regime that has not seen major reform since 1986.

“It is the County and District Law Presidents’ Association’s position that additional changes are required, and we believe a comprehensive review is needed in the whole area of family law, along with more judicial resources to ensure better access to justice in Ontario,” said the co-chair of CDLPA’s family law committee, Romuald Kwolek of Orazietti Kwolek in Sault Ste Marie, Ont.

“I think it’s great — it’s going to have a huge impact in a lot of areas where we practise,” enthused the chair of the Ontario Bar Association’s (OBA) family law section, Thomas Dart of Burgar Rowe in Barrie, Ont.

“The pension changes will be the biggest changes for most people,” added Dart. “It’s going to significantly reduce costs for clients who have to deal with pension issues.”

Several practitioners told The Lawyers Weekly they support the government’s plan to amend the Family Law Act (FLA) to oblige parents who pay child support to make annual financial disclosure to the other parent. (Some recipients will also have to disclose to payers). Details will be worked out in regulation once the bill is passed, but it will remain up to recipients to enforce the disclosure obligation, if need be by going to court.

Lawyers therefore questioned whether children will benefit much from the change since the government opted not to automatically re-calculate child support, based on payers’ updated financial information — as is now done in Manitoba and some other provinces.

“I am definitely disappointed because I think [a disclosure obligation and automatic recalculation] should go hand in hand,” commented Judith Huddart of Toronto’s Dranoff Huddart.

Bill 133 gives the provincial cabinet regulatory authority to implement automatic recalculations and to enforce production of the required financial information, but the government did not announce an intention to do either, possibly because of budgetary constraints.

Asked whether his government has the appetite to create a recalculation service, Bentley said the issue lies in the bailiwick of the Minister of Community and Social Services, who oversees the Family Responsibility Office.

Huddart said leaving the onus on recipient parents to go to court to force recalcitrant payers to disclose their income is an unaffordable option for most recipients. “Without a recalculation agency are mothers going to be any better off? We could have made this a lot easier by putting teeth in disclosure.”

But she did suggest that the Bill’s removal of the current legal burden on recipients to ask payers for updated income information could make it easier to obtain substantial retroactive child support payments in court, since payers would no longer be able to argue that recipients failed to ask for timely disclosure.

“I really am hoping that the judges are going to get the message that they can make retroactive orders, [and that]... the government will use this as an opportunity to educate more people about what has to be disclosed,” said Huddart.

CDLPA and the OBA praised the government for heeding lawyers’ pleas to bring some certainty to the vexed issues of spousal pension valuation and divisions. Bill 133 aims to reduce, if not eliminate, the phenomenon of dueling actuaries and litigation that frequently occurs when defined benefit pensions, or hybrid defined benefit/defined contribution plans, are valued.

Again, the bill leaves important details to be worked out by regulation. However, the proposed law calls for the non-member spouse to be paid at the time of separation the present value of his or her share of the plan on the valuation date — usually to be placed in a locked-in RSP — except where the pension is already being paid out at the time of separation.

Pensions would be valued by pension plan administrators according to a formula that is to be prescribed by regulation. The new law would apply prospectively to pension divisions that are not already determined under an agreement or court order at the time of proclamation. The projected age of retirement will be determined after consultation with the Bar, in order to make valuations as fair as possible.

There are four changes to the evidence that must be filed with a court in child custody cases. All parents and non-parents applying for custody or access will be required to submit a sworn or affirmed form containing a parenting-type plan, information about the applicant’s previous or current involvement in family or criminal proceedings, and any other known information relevant to determining the child’s best interests.

The specific questions to be addressed will be developed by the Family Law Rules Committee.

Non-parents (i.e. those who are not biological or adoptive parents or who do not have a declaration of parentage) who seek custody (not access) will be required to submit a recent police records check, as well as a form from children’s aid societies specifying whether the person has, or has had, a file with the CAS; whether that file is open or closed; and the dates between which the file was open. A custody applicant who has moved around within the province will apparently have to obtain information from every CAS in the areas they have lived. This and other implementation issues — for example, whether the disclosure obligation applies to CAS involvement only when the applicant was an adult — will be specified by regulation.

Bill 133 will permit breaches of restraining orders to be prosecuted as criminal offences. CDLPA called this “a constructive step forward,” but practitioners suggested the move should cause judges to revisit their common practice of making spousal restraining orders mutual in those cases where the behaviour of only one spouse is problematic.

In another change called for by the Bar, Bill 133 will permit debts on the marriage date that were “directly related to the acquisition or significant improvement” of the matrimonial home to be excluded from the debtor spouse’s net family property.

Family law lawyers said it is most unfortunate that the government chose not to implement the Bar’s request to fix an unfair anomaly in the FLA’s definition of “matrimonial home” which financially penalizes spouses who bring their residences into the marriage if they and their partners happen to still be living in that residence when they separate. Whether the homeowner spouse has to share the marriage-date value of the property with the other spouse shouldn’t depend on whether they are still living in the property at the time of separation, they said.

“It’s just wrong,” remarked Harold Niman of Toronto’s Niman Zemans Gelgoot. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

The bill would permit a parent who is left off a birth certificate to apply to have their surname added to their child’s surname.


6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Congratulations!
You have been picked as one of our Fathers Rights Stars at:
http://frnaked.blogspot.com/

Michael J. Murphy said...

Well shucks gee golly whiz anonymums we meet up again. I am so happy to be the recipient of your Nov. 25, 2008 award.

I do get lots of visitors from your wonderful country and spring is coming soon down there in OZ so will we have a presentation with all expenses paid in Melbourne. I have relatives way over in Perth and I might be able to see them while there.

If not - thanks for the memory anyway and the recognition. I do look better naked than on the site you created for us hard working FR people though but that's not for discussion here.

I've seen your posts in a few places so I'm sure we'll meet again. Have a gday mate!

Anonymous said...

Good guess Michael. Considering you failed to successfully stalk your wife(she did get away), I doubt that we will meet without my choosing. Although I would like to meet that lovely wife of yours that you continue to denigrate on this blog. As I would love to point out to her lawyer that its interesting how you don't take your own advise about alienation as this blog is an excellent example in context. We all know that you are hoping that your child reads this and hates their mother and thats always FRs saddest aim in life.

Michael J. Murphy said...

You are typical of the kind of person who would cover up child abuse and not have it made public which, of course, is abusive in and of itself. I suspect you are an alienator and use the old "end justifies the means" to "get" your ex no matter who gets hurt or what it costs even innocent children.

Do you believe in equal and shared parenting or rather subscribe to the notion the female owns the children. Given you are from OZ I suspect you are one of the dissidents over the legislation in your country. With that kind of legislation children would be better sheltered against the abuse that, in most countries, comes from the mother not the father. That includes children's deaths and injury.

You are also typical of the many internet trolls who don't have the courage to stand up and be counted when it comes to criticism but hide behind the cloak of so-called anonymity and impugn peoples character from the "bushes". So brave, so courageous so full of richness of character.

My ex, by the way, is not worth stalking. She is a self described, mentally ill (4 different problem areas) convicted criminal - against her spouses employer - and who deserves someone as "caring" as you to look after her and keep her out of trouble. Perhaps you would be lucky enough she wouldn't commit theft fraud and forgery against your employer, alienate your children against you, ruin a family business, have relationships outside of your marriage, to name a few, if you indeed work and are not on the "dole", like so many of your peers, She likes females as well as males and may be able to keep you satisfied long enough to stop trolling for awhile.

I always wonder how, otherwise normally intelligent people can get so wrapped up in an ideology they lose sight of the most important things in life one of which is family. Would you destroy your children's emotional attachment to your spouse to "get" him?

Seems to me you just might and then you would want it covered up so the abuse would not be available for all to see in the court of public opinion. Sad state of affairs - don't you think. And then of course, you would use the flimsy excuse that he was just trying to use the information to do the opposite. Such logic could only come from an alienator methinks because you sound just like my ex. Go figure.

Thank you though for taking the time to read the information. I do get a lot of traffic from OZ and hopefully my experiences will help someone stop in its tracks the alienation of innocent children - for through knowledge comes better focused actions. By the way - more and more people are blogging their experiences, some based on my advice and experience. You know what - it will help children in the long run and perhaps shared and equal parenting will come to other countries where dads and many moms like me will not feel so helpless.

Anonymous said...

Being anonymous, we are not the ones alienating our children. They do not know what we write. As for you, no words can camouflage what you are doing to your children and the one who gave birth to them. You cannot run, you cannot hide and one day you will reap the rewards of your actions. Its called, "responsibility". It is also revealing to see your assumption that a person who has time to do this is on welfare benefits - Is that something your accustomed to? I note that as a very unintelligent guess, obviously from a person who is accustomed to failure and only knows how to take from others. Mr Murphy, it is you that has created a very sad world for yourself and only you are at fault for that.

Michael J. Murphy said...

Hah the anonymumy trolls are back with more of their wisdom from down under. I know only too well that the vast majority of folks like you spend a great deal of your time trolling, cutting and pasting and then anonymously try to ridicule those of us who are standing up to be counted.

Trust me a great number of you are getting what you believe are your entitlements, much of which is to sponge off the taxpayers in one form or another. Its big business. Heck the government in my province alone spends $208,000,000.00 on women only not including welfare. Not one thin dime on men no matter how battered we get by a woman. (ps I'm no 99 pound weakling either)

You have little credibility and make less sense. You are so obviously tied up in a dogma and ideology you seem to care little that my children have been psychologically and physically abused by a criminally convicted, mentally ill woman, who like you has boobs and to many of the feminist judges that's all that matters. You are like the Luddites who would rather cover up abuse in the name of what? Political Correctness. Give me a break. Be thankful you can remain anonymous and you can keep your skeletons in your closet, and, I'm sure, sterling reputations intact!

I am one of many men willing to put everything on the line who will change that maam. Take my word for it! My world was made sad by someone just like you but I will change that as well. My children will have two parents in their lives not one and a visitor.

You know doubt have already alienated your children from your former partner and now have to find support and justification for child abuse. There is no justification.

By the way Happy New Year and happy trolling!