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.

Friday, July 31, 2009

Stunning National Post “media bias” case results in settlement of a defamation lawsuit

The Family Advocate - July 25, 2009 * Vol. 1, #6 Undoing a Smear By Christopher JONES, ECMAS Director, Edmonton AB

A quiet legal victory occurred here in June 2009. Dr. Ferrel CHRISTENSEN accepted a settlement in a defamation lawsuit against the National Post and CanWest Global Communications for untrue allegations made against him in an article entitled “Scandal Taints Fathers’ Rights Group” published April 17, 2001. Dr. CHRISTENSEN received a full written retraction, the right to publicize all documents that had been revealed during the course of the case, as well as an amount of money which far exceeded his legal expenses of $100,000 (he is unable to reveal the exact financial terms/details of this settlement). Although not identified ECMAS is also exonerated by the facts exposed in these documents. All case files are available at: www.fightforhonestjournalism.ca.

Defamation suits prove Mark TWAIN’s maxim that “a lie can go around the world while truth is still lacing up her boots” - and such sensationalism was present in this smaller drama. The outrageously tawdry associations made in the National Post article attempted to paint the leadership of ECMAS as unacceptably tolerant (indeed, almost welcoming) of sexual predators and pedophiles. Despite being absolutely UNTRUE, it played into longstanding smears of men’s rights and equal-parenting groups.

Much of the smear was based on mischaracterizations of an obscure book Dr. CHRISTENSEN published in 1999 entitled “Pornography: The Other Side”. By reasonable standards, it is a fairly dry, tame, academic exploration of the history of social mores and attitudes towards sexuality. I would attest that I could not find anything that endorses pedophilia and that it fulfills none of the flimsy allegations made by Donna LAFRAMBOISE in her National Post article. It became clear through her testimony that despite claiming to have read this book, she had in fact depended heavily upon mischaracterizations from the main protagonist and had only actually read selected passages.

Another “fact” in the offending article presented an active volunteer, Paul ADAMS, in a very poor light based on his disbarment for his previous sexual misconduct involving a young client (he was saved by a pre-arranged police sting operation before any act occurred). Undoubtedly, Mr. ADAMS paid in full for the consequences of his stunningly poor judgment (which occurred after his own divorce) by being disbarred and detained. He accepted this punishment. After that, the significant time and expertise Mr. ADAMS generously volunteered in ECMAS meetings free of charge was not recognized as valued community rehabilitation but unfairly portrayed as devious exploitation. After this LAFRAMBOISE article he dropped out of regular participation in ECMAS activities.

It was shocking to learn of the methods employed by the supposed journalist. She displayed a complete disregard for engaging in a fair, accurate or balanced reporting of events, and indeed was an active participant in concocting the smear through unconscionable pressure tactics, misrepresentations, untrue characterizations, lack of fact-checking or objective evaluation. Furthermore, The National Post failed to exert any oversight whatsoever over the reporter’s actions, even after being repeatedly notified of severe problems with the reporter’s story and process. The lack of dialogue with any editor gave way to threats of legal actions which were also blithely ignored. It should come as no surprise that even today, The National Post yet to define a clear Ethics Policy1 for reporters.

This victory stands as a complete exoneration of Ferrel CHRISTENSEN and by implication ECMAS. Before Ferrel retired from his position as Professor at the University of Alberta Philosophy Department, he held a special expertise in the Philosophy of Science. For 25+ years he has been a major force and proponent of true gender equality and Men’s Rights by helping to found and support groups in Edmonton and throughout Alberta like MERGE (Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality) and ECMAS (Equitable Child Maintenance & Access Society).

The legal battle has been a long, hard fought fight – one that many others may have given up when pressed so hard financially and by such a formidable opponent as National Post/CanWest. Most telling however has been CanWest’s own failure to publicize its own retraction and draw some attention to their journalistic weaknesses and operational shortcomings. It remains to be seen if The National Post/CanWest will adopt broader ethics practices consistent with its major role in the Canadian media spectrum.

Footnotes

1) This story investigated the ethical implications of investigative journalists misrepresenting themselves in order to conduct undercover investigative news pieces. In the process they polled major newspapers across Canada only to find that none had a publicly available, written ethics policy to help guide journalists in these activities. See “Lying to get the truth” by Shannon FAY. University of King’s College NS - Department of Journalism, Review, Vol. XIII, Issue 5, April 2009. www.kjr.ca

The Family Advocate is published by CEPC (Canadian Equal Parenting Council).

A short succinct video on the definition of Parental Alienation

J. Michael Bone is a Clinical Psychologist with many years of experience in dealing with Parental Alienation.

From OZ ~ Some truths about gender dynamics and Family Law

Amfortas is an Australian Psychologist: Stolen generation Pt.1. (Two Parts, by Amfortas) http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/stolen-generation-part-one A professional analysis of the Family Court’s ‘Bible’ that justifies the ‘ least detrimental alternatives’ to the traditional family. “We have a generation of fathers who are shell-shocked, heartbroken”. It was Adolph Hitler who first said that people will take any reduction to their freedom if you tell them it is in the best interests of the children. Could we not have a non-detrimental alternative, Amfortas asks. Stolen Generation Pt.2. http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/stolen-generation-part-2 The Family Court brings about the detrimental conditions that lead to a delinquent culture of fatherlessness in children. The ‘most deserving parent’ is chosen on genitalia. Professionals make judgements that cause parental alienation syndrome. A juggernaut is driven over Magna Carta. An equal society is replaced by a superior class of people. Give a Dog a Bad Name. Pt.1. (Two parts, by Amfortas) http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/give-a-dog-a-bad-name-part-1 The mass media is anti-male by commercial design. Comprehensive study data shows the depth of disrespect for men. Even ‘Old-school’ feminists are appalled at the damage being done to men. The media is ‘Wrong, both factually and morally”, says MRA Amfortas. Government pays for an agitprop war on men’s reputation to frighten women. At what cost? Give a dog a Bad Name. Pt.2. http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/give-a-dog-a-bad-name-pt-2 Women have unconsciously adopted a habit of disrespecting men. “Men are feeling profoundly disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted” and are withdrawing their support and protection of women. Society, and women in particular, are losing a valuable resource needed for its healthy continuance. The Love of men. Is this what women want? Sacred Cows in the China Shop. Pt.1. (Two parts, by Amfortas) http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-sacred-cows-in-the-china-shop-part-one A female economist, Dr Jennifer Roback Morse takes on a leading Feminist in a debate. Women’s Studies Depts’ have no legitimacy and should be closed. They are academically bogus and “Ideologically biased”. A men’s Studies Dept could be better trusted to seek truth and answers to urgent social questions. Women dominate Universities and are driven by bias. Sacred Cows in the China Shop. Pt.2. http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-sacred-cows-in-the-china-shop-part-two A ‘Life studies dept’ would serve society better than a ‘woman’s studies Dept. “50 million unborn babies have died for women’s rights”. Enough is enough. University cobbled Feminists ‘cherry pick’ studies and ignore contrary evidence to present false ideas to the public, corrupting their intellectual obligation and actively creating and manipulating a negative and destructive image about men. Feminism is NOT good for Women. Pt.1. (Two parts, by Christian J) http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/web-log-aft-cj-debunking-feminism Post WW2 Feminism adopted Marxist ‘conflict’ model, pitting a new ‘Class’ of oppressed women against an imaginary exploitative ‘patriarchy, according to Female Economist Jennifer Morse. Christian J narrates how women adopted it to assuage and project their guilt and resentment after so many male deaths in wars to defend them. Women were in work since WW1 and had parity in University education before WW2, long before the Feminist revolution of the 70s. Feminism is NOT good for Women. Pt.2. http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/webcast-feminism-is-not-good-for-women-part-2 Christian J continues to show how the destruction of marriage and Family is against women’s best interests and is leading to profound unhappiness. Women participate in the public sphere by chemically neutering themselves during the peak child-bearing years. “The infertile career woman - and her close cousin, the single mother -is not exactly by choice, but more by default. These women are extremely disappointed.” Also on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmz2yLBTS2w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwhatmenaresaying%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.1. ( Three parts; 2 by Amfortas and one by Christian J) http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-lying-about-domestic-violence-part-1 The ‘women’s Safety Survey’ was “uncorroborated, biased and manipulated” ‘Advocacy research’ orchestrated by the Office for the Status of Women and passed off as Bureau of Statistics report. It caused an enormous row, says MRA Amfortas. Manipulated definitions and hysterical claims copied from America made innocuous behaviour criminal. DV sells commercial products to women and expropriates public funds for the fastest growing ‘Industry in Australia. Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.2. http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-lying-about-domestic-violence-part-2 Three other sources of ‘official’ data which are routinely manipulated and presented to support DV lies are analysed by Amfortas and compared to Independent University research which completely contradicts the ‘official message’.” It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate.” Deliberately Lying about DV in Australia. Pt.3. The Truth is out there – Somewhere. http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-the-truth-is-out-there-somewhere Christian J narrates how the 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey completely contradicted the Government’s 1996 survey. He also points to the attempts by feminist bureaucrats to manipulate by having ONLY female interviewers to bias the results. Results show women twice as safe as men. The Government has thrown a blanket of silence over it. Feminists maintain an undemocratic stranglehold, expropriating public monies for their anti-male ‘Industry’. The Degradation of Women – by feminism (By Amfortas) http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/amfortas-christian-j-vagina-monologues-the-degradation-of-women “In textbook leftist style, feminist supporters of the play ’Vagina Monologues’ cloak their attack on normal family values and morality under the guise of promoting awareness about violence against women. One does not have to be a prude to see a weak excuse for pornographyand an anti-male agenda. But to disguise it as ‘awareness of abuse’, is an abuse of women’s minds and sensibilities.” Amfortas lauds Bridget Blanton for her stand and protests and against the glorification of lesbian rape of young girls. The Wages of Spin (Pod by Amfortas. Also in video, see below)) http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/the-wages-of-spin Amfortas narrates the analysis of Paul Elam of the Pay Gap Myth, showing the mendacious and partial statistics promoted by politicians to anger women for political advantage. Women’s choices are intelligent and nurturing while men not only work longer hours but take the dangerous jobs that pay more. Dr Warren Farrell’s early rationales are sustained. Everyday Family Terrorism (Pod by Amfortas. Also in video. See below)
“When Momma ain’t Happy, Nobody’s Happy”. http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/everyday-family-terrorism Amfortas and Paul Elam show how domestic violence and a lot worse are often caused by ‘controlling’ women who are willing to destroy their families to have their own way. Dr Eric Berne’s ‘Games’ are described including the major cause of broken families, the “Let’s you and Him Fight” strategy which uses the Police and Family Courts. Is Feminism a Hate Movement? (By Amfortas) http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/is-feminism-a-hate-movement Amfortas narrates MRA Fidelbogan’s well established, clear and logical analysis of the links between the spectrum of disaffection feelings that women have for men and the rise and sustenance of Feminism. This spectrum is lead from the top by hateful, sociopathic women and supported by ‘rent-seeking scum’ women in growing bureaucracies, who take immoral advantage. Video. You Tube.
Everyday Family Terrorism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th0yGBy73GA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fantimisandry%2Ecom%2Fmra%2Dyoutubers%2Fif%2Dmomma%2Daint%2Dhappy%2D20678%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded Paul Elam, Amfortas and Christian J show and tell of the damage done within families and society by intransigent people, in this instance Women, who are prepared to destroy their own families to get their own way. Erin Pizzey documented the effects of showing the Truth about violent women, for which she received Feminist death threats. Dr Eric Berne shows several 'Games' used including the 'let’s you and him fight' game so common today where cops and courts do the dirty work that leaves children unprotected. Video. You Tube

The Pay Gap http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbYU0aeaX1o&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fantimisandry%2Ecom%2Fmra%2Dyoutubers%2Fwages%2Dspin%2D20606%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded Amfortas, Paul Elam and Christianj, examine the myth of the Pay Gap and show, name and shame the political women who lie to get the women's vote. Dr Warren Farrell demolished the mendacious claims but has been ignored by the media. Men do the dirty, dangerous work which pays well while women exercise choices that are more nurturing and 'safe'. The glass ceiling does not exist but the glass cellar does. Excellent video production by Paul Elam.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Florida International University ~ FIU lab investigates the state of fatherhood

By Sissi Aguila

Family roles have changed substantially since the 1950s. Mom now works outside the home. And dad is expected to be more involved in raising the kids. But as parental roles and responsibilities become less defined, psychologists question: Are there essential characteristics of fathering versus mothering?

FIU’s Fatherhood Lab explores these issues and Psychology Professor Gordon Finley, who runs the lab, focuses specifically on how divorce impacts fathers and the development of their children. Finley has found that a father’s role is unique and far too often neglected by the family court system.

Using questionnaires and a retrospective technique in which he asked 1,989 young adults to think back on their relationship with their fathers, Finley found that children of divorce really miss their fathers. According to Finley, they are denied a relationship with them because of present-day family law and court practices.

“Divorce marginalizes or severs a father’s relationship with his child,” he says. “In reality, the father becomes a visitor in his or her life. He is no longer a father in the very literal sense.”

Risky behaviors

For decades, researchers focused on motherhood when studying parenting. Today more attention is being paid to fathers, and the data is consistently showing that fathers are vital to raising happy, healthy and successful children. “They contribute more than bringing home the bacon,” Finley says.

The statistics are alarming: children from fatherless homes account for 63 percent of youth suicides, 85 percent of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders and 71 percent of all high school dropouts. And 37 percent of fathers have no access or visitation rights to their children.

Finley’s research indicates that fathers are more effective at attenuating high-risk behaviors such as sex, drugs and other criminal activities. These behaviors also involve high social costs.

Yet Finley says that his findings on fatherhood do not match today’s social reality or family policy. In divorce cases, the father rarely gets custody (only in about 15 percent of cases) and shared parenting is not equal. Fathers usually see their children only once a week and two weekends a month.

A girl needs her dad

Finley’s findings also suggest that parent-children relationships are not as much about identification or imitation, as once thought, but about transaction. The way a girl learns to become a woman is through her interaction with her father. That will determine how she will relate to men in her adult life.

His study concluded that girls experience a greater impact by divorce than boys.

“The real cost is actually to the daughters of divorce. They don’t have relationships with their fathers. So when they enter adolescence and start questioning whether to have sex, they don’t have a realistic idea of what men are like.”

When evaluating the consequences of divorce for children, balance is critical, says Finley. Society has a vested interest in balance.

Informing social policy

The take-home message, according to Finley, is simple: “Fathers matter. Children need their fathers and, as it turns out, fathers need their children,” he says.

Divorced fathers are eight to 10 times more likely to commit suicide than divorced mothers. They also are higher on most indices of personal and social distress than divorced mothers.

Social policy, Finley argues, needs to catch up to the research: “Family law should be based on social science research – not ideology.”

Finley is a frequent contributor to journals that influence public policy. His study, “Father Involvement and Long Term Young Adult Outcomes: The Differential Contributions of Divorce and Gender,” was published by Family Court Review, an interdisciplinary communication forum for judges, attorney, mediators and professionals in the mental health and human services.

Earlier this year, Finley’s work provided the background for an article on divorced fathers and their adult offspring written for the American Bar Association’s Family Law Journal by Judith Wallerstein. She is a leading psychologist and researcher who conducted a 25-year study on the effects of divorce on the children involved. Wallerstein has had considerable influence on the California court system.

Says Finley, “Today my goals are to continue research but also to shift the foundation of family policy from outdated ideology to current social science through increased public and governmental awareness.”

http://news.fiu.edu/2009/06/fiu-lab-investigates-the-state-of-fatherhood/

In OZ ~ Father's battle for 50-50 custody long and expensive

Finally something from Overington with a dad's perspective that doesn't paint us as abusers or fools. The legislation obviously doesn't adhere well to a presumption of 50-50 if this dad had to spend $10,000.00 Aus. to get it.MJM

Caroline Overington | July 25, 2009

Article from: The Australian

MICHAEL B is one of a small number of Australian fathers who has a 50-50 shared parenting arrangement with his six-year-old son after divorce.

It did not come easy.

"I had to fight for every bit of time we spend together," Mr B said yesterday.

"I had to pay a lawyer $400 an hour. In all, it cost $10,000. But if I hadn't fought, I would have ended up with one weekend a fortnight, and I was so close to my son I couldn't let that happen."

Mr B, who cannot be identified because his son is subject to Family Court orders, said he met his former wife in a South American country while he was working as an engineer there and earning good money.

"She was from the slums," he said. "She had nothing, but that didn't matter to me."

Before long, she was pregnant. The couple's son was born abroad.

"I brought her back to Australia when he was six months old, and we went through the whole thing of getting her a visa," Mr B said.

"For the first year we lived with my parents, my boy's grandparents, in their luxury home.

"Then we got our own place. I had by then assets of nearly a million dollars, and then when my boy was nearly three years old I came home, and the place was empty.

"She'd gone, and taken him with her, and there was a lawyer's letter on the table saying she can't live with me any more, and she's the primary carer, so she's taken my son."

Mr B believes he was a good husband and father, and that his relationship with his son was strong, loving and important.

He said his ex-wife during their marriage had taken up Latin American dancing, and was tutoring and dancing at a salsa school three nights a week, "so I was working full-time and coming home at night and caring for our son, while she was dancing".

He said she also took English lessons and a TAFE course, during which time their son was in childcare. "I couldn't believe that her lawyer was saying that I wasn't an equal parent," he said.

"I believe I did all the right things."

Mr B said he was accused in court of being "a bad husband, a bad father" and he believes that were it not for the Howard government's shared parenting laws, which require the Family Court to presume that a child's best interests are served by having a "meaningful" relationship with both parents after separation, he would not have been given any responsibility for his son, let alone equal time.

"He (the boy) spends Monday and Tuesday with his mum, and Wednesdays and Thursdays with me, and weekends we swap," Mr B said. "We're incredibly close and it has got to the point where I can communicate with (his ex) about him in a good way.

"When I think that we could go back to the old days, where fathers just got screwed, the more I can't believe it."

The Australian was not able to reach Mr B's former wife for comment.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25832216-5013404,00.html

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

The Today show discussing the Baldwin vs. Basinger controversy.

A segment of The Today Show discussing Alex Baldwin's phone call to his daughter Ireland. Its pretty clear Basinger released this conversation for no other purpose but further the alienation of Mr. Baldwin from his daughter and to publicly humiliate him. MJM Source location: http://www.archive.org/details/FathersRights-Episode1

Feminist Opponents of Shared Parenting Get It Right in Parental Alienation/Abuse Accusation Case

July 27th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families

pas-case-joyce-murphyThe Feminist Family Law Movement claims that abusive fathers often employ Parental Alienation as a way to wrest custody from protective mothers in family court. They push for reforms which will make it easier to deny fathers shared custody or visitation rights based on unsubstantiated abuse claims. They also push for laws to exclude evidence of Parental Alienation in family law proceedings.

The FFLM has promoted several cause celebre cases in recent years as a way to garner public sympathy and political support for their agenda. I've investigated many of these cases and have found the FFLM's claims about them to be very inaccurate. I detailed several of these, including the high-profile Genia Shockome and Sadia Loeliger cases, in a co-authored column here.

The most recent of the FFLM's cause celebres cases is the Holly Collins case. Collins fled to Holland with her two children in 1993, claiming that her husband had abused the children and that she needed to flee to protect them. Last year I appeared on a Fox national TV show with Geraldo Rivera and Jennifer Collins, Holly's 24-year-old daughter who supports her mother's version of events. Jennifer Collins claims she's a victim of her father's false claims of Parental Alienation.

At the time of the TV show, which can be seen here, I thought it might be another fake case, but I also thought it might well be true. As I've said and written numerous times, I've never doubted that such cases are possible, though they're not very common. For example, in my co-authored column Protect Children from Alienation (Providence Journal, 7/8/06), I wrote:

[T]here are fathers who have alienated their own children through their abuse or personality defects, and who attempt to shift the blame to their children’s mothers by falsely claiming PAS. Yet parental alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 "high conflict" divorce cases over a 12 year period and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of the cases studied.

As the Holly Collins case continued to grow in prominence, I asked for a volunteer who would help me investigate it, then I decided to go ahead and investigate it myself.

In January I wrote a detailed, 10,000 word analysis of the case which cited all of the case's key court records, documents, etc. This analysis can be found here.

Upon investigation it became very apparent that what we were told by Holly, Jennifer, and their allies about the Holly Collins case was very inaccurate. Subsequent to my investigation, Holly and Jennifer Collins (pictured above on Inside Edition last year) and their FFLM allies have endlessly vilified me on the Internet. However, despite the fact that Jennifer has repeatedly written that she has all of the court documents from her mother's case in her possession, neither Holly nor Jennifer nor their allies have done the obvious--go through the 30 separate problems I detail with Holly's version of events and attempt to debunk them one by one.

I would add that from the moment I wrote up my analysis of each of these three cases--Loeliger (here), Shockome (here), and Collins (here)--not one of these previously prominent cases has received even a small bit of mainstream media attention.

The new Joyce Murphy case, however, is different. From 10News I-Team Reporter Lauren Reynolds' La Jolla Mom Says She Kidnapped Daughter To Protect Her:

Joyce Murphy...is a 20-year employee of the University of California, San Diego, and was married to Henry Parson when her daughter was born...as their child grew, Murphy said, her husband's behavior became disturbing.

"He would wake me up at two o'clock in the morning, tell me about pornography he'd seen and wanted to reenact, and it was pornography about kids."

She became frightened of his post traumatic stress disorder from his tour in Vietnam, which included a story about raping villagers. She filed for divorce in 2002 when her daughter was 6.

A battle ensued in San Diego County Family Court over custody of the little girl.

Murphy claimed that her daughter was afraid of Parson.

"She would cry if she had to be left with him," said Murphy.

The young girl told a doctor that when Parson was angry he pushed down on her shoulders and injured her. The doctor reported it to Child Protective Service, which Murphy said termed the incident inconclusive...

Parsons was granted immediate overnight visits.

"And I just broke," said Murphy. "I thought, either I go to jail or I protect my child. It was like a primal instinct."

Murphy took her daughter and ran. She was arrested in Florida, brought to San Diego and tossed in jail.

She eventually pleaded no contest to felony kidnapping, accepting the charge without admitting guilt. She was placed on probation...

"And I thought, all I'm trying to do is protect my little girl from someone I know is a danger," said Murphy.

So she waited and worried for six years, until a call last November. Murphy had to pick up her daughter, because another young girl had bravely come forward, accusing Parson of molesting her. Parson was now the one behind bars...

The criminal complaint charges Parson with hurting three girls, two of them younger than 14 years old. The charges include oral sex with a child, molestation, possessing child porn and using a child to make porn.

A report from the District Attorney's Office said, "The defendant's computers and camera were seized ... revealed numerous photographs of young girls."

Using those photographs, an Oceanside police officer was able to identify and speak with one of the girls, which led to more charges against Parson.

Joyce Murphy feels vindicated, but it's bittersweet.

"I blame the entire family court system," she said, "because they are not held accountable"...

Joyce Murphy said Family Court's only good decision in her case was granting her full permanent custody of her daughter after her ex husband was jailed.

Henry Parson's daughter is not one of the victims alleged in the criminal complaint.

The full article is here. According to this subsequent report, Parsons pled guilty to the charges and awaits sentencing. Murphy is pictured at the top of this blog post.

One of the organizations which supports Murphy is Stop Family Violence. We have clashed with them repeatedly over the years, including:

During our successful campaign against PBS' anti-father documentary Breaking the Silence, Irene Weiser of Stop Family Violence (along with the National Organization for Women) urged supporters to counter our protest by calling PBS in support of the program.

Weiser and NOW's Marcia Pappas countered my co-authored column NOW at 40: Group's Opposition to Shared Parenting Contradicts Its Goal of Gender Equality (New York Daily News, 7/27/06) with their op-ed Fathers' Responsibilities Before Fathers' Rights.

Stop Family Violence publicly supported Genia Shockome and Holly Collins.

Stop Family Violence, to their credit, did get it right on Joyce Murphy--here's their write-up.

In Murphy's recent testimony to California legislators, she said the problem in her case was her ex-husband's repeated claims of Parental Alienation. The real problem is that, in part because there are so many false accusations and unnecessarily contentious custody cases, courts don't have the time to properly investigate charges of abuse. Often they simply default against the accused (usually the father). At other times, they suspect the mother's allegations but don't thoroughly investigate them, instead defaulting against her claims.

Lorna Alksne, the supervising judge of the San Diego County Family Court, told the reporter writing about the Murphy case that "each judge must juggle between 200 and 300 cases every month. She said the judges read before work, after work and during breaks to be prepared for their full day of hearings."

What's needed is a system which properly and impartially investigates claims, so that children like Murphy's daughter are protected, but women like Shockome and Collins are unable to use false claims to drive their ex-husbands out of their children's lives.

Organizations like Stop Family Violence could play a positive role here by actively counseling women not to make false claims--claims which can lead courts to suspect or not act on the accusations made by legitimately protective mothers like Joyce Murphy. And one way for Stop Family Violence to start would be to publicly disavow false accusers such as Collins, Loeliger, and Shockome.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4029

10News.com

Woman Goes To Extremes To Protect Child From Ex-Husband La Jolla Mom Says She Kidnapped Daughter To Protect Her

Woman's Ex-Husband Now Behind Bars

POSTED: 4:00 pm PDT April 23, 2009
UPDATED: 5:40 pm PDT May 6, 2009
SAN DIEGO -- When Joyce Murphy gave birth late in life to a beautiful, healthy little girl, it was a surprise. Murphy was told she couldn't have children."I was ecstatic," she said.She is a 20-year employee of the University of California, San Diego, and was married to Henry Parson when her daughter was born."In the beginning, he was very charming," she said. But as their child grew, Murphy said, her husband's behavior became disturbing."He would wake me up at two o'clock in the morning, tell me about pornography he'd seen and wanted to reenact, and it was pornography about kids."She became frightened of his post traumatic stress disorder from his tour in Vietnam, which included a story about raping villagers. She filed for divorce in 2002 when her daughter was 6.A battle ensued in San Diego County Family Court over custody of the little girl.Murphy claimed that her daughter was afraid of Parson."She would cry if she had to be left with him," said Murphy.The young girl told a doctor that when Parson was angry he pushed down on her shoulders and injured her. The doctor reported it to Child Protective Service, which Murphy said termed the incident inconclusive."From that point on, I was demonized by the courts," she said.She said she was viewed as a delusional, argumentative trouble maker, while Parson was viewed more favorably. One therapist appointed by Family Court, Marilyn Marshall, wrote that Mr. Parson was "no danger to anyone, especially his daughter.""So this therapist said it was my fears of the father that was making the child afraid," Murphy explained. Parsons was granted immediate overnight visits."And I just broke," said Murphy. "I thought, either I go to jail or I protect my child. It was like a primal instinct."Murphy took her daughter and ran. She was arrested in Florida, brought to San Diego and tossed in jail. She eventually pleaded no contest to felony kidnapping, accepting the charge without admitting guilt. She was placed on probation."I was told I was toxic to my daughter," said Murphy. Her bosses at UCSD stood by her, but she lost her daughter to her ex-husband and was granted only limited visitation."And I thought, all I'm trying to do is protect my little girl from someone I know is a danger," said Murphy.So she waited and worried for six years, until a call last November. Murphy had to pick up her daughter, because another young girl had bravely come forward, accusing Parson of molesting her. Parson was now the one behind bars."This man is a monster, and he hurts little girls," said Murphy. The criminal complaint charges Parson with hurting three girls, two of them younger than 14 years old. The charges include oral sex with a child, molestation, possessing child porn and using a child to make porn.A report from the District Attorney's Office said, "The defendant's computers and camera were seized ... revealed numerous photographs of young girls."Using those photographs, an Oceanside police officer was able to identify and speak with one of the girls, which led to more charges against Parson.Joyce Murphy feels vindicated, but it's bittersweet." I blame the entire family court system," she said, "because they are not held accountable."I-Team reporter Lauren Reynolds posed the question to the supervising judge of the San Diego County Family Court, Lorna Alksne. "Is family court doing a good job?" "Family court is doing an excellent job," Alksne said. She said each judge must juggle between 200 and 300 cases every month. She said the judges read before work, after work and during breaks to be prepared for their full day of hearings. She can't comment directly on the Murphy case, and was not involved, but she acknowledges the need for improvement in how child custody cases are decided. "Family Court has, statewide, some issues on how do you really make a determination on where children should live? "Joyce Murphy said Family Court's only good decision in her case was granting her full permanent custody of her daughter after her ex husband was jailed. Henry Parson's daughter is not one of the victims alleged in the criminal complaint. Parson declined to speak with the 10News I-Team. His attorney has a policy of not commenting on pending criminal cases. http://www.10news.com/news/19265275/detail.html Copyright 2009 by 10News.com. All rights reserved.

In OZ ~ Dads hit out over shared parenting law review choice

Annabelle's choice of language and attack is interesting but not surprising from what I have seen elsewhere. She focuses on the mythology of dad being abusive yet stats clearly show moms are equally so in mutual IPV and in addition in the USA and OZ the biggest abusers and killers of children. The shrieking, however works, as can be seen by the usually hysterical headlines in the media. This one is apt showing dads "hit". That's really a good choice but shows the overall bias. If you notice the Annabelle's of the world almost always get to economic issues rather than what's best for the children. She brings up the canard of child support but the opposite is true. Moms won't get it but they consider it an entitlement. That's one of the reasons why they were the applicant for divorce. What she fails to disclose is dad will still be supporting his children directly. Is mom unable to support herself or her children or get a job or get re-trained. Why in this day and age is that the case? These are fundamental questions. The issue should be having both fit parents in the lives of their children. If one is unfit then deal with it but don't create greater distress for children because a minority of recalcitrant parents are having a tantrum.MJM
Article from: The Courier-Mail

Matthew Fynes-Clinton

July 28, 2009 12:00am

FATHERS' groups have blasted the Rudd Government's appointment of a retired Family Court judge to examine shared parenting laws he has openly criticised.

There are concerns that Richard Chisholm has already made up his mind to recommend ditching the controversial legislation.

"I believe the Government wants to change the law to satisfy the radical feminists and (other) extreme groups that might want to roll back shared parenting," said Shared Parenting Council federal director Edward Dabrowski.

"And Richard Chisholm has already indicated his reticence for shared parenting. That's why he's been brought in.

"The Government has a preordained agenda. (Chisholm's) is an inappropriate appointment. He will give them the result they want."

In a dire warning, Mr Dabrowski said that if the laws were repealed, suicide rates among divorced dads "will increase, without a doubt."

Professor Chisholm emphasised yesterday that he had been asked to review how the Family Court deals with allegations of violence.

However, the University of Sydney honorary professor in law acknowledged that this issue and the shared parenting laws were linked.

The review, announced last week by Attorney-General Robert McClelland, follows an outcry mostly from women that the prescription of shared parenting has resulted in the Family Court ordering children to spend time with violent parents.

In October 2007, Prof Chisholm and Melbourne child psychologist Jennifer McIntosh co-authored an article cautioning against shared parenting of children for high-conflict separated couples.

The paper, published in Australian Family Lawyer, referred to a study by Dr McIntosh involving a Family Court sample of 77 parents and 111 children, where almost half the children left court in a substantially shared-care arrangement (five nights or more a fortnight with each parent).

Four months later, 73 per cent of the shared-care parents reported "almost never" co-operating with each other.

And 39 per cent of the shared-care parents said they were "never" able to protect their children from their conflict.

The Howard Government introduced the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act in 2006 to rectify perceived unfairness in custody orders and assuage concerns about the impact of absent fathers.

The changes direct trial judges and magistrates in the federal family law courts to "presume" that "equal shared parental responsibility" is in the best interests of children.

This means separating parents are legally bound to attempt to make major decisions on their children's welfare jointly.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25842745-953,00.html

In OZ ~ Dads On The Air: Amfortas and podcasts..

Thanks to Christian J. It is good to see opposition to the victim feminist shrieking over shared parenting.

What Men are saying about Women

Christian J.

It is always nice to get some exposure and it's particularly gratifying to see the excellent effort and work by my friend and colleague Amfortas.. Here is a small update and hopefully when they log the podcast I will be displaying it here.. The podcast referred to are available on this on the right hand side.._________>

Dads On The Air Tuesday 28 July 2009 10.30am-12.00 2GLF FM 89.3 and ONLINE The Mandarins and the Masses With Special Guest Amfortas. Over the past week father's activists around Australia have been appalled by announcements from the Australian Labor government that it intends winding back the 2006 reforms to family law which promoted more cooperative arrangements after divorce or separation. The government is conducting three separate inquiries into family law, inappropriately linking the inquiries with domestic violence. Not one of them consults the views of fathers or even the general public. There could be no clearer case of the mandarins regarding the great unwashed with contempt and not trusting their opinions, because after all there is strong public support for shared parenting. Arrogantly, the government is not even pretending to consult dads. One report is by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, often referred to as The Australian Institute of Feminist Studies because of its repeated failure to take men's issues seriously. The next is by the Law Council of Australia, who's feminist stances are also well known. And finally retired Family Court judge Richard Chisholm is conducting another review. His open hostility to shared parenting is well known and he is perceived by many as displaying the worst characteristics of the old style of Family Court, which almost invariably treated fathers with contempt. It was Chisholm who several years ago showed his true stripes by ridiculing separated fathers in a ditty he performed at a family law conference. Thanks to his blatant biases, many see his appointment as entirely inappropriate. A better choice would have been Michael Green QC, author of the book Shared Parenting. That this government is prepared to overthrow the popular reforms to our despised family law system and return the country to the dark ages when the majority of fathers entering the court rarely if ever saw their children again defies belief. The government's kow towing to the wild exaggerations of the taxpayer funded domestic violence industry and the peddling of hysterical hatred against men has sickened many. Against this background, this week we play samples from the compelling podcasts compiled by a private practicing psychologist with 25 years experience who is driven by his own experiences and the experiences of many of his clients. He goes by the handle Amfortas, after the keeper of the Holy Grail. "I am a men's rights activist who is fighting against the excesses of feminism and the deleterious affects they are having on our public policies, particularly as they affect families and children," he says. "I am not at all embarrassed by the use of the term men's rights, even if its unfashionable. Men's rights are part of human rights." The podcasts can be found at http://soundcloud.com In the Stolen Generation podcast he declares: "There is no suggestion that obstructing the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent or undermining his or her parental authority is to be considered abuse or neglect. The sole custody model is first stage parental alienation. Parental alienation is child abuse. It follows that the sole custody model is child abuse." The podcasts provide a professional analysis of the Family Court’s ‘Bible’ - In The Best Interests of Children: The Least Detrimental Alternative - that justifies the ‘ least detrimental alternatives’ to the traditional family. "We have a generation of fathers who are shell-shocked, heartbroken," he says. "It was Adolph Hitler who first said that people will take any reduction to their freedom if you tell them it is in the best interests of the children. Could we not have a non-detrimental alternative?" He argues The Family Court's culture and style of orders bring about the detrimental conditions that lead to a delinquent culture of fatherlessness in children. "The ‘most deserving parent’ is chosen on genitalia," he says. "Professionals make judgements that cause parental alienation syndrome. A juggernaut is driven over Magna Carta. An equal society is replaced by a superior class of people." We close the show listening to his podcast Give a Dog a Bad Name, in which he argues the mass media is anti-male by commercial design. "Comprehensive study data shows the depth of disrespect for men," he says. "Even ‘Old-school’ feminists are appalled at the damage being done to men. The media is wrong, both factually and morally. Government pays for an agitprop war on men’s reputation to frighten women. At what cost?" Next week: DOTA's Canadian Special, with Member of Parliament Roger Galloway, family lawyer Karen Selick and retired professor of Men's Studies, Jeffrey Asher. If you haven't visited us for a while, please check out the wonderful redesign of our website thanks to the superb efforts of our researcher Greg Andresen. It is now less cluttered, more functional and much more stylish.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Indulging craziness

This opinion piece hits on target discussing the era of various paranoia's evident in society, including most Western democracies with some exceptions. I love that phrase "Compassion Fascism" especially when you think of victim feminism and the lazy law makers who continue to placate the whiners with more entitlements.MJM
James Lewis | July 26, 2009
I'll bet this has happened to you. Some friend or relative is a little bit nuts -- maybe they just are, or maybe they have been burned by painful experiences. So they get very anxious about imaginary threats and outraged by imagined injustices. Maybe they're paranoid because they're smoking dope, or they drive drunk because they're young and stupid and think it's cool. Or maybe they're just jealous of people who look happier, or prettier, or have better toys. It's just ordinary human folly.
And to keep the peace, we indulge their craziness.
That's our biggest mistake. That's why we are in such trouble as a people and a culture.
We have been taught to indulge craziness. It's supposed to show that we're "compassionate". Psychiatrists know this: If you let crazy folks set the rules, you have to get crazy right along with them. It doesn't matter if your client is crazy for good reasons. The cause doesn't matter one little bit. Good therapists are taught never to indulge craziness, because that just makes everything worse. Alcoholics Anonymous has long understood exactly the same thing. Real compassion doesn't mean joining people in the pits. That just means that you get two crazy people instead of just one. And then you get more and more, as the phony compassion spreads.
Our culture is now actively teaching racial paranoia to blacks, gender paranoia to women, and abuse paranoia to everybody with a beef. All those exaggerated fears and phony fits of rage have been cynically whipped up by the Left to grab more power. That's their Compassion Fascism. The rest of us go along, because we don't want to be bothered to stand up against it. But in the aggregate, over time, we have become a culture driven loopy by race, gender, and group paranoia. We have adopted the madness of the most race-obsessed people, and made them rich. Over time, they have worn down our sanity, so that our culture has literally gotten crazy.
Obama's first crazy-making person was probably his father substitute in Hawaii. By all accounts Frank Marshall was a race-obsessed black guy. It's not that he was wrong to feel angry, at the time. There were a ton of injustices against blacks. It's rather that he turned his pain into fanatical campaign of hatred, spreading it around to everybody else. That was Obama's first father figure in Hawaii.
Enter Henry Louis Gates, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama: All of them built fame and wealth on paranoid race politics. Enter Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Barbara Boxer (I'm no lady, I'm a Senator!), and an endless Conga Line of victim feminists. Look what those folks have done to Sarah Palin -- a high-tech lynch mob, driven mad with envy of Palin's good looks, popularity and joie de vivre. In the universities raging feminists, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Queer Studies nabobs -- among others -- have exploited the career specialty of victimology. It's a standard way to get tenure and promotion -- by slander, rumor-mongering and intimidation. We've seen the faculty lynch mob at Duke U going after white lacrosse players. At Harvard, it's how the Left fired Larry Summers for daring to tell the truth.
Summers used to be a respectable economist, more or less, but now he is toeing the mendacious Obama line on the economy. Is it possible he was just burned at Harvard? Maybe Larry learned fear of the lynch mob at Harvard U, and Obama now has him under his thumb.
You see fear in the eyes of white guys around Obama. Brian Williams has his eyes cast down. Tim Geithner has this little head bow, looking at Obama with fear in his eyes while keeping his head bowed down. They look for all the world like Step ‘n Fetchit. That's all very amusing for purposes of racial revenge, but it means Obama is surrounded with lying commissars who fear to tell him the truth. Michelle is even scarier than hubby, and must be a terror in the White House. It was Michelle who got IG Walpin fired from her private playpen, Americorps. It's Michelle who is the child of the Chicago Machine, after all.
So this White House really does have Czars - Obama being Numero Uno -- and a Czarina -- Michelle, who supports the atmosphere of intimidation. If Obama seems badly out of touch with reality, the answer should be obvious: By spreading fear he guarantees that his commissars will lie to him. That's how the Roman Caesars drifted more and more out of touch as they gained more and more power. It's how Europe's monarchs managed to live in isolated splendor, totally in a glass bubble. It's how the Chinese and Japanese courts began to live out a Noh play.
Humans have a hard time facing reality. Power-hungry people drift into their own fantasy world by cutting off the truth-tellers. This is the most fantasy-driven administration in US history. That will be their downfall, as we are already beginning to see right in front of our eyes.

Botched judge threat probe downs Fathers 4 Justice website

This is interesting and hopefully doesn't display the capabilities of these people to find real terrorists through the deciphering of email headers. Tracing an email to its home server is not a complicated task.MJM

Taxpayers stung for unjust email injunction

Exclusive The government faces accusations of technical incompetence and waste after it went to the High Court to shut down the Fathers 4 Justice website, wrongly claiming campaigners had threatened to publish the home addresses of 237 judges.

Lawyers for Matt O'Connor, the controversial group's founder, are now preparing action against the Ministry of Justice to recover costs and damages from taxpayers. He alleges civil servants failed to perform basic checks on the origins of the threat before launching a legal attack.

The battle began in late June, when the Ministry of Justice received an email falsely purporting to come from O'Connor. It said Fathers 4 Justice would expose judges on its website as revenge for perceived unfairness in family court decisions.

Officials responsible for the security of HM Courts Service commissioned lawyers in the Treasury Solicitor's Department, which provides legal services across government, to get an emergency injuction against O'Connor, ordering him to shut down the Fathers 4 Justice website.

It was granted by the High Court on July 16. Failure to comply would have landed him in jail for contempt of court, so O'Connor duly took the website offline.

His lawyers immediately began an appeal against the injunction and fought for the Ministry of Justice to disclose the email at the centre of the case. Once they did, O'Connor said, it was obvious the threat did not come from him or the genuine Fathers 4 Justice website.

Last Wednesday 22 July, the government withdrew the injunction.

"I'm not a techie but any fool could have looked at the Message-ID and seen it was a fake - a 10-year-old could have done it," O'Connor told The Register, adding that no attempt was made to verify the email by contacting him directly.

"Someone there is either extremely gullible or vindictive."

In a statement, HM Courts Service said it was continuing to probe the threatening email.

"The injunction sought to prevent the publication of sensitive information. Following representations from the parties on the origins of the email, we have discontinued our injunction and are continuing our investigations elsewhere," it said.

O'Connor is now preparing defamation proceedings against the government because materials disclosed by the Ministry of Justice showed officials shared details about the fake email with other departments, and with the 237 judges threatened.

"All those judges think I made personal threats against them," he said.

Perceived threats to the security of the judiciary are taken very seriously. Earlier this year a Sheffield man was arrested because of his peripheral involvement in administering the activist website Indymedia.

Police demanded to know the identity of a user who posted the home address of a judge who had just handed down jail sentences in a landmark animal rights extremism trial. The man remains on police bail (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/10/indymedia/). ®

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/27/f4j_moj/

Sunday, July 26, 2009

In OZ ~ Chief Justice questions parenting laws

I find it counter intuitive this concern over violence as it relates to the investigation of shared parenting. It almost sounds like hysterical shrieking by a matriarchy in the courts and government followed by sycophantic victim feminist apologist lawyers. If one can logically think about the situation in that the most dangerous and violent place for a child is in a single parent female home then shared parenting will make the child safer. Hopefully sanity will prevail but given the number of victim feminists including this Chief Justice it doesn't look promising. It won't be the first time the victim feminist shrieking about how oppressed they are wins the day but watch for a serious backlash. Turning back the clock to create greater inequality for fathers is not a principled action to take based on no evidence and lots of whining.MJM

Michael Pelly | July 27, 2009

Article from: The Australian

FAMILY Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant has described the contentious shared parenting laws as "problematic" and the expectation of fathers as "a concern" as the government embarks on three inquiries into family violence.

The Chief Justice also says punitive costs orders for those who raise false allegations of violence have been counter-productive and that women fear being branded "unfriendly".

Her comments yesterday followed the announcement on Friday that former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm will head a review of the entire family law system, with an emphasis on how it handles violent situations.

The Australian Law Reform Commission has also been asked to develop a national legal framework to tackle family violence and the Institute of Family Studies is due to deliver its reviewing of the shared parenting laws in December.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland has cited the case of three-year-old Darcey Freeman, who was thrown from Melbourne's Westgate Bridge by her father in January, as a reason for the review. There has been considerable disquiet over the Freeman case inside the Rudd government. Leading the charge has been Housing and Status of Women Minister Tanya Plibersek, former shadow attorney-general and Minister for Health Nicola Roxon and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Jenny Macklin.

Chief Justice Bryant said "nothing was raised before the court about violence".

She said there were many ways to bring concerns of violence to the attention of the court. "A Form 4 (which gives notice of child abuse or family violence) was not filed and there was nothing on the file to suggest one had tried to be filed."

The Chief Justice said the shared parenting provisions of the act -- section 65DAA and 61DA -- were "problematic".

But she said the principal issue concerned perception of the reforms, which created a presumption that the best interests of the child were served by a meaningful relationship with both parents after divorce.

However, at the time of the 2006 reforms, it was sold to the public as an "equal time" provision rather than a starting point that could be altered due to the circumstances of the case.

"It is problematic in that it is creating problems in the community because people do not understand the act," the Chief Justice said. "It's not seen as a concern inside the court, but the expectations are the parties are a problem."

This was backed by senior family lawyers who said the fathers in particular came to them with firm expectations.

"We have these terrible expressions, which say there shall be a presumption of joint responsibility," said Stephen Winspear of the Victorian Law Institute.

"That is not joint time but as soon as it says the word 'joint' people jump on it and think they have got all these rights. You have to be careful; language is dangerous," he said.

The editor of Australian Family Lawyer, Ian Kennedy, agreed: "The sausage is fine. It's the sizzle that is causing the problem."

The head of the family law section of the Law Council, Geoff Sinclair, drew attention to section 117AB of the Family Law Act which deals with costs orders where false allegations are made.

"It should not be there," said Mr Sinclair. "It may stop people raising issues they are legitimately concerned about."

Chief Justice Bryant also said it "may have led to misunderstandings and may dissuade women from raising issues of violence and abuse".

"There is also concern that they might be branded 'unfriendly' if they raise allegations of violence and that they don't pursue them because of that," she said.

Opposition sites to Bill C-422

Just for fun I'm going to keep a list of sites I discover that oppose Bill #C-422 and then also just for fun try and see what the political leaning is. I'm Apolitical not having any particular leaning with the exception of away from the NDP, typical socialists who operate in a vacuous wasteland of whining about whatever appears to get sound bites on any particular day. They are the "No Dads Party" but perhaps they will see the equalism in keeping children in the lives of both fit parents, or ideology may block it as is the case of the socialists in the UK. The public opinion poll shows NDP voters favour equal parenting. As a student of Politics, a non religious person (agnostic for those of you who like labels) and a student of human nature it allows for my intellectual (what there is of it) curiosity to see where ideology crosses over from fairness, common sense and in the case of the new brand of feminism, an explanation (or not) of how it strayed from equality for all to the "I'm an oppressed victim of the patriarchy", (we men). I also like to compare these North American Victim Feminists (there are men that fit this definition as well as you will see) to real oppression such as we have seen with the drowning of the 4 women at the hands of real and deadly patriarchs lurking inside a religion. These are the ones so far and please note how they link to one another or use quotes from other articles that fit their political or ideological viewpoint. http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/maurice-vellacotts-private-bill-c-422-bad-news-mothers-and-children This article is on a very left wing site and the author martin dufresne is a long standing feminist, albeit of the male variety. I have always wanted to find out why men like Dufresne get so ideologically wrapped around a female centric, currently a victim oriented version of feminism. He operates a Montreal based translation service here. Are men like him self-loathing in that they condemn - not just one man - but all men as unfit to be a parent? I think it says a lot about him but not much about the rest of us. Martin Dufresne is a profeminist activist based in Quebec. Long involved with Montreal Men Against Sexism, he monitors Male Lobby activity, notably the so-called "fathers' rights" movement and "alternatives to justice" for wife batterers and child rapists. He is a co-founder of FIVERS (Feminists against Intimate Violence Empowerment, Resistance and Support), an international Internet discussion list dedicated to ending sexist violence. (To join, e-mail: fivers@yahoogroups.com). Here is a little bit of his propaganda which has no citations as usual:

The organization Quebec Men Against Sexism (Secretary: Martin Dufresne: martin@laurentides.net) sent out this press release to commemorate the Montreal Massacre, which it calls a "terrorist attack." Here's a bit of it:

(Quebec City, November 24, 2004)--A detailed database assembled by Quebec Men Against Sexism indicates that no fewer than 594 women and 172 children and youths have been murdered by men (or by unknown parties) in Quebec since the antifeminist rampage of December 1989 at Ecole Polytechnique. And these are only the cases where bodies have been found and identified and victim names made public, an acknowledgement often denied to children and to... This site http://canadawomen.blogspot.com/2009/07/bill-c-422-equal-shared-parenting.html is a Victim Feminist location operated by an unidentified person. Anonymity has its perks I guess. This site is operated by a Grandmother named Emily Dee from Kingston, ON who switched from being a red-Tory to a liberal. (No apparent difference that I can discern but I am not suggesting it is a bad thing). What she may not understand is Count Iggy her new political guru supports equal shared parenting in one of his books. She may have to go to the No Dads Party which is a tad further left again. She quotes Dufresne's article and is entitlement oriented and concerned about the religious right. I hadn't heard of the Promise Keepers for a very long time until reading this. This is an interesting blog hit with the referral emanating from a private que on rabble.ca the leftist ideologue site. It is a taxpayer supported institution that is now called E-health - yes the one with all the scandals. Is it also a hot bed of feminism? We'll see. I'm recording the info for now just in case we taxpayers are being abused again with employees using government computers and time for personal use. I also see one from Ryerson University so the feminist network may be gearing up for greater opposition.
VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referrerhttp://rabble.ca/privatemsg/view/2084
Host Name
IP Address142.47.24.212 [Label IP Address]
CountryCanada
RegionOntario
CityToronto
ISPSmart Systems For Health Agency
Returning Visits0
Visit Length4 mins 18 secs
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
BrowserIE 7.0
Operating SystemWinXP
ResolutionUnknown
JavascriptEnabled

Navigation Path

Date Time Type WebPage
13th August 200909:32:08Page Viewrabble.ca/privatemsg/view/2084 f4j-soo.blogspot.com/2009/07/opposition-commences-for-bill-c-422.html
13th August 200909:36:26Page Viewrabble.ca/privatemsg/view/2084 f4j-soo.blogspot.com/2009/07/opposition-commences-for-bill-c-422.html

Saturday, July 25, 2009

The OZ Victim Feminists are getting more paranoid all the time

I think these Victim Feminists should seek a government grant to hire protection for their vulnerable computers who are also now being oppressed by the patriarchy. Perhaps their computers are binary male and are fighting back. Its just so pinkilicious that it is a Trojan the largest maker of condoms in the universe. Note the irony in their statement these sites are "fighting dirty". My goodness these are the same ones who operate places involving the smearing and humiliation of men including nudity. MJM :) WARNING DO NOT GO TO ANY OF THESE SITES:
DADS ON THE AIR, DADS IN DISTRESS or THE FAMILY LAW WEB GUIDE
http://thesharedparentingdisaster.blogspot.com/2009/07/fighting-dirty-now-they-are-sending.html I am not even going to link to their websites anymore.
Enclosed is a list of trojans on one of our staff members computers.
This was a direct result of visiting them. A email claiming to know who we are was send through a foreign site stating that they believe that they know who we are. The email contained a malicious code that destroyed one of our staffs computers. We will be taking legal action for this. It is also noteworthy to know that one of the leaders of the Family law Web guide has a high degree of IT experience and may or may not be behind this as a way to hurt the current campaign.

Misinformed Opposition Commences for Bill C-422 Equal-shared Parenting

This article appears on Rabble here. My response follows. It also shows up on a victim feminist site here.
One thing is crystal clear on this site., They feel like they are oppressed by something. If it is someone with a union mentality then it is fat cat corporations and if its a victim feminist it is patriarchal oppression. In the case of Dufresne he is a long standing victim feminist who gets off defending perceived victims and deriding his own gender and this may belie problems he had in his own relationship with a father figure. He is one of the most self loathing men I have come across.


What is transparent though with the rhetoric from the siege mentality of those on this site that is it's not about the best interests of children. Its about the best interest of victim feminists and their entitlements. I could do a fairly in depth psychological assessment of these commentators but I won't. Most appear to be ideologues with very entrenched notions and in many cases, especially Dufresne, its a little like Islam. It totally consumes him.



martin dufresne

rabble-rouser-supreme

Member: 12463

Joined: Dec 24 2005

July 19, 2009 - 1:46pm

People concerned with women's and children's rights would do well to warn their MP of a private Bill designed by advocates of what they call a « presumptive equal parenting » upon divorce.

Bill C-422, fashioned by Conservative MPs Maurice Vellacott and Steven Blaney - with the support of Liberal MP Raymonde Folco, is a new version of Motion M-483, which died on the agenda during a previous session.

It is aimed at what the proponents are calling an "overall bias" favouring women in divorce and child custody law. (No mention is made of the available statistics as to whom actually does the parenting before separation and whom commits to doing it after it.) This private bill is really about enthroning male entitlement, ending child support and imposing paternal authority.

Ignoring the reality of domestic violence - the main reason for divorce today - and criteria such as parental skills and demonstrated commitment, features NOT equally shared in most divorcing couples*, this law "would make it mandatory for two parents who are divorcing to discuss with either a mediator or a judge how they would divide the time with the children," said Folco to a Laval newspaper, adding that "equal parenting means that 50 per cent of the time a child would be with one parent and 50 per cent with the other."

The lobby behind this one-size-fits-all fathers' rights bill is the "Canadian Equal Parenting Council," and includes the obnoxious Fathers for Justice organization of Batmen and Spidermen-garbed media darlings.

"Men in Canada need to quite literally start protecting themselves from the flawed family law system," an anonymous spokesman from Fathers for Justice said in a statement supportive of Bill C-422.

The Canadian Equal Parenting Council claims support from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, quoting a 2002 book where he called unspecified shared parenting legislative changes « sensible and overdue suggestions ».

As for the Bloc Québécois, F4J accuses it of favouring women. It rants, on its website: « It's time for Mr. Duceppe to step away from the dark side and stand behind equal parenting... »

Source : « Private bill for 'equal parenting' goes on Parliament's order ». Martin C. Barry, The Laval News, July 15, 2009.

Background : http://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/canada-equal-parenting-bill-c...

http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/2003%20MV%20Speaks/June%2017,%202009%20-%20Backgrounder%20for%20EP%20press%20conf.%20press%20kit.pdf

Feminist critiques of « presumptive equal parenting » - such as that penned by Gatineau sociologist Denyse Côté in "La garde partagée: l'équité en question" (Éditions du remue-ménage, 2000, 202 p.) - can be found on various web sites, such as The Liz Library. This material amply documents that not all equal-custody claims are justified or respectful of the children's best interests. Most family court judges are aware of this, but the anti-feminist lobby goes on trying to force their hands, via conservative politicians.

For instance, The Ontario Women's Justice Network offers a detailed analysis of a good 2001 Supreme Court decision in the custody case between Kimberly Van de Perre and Theodore and Valerie Edwards, here.

Please remain aware of this issue, and don't let the patriarchalists pull the wool over your MP's eyes.

____________________________________________
* In The Canadian Family in Crisis (2003), John Frederick Conway wrote : « ...the anti-feminist men's movement has won some victories but they have not been total... it failed to win the imposition of compulsory joint custody... joint custody must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and situations of marriage breakdown that include domestic violence, addictions to drugs and/or alcohol, and psychological abuse ought not to involve joint custody, co-parenting provisions. » This caveat gets short shrift in C-422.





Mike Murphy

is

recent-rabble-rouser

Member: 18073

Joined: Jul 25 2009

July 25, 2009 - 11:25am (new)

#85
(permalink)

Mr. Dufresne:

I want to impart some facts with respect to divorce in Canada, with some reference to other countries similarly predisposed to treating dads in a negative manner and to help you with your references and lack of citations.

Firstly not all divorces in Canada end due to Domestic Violence. This is an unfounded, non-scientific observation. In our country Intimate Partner Violence is pretty much equal. Here is a quote from Stats Can: "Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005. An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004". http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm

Domestic Violence is serious problem but it is not gender specific. It is a family problem that needs a new paradigm to resolve. You may wish to read Dr. Don Dutton's scientific observations here Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf on the relationship of gender and DV.


Dr. Dutton, from UBC, is Canada's foremost researcher on this matter and is sought and cited the world over for his work.

You may also want to have a look at this link http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm which is REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY by Martin S. Fiebert , Department of Psychology California State University, Long Beach. This is the largest bibliography of its kind and current to May of this year.

In Canada 75% of all marriages are terminated unilaterally by the wife. Not because of DV but for a host of reasons. In the USA it is 66% and in OZ about 70%. My research shows part of the reason is the wife thinks there are greener pastures and that magical, mysterious long awaited prince charming is coming along to sweep her off her feet. This does not happen as second marriages and co-habitations end at a far greater rate than the first ones which combined run about 50% in Canada and the USA. Cohabitations have greater frailty and end in far greater numbers than do marriages.

Many studies show that children having both parents in their lives on an ongoing basis do far better on many social outcomes than if dad is marginalized to the standard 14% visitation of two weekends a month. Professor Edward Kruk's research at UBC shows children need a 40% contact with each parent to maintain a parent-child bond. Fourteen percent is not in a child's best interest. You can view the PDF summary of his study on Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility here: http://www.fira.ca/cms/documents/179/April7_Kruk_Summary.pdf

Dr. Kruk shows the legal system must be child focussed and take into account the many developmental needs of children. He also demonstrates a child-focused analysis of child custody determination contradicts your assertion of high conflict divorce as follows: " … even though the majority of contested cases of child custody, including high-conflict cases, do not involve the type of "intimate terrorism" necessitating the removal of a parent (as a routine parent) from a child's life via sole custody. Contrary to current practice and dominant socio-legal discourse, children are not shielded from post separation violence and abuse by means of sole custody."

Many studies show the positive social outcomes for children with active involvement by both parents and many show the negative outcomes for children in single parent homes. These are largely matriarchal homes. In Canada, according to Stats Can in 2004 custody went to the mother in about 90% of all cases whether contested or not. Your non-cited assertion of Fathers winning 55-70% of contested cases in this country is just plain not supported by any research. The number is very small at around 7%. Joint custody is the manner in which judges spread bread crumbs to dad by giving physical custody to the mom. About 8% to the dad in sole custody.

The 2004 table looks like this: total custody cases 31, 764, custody to dad 2,558, to the wife 14,309, joint 14,773. The rest were a small number to others not the mom or dad or not known.

We'll calculate a minuscule amount for cooperative shared/equal parenting which currently exists through agreement by very unselfish parents who do have the child's best interest at heart and works fine. My 11 year old, although not yet in a legal shared/equal parenting relationship, has no trouble with the transitions but it is important, where possible to ensure they keep the same friends and of course school.

I would recommend you do more research related to your articles. It will improve your credibility and I do suggest going beyond the Liz Library. It is the largest single compendium of male hatred on the internet and not overly scientific or unbiased.

The focus must be on the child. Unselfish parents with the best interest of the children in mind will be able to work this out. Several European countries have this in place with Belgium having one of the most emphatic mechanisms for children to stay in the lives of both parents. Interestingly this was brought into law by a Feminist Government Minister who wanted her husband to be equal. Isn't that what Feminism was about back in the good old days - equality.



Mike Murphy


Comments

is paying close attention
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 7289
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Send private message
Thanks martin, but I suspect few here are interested.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
I am more optimistic than that. Many of us have seen children in horrific family conflict situations, and can understand how catastrophic it would be to let Vellacott and his FR cronies impose 50-50 shared custody and no child support on any person seeking divorce.

rabble-rouser
Member: 5173
Joined: Jun 3 2003
Send private message
It is particularly interesting in the light of a court system that rewards those who have more money to spend on lawyers. Yep-- looks like men never really did lose that much of an advantage anyway.
Nevermind that, men have other advantages in tending to have more money. They have advantages in using the money to control the home and in using money after divorce to help ensure access. And some of this is not all bad-- after all one who pays support ought to be expecting more access than a deadbeat. One who pays support earns goodwill with the custodial parent as well and therefore more cooperation-- not always but often enough especially in those families that do not go to court to rip themselves up when they can't live together. Let us never forget that money has an advantage and that men still generally have that advantage so the whole fiction about men having no advantages in family court is dangerous since if we remove the advantages women have that tend to level things, then men will have an overwhealming advantage.
If people here are not interested-- they should be with a high divorce rate it is in the interest of children that people see this power grab for what it is.
As for the practice of women getting custody-- usually that is because they earned it throughout the building of the relationship with the children. And the court is obliged given a child first bias to consider that. In order to allow a so-called equal parent right option or father's rights consideration we would have to undo the child-first doctrine of family court. Do we really want to go there????

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
Unfortunately we are already there and in spades, Sean in Ottawa.
If I may comment on your very appropriate post, where you write "As for the practice of women getting custody-- usually that is because they earned it throughout the building of the relationship with the children", I wish this was true but genrally when women get custody, it is because men aren't asking for it, have disappeared or are blatantly lethal (and even then...).
And where you write "after all one who pays support ought to be expecting more access than a deadbeat", the twist is that by demanding 50% access, the fathers' lobby actually hopes to terminate men's child support obligations, even though the law stipulates an equalizing of parents' contributions according to their income, in the children's interest. They try to get women to sign away such entitlement in divorce agreements and make these binding without having to be cleared with the Court.

rabble-rouser
Member: 5173
Joined: Jun 3 2003
Send private message
I don't disagree with what you say Martin-- I am making the point that money does make a difference.
I should have added that a lot of cases men are not interested- but was speaking more of contested cases since uncontested cases are not usually at issue. That women have the advantage in many contested cases has to do with the interests of the child and what they have put it. This of course does not contradict your comment about uncontested situations.
Those who pay child support include those who want their children to have the money they need- but in many other cases it is to ensure access. Just another example of money providing advantage. Still the issue of 50% custody end-running support is worrisome- especially as it is a bogus argument. Two households must be maintained and the one with the lower income will need almost as much support for a 50% custody situation as a 100% custody situation-- only a small amount of food makes that difference-- the idea that income between parents who live apart must be to some degree equalized remains regardless of whether custody is exclusive or not. That said the other parent also has to bear the costs of a home. Some parents have to learn the hard way that having custody can be an incredible pleasure but not an economic windfall. The courts hopefully will take a balanced view when considering this-- even if the father's rights groups don't get it.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
That women have the advantage in many contested cases has to do with the interests of the child and what they have put it.
Fathers win 55-70% of contested cases.

rabble-rouser
Member: 5173
Joined: Jun 3 2003
Send private message
what do you call contested? The ones the fathers fight in court or including the ones the fathers don't fight because they don't have a chance-- because the mothers have the relationship with the children to win.I would include the ones the fathers go to a lawyer and are told not to bother. Most court cases are situations where one side has misread the situation as most are somewhat predictable. With better legal advice and money, the men are less likely to misread the situation.
I think the stats can go back and forth and I don't think we disagree-- when custody is contested-- the women have a lot of advantages but as you point out in the end money is the bigger advantage. Men will seldom go to court if they do not have something that can help them win-- but that does not mean they should win-- that something could be financial advantage, allegations that may or may not be baseless etc.
I suspect that where the women have equal abilities to mount a legal case financially, the numbers would go in their favour. All this supports the premise that I made which essentially supports the initial statement of concern you posted while still showing money makes a difference.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
I realize you feel we are on the same side of this issue, but I feel it's important to gauge just how bad the situation is so allow me po pick at a few of your statements:
what do you call contested? The ones the fathers fight in court
Yes
or including the ones the fathers don't fight because they don't have a chance
or because they can't be bothered to impede "turning a new leaf"
-- because the mothers have the relationship with the children to win.
Fathers often win even when the mothers have the relationship with the children to win.
-I would include the ones the fathers go to a lawyer and are told not to bother.
That characterization is a FR myth and the stats prove it. Lawyers know how easy it is to win unsupervised access if not custody for just about any man , however incompetent or dangerous as a parent, if he applies the right amount of money, supportive testimonials and salgging Mom.
... I don't think we disagree-- when custody is contested-- the women have a lot of advantages but as you point out in the end money is the bigger advantage.
So women DON'T have lots of advantages.
I suspect that where the women have equal abilities to mount a legal case financially, the numbers would go in their favour.
Yes, and "if Blacks had lighter skin"... I think such a statement evades the issue: it seems central to this contest that women do NOT have equal financial capability, mostly because they are the ones sacrificing financial opportunities to care for the children, ensuring that unless they are lucky or the guy demurs, they stand a better than average chance of losing custody.
And things will be much worse for them of the Grits discreetly support C-422, so please, folks, share your concern with your local candidates.

rabble-rouser
Member: 5173
Joined: Jun 3 2003
Send private message
I agree with all that you say except the part about the so-called FR myth. I would not underestimate the value of representation not just in court but in how to manage what goes to court.
I agree money is the bigger advantage and in the legal system I would caution you against trying to use stats without recognizing how that works.
If the men have the money and think that they would not do as well in court then they will use the high priced lawyer for a better forum -- a settlement conference and there get what they could not get in court. The skill to understand and control a legal case will deliver many advantages.
I made the point that in some areas women have the advantage but that money is trumping this. My point is if you focus on an advantage women have (even the stronger cultural presumption of a child being better off with the mother than the father) and level the playing field you will be tilting it severely against women if you do not recognize the role money is playing.
Money turns these cases into a minefield-- if they go to court the high priced lawyer will win- but if you think that you might win-- they will settle and get you in the settlement conference what they cannot in the court.
I am not saying men don't have the ultimate advantage-- what I am saying is those precious advantages women have if they are somehow compensated for as FR groups argue, then the cold hard cash will win-- as it almost always does now.
I don't think that it serves the argument to say that women have no strong cards because they do and people are aware of them. It it serves the cause better to make clear that there are other cards the women rarely hold that will trump those. That is the direction I have been following.
Yes, I do think we are on the same side. The difference is perhaps a tactic of logic. I acknowledge the few advantages women have that we all know about and show how theya re still nothing compared to what is stacked against them while you seek to establish that women in the end have no advantage. In the end, when all is considered, you are right but it may not be the best way to put it I think. This especially since FR groups point to things like apparent cultural bias that should advantage women but gets overwhealmed by the elephant in the room -- the money. I prefer to acknowledge the social bias (that in some countries works, along with the money in the opposite direction), and then point to how it is not near enough to level the field.
Again, I think these are tactics in argument not significant differences.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16695
Joined: Nov 4 2008
Send private message
So if family court judges shouldn't start with the assumption that custody will be shared, what assumption should they start with? Something more fair, like mom gets the kids 99% of the time and dad gets 99% of the bills? Something like that?
I find it hilarious that you're actually arguing against something as obvious as the assumption that both parents are important to a child (in ways other than ze munnee). Horrors!!

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
Gee Snert, do you really expect us to take your catankerous "contribution" seriously or is this just a running snipe shot and you'll crawl back in the woodwork? Why do you want judges to proceed on assumptions, rather than on an examination of the evidence and of people's abilities, wishes and rights? If you really want to be helpful, try convincing men - before divorce - that both parents are important, instead of trying to justify carving out even more entitlement for them, regardless of merits...

rabble-rouser
Member: 5173
Joined: Jun 3 2003
Send private message
No Snert I am arguing that the so-called rights of the parents (in this case fathers) should not displace the rights of the child in such cases--
The assumption that is reasonable is the court is to decide what is the best custody arrangement for the child and then back that up with an order on support.
To link the money to the custody or have some formula based on an assumption of father's rights is a trip backward and very dangerous.
Does that help clarify things for you?

rabble-rouser
Member: 16695
Joined: Nov 4 2008
Send private message
Quote:
Why do you want judges to proceed on assumptions, rather than on an examination of the evidence and of people's abilities, wishes and rights?
My understanding is that that's exactly what they'll do. Specifically, I see this as an "onus" issue. Should we assume that only mothers can be good parents until the facts of the situation show otherwise, or should we assume that both parents can be good parents until the facts of the situation show otherwise?
Quote:
Does that help clarify things for you?
Not even slightly.
I love how this is about "fathers' rights". Just like homosexuals who want to marry are after some kind of "gay rights". No, not just normal rights or equal right, but special, scary rights!
Anyway, judges are certainly free to, say, award sole custody to the mother if dad is an incompetent parent. That's not enough for you? The judge should have to start with some assumption that dad's incompetent, and let dad prove otherwise??

recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18051
Joined: Jul 23 2009
Send private message
First of all, child support under the current system would mean that the 50/50 shared custody would balance based on HOUSEHOLD income.
Parent A grosses 25K
Parent B grosses 45K, plus their partners additional 20K
Table values of 25K vs 65K means parent B would be on the hook to pay the owed difference to parent A on 40K worth of income. They have recalc services; these cost less than court dates, and hardship cases can be heard. Keep in mind, court is the END of the road. There are numerous stages in between. Have you ever attended a FTSOTC course? Perhaps you should educate yourself before frothing at the mouth about abuse and the politics of men vs. women.
As to the rights of the CHILD - they were born to two parents - and THEY are entitled to both regardless of living arrangements. This has nothing to do with agendas and vendettas. Most divorces do not end due to abuse - some are for the good of both parties. Claiming that one parent is more/less safe based on a chromosome is ridiculous; as a parent I have things to offer my child that his other parent can/does not.
The fact of the matter is, it took two to tango, and if the court correctly says "50% access unless good reason is given" it means that it will discourage people from trying to use child access as a weapon to hurt the other party.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
I guess this latest contribution clarifies the extent to which Father-Right lobby rhetoric and hostility to mothers is very much the driving force behind Mr. Vellacott's private bill.

is paying close attention
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 7289
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Send private message
Yep

rabble-rouser-machine
Member: 15957
Joined: Feb 15 2008
Send private message
martin, why do you think mothers should always get custody as a default regardless of the facts of the case? I agree that they should when there is abuse, neglect, etc. (And we all know that there is a MUCH larger percentage of fathers who have no interest whatsoever in their children as compared to mothers). But if there is a divorce occuring for mutual reasons (or even infidelity) - just two people who are not in love anymore and don't want to argue/be unhappy in front their children, why should the father not get equal custody rights as a default?
You do realize that there are custody cases involving two fathers - ie gay couples. Do you propose giving the birth mother custody in these cases as well?

rabble-rouser
Member: 16695
Joined: Nov 4 2008
Send private message
Ya. Equal parenting can only be the result of hostility and rhetoric. Fathers For Justice pulled a Jedi mind trick on all of us.
That's gotta be it. And thanks so much for your usual smear.

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
martin dufresne wrote:
Ignoring the reality of domestic violence - the main reason for divorce today -
If this is true, I would like to see the source for it, because it's not been my experience. BTW the bill is garbage. The only consideration should be the best interests of the children. If both parents are fit, then it might be that the best interests of a child might include maximal time with each parent. Or not. Every family's different, this kind of presumption would make it harder for a judge to tailor a custody arrangement that suits the child and reflects the reality of the family.
martin dufresne wrote:
Fathers win 55-70% of contested cases.
What does that even mean? Again I would be interested in the source.
martin dufresne wrote:
I guess this latest contribution clarifies the extent to which Father-Right lobby rhetoric and hostility to mothers is very much the driving force behind Mr. Vellacott's private bill.
Is that addressed to stepped on? Because it's the argument I would use against the so-called fathers' rights jerks. Most of the time, judges DO consider 50/50 as departure point. All codifying a presumption does is reward the unfit.
(and even though I was asking for sources, I don't have any to give except, again, my own experience)

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
RP. wrote:
BTW the bill is garbage ... this kind of presumption would make it harder for a judge to tailor a custody arrangement that suits the child
It would be fairer than the current presumption which is that kids belong with their mother unless there are extraordinary circumstances suggesting otherwise.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16695
Joined: Nov 4 2008
Send private message
Quote:
The only consideration should be the best interests of the children.
As I understand it, the bill only follows from a joint House-Senate report called "For the Sake of the Children", which explicitly recommends adopting a presumption of shared parenting because that's in the best interest of children.
Thing is, you have to assume something, and I think the assumption that women are "natural caregivers and parents" is so long-ingrained in us that we can't reasonably say "let's not assume anything at all".
And really, this is nothing more than "Employment Equity" for fathers. The law doesn't state that they MUST receive any particular level of custody, just that they have to be presumed capable and given a fair shake. I find it fascinating that people are arguing against that. Presumably the assumption that mothers are better than fathers is a more progressive one or something??

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
G. Pie wrote:
It would be fairer than the current presumption which is that kids belong with their mother unless there are extraordinary circumstances suggesting otherwise.
No such presumption exists.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
Ghislaine asked: "martin, why do you think mothers should always get custody as a default regardless of the facts of the case?..."
I don't. Please point out where I suggested I did.
What I actually support is, in matters of contested child custody, a presumption in support of the person who has been (and usually will remain) the primary caretaker when there was/is one (almost all cases). In some cases, this primary caretaker is the biological father. In most cases, it's Mom, but it can be someone else (mother's new partner, even nanny (Michael Jackson's children).
"...I agree that they should when there is abuse, neglect, etc. "
Sometimes it's the mother who is abusive. And social service agencies routinely accuse women of neglect (almost never fathers, strangely). Men also do so, sometimes, in order to wrest custody, and they easily win, even when they have had little caretaking experience.
All these important distinctions are obscured in Vellacott's proposed legislation, that would create instant entitlement for biological fathers - whatever their skills - and would give them an unfair advantage in negotiations with anyone trying to protect the children's interests.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
RP. wrote:
G. Pie wrote:
It would be fairer than the current presumption which is that kids belong with their mother unless there are extraordinary circumstances suggesting otherwise.
No such presumption exists.
Oh, I disagree. The most common arrangement seems to be kids live the mother, father gets access one day a week plus every second weekend. And I know fathers who after stating their wish to be the primary parent were advised by their lawyer "Don't even bother trying." There's a clear bias in favour of mothers.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
"Most common arrangements" do not necessarily reflect bias. They generally reflect pre-divorce arrangements (or fait accompli ) between parents, e.g. Mom is left to do most of the parenting work. When the parenting has been equalitarian, breakups are generally less common and less adversarial, and joint custody is usually consensual. In short, most couples agree to leave things as is after separation or divorce. When they don't - and this can be for many other reasons than the child's best interests - lawyers and sometimes judges assess who has been doing the parenting and whether there are valid reasons - other than daddy's fat wallet - to change what has been the status quo.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16695
Joined: Nov 4 2008
Send private message
Quote:
No such presumption exists.
In the same way that no such presumption as "the white job candidate is better than the black job candidate" exists.

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
Snert wrote:
As I understand it, the bill only follows from a joint House-Senate report called "For the Sake of the Children", which explicitly recommends adopting a presumption of shared parenting because that's in the best interest of children.
(Firstly, are you talking about shared parenting or equal custody?) Anyway, by extension, it creates a presumption that in all circumstances, maximum contact with both parents is in the best interest of all children. This is not the case even in the majority of cases. Presumptions have to be overcome. The analysis becomes about the parent, instead of the childen. This is unacceptable to me.
Quote:
Thing is, you have to assume something, and I think the assumption that women are "natural caregivers and parents" is so long-ingrained in us that we can't reasonably say "let's not assume anything at all".
Again, the parent-centred reasoning.
Quote:
And really, this is nothing more than "Employment Equity" for fathers. The law doesn't state that they MUST receive any particular level of custody, just that they have to be presumed capable and given a fair shake. I find it fascinating that people are arguing against that. Presumably the assumption that mothers are better than fathers is a more progressive one or something??
I think you know as much about employment equity as you know about family law.

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
Snert wrote:
In the same way that no such presumption as "the white job candidate is better than the black job candidate" exists.
You fail at analogies.

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
martin dufresne wrote:
What I actually support is, in matters of contested child custody, a presumption in support of the person who has been (and usually will remain) the primary caretaker when there was/is one (almost all cases). In some cases, this primary caretaker is the biological father. In most cases, it's Mom, but it can be someone else (mother's new partner, even nanny (Michael Jackson's children).
This is parent-centred reasoning too.
martin dufresne wrote:
All these important distinctions are obscured in Vellacott's proposed legislation, that would create instant entitlement for biological fathers - whatever their skills - and would give them an unfair advantage in negotiations with anyone trying to protect the children's interests.
It also creates an entitlement for mothers, and as you've pointed out, there's no monopoly on unsuitability.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
In the families that I know, both spouses work full-time and parenting is divided equally. In a divorce, shouldn't this type of family negotiate from a shared starting point?
Added: Sorry, I meant this in response to Martin's
Quote:
"Most common arrangements" do not necessarily reflect bias. They generally reflect pre-divorce arrangements (or fait accompli ) between parents, e.g. Mom is left to do most of the parenting work.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
Snert wrote:
Quote:
No such presumption exists.
In the same way that no such presumption as "the white job candidate is better than the black job candidate" exists.
Exactly.

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
G. Pie wrote:
Oh, I disagree. The most common arrangement seems to be kids live the mother, father gets access one day a week plus every second weekend. And I know fathers who after stating their wish to be the primary parent were advised by their lawyer "Don't even bother trying." There's a clear bias in favour of mothers.
I'd like to know what parellel universe this happens in.

rabble-rouser
Member: 2595
Joined: Oct 17 2001
Send private message
The same one this happens:
Quote:
both spouses work full-time and parenting is divided equally
LMFAO.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
RP. wrote:
G. Pie wrote:
Oh, I disagree. The most common arrangement seems to be kids live the mother, father gets access one day a week plus every second weekend. And I know fathers who after stating their wish to be the primary parent were advised by their lawyer "Don't even bother trying." There's a clear bias in favour of mothers.
I'd like to know what parellel universe this happens in.
Not sure what you're referring to. The typical custody/access arrangement? That occurs very commonly in this universe. The father being advised not to waste his money on a custody application? Also common. I spent years typing up custody and access agreements and orders.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
Scout wrote:
The same one this happens:
Quote:
both spouses work full-time and parenting is divided equally
LMFAO.
Well, it's not a source of humour to my friends. They take it pretty seriously. This kind of bullying and aggression would count against you in a contested proceeding.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
Me: What I actually support is, in matters of contested child custody, a presumption in support of the person who has been (and usually will remain) the primary caretaker when there was/is one (almost all cases). In some cases, this primary caretaker is the biological father. In most cases, it's Mom, but it can be someone else (mother's new partner, even nanny (Michael Jackson's children).

RP:This is parent-centred reasoning too.
I am not sure that it is. It discusses the parents because they are the parties litigating, but this criterion is based on the evidence-based presumption that children will do better if their parenting arrangements are not changed, unless there is good reason to do so.
I: All these important distinctions are obscured in Vellacott's proposed legislation, that would create instant entitlement for biological fathers - whatever their skills - and would give them an unfair advantage in negotiations with anyone trying to protect the children's interests.
RP: It also creates an entitlement for mothers, and as you've pointed out, there's no monopoly on unsuitability.
True for unsuitability, untrue for suitable parents. Taking into account that, in fact, women generally do much more parenting than men, a 50-50 custody presumption strips these mothers and their children of the entitlement to the parenting situation they had established through women's work.

keeps his status under wraps!!
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 12323
Joined: Dec 11 2005
Send private message
martin dufresne wrote:
Fathers win 55-70% of contested cases.
That was such a stunning and counter-inuitive statement (besides being downright weird - what does 55-70 even mean?), that I decided to look it up:
Quote:
After their parents' separation, the vast majority of children live with their mother
Court orders place 80 percent of children under the age of 12 in their mother's care. Seven percent of children are placed in their father's custody and 13 percent of children are covered by what their parents described as a court order for joint physical custody. Interestingly, most children (69 percent) for whom parents had obtained a shared physical custody order actually lived with their mother only. A very small number of children lived under arrangements where care was shared equally: less than 2 percent of children for whom custody orders were obtained and less than 4 percent in other cases.
National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth
The study is admittedly 10 years old. It was conducted by Nicole Marcil-Gratton and Céline Le Bourdais, of the Centre interuniversitaire d'études démographiques at the Université de Montréal / Institut national de la recherche scientifique, and commissioned by the Family, Children and Youth Section of the federal Department of Justice. I don't know if there's a more recent survey, but it would exceedingly hard to believe that these trends have changed in 10 years in favour of fathers.
I completely oppose the "fathers' rights" champions and the social conservative sponsors of such legislation. But you won't get far in combatting it by pulling numbers and facts out of the air.

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
Maybe it's lawyers changing the goalposts as to what defines a win, e.g. I went for 50/50, should've got nothing, but got weekends. Win!

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
You are conflating court orders and contested cases, Unionist. When parents agree, there is still need for a court order. If you look only at contested cases, it is a fact that fathers win more often than not... and not for the best of reasons. Also, you are reducing the ambit of the issue to children under 12. Fathers often go for custody and its attendant advantages once the children are educated.*
Also, the fact that women end up doing the work in most joint physical custody cases makes my point that they are often exploited in an arrangement that has ensured paternal power - and often drastically reduced or eliminated support payments, the mother's mobility rights, etc.
*Marcil-Gratton & LeBourdais: "...Older children are more likely to be placed in their father's care or in joint custody arrangements. "

rabble-rouser
Member: 2595
Joined: Oct 17 2001
Send private message
Quote:
Well, it's not a source of humour to my friends. They take it pretty seriously. This kind of bullying and aggression would count against you in a contested proceeding.
Oh I'm sure they take themselves very seriously and are certain of how much work they do. That's what's so funny about it.
As for the bullying and agressive comment? I'm LMFAO again. What I'm not staying in my place by taking your anecdotes as reality? Laugh at you is bullying?
The reality is that the women do the bulk of caregiving to children and and elderly/ill relatives. Regardless of how many men like to delude themsleves that they do an equal number of hours of household task the numbers don't back up their claims.
So save the garbage about what will happen to me if I'm not meek enough if I ever have the misfourtune to find myself in court it has nothing to do with the thread and it's actually pathetic.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
martin dufresne wrote:
it is a fact that fathers win more often than not [IN CONTESTED CUSTODY DISPUTES!!!]
Martin, would you mind providing a cite for that? I'd be really interested in seeing it.

rabble-rouser
Member: 2595
Joined: Oct 17 2001
Send private message
G.Pie would you mind not cherry pick fragments of quotes to further your sexism.

Quote:
If you look only at contested cases, it is a fact that fathers win more often than not... and not for the best of reasons.

Context is everything.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
Scout wrote:
Oh I'm sure they take themselves very seriously and are certain of how much work they do. That's what's so funny about it.
I said they take their parenting seriously and they do. Why that amuses you I have no idea.
Quote:
Laugh at you is bullying?
Yes, when it's in response to a simple statement that I know some good and committed fathers.
Quote:
The reality is that the women do the bulk of caregiving to children and and elderly/ill relatives. Regardless of how many men like to delude themsleves that they do an equal number of hours of household task the numbers don't back up their claims.
I agree with you that if you added up all the hours society spends on parenting and caretaking that women are responsible for more of it than men. That does not mean, however, that all men shirk their responsibility. Your impotent rage is inexplicable to me. I merely stated that there exist some families where presumed equal parenting would be an appropriate starting point.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
Scout wrote:
G.Pie would you mind not cherry pick fragments of quotes to further your sexism.
Fixed quote, per your request.
If acknowledging that some men are good fathers and equal and committed parents makes me a sexist, then a sexist I'm happy to be.

rabble-rouser-machine
Member: 13752
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Send private message
This thread hsa mad we reflect on how Ms. C. and I interact with our children. For that, I am grateful.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
martin dufresne wrote:
*Marcil-Gratton & LeBourdais: "...Older children are more likely to be placed in their father's care or in joint custody arrangements. "
Not sure if I can find this source online to check but this quote as stated is ambiguous. "Older children are more likely ...." More likely as compared to what? Younger children?
Added: I did find this:
Quote:
Of the 35,000 custody orders determined through divorce proceedings in 2002, 49% were awarded to the mother, 42% were awarded joint custody to the mother and the father, and 9% were awarded to fathers only.
here: http://www.fira.ca/article.php?id=96
I'm not sure about the website (it seems to be from a fathers' rights group) but the numbers quoted certainly align.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
Myth -- Family courts are biased against fathers in custody disputes.
Fact: "Despite the powerful stereotypes working against fathers, they are significantly more successful than is commonly believed. The Massachusetts [gender bias] task force, for example, reported that fathers receive primary or joint custody in more than 70 percent of contested cases."
Schafran, Lynn Hecht, "Gender Bias in Family Courts," American Bar Association Family Advocate, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 26
Ruth I. Abrams & John M. Greaney, Report of the Gender Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial Court [of Massachusetts] 62-63 (1983), also citing similar finding from California and other parts of the nation.
Fact: "The various gender bias commissions found that at the trial court level in contested custody cases, fathers won more than half the time. This is especially significant in light of the fact that not only do fathers win more often in court when they take these cases to trial, but also that an overwhelmingly higher percentage of fathers gain primary custody -- by any means -- than were ever the primary caregiver of their children during marriage. Statistically, this dashes the argument that 'only the strongest cases are taken to trial,' and in fact indicates an extraordinary bias against mothers and the value of mothering and mothers' work."
liznote re the more than 40 state gender bias task force reports. Available from the National Judicial Education Program, 9 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013.
Also see: AZ Battered Mothers Testimony Project Report
Also: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html
Warning: This material risks laying waste to a lot of preconceptions, carefully built up over the years by F-R disinformation and conservative media and politicians.

SO PLEASE CIRCULATE IT FREELY! Wink

keeps his status under wraps!!
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 12323
Joined: Dec 11 2005
Send private message
G. Pie wrote:
martin dufresne wrote:
*Marcil-Gratton & LeBourdais: "...Older children are more likely to be placed in their father's care or in joint custody arrangements. "
Not sure if I can find this source online to check but this quote as stated is ambiguous. "Older children are more likely ...." More likely as compared to what? Younger children?
Pretty clearly it means, "more likely than the 7% and 13% figures quoted for under age 12" respectively. It certainly doesn't mean "more likely to be placed in their father's care than in their mother's care". I don't think the study focused on children 12 and older. Here is a more detailed breakdown of custody stats by province and age group under 12 - again, with the caution that these percentages are about 15 years old. "Mother exclusive custody" ranges from 74.5% in the Atlantic Provinces to 87.4% in Québec. "Father exclusive" ranges from 5.3% in the Prairies to 7.2% in Québec and the Atlantic Provinces.

rabble-rouser
Member: 2595
Joined: Oct 17 2001
Send private message
Quote:
Your impotent rage is inexplicable to me.
What rage? I'm laughing at you. But if you can't imagine why women might be justifiable enraged by inequality then really, what the are you doing at babble? Trolling? Its also textbook sexist behavior to suggest a woman is irrational enraged when one isn't doing well in an argument- it seems to score points with other boys.
Quote:
I agree with you that if you added up all the hours society spends on parenting and caretaking that women are responsible for more of it than men. That does not mean, however, that all men shirk their responsibility.
What it means is most men think they are doing a lot more than they really are. I'm not suggesting what makes one a good or a bad father here either that's youre schtick. I'm talking about labour. Your talking about shirking responsibilites - that tends to get moralistic. Women get custody because the bulk of the work to keep and kid alive and well is done by her even with the most progressive daddy. Your anecdotal tales mean nothing in terms of why women get custody more often than not.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
"Here is a more detailed breakdown of custody stats by province and age group under 12."
Again, this is NOT for the contested custody situations, which is what Vellacott's legislation would weigh in to and we are discussing. I am disappointed, Unionist.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
The 70% figure is misleading because it clearly states that's where the outcome is primary OR joint custody. In these disputes, joint custody isn't a win, it's a tie. If you include joint custody as a win, then of course fathers are going to "win" over half the time.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
Thank you for acknowledging that fathers win more often than not. Call the wresting of joint custody from a woman who doesnt want it "a tie" if you find that "soothing", but for a mother trying to protect what had been her primary caretaking situation from paternal authority, from someone who often becomes a distant foreman calling the shots and dragging her to court whenever he is displeased (I can get anecdotal too...), it's a loss. For all of us, such a presumption would be a step back from acknowledging women's work (Scout's excellent point) and the entitlement that should go with it. And then there is all that male money saved in child support... mais il ne faut pas le dire, right?

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
American numbers don't mean much here, I mean look at the wide range of differences between provinces, and they all share the same Divorce Act (many of the Family Law Acts are the same, too). American divorce schemes vary wildly from one another, and from Canada's. You know, it wouldn't surprise me for a minute if I learned that there was open bias written write into the statute in favour of the mother getting custody the U.S. Or vice versa or some other crazy thing.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
Scout wrote:
But if you can't imagine why women might be justifiable enraged by inequality then really, what the are you doing at babble? Trolling?
Jesus, Scout, you're getting tiresome. I did not say that women aren't justifiably enraged at inequality. I'm saying that you are unjustifiably enraged at the notion that I know some equal parents. See the subtle difference in those two statements?
Quote:
Its also textbook sexist behavior to suggest a woman is irrational enraged when one isn't doing well in an argument
I don't know who "one" is here but I do think you are behaving irrationally, yes.
Quote:
What it means is most men think they are doing a lot more than they really are.
That may well be true but not so in the cases I was referring to. Sure, I guess it's technically possible that the fathers I'm talking about are the only ones.
Quote:
I'm not suggesting what makes one a good or a bad father here either that's youre schtick.
Actually, no, I didn't comment on parenting skills. I just asserted that they spent equal time and effort.
Quote:
Women get custody because the bulk of the work to keep and kid alive and well is done by her even with the most progressive daddy.
Simply untrue. Some fathers do their share. Sorry you have such trouble with the concept.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
martin dufresne wrote:
Thank you for acknowledging that fathers win more often than not.
No problem, if we're using that definition of the word. Let's just redefine the word "rich" and then I'll be wealthy. This is great, great news all around.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
Some fathers do their share, sure, no one is denying that: it's Vellacott and the FR lobby's presumption that they all do that we are fighting.
For a less simplistic view of the matter, please read Deanna Ogle's excellent "Anger in Action: The politics of "father's rights" in Canada" in the May-June 2009 issue of Briarpatch Magazine.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
martin dufresne wrote:
Call the wresting of joint custody from a woman who doesnt want it "a tie" if you find that "soothing", but for a mother trying to protect ....
Your bias is showing, Martin. "From" a woman? It wasn't hers.

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
G. Pie wrote:
I just asserted that they spent equal time and effort.
How the hell do you measure that anyway?

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
martin dufresne wrote:
Some fathers are great, sure, no one is denying that
Actually, that's exactly what Scout seems to be denying.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
RP. wrote:
G. Pie wrote:
I just asserted that they spent equal time and effort.
How the hell do you measure that anyway?
Well, time is pretty easy to measure. We have these clock things now. Effort is more of a nuanced calculation, I concur. Yet we do the best we can.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
Actually, that's exactly what Scout seems to be denying.
No one is responsible for your obdurate misreading of posts.

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
G. Pie wrote:
Well, time is pretty easy to measure. We have these clock things now. Effort is more of a nuanced calculation, I concur. Yet we do the best we can.
Well, then, since you know so much about the time and effort put in by your friends, and you insinuate that you have measured, enlighten us, who does what work for how long when? What kind of and how much credit does mom get for carrying and/or feeding the babies with her body?

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
In G.Pie's world, it's not time, it's effort, RP. Like changing a diaper takes ten times more effort if you're a guy...Tongue out Read liz in the hyperlinked material above about the notion of "quality time".

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
Aw, you're right. The fathers are all a bunch of fucking assholes completely useless for everything except paying child support. As you were.

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
..at least, we want to get 10x more the credit for being so big and egalitarian minded about have done it. Cool

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
That's not what we're saying G. Pie. Why so irrational?

is paying close attention
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 7289
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Send private message
Okay, for starters, GPie is female.
She is from Vancouver Island as well. And having lived all over BC, Vancouver Island, with out a doubt, in my anecdotal experience, has the highest incidence of actual equal shared parenting responsibilities, that I have ever found anywhere else in this province. So perhaps it is not a stretch for her to have witnessed such amongst her friends. Progressives on VIsland do actually walk the talk, I have found.
Is it predominent? No, not in my opinion, but it is significantly better than other places, I have found.
ETA: Aside from weighting the significant physiological impacts upon a woman's body, as time, and duration of carrying and breast feeding (if said mother does), measuring equal parenting activities is quite easy, RP.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16576
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Send private message
RP. wrote:
That's not what we're saying G. Pie. Why so irrational?
Okay, that was a good one :)
But I am out of this thread now.

rabble-rouser
Member: 8424
Joined: Nov 17 2004
Send private message
Here I was just going to apologise. Cool

rabble-rouser
Member: 2595
Joined: Oct 17 2001
Send private message
Quote:
Okay, for starters GPie, is female.
Knock me over with a feather.
Quote:
The fathers are all a bunch of fucking assholes completely useless for everything except paying child support. As you were.
Ya that's totally what I was saying. Remind is BC now the centre of the universe? I live in Jack Layton ridinig and I know men who take pat leave, are stay at home Dad's, have custody of their children and guess what? Doesn't delude me thinking that becasue a small percentage of men practice equality at home that we ned to talk about the few good ones before defending why women gets custody more often than men. If we have to stop every time to pat a few good men on the hed for some psoter before we can have a dialog about child custody why bother talking about anything at all on babble. I'm tires of conversation get derailed by people like gpie and the 'exceptions to the rules' people that need validation for not being an oppressor. Fuck.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
I totally support equal parenting and applaud it wherever I find it - the real thing, not the media image.
But I find it telling that the very worst of fathers (the malignant FR advocates that protect abusers, push men to harass women and to rob children) can so easily coopt good fathers' work to the benefit of bad fathers with legislative tricks such as this presumption.
Sorry for my lip, G.Pie.

is paying close attention
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 7289
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Send private message
Scout wrote:
Quote:
Okay, for starters GPie, is female.
Knock me over with a feather.
Quote:
The fathers are all a bunch of fucking assholes completely useless for everything except paying child support. As you were.
Ya that's totally what I was saying. Remind is BC now the centre of the universe? I live in Jack Layton ridinig and I know men who take pat leave, are stay at home Dad's, have custody of their children and guess what? Doesn't delude me thinking that becasue a small percentage of men practice equality at home that we ned to talk about the few good ones before defending why women gets custody more often than men. If we have to stop every time to pat a few good men on the hed for some psoter before we can have a dialog about child custody why bother talking about anything at all on babble. I'm tires of conversation get derailed by people like gpie and the 'exceptions to the rules' people that need validation for not being an oppressor. Fuck.

It is the centre of my universe, though I recognize it may not be yours. ;)

I agree completely with you about not stopping to pat the "very few" men on the head. Was just making an observation that her observations may be valid in her case as too much time was being spent on that aspect IMV.

In respect to the thread topic, I see this proposed Bill as harmful to women and children and that some men, especially those advocating for it, see it as a way to extend their control and domination of women and children.




rabble-rouser
Member: 16695
Joined: Nov 4 2008
Send private message
Quote:
And then there is all that male money saved in child support... mais il ne faut pas le dire, right?
Am I wrong in assuming that whatever money a father "saves" by not giving his child's mother money to buy food, he then spends himself, buying food?
Or do kids usually fast when they're with dad?
My brother-in-law and sister-in-law have a contested custody case ongoing, but whenever I see the boys at dad's house, they appear to be eating food, and as my brother-in-law isn't a farmer (nor a food burglar) I guess I assumed he paid for that food, just like mom would have.
Can you explain how dad is getting any kind of a net savings out of custody?? If there's some way he could feed those boys for free, I'd like to pass it on to him.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
From the father's perspective, the net saving appears whenever his joint custody situation isn't accompanied by a 50-50 sharing of caretaking time, which is most of the time, according to most sources (including Marcil-Gratton & LeBourdais).
From the mother's perspective, the net loss is clear. Without child support (i.e. parental income-sharing), it can be hellish to try and survive divorce when you will still be caring for the children at least half of the time - and therefore cannot simply rent a studio as fathers often do. Which is why many men use the threat of going for joint custody to stop women from leaving.
It seems you have not bothered reading Deanna Ogle's article. I wish you would.

hey boppa rebop beboparooba!
moderator
Member: 2130
Joined: Jul 27 2001
Send private message
first of all...
Snert wrote:
In the same way that no such presumption as "the white job candidate is better than the black job candidate" exists.
Snert don't even go there.
Snert, and G Pie, and our new friend stepped_on, you guys are spouting the same old "fathers rights" crap that gets trotted out whenever these threads pop up, it doesn't bear scrutiny, and you don't know what you're talking about. Do a little homework, and maybe listen to people who've actually done a bit of research.
From what I've seen in my Children's mental heath and CAS days, is that the one who can afford the most lawyerin' does best.
If I would be making any "presumptive assumptions" as an adjudicator in a divorce situation, it would be that I was dealing with a situation that had become inequitable, unbalanced, and fucked up.

rabble-rouser
Member: 16695
Joined: Nov 4 2008
Send private message
Quote:
Snert don't even go there.
That's off limits somehow? I'm not sure I follow. I was giving an example where no official presumption does, or could, exist, but where an unspoken bias keeps that "presumption" alive just the same. We've absorbed, to some degree, the message that a white job candidate is "better" and I think we've also absorbed, to some degree, the message that a female parent is better.
Quote:
you guys are spouting the same old "fathers rights" crap that gets trotted out whenever these threads pop up
Because I think that shared parenting is a good thing, now I'm in league with F4J? WTF?
Did Martin hack your account? If you're going to accuse people of being "fathers rights advocates" then you're working his corner.
Quote:
and maybe listen to people who've actually done a bit of research.
Like the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access? They're the Parliamentary committee whose report strongly recommended this.
Or have they been discredited as "F4J supporters"?

rabble-rouser
Member: 5173
Joined: Jun 3 2003
Send private message
The idea of anyone having rights other than the children in such cases is counterproductive.
There ought to be no assumptions going in other than an examination of what is best for the children.
There are many decisions and texts written about the fact that more contact with both parents is better for children unless there is some reasons for there not to be.
There are many times when the 50-50 ideal is destroyed by the custody battle itself which can force the court to choose between teh parents rather than award joint custody because the paretns are spending too much time poisoning each other.
50-50 custody as an ideal may be fine when both parents live close by but if they don't then the child can't go to one school one week and another the next-- again a decision as to what is best for the child should trump even a 50-50 presumption-- especially when the aprents are unable or unwilling to work to make that presumption workable.
Many parents who split up work out these arrangements themselves- when they don't and have to seek a judgement, there is already a breakdown in the kind of cooperation necessary to have a workable 50-50 arrangemetn between the parents.

recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18065
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Send private message
Mr. Dufresne, in regards to your original post, I would like to inform you on some things as a separated parent. "Who does the parenting?" Well, that is the reason this bill has been designed. Many poeple (fathers being a large part) are never given the chance to parent, which is why we end up having to spend thousands, sometimes 10's of thousands, to be a part of our children's lives. This money could be used for a college fund, for a better standard of living, for a new car or pretty much anything other than flushing it down the toilet, paying a lawyer. I know I can speak for many people, that have tried to work things out with the other parent, only to be left with tiny amounts of time to spend with their children. If there was any other way to come to an agreement, we'd be all for it.
It has nothing to do with ending child support, although some people's is so unreasonably high that they can barely afford to pay their own basic living expenses.
I don't believe you are aware of the ratio of males that are subjected to domestic violence, compared to that for females. It is almost one to one.
The only reason someone should be denied the right to be a parent to their child, is if they're unfit because they could be a danger to their child. This bill will not allow this.
If you are interested in some "facts", I recommend reading some main points from the government study "For the sake of the children report" that was published over ten years ago. In just a few minutes, you will see why it is so important for both parents to be a part of their children's lives. I won't waste this post stating facts that can be easily read elsewhere, but it shows how much better a chance a child has at pretty much everything while growing up.
I love my daughter and so does the rest of my family and if this bill will give us the chance (and save valuable years for parents that end up separated in the future) to be a larger part in my daughters life, then I am in full support of it.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
"I know I can speak for many people..."
You certainly claim to.
I have read, indeed contributed to the "For the Sake of the Children Report" process, and I could tell you how biased this report was because of Co-chairman Roger Gallaway's virulent hostility to women: he actually publicly denounced his Committee's researchers!... Still, the Committee's report did NOT endorse the joint custody presumption that Mr. Vellacott would saddle Canadian women and children with.
Since I have read the document you recommend, how about you take in the ones I hyperlinked to in post #47? Or did you just saunter in here to drop your load of platitudes and disinformation?
"...I don't believe you are aware of the ratio of males that are subjected to domestic violence, compared to that for females. It is almost one to one..."
Give us a break.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
Snert, you're wrong. What Vellacott is proposing is a 50-50 joint custody presumption, the kind that would allow men to shirk child support obligations..
Here is what the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access wrote in its Final Report about that formula, and why they didn't endorse the FR lobby's demand:
"(...)many witnesses, including individual fathers, fathers' groups and shared parenting advocates, recommended strongly that the act be amended to include a presumption in favour of joint physical custody, meaning an arrangement in which children would spend roughly equal amounts of time with each parent and where decision making would also be shared. Its proponents argued that such a presumption would be the best means of levelling the playing field or overcoming any unfair advantage women might have in disputes about parenting arrangements because of gender bias. Others thought it would increase the significance of the parenting roles played by fathers after divorce, to the ultimate advantage of their children.
The Committee was interested in testimony about the benefits of joint custody, for both parents and children, when it is agreed to voluntarily and works effectively. This type of arrangement generally involves joint decision making by parents, at least respecting important issues such as schooling, religion and medical care, with significant periods of time spent in the care of each parent. There seems to be at least anecdotal evidence to the effect that, with sufficiently mature children, willing parents, and conducive economic circumstances, joint custody offers benefits to children. However, legislation that imposes or presumes joint custody as the automatic arrangement for divorcing families would ignore that this might not be suitable for all families, especially those with a history of domestic violence or of very disparate parenting roles.
Presumptions in favour of joint custody or the primary caregiver have been adopted in a number of U.S. jurisdictions, but in some cases legislatures have subsequently withdrawn them after finding that they were not having the intended desirable effects. Presumptions that any one form of parenting arrangement is going to be in the best interests of all children could obscure the significant differences between families. As Edward Kruk, a professor of social work, warned:
First, because there is so much variation in our society in the way women and men enact their parental roles, any form of "one shoe fits all" approach to child custody, whether that's a joint custody or a primary caretaker presumption, is problematic. Research tells us that children fare best within an arrangement that attempts to approximate as closely as possible the parent-child relationships in the original two-parent home, within as co-operative an atmosphere as possible between the parents. (Meeting #27, Vancouver)
Members of the Committee were warned that advancing any form of presumptive model for parenting after divorce would conflict with the best interests of children. Fundamentally, there is too much variation among families for either presumption to offer a benefit to the aggregate of Canadian children.
In the past, there have been suggestions that a presumption in favour of the primary caregiver or in favour of joint custody would be beneficial. We disagree. It is our view that the courts must retain the discretion to deal with the unique facts of each case. Relying upon a presumption will not assist, whether the presumption is based upon the status quo prior to separation or based upon assuming that parents are equally willing or capable of meeting the needs of their children. In particular, a presumption in favour of joint custody is a presumption in favour of a legal concept, which is extremely elastic. This lack of definition of joint custody is, in our view, sufficient to make such a presumption fruitless. (Angus Schurman, Lawyer, Meeting #30, Halifax)
Presumptions can also have the negative effect of compelling families who might otherwise have been able to make constructive, amicable arrangements to apply to a court if they want to avoid the application of the presumptive form of parenting arrangements. The Committee was asked to consider this unintended consequence by lawyer Daphne Dumont.
Please do not establish presumptions that will require parents to go to court. Under no circumstances should the federal government establish presumptions that custodial parents must rebut in order to protect their children. Custodial parents tend to be poorer than non-custodial parents, particularly before the child support starts to flow, and it rarely flows early. The need to agree on the terms of access in order for access to occur is a great encourager of agreement. If you impose some sort of 50-50 parenting time arrangement, we will lose that benefit. (Meeting #31, Charlottetown)
On the basis of this argument, a number of witnesses concluded that the Divorce Act should not be amended to include any presumption in favour of a particular type of parenting arrangement. Instead, they suggested strengthening the "best interests of the child" test, which is the current basis for custody and access decisions. In addition, it was argued that families would benefit from the expanded availability of non-litigation services to give divorcing couples better information about their options. With more resources and better information, parents would be able to promote the best possible outcomes for their own children through their post-separation behaviour and decision making. As lawyer Michael Cochrane pointed out to the Committee:
I think what we really need to have, rather than presumptions of joint custody, which I do not favour, is a much more sophisticated shopping list, one that the judge is aware of and the lawyers and clients are discussing. From that more sophisticated list of choices and with informed consumers, we will get better parenting plans and we'll get people asking for things they know they're entitled to, rather than lying down at the wrong moment in a case and not taking what's really in their interest or the child's interest. (Meeting #13)
(...)
(Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, For the Sake of the Children, Chapter 4, A) I, 1. "No Presumptions")
In sum, it wrote: "...the Committee is not recommending a presumption that equal time-sharing, or what is currently referred to as joint physical custody, is in the best interests of children."

rabble-rouser
Member: 5173
Joined: Jun 3 2003
Send private message
Kevin G wrote:
I don't believe you are aware of the ratio of males that are subjected to domestic violence, compared to that for females. It is almost one to one.
This is an interesting statistic. Of course it depends on what you mean by domestic violence.
It is true that a high number of women do in fact yell at and even hit men. In fact it is possible that the numbers are not far off what you say- not sure if I believe that but I can concede it is possible..
Of course those who throw this stat around (it is not a new one) don't qualify it with the fact that violence that leaves bruises, causes serious injury, sends people to hospital sometimes to the morgue is not doled out equally. Well, men I am afraid are the experts there. Very few women inflict that much damage-- and no its not just about physical power -- I know some women that could certainly do serious damage if they wanted. No, the violence is different most of the time. I am not saying that it does not happen that some women do inflict serious injury-- just not anywhere near the 1 to 1 stat you refer to. Stats are funny aren't they -- depends on your definition. Like the woman who dies later in hospital from her injuries is just one stat as is the man whose face was slapped without any injury. Yes both are violence. But don't bother trying to tell anyone here that female violence is anywhere near male violence in damage.

is here
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18071
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Send private message
It seems clear you make this comentary based on not alot of real facts.
here in Nova scotia there are 17,000. (roughly) custody cases only 14,000. are given to the mother summarily.
does that seem right in any context? especially when the facts of family court cases regarding access are extremely high in Nova scotia. but for only a short time after the custody (like approximately 1-2 yrs, but when interviewed the fathers explain this oddity.
they ran out of money to pay the lawyer.
it is people like you, that children should fear. child studies in behavior shows that because of the "rule of thumb " that the child is best left with the mother has been failing dramatically for years. look at the stats can reviews. they show youth crime increasing , and not only in Nova scotia, or canada
check out the U.K. where this unfair and unjust rule of custody going to mothers have caused father suicides and children being led astray because their fathers are not anylonger there.
so I have to say to you, this.
you obviously do not have any real intellectual arguement. and are another example of a person who has sold their soul to bad feministic ideals that distroy families.
its great to know there are more intelligent people who will push for the bill to go through, and allow common sence over rule unjust treatment of human rights.
and intelligent people want whats best for the children. and not what you want whatever that is.

is here
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18071
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Send private message
martin dufresne wrote:
That women have the advantage in many contested cases has to do with the interests of the child and what they have put it.
Fathers win 55-70% of contested cases.
the very fact you refer to it as a win lose situation reveils that you are as ignorant as Ive suspected in facts and morals.
the facts are that it should never be a win lose contest.
it HAS to be whats best for the children.
and to summarily give over to one side or the other IS NOT THE BEST INTEREST OF ANYONE as it is against the charter of human rights and freedoms.
thankfully there are obviously more caring people in canada that want a fair custody arrangement, for the best interest of all our children.

hey boppa rebop beboparooba!
moderator
Member: 2130
Joined: Jul 27 2001
Send private message
I haven't noticed this mentioned, and I'm not sure just how it plays into the stats of which parent ends up with custody, but by about 12 years of age, the childs preference of which parent they want to go to, has a very considerable weight. I fact judges will tend to go along with that even if they think it may not be the best idea unless there's some fairly clear reason not to. The age is a bit of a grey area, but 12 is seen as a bit of a cutoff. Even younger though, the wishes of the children are given strong consideration (among other factors of course).

is
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18073
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Mr. Dufresne:
I want to impart some facts with respect to divorce in Canada, with some reference to other countries similarly predisposed to treating dads in a negative manner and to help you with your references and lack of citations.
Firstly not all divorces in Canada end due to Domestic Violence. This is an unfounded, non-scientific observation. In our country Intimate Partner Violence is pretty much equal. Here is a quote from Stats Can: “Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005. An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004”. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm
Domestic Violence is serious problem but it is not gender specific. It is a family problem that needs a new paradigm to resolve. You may wish to read Dr. Don Dutton’s scientific observations here Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Dr. Dutton, from UBC, is Canada’s foremost researcher on this matter and is sought and cited the world over for his work.
You may also want to have a look at this link http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm which is REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY by Martin S. Fiebert , Department of Psychology California State University, Long Beach. This is the largest bibliography of its kind and current to May of this year.
In Canada 75% of all marriages are terminated unilaterally by the wife. Not because of DV but for a host of reasons. In the USA it is 66% and in OZ about 70%. My research shows part of the reason is the wife thinks there are greener pastures and that magical, mysterious long awaited prince charming is coming along to sweep her off her feet. This does not happen as second marriages and co-habitations end at a far greater rate than the first ones which combined run about 50% in Canada and the USA. Cohabitations have greater frailty and end in far greater numbers than do marriages.
Many studies show that children having both parents in their lives on an ongoing basis do far better on many social outcomes than if dad is marginalized to the standard 14% visitation of two weekends a month. Professor Edward Kruk’s research at UBC shows children need a 40% contact with each parent to maintain a parent-child bond. Fourteen percent is not in a child’s best interest. You can view the PDF summary of his study on Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility here: http://www.fira.ca/cms/documents/179/April7_Kruk_Summary.pdf
Dr. Kruk shows the legal system must be child focussed and take into account the many developmental needs of children. He also demonstrates a child-focused analysis of child custody determination contradicts your assertion of high conflict divorce as follows: ” … even though the majority of contested cases of child custody, including high-conflict cases, do not involve the type of “intimate terrorism” necessitating the removal of a parent (as a routine parent) from a child’s life via sole custody. Contrary to current practice and dominant socio-legal discourse, children are not shielded from post separation violence and abuse by means of sole custody.”
Many studies show the positive social outcomes for children with active involvement by both parents and many show the negative outcomes for children in single parent homes. These are largely matriarchal homes. In Canada, according to Stats Can in 2004 custody went to the mother in about 90% of all cases whether contested or not. Your non-cited assertion of Fathers winning 55-70% of contested cases in this country is just plain not supported by any research. The number is very small at around 7%. Joint custody is the manner in which judges spread bread crumbs to dad by giving physical custody to the mom. About 8% to the dad in sole custody.
The 2004 table looks like this: total custody cases 31, 764, custody to dad 2,558, to the wife 14,309, joint 14,773. The rest were a small number to others not the mom or dad or not known.
We’ll calculate a minuscule amount for cooperative shared/equal parenting which currently exists through agreement by very unselfish parents who do have the child’s best interest at heart and works fine. My 11 year old, although not yet in a legal shared/equal parenting relationship, has no trouble with the transitions but it is important, where possible to ensure they keep the same friends and of course school.
I would recommend you do more research related to your articles. It will improve your credibility and I do suggest going beyond the Liz Library. It is the largest single compendium of male hatred on the internet and not overly scientific or unbiased.
The focus must be on the child. Unselfish parents with the best interest of the children in mind will be able to work this out. Several European countries have this in place with Belgium having one of the most emphatic mechanisms for children to stay in the lives of both parents. Interestingly this was brought into law by a Feminist Government Minister who wanted her husband to be equal. Isn’t that what Feminism was about back in the good old days - equality.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
Well, we seem to be experiencing an onslaught of Father-Right defenders... all in the name of the children, of course, complete with straw men:
"...not all divorces in Canada end due to Domestic Violence. This is an unfounded, non-scientific observation."
...which is why I said no such thing. But don't expect me to lose more time rebutting their all too familiar factoids.

recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18074
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Send private message
As co-president of Canadian Equal Parenting Council, I note that Mr. Dufresne has the honour of being the first encountered instance against the proposed legislation of Bill C-422 for Equal Parenting. We're delighted to see the lively exchange of views as there is ultimately no more important topic than families and children as the bedrock of any society.
I invite all to read the Bill C-422 directly to minimize debating misinformation. In general, the proposed legislation seeks continuity of relationship for the child with both parents and relatives post-divorce. After all, parents divorce each other, but not the child. The legislation is based on a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting in which both parents and the child start legal deliberations from the same basis of equal rights, responsibilities, and benefits as pertained in marriage for presumed fit parents. In other words 50:50 is the starting assumption which may be relaxed if either parent is unwilling or unfit for whatever reason (including Domestic Violence) to care for the child.
The legislation aims to set a level playing field for both parents- a situation which does not exist today. I challenge anyone to find a Canadian family law lawyer who would disagree with the assertion that the current system is biased against men. Sadly, western nations have not kept detailed statistics by gender outcomes making it difficult to have a rational discussion. I will say that an analysis of ON Court of Appeal Family Law cases during the period 1996-2008 indicates female appellants have a 4:1 advantage over male appellants in general, and for specific instances like child custody, the ratio rises to 18:1. Statscan indicates over 80% of children live with mothers, and that about 6-8 % are shared/equal parenting.
Apologists for the current system often like to assert the situation has improved for fathers by often referring to current awards of 49/42/9% for maternal/joint/paternal custody respectively. What is not explained is that Joint Custody refers to joint legal custody but not joint physical custody, and that the term is really a form of sole maternal custody in disguise- hence the reason 80% of children live with mothers.
There is no disagreement about "Best Interests of the Child" (BIC) being paramount. But did you know that BIC is not defined in the Divorce Act? In other words BIC, like beauty, is arbitrarily in the eyes of the beholder. The proposed legislation aims to define BIC as the starting point for consistency in judicial decision making to achieve "maximal contact" provisions already existing in legislation, but clearly not reflected in jurisprudence.
It also sets out to avoid individual belief systems or preferences being imposed on the litigants and the child. Thus, the reasonable-sounding hypothesis may be advanced that custody should be awarded to the "Primary Caregiver". This then raises the issue of how to define "primary"- is it the parent who logs the most time with the child, or the parent who earns money to provide food, shelter, clothing, and education, or are both "primary"?
Another example is the assumption that divorce is caused mostly by Domestic Violence (DV) with males being the sole perpetrators. DV is far from being the primary reason, but may seem that way to judges who only see the 5% of divorces that go to trial which do indeed have a high DV content. Of course, there is no standard legal definition for DV and it spans the range of physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, and financial abuse. Statscan has long shown that DV occurs in approximately equal proportions by gender and that DV is not a gender issue but a social dysfunction independent of gender. Canadian DV findings are consistent with findings in all western nations.
Some will argue that males are unwilling to be parents. Whether it be males or females, the legislation specifically takes into account parental willingness as a factor in custody awards.
There's also the old chestnut in argumentation that equal parenting is just a guise to reduce child support obligations. I have never understood that one as the obvious answer for the aggrieved parent is to seek variation of child support rather than change in custody. Moreover, if Child Support Guidelines are financially neutral as required, then any reduction in child support by virtue of equal parenting would be offset by a commensurate increase in child residential costs. Lastly, if one assumes the child support Guidelines are indeed economically biased against the non-custodial parent, the costs and likelihood of a male winning a custody battle are greater than any child cost savings in all but very few instances.
It's pretty well settled social science that equal/shared parenting is the second best option to an intact household. That may be why western nations are increasingly adopting equal parenting and moving away from sole custody. It's why all political parties agreed to the concept in the 1999 "For the Sake of the Children" report. This legislation follows on from the report and CEPC is working with all parties on a non-partisan basis to move ahead with the commitment they themselves made a decade ago.
CEPC is a family rights coalition of 40 organizations representing the extended divorce community (single fathers/mothers/children, grandparents, second spouses, step-parents). Our mission is to achieve family law reform based on equal parenting, gender equality, recognition of domestic violence as a social dysfunction rather than a gender issue, and incorporation of UN Conventions on the Right of the Child.
As a side note, I add that Fathers-4-Justice is indeed one of the coalition organizations. Their membership have adopted the "caped crusader" superhero theme as part of their successful media advocacy strategy, and these costumed Moms and Dads (yes, there are Moms and even Grandmoms in the organization) are the same ones that MPs call to get help for their divorcing constituents, or even ask to participate in policy deliberations.
I refer you to Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard (Dec 2008) by Dr. E. Kruk for a comprehensive analysis of this issue.
I trust this will facilitate the debate. It's a pleasure to see this issue being discussed.

rabble-rouser-machine
Member: 15957
Joined: Feb 15 2008
Send private message
oldgoat wrote:
I haven't noticed this mentioned, and I'm not sure just how it plays into the stats of which parent ends up with custody, but by about 12 years of age, the childs preference of which parent they want to go to, has a very considerable weight. I fact judges will tend to go along with that even if they think it may not be the best idea unless there's some fairly clear reason not to. The age is a bit of a grey area, but 12 is seen as a bit of a cutoff. Even younger though, the wishes of the children are given strong consideration (among other factors of course).
This is true in child welfare cases as well (at least here). Prior to that age, the child's opinion is given no weighting legally - it is solely the social worker's discretion (based on their evidence as relevant to the legislation). At age 12, a judge in a child welfare proceeding will take the child's views about whether he or she wants to stay in their home and thinks it is safe.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
(Relayed with the author's permission)
Hi!
Call me cynical but I don't think that much (or enough) has changed when it comes to parenting.... and one also has to consider the source when you look at who is proposing or backing Bill C-422.
Gerri Thorsteinson
Dear Prime Minister:
I am writing to express my concern and disapproval of Bill C-422 put forth by Conservative MPs Maurice Vellacott and Steven Blaney.
The 'overall bias' favouring women in divorce and custody law, which the bill's proponents claim, only reflects the reality that women continue to bear most of the daily responsibility of/for child care.
Bill C-422 will be used and abused by many in positions of power to add to the load that many women carry.

Those who feel so hard done by should be putting their efforts into helping to raise well-grounded children, rather than harassing the mothers endeavouring to do the job, often under extremely difficult circumstances. If passed, this legislation would be a dangerous tool in the hands of violent men to continue abusing their former partners and their children.
Sincerely,
Gerri Thorsteinson

This kind of pressure on the government, Opposition parties, Senators and on your own MP is necessary to hold back the smarmy patriarchalists.

recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18076
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Send private message
Unfortunately "Martin", you don't seem overly concerned about being entirely truthful or fair in your comments.
The very simple fact is that many, many children will be better served when Equal Parenting becomes law. I will provide my own personal example, which will explain why this is so:
My ex-wife and I separated in 2003 and although I was very involved with my children prior to the separation, my ex-wife threatened that she would not allow me to have access to my children until I granted her sole custody. I consented to interim sole custody - knowing that I would get joint custody later, which I did - because I did not want my children to lose out on the wonderful relationship that we all shared.
Immediately after the children's first overnight visit with me, which immediately followed me granting her sole custody, my ex-wife allowed her mother to assault my daughter in an attempt to frame me for sexual assault. (Two different doctors cleared my name and I was never accused, nor charged with anything.)
The reason that my ex-wife thought that she could get away with what she did was because - unbeknownst to me at the time - when I granted her interim sole custody, I granted my ex-wife the legal right to deny me access to doctor's files and Children's Aid Society files.
The simple reality is that, had my ex not had the power and control of having sole custody, she would not have had the opportunity to commit the crime that she did.
I would ask you, "Martin", to reconsider your closemindedness about why some of us are fighting for Bill C-422. I would like to prevent other children from having to endure what my daughter went through.

is
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18077
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Send private message
People concerned with non-custodial parents and children's rights would do well to canvass the support of their MP's on Bill C-422.
Bill C-422 picks up on the all-party commitment made in the 1998 "For the Sake of the Children" Report. In May, CEPC met with two Justice Critics and found they support the principle of equal/shared parenting together with a non-partisan approach to this legislation. Subsequent to those meetings, Justice Minster Rob Nicholson agreed to contact all Justice Critics to explore legislative options to proceed on a non-partisan basis. This suggests that the current Private Member's Bill status of the legislation may be escalated in parliamentary priority.
Canadian support for these reforms has remained uniformly strong over the past decade. A recent Nanos poll indicated about 80% of Canadians support shared/equal parenting with little variation by gender, region, age, or political affiliation.
RE: Equal Parenting Bill C-422‏
Hello Paulette,

Thank you for your email and understanding. MP Brown is in support of Bill C-422 and will be voting in favour of it.
I have printed a copy of the report and will forward it to his reading file.

Regards,
Alison
Alison Eadie
Executive Assistant
Patrick Brown MP
Barrie
____________ _________ _________ _________ _
Private bill for 'equal parenting' goes on Parliament's order paper
http://www.. lavalnews. ca/articles/ TLN1714/parentin gBill171408. html
"That's so that the two parents can come together for the good of the child."
Canadian Parliament Considers Equal Parenting Bill http://www.glennsac ks.com/blog/ index.php# blog
"Not only that, but the emphasis of equal parenting is on the best interests of children, not parental rights."

I am a divorced woman, a mother, grandmother, step mother and second wife. I have seen both sides; "Second Wife Sees the Family Court System for What it is" http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/06/06/second-wife-sees-the-family-court-system-for-what-it-is/
The System as it stands right now is not working in the best interest of the child and it is time for change.
Bill C-422 will release all innocent "Prisoners of Divorce" allowing both (fit) parents to have a loving unhindered relationship with their children.
Paulette MacDonald
Love Is For Everyone!
Support Equal Parenting Bill C-422
Call or Write:Your Member of Parliament
Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson at Nichor1@parl. gc.ca
Prime Minister Stephen Harper at pm@pm.gc.ca
Tell them to support MP Maurice Vellacott and Bill C-422.

keeps his status under wraps!!
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 12323
Joined: Dec 11 2005
Send private message
They're well organized. You gotta give 'em that!

is paying close attention
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 7289
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Send private message
Nope

recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18080
Joined: Jul 26 2009
Send private message
Quote:
The very simple fact is that many, many children will be better served when Equal Parenting becomes law.
I couldn't agree more, and the numbers speak for themselves. Putting a child with a lone-guardian makes them more at risk for all varieties of abuse, and in fact the hightest perpetrating population of child abuse in lone-parent homes are mothers. It is not only in the best interest of the child to have an equitable parenting framework, but the statistics actually indicate that this is in fact the safest position for a child to be in.
In case you are curious where those numbers came from:

Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect - Major Findings - 2003

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
...in fact the hightest perpetrating population of child abuse in lone-parent homes are mothers.
Yes, well that is kinda to be expected, with men out of the picture...
The population of parents in lone-parent homes is almost exclusively women, "hightest" or not. Men rarely want and demand sole custody if they remain unmatched.
So-called "shared parenting" allows the worst of them the continuing control and reduced or suppressed financial responsibilities without actually taking on the work.

is paying close attention
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 7289
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Send private message
Well how about we point out that male abuse against children, say nothing of women, is the highest in 2 parent homes. FFS what idiots the FRA crowd are.
But then of course, they are overlooking the fact of how fathers not wanting to be involved in the child's life is actual abuse too. Say nothing of the fact it is men murdering their children in far far greater numbers than women. And I won't even bother pointing out incest and sexual abuse rates.

rabble-rouser
Member: 1222
Joined: Apr 22 2001
Send private message
My ex always had equal access - he just refused to participate. I know many women in a similar position...once the separation happened, for whatever reason, the dad who was involved with his kids morphed into some other being. I was left to raise our children on my own and that job was further complicated by his almost-complete withdrawal from their lives. I know the reality of where a Bill of this nature leads, ordered equal access (which is usually linked to no child support being paid) but the woman almost always ends up raising the children by herself (with, if she's lucky, an occasional weekend visit to dad's).
My ex left it all to me. Following our separation, there was no participation in raising our children, no discussion about their lives, and no problem solving around their struggles. We have joint custody and he does not exercise any responsibility in the areas of involvement with our children. They are grown now and one is a post-secondary student who still needs help. My ex stills refuses to comply with the court order that was the result of negotiations with me and his lawyer around annual disclosure of income.
I know many more women in similar positions to mine than I do dads who are involved with the children after separation and/or divorce. They have continued on their worklife/careers, unencumbered with getting kids to daycare, making lunches, being up in the night, etc, and most moan and groan about how mercenary we are...those guys are not thinking about "the best interests of the children" and it's my belief, (based on anectodal evidence, for sure) that they are in the majority.

is
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18073
Joined: Jul 25 2009
martin dufresne wrote:
...in fact the hightest perpetrating population of child abuse in lone-parent homes are mothers.
Yes, well that is kinda to be expected, with men out of the picture...
The population of parents in lone-parent homes is almost exclusively women, "hightest" or not. Men rarely want and demand sole custody if they remain unmatched.
So-called "shared parenting" allows the worst of them the continuing control and reduced or suppressed financial responsibilities without actually taking on the work.
Are you suggesting then it is OK for sole parent females to kill and abuse children. In the USA and Australia the mom is by far the greatest perpetrator. For the USA stats go here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm Are you afraid that equal parenting will keep children safer and thus ruin your ideological predisposition that females are the "owners" of children. If so many dads don't want custody why do you think 10's of thousands of us want this legislative change?
Would you provide citation for your assertions or did this just come out of thin air that the "worst of them" want shared custody. Isn't that counter intuitive?. The facts are children are by far safer in two parent biological homes and secondly in shared parenting environments. I just love how your supporters are so intellectually endowed with insight one of them calling us "idiots." Is that the level of reasoned debate and intelligence I am likely to find here?

is
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18073
Joined: Jul 25 2009
remind wrote:
Well how about we point out that male abuse against children, say nothing of women, is the highest in 2 parent homes. FFS what idiots the FRA crowd are.
But then of course, they are overlooking the fact of how fathers not wanting to be involved in the child's life is actual abuse too. Say nothing of the fact it is men murdering their children in far far greater numbers than women. And I won't even bother pointing out incest and sexual abuse rates.
Would you provide your citation for these assertions. Is "idiot" the best you've got. Surely you can do better than that when discussing the most important resource in the world - that being our children.
Your second comment belies the gravity of your fundamentally flawed "off the top" and non-verifiable remarks. Please show us the stats on this information. What have these assertions got to do with equal shared parenting for fit parents. Do you not understand that 50-50 is the starting point and couples would then work out the best fit for them. With the vast majority of women in the workforce do you not think they would benefit from a greater share by the dad? It may not be 50-50 but perhaps 60-40. What are you afraid of? Your ideology appears to outweigh your tolerance for men and fathers. Would I be correct?

is paying close attention
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 7289
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Send private message
Yep, in respect to post #98 not the one above this, especially given the recent occurance of a 7 week old baby being assaulted in a 2 parent home, and that men by far commit the largest amount of c rimes, and against women and children too, in Canada.
BTW crime rates in Canada have been going down for years, so you can take you contentions that single parent families are causing the "higher" incidence of crime, and shove it.

Statue
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Send private message
If you don't like what you "find here", no one is keeping you from waltzing right out again... You folks dismiss detailed cites rebutting your claims with cheap insults such as "not overly scientific" and "compendium of male hatred," and you whine when some of us call you idiots?
Indeed, you are so immersed yourselves in very real hatred for the women you are fighting ("for the sake of the children", natch...) that you can't write three paragraphs without slipping back in your phantasy of murderous abusive mothers.
The kind of men who do share parenting before relationships break down and women have to pull the plug to save the family fdon't want anything to do with your pity pot and your devious proposals to strip children and women of their rights and livelihood in the name of pie-in-the-sky promises such as "shared parenting".
People are smart enough to look at the bottom line of your demands and see who gets what and who loses what... and how horrific such compulsory arrangemnents will be for women and children wanting to escape a controlling or abusive spouse or father.

rabble-rouser
Member: 1222
Joined: Apr 22 2001
Send private message
Mike Murphy wrote:
Are you suggesting then it is OK for sole parent females to kill and abuse children. In the USA and Australia the mom is by far the greatest perpetrator. For the USA stats go here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm Are you afraid that equal parenting will keep children safer and thus ruin your ideological predisposition that females are the "owners" of children. If so many dads don't want custody why do you think 10's of thousands of us want this legislative change?
No one suggested that it's OK for sole parent women to kill and abuse children. The comment came from the reality that, because sole parent families are led by women, by a huge majority, that it's no surprise that single parent violence would come almost exclusively by women. It's kind of a silly observation, really. How does one go from that to speculating that children would be safer if they were being single parented by their fathers?
Most dads could be taking advantage of shared access and custody agreements or even access that is granted when they don't have shared custody. Many, many don't. My belief is that it's almost always about money...they don't want to pay it and this is a way (not for all) to get around having to do so. Martin has argued the very points on a statistical basis that I have experienced in my life, as have many women I have known. One dad that I know well finds himself in similar circumstances and he, too, is living close to the line financially and doesn't have access to the legal help he needs to sort it out. It's all about who has the best lawyer and mostly, due to differences in financial ability, that's not women.

is
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18073
Joined: Jul 25 2009
remind wrote:
Yep, especially given the recent occurance of a 7 week old baby being assaulted in a 2 parent home, and that men by far commit the largest amount of c rimes, and against women and children too, in Canada.
BTW crime rates in Canada have been going down for years, so you can take you contentions that single parent families are causing the "higher" incidence of crime, and shove it.
You continue to use abusively framed and intolerently formed statements without any citation for these. I remember in grade 7 a child saying similar things to me in the school yard that I was an idiot and I should get lost. The best one though was I should go "play in the traffic". We all laughed with careless delight when she said that. Are you angry with someone or do you just not have anything better to offer? The logic of your comments does not follow You appear to be able to read but not for comprehension. Please reread or if you haven't already go to the source links I have provided. For your benefit DV rates in most western democracies are pretty much equal. In one Centre for Disease Control Study the perpetrators were 71% female. We can have statistical debates ad nauseum but that won't get to the fundamentally fair environment that children need and want both fit parents in their lives equally. How can you justify that is not in their best interests? Is your rationale related to entitelements you fear you will lose?

is paying close attention
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 7289
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Send private message
Can't be bothered citing anything or making much of an effort to indicate how freaking whacked you people are. You aren't on some poorly educated right wing forum, where your anti-women efforts will float.
As for your accusations of entitlements that I fear I will loose, indicates, that you are looking at things from a patriarchial perspective and worrying about the unfair entitlements men want back.

recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18062
Joined: Jul 24 2009
Send private message
Wow interesting thread. For starters IMHO posters shouldn't be allowed to throw out percentages without a direct link to the source.

is paying close attention
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 7289
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Send private message
Not so much

is
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18073
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Well remind thats too bad you think that way. I always thought the way forward was to debate an issue in a reasoned manner to explore the issue thoroughly and see if there was common ground. You clearly don't subscribe to that model. By the way if I am patriarchal for wanting shared equal parenting as a presumption I am deliciously curious about your comment "...worrying about the unfair entitlements men want back." Do you mean the entitelements are unfair to men because that is how it reads. Are you assumimg men don't want to pay these or are you confused because dads will still be supporting their children in shared parenting but if it is 50-50 doing it directly with the children. Moms will be doing the same thing. If it is 60-40 then a fair assessment will have to be made as they do in Belgium and other countries with the presumption of equal shared parenting. By the way these countries haven't seen any major changes in their viability but their children have more positive social outcomes. Are you willing to deny children this for selfish reasons - perhaps because you hate your ex?
In any event you have a nice day. Wink


rabble-rouser
Member: 1222
Joined: Apr 22 2001
First post blank since it can't be edited but this is a continuation of the thread on Private Member's Bill C-422 here.

Comments

rabble-rouser
Member: 1222
Joined: Apr 22 2001
In the previous thread, among other comments that I'm not responding to:
Mike Murphy wrote:
If it is 60-40 then a fair assessment will have to be made as they do in Belgium and other countries with the presumption of equal shared parenting.
I'm not sure why there should be a presumption of equal shared parenting when, overwhelmingly men don't share parenting equally. Perhaps they do in other countries but I doubt it. I know they don't here. Statistics show that. Men already have legal access to their children - they just need to exercise it before I think any such presumption can be considered valid.

rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 7289
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Exactly loretta!
What really is going on is men's belief in their right to wholey owned:
Designer vaginas and all that goes with it in women's oppression and exploitation.

rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
It is precisely because most men don't share parenting that the patriarchal lobby is angling for a presumption that they have and will and therefore should be empowered by the State to resist any acknowledgment of the needs of parent that has and will...
Another element that is obscured in these partiarchalists world-view is the role played by stepfathers and other partners of the primary parent that often do much better responding to the child's needs than Battling Bio-Dad and his cheap tactics to remain in control and save a few bucks a week.

recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18085
Joined: Jul 26 2009
Martin.... you really don't know what you're talking about !!!
Nearly 50% of divorced women with children are medicated mental patients. ( 70% of "antidepressant" users are... adult women.)
Check out www.paawareness.org to learn what many parents... MOSTLY MOTHERS... do to their children.
At www.ssristories.com just scroll down to Mother... and read the stories.

rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
Thank you. The more you guys post here, the more it becomes clear that you are waging a war of attrition against mothers (and proudly too...), rather than trying to improve the judicial process or legislation as you claim.
It's a good thing that judges are still allowed to judge situations like yours on their merits, case-by-case, and to (sometimes) keep misogynist harassers like yourselves away from children and their mothers... A shared caretaking presumption would strip them of the responsibility to do that.
Why not just crawl back into the woodwork - where some of you hope the Family Responsibility Office won't find you!...

moderator
Member: 9938
Joined: Apr 21 2005
drugbuster is gone.
A reminder that if anyone notices a troll, for more immediate attention, please email the moderators rather than use the "flag as offensive" button.

recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18073
Joined: Jul 25 2009
Martin, Martin, Martin: Is this how you debate - resorting to hyperbole and name calling. Do you do this when translating for your customers. Do you really believe dads who love their children and want to be equal in their lives are mysogynists? I've seen many members of the curreent flavour of feminism called victim feminists - and you are cleary in that category - resort to this silly denunciation of people who disagree with you. Surely you can rise above that fairly low bar in explaining your cause. I always wondered why people like you display publicly your inability to seriously debate an issue without losing it. Its a pattern by some of your acolytes on board this thread too. How do you conduct yourself in your family environment. Do you yell and call them names too? Isn't that DV by your own definition? How about you remind do you abuse your children like this as well?
Thats like saying people who don't like Obama or Jessey Jackson or Al Sharpton hate Blacks. That would be racism! Personally I am ambivalent toward all 3 but not every one is. I don't dislike women - just professional victim feminists like remind and folks like you who spread myths which then categorize and smear all men and fathers as unworthy of parenting.
What ever happened to the original feminism where equality for all was the goal?

rabble-rouser
Member: 1222
Joined: Apr 22 2001
Mike Murphy wrote:
What ever happened to the original feminism where equality for all was the goal?
That's kind of rich. Equality is the goal but the differences between men's and women's incomes following relationship breakdown, especially when there are children, is striking. Women make substantially less, overall, than men and part of that lower figure has to do with the fact that most single parents are women and those women do not have the same kind of freedom that their exes do upon separation and cannot pursue work-place opportunities, cannot generally work over-time, and often can't go away for extra education or training in other communities. Even when support is factored in, many women have given up work opportunities to raise children and have lower incomes than their former partners. That's not equality, and it is what family courts often have to consider when looking at the well-being of the children.
Equality for all would also mean that fathers did share equally in parenting and we know that's not true in many, many cases.

rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
Contact user
And even if they did, as I hope they would, the paid work they do in the workforce would still be paid 143% of what women are paid (when they're paid) for their work (since women are still making seventy cents for every dollar men make. So it still wouldn't be equality.
Worse: if the patriarchalists ever managed to insert a shared parenting presumption in the law, men would do even less of the domestic work in families, knowing that whatever they have done or not done before a breakup will be treated the same by the court (or the rubber-stamp process that will replace it), their "rights" guaranteed by this presumption that will act as a disincentive to actual sharing before divorce or separation.

recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18080
Joined: Jul 26 2009
Loretta: I would greatly appreciate the sources where you are basing your determinations, so that they can be reviewed with the same vigor that you and Mr. Dufresne apply to the bill we are discussing. Post them here if you will.
Dufresne: Can you also provide some numbers or reports that back up the claim that in territories or countries that have an equal parenting presumption in the law, that men do less domestic work than before the law was in place?
Martin, as the leader of "Montreal Men Against Sexism" does it not seem ironic, if not maddeningly hypocritical of you to carry on in this fashion while under the guise of someone, who by definition should be against the very thing that you are pervading?
Idle banter is one thing, and while mildly amusing, I have yet to see any real material from anyone on your side of the fence to give us anything substantial to discuss.

moderator
Member: 9938
Joined: Apr 21 2005
Troll update from me:
They are all gone, including Justin.
I hadn't read the previous thread when I closed it for length. It's not always possible for me to do so. But what an infestation! Holy troll patrol batpeople. This issue clearly brings out the entitlement in the father's rights folks. Ick.
I will let the other mods know to keep an eye on this thread.

moderator
Member: 1560
Joined: May 10 2001
Thanks, Maysie, I didn't see the last thread at all...and I'm not sure I want to look now. :)
Okay, I looked. The thread WAS a bit of a cesspool, but I'm still not clear on what the bill actually says. If it says that courts should start with the assumption that both parents are capable and should share custody unless they see evidence that this would be a problem, then I don't see what the problem is with that - and in fact, I thought that's what was happening already.
A lot of people in the other thread also trotted out the idea that apparently the courts are all biased in favour of women and "assume" the woman should have custody from the start. This has not been my experience at all. And I believe Martin when he says that most contested cases are won by fathers - this has been my personal experience, and anecdotal experience from people I've known who have gone through contested cases. And even those people who have actually EXPERIENCED cases where fathers won custody over mothers think that somehow it was an anomaly that the father got custody. I deal with this assumption all the time - people are amazed when they find out that, while I have joint custody of my son, that he stays with his dad during the week and me on weekends. They assume I must have done something "wrong", when in fact it's just that the child has to live with someone during the week, and in this case, it's the father.
Furthermore, I have found out from talking to counsellors who deal with parental alienation that, in fact, most perpetrators they come across are MEN. So I also think that feminists who try to say that parental alienation doesn't exist are also shooting themselves in the foot - and are not standing in solidarity with those of us women who have experienced it and whose children have been victimized by their fathers.
I think, basically, that a lot of people hold a lot of mistaken ideas about what happens currently in court, especially the fathers' rights nutjobs. But I think even a lot of progressive people don't really understand what happens in family court when it comes to ugly divorce and custody cases. Certainly I didn't - until I started navigating the system myself!

rabble-rouser
Member: 15090
Joined: Apr 24 2007
Contact user
Maysie wrote:
Troll update from me:
They are all gone, including Justin.
I hadn't read the previous thread when I closed it for length. It's not always possible for me to do so. But what an infestation! Holy troll patrol batpeople. This issue clearly brings out the entitlement in the father's rights folks. Ick.
I will let the other mods know to keep an eye on this thread.
thank you
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!