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.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Custody battles in the age of Internet chats

I'm surprised this judge had the temerity to actually allow this father some degree of solace to see his children physically. They typically only serve those with "boobs" out of misguided chivalry, patriarchy, and their self-loathing of masculinity. This self loathing is evident in the 90% of physical custody given to moms. They do not believe their own gender has parental capability without "mommy" in control. In this case the judge may be female but they typically follow the same rules to add to the cult of single motherhood with dad as the visitor. In this era of unilateral divorce mom always wins and dad is marginalized. In this case he appears to have a steep financial price for seeing his children 2 days a week. At least he gets to see them and hug them physically so the children have less chance of being alienated but not guaranteed. I will bet this woman will use whatever means are available to get her way. If they get to OZ it is highly unlikely he will see them again as the courts in that country have the same favouritism toward the mom. Whatever happened to the Charter of Rights in terms of gender equality? I forgot to mention for those male readers unfamiliar with the Family Court System this is typical of how men (dads) are treated. I can guarantee, based on the balance of probabilities, this will happen to you even if you were the best dad in the world. The judges act as social engineers creating negative consequences for the children and orchestrate a vast transfer of wealth from men to single moms across this nation. The profiteers are lawyers and by creating dysfunction for the children in single parent homes they guarantee future business as these children are far more likely to come in contact again with the judicial system. Lets do a little math to see the real face of gender apartheid in Canada. The mans income is $200,000.00 per year. In BC the marginal tax rate on that income is 43.7%. His tax bill before taking personal exemptions is $81,400.00. He is left with $118,600.00. Out of this he is obliged to give his ex who unilaterally walked out because she got "wet" over another man $91,200.00 in tax free money. The marginal rate on that is 38.29%. That is an equivalent before tax income of $125,856.00. The dad is left with $17,400.00 to cover all his costs including any extra health insurance for the children, life insurance, vacations ( not going to happen) etc. He can take no deductions for this transfer of wealth in order to reduce his taxes. The time for equal shared parenting is upon us. How the government can get away with this kind of clear gender sexism and bias is beyond my comprehension. MJM I've sent my rant off to the Prime Minister, Justice Minister Nicholson, the Canadian Judicial Council and my local political Federal and Provincial representatives along with advocacy groups across Canada.

Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre
Inbox X

Reply to all
|
fromPrime Minister/Premier ministre
sender timeSent at 08:41 (GMT-05:00). Current time there: 21:04.
tom.j.murphy@nospam.com
ccRobert Nicholson
date17 November 2009 08:41
subjectOffice of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre
hide details 08:41 (12 hours ago)
Dear Mr. Murphy: On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to thank you for your recent e-mail. Please be assured that your comments have been noted and that they will receive due consideration from the Minister, who has already received a copy of your correspondence. L.A. Lavell Executive Correspondence Officer for the Prime Minister's Office Agent de correspondance de la haute direction pour le Cabinet du Premier ministre

Shannon Kari, National Post Published: Monday, November 16, 2009

More On This Story

Daily contact by video conference over the Internet is not sufficient access between a father and his children, a judge in British Columbia has ruled in turning down a mother's request to move to Australia.

The decision issued by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Hope Hyslop last week is the latest in an increasing number of family law disputes where one of the parents has proposed using online software such as Skype when seeking to move with their children a great distance from their former spouse. In at least four other cases in the past year, judges in B.C., Alberta and Ontario have cited Skype as one of the reasons that a parent was permitted to separate a child from the other parent.

"Electronic communication is not as desirable as in-person access, but it does allow for the child to keep in touch with her dad every day if she

so wishes," said B.C. Supreme Court Justice Deborah Satanove in a recent decision.

The judge ruled in favour of a Vancouver woman taking her 12-year-old child to live with her in Spain, for at least one year.

In the case before Judge Hyslop, the couple, who are both in their early forties, met in 1996 when the woman (who can be identified only as L.C.E.) left Australia to travel and work in British Columbia.

She married E.S.B. in 1997 and they took up residence near Vancouver.

L.C.E. testified that her husband had promised to move to Australia within a year of their marriage. She also claimed to be "lonely and isolated" in B.C.

Judge Hyslop accepted that the woman wanted to be closer to her parents in Australia and the children would have a good upbringing in that country. "I have no doubt that there are suitable schools, friends, medical treatment and recreational facilities available to the children in Australia," she wrote.

But the proposal that the father see the children during their more than 10 weeks of annual vacation from school, as well as daily access on Skype by video conference, was rejected by the court. "If [L. C.E.] moves with the children, there is an emotional loss which will be suffered by them. They are only ages 7 and 4. They will grow up with limited physical and emotional affection from their father. Skype is not enough," Judge Hyslop said.

The father admitted that he agreed last year to move to Australia to save the marriage. He testified that he now believed his wife intended to end the marriage once everyone had arrived in Australia and pursue a relationship with another man she had met in that country while visiting her parents.

The court heard that L.C.E. and the man, identified as J.R., continued their relationship by email and the phone. L.C.E. admitted to the relationship after receiving a text message from J.R. while walking along a beach last year with her husband and children. The woman's Facebook postings also showed her embracing an unidentified man.

During the trial, the judge was presented with emails that the wife sent to friends, which were accessed by her husband. "I am not married to a bad guy, just doubt he'd know what colour my hair is and then, just when I am so out of here, he starts to notice," one email reads.

In reference to one of the emails, Judge Hyslop concluded that the wife attempted to "create a situation" so she could leave with the children once she decided the marriage was over.

While refusing the request to move the children to Australia, the judge granted custody to the mother five days per week while living in B.C. The father was ordered to pay $7,600 per month in child and spousal support based on his income of $200,000 annually.

No comments: