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.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

"Robin" free as a bird

The four year saga pitting the courts against "Robin" aka the man who scaled the Jacques Cartier Bridge- is over.

And our wannabe crimefighter has discovered his fate.

In our last episode, mild-mannered engineer Benoit Leroux was ready to defend his request for an unconditional discharge after being found guilty of mischief and conspiracy for dressing up as Batman's sidekick Robin and scaling the Jacques Cartier Bridge four years ago to bring attention to the rights of single dads in custody cases.

But Judge Gilles Cadieux says they have to send a message of dissuasion to the public so he gave him a conditional discharge including 180 hours of community work and two years probation, assuring Leroux the discharge meant no criminal record, so no problems travelling to the U.S. to work or to see his young daughter there.

Leroux looked and sounded tired and somewhat defeated but he is satisfied and content the four year battle is over and he can hang up his cape for good.

"It feels really well. It's a weight on my shoulders (that) is lifted even though I have to make a lot of hours of community work."

http://www.cjad.com/node/934339

United in Hate

Here's a conundrum in a spidery web of seeming feminist contradictions - but then maybe not. The new breed of victim feminist is so wrapped up in their "oppression by the patriarchy" ideology they suffer perceptual - no - rather willful blindness of the plight of Muslim women.MJM
Ashley Herzog | Monday, May 25, 2009
If you’ve ever wondered why radical leftists—who supposedly care about women’s rights—feel compelled to justify Islam’s violent oppression of women, you should read United in Hate by Jamie Glazov.
Glazov does an excellent job of examining the love affair between leftists in the West and radical Muslims who treat women as “less worthy than cows and sheep,” as Palestinian writer Souad says in the book. While some liberals in the U.S. and Europe have no problem telling the truth about Islamic gender apartheid, others fanatically defend it.
Consider the issue of rape. Rape is common in Muslim countries, and often results in a death sentence—for the victim.
“In 2004, a sixteen-year old girl, Atefeh Rajabi, was hanged in a public square in Iran,” feminist writer Phyllis Chesler wrote in her book The Death of Feminism. “Her crime? Rajabi was charged with adultery—which probably means she was raped. Her rapist was not executed.” Rape victims are frequently stoned to death with the approval of Muslim courts, and it is estimated that 75 percent of female prisoners in Pakistan are behind bars because they were raped.

Therefore, it’s not surprising when Muslim immigrants import their rape-supportive cultures to the West: in 2001, Norwegian newspapers reported that two-thirds of rape suspects were Muslim men.

How did the Western apologists respond? Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, said the victims had it coming for not veiling themselves from head to toe, as women in countries like Saudi Arabia are forced to do.

“Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes,” Wikan said. “Women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.” (Wikan echoed Danish Muslim leader Shahid Mehdi, who said women who don’t veil themselves are “asking for rape.”)

The radical left also lies about the nature of female genital mutilation (FGM), a savage practice in which a little girl has her labia and clitoris cut out without anesthetics in order to keep her from enjoying sex. In 2007, when David Horowitz attempted to raise the issue of FGM during a speech at Emory University, angry protestors chanted “that’s not Islam!”

Really? Maybe they should explain why Sheikh Muhammed Sayyid Tantawi, “the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims,” according to the BBC, defends FGM, calling it “a laudable practice.”

Women who have been subjected to FGM also confirm its religious roots. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali ex-Muslim and women’s rights activist, said the practice is “justified in the name of Islam.” In 2000, a brave Somali girl named Kadra secretly taped Norwegian Muslim imams encouraging their followers to practice FGM. For this, she was brutally attacked by a group of Muslim men, who broke several of her ribs.

The radical left’s response to FGM is to lecture us on “cultural sensitivity.” In a finger-wagging article in the Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, Rachelle Cassman said efforts to stop FGM must not include “the imposition of Western beliefs on African cultures.” She reminded readers that “all cultures are equally valid.”

Then there’s the fact that many Muslims approve of wife-beating. As Phyllis Chesler notes, “The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal or failing to give birth to a male child.” (Domestic violence has the approval of Muslim leaders, such as Spanish Muslim cleric Mohamed Kamal Mustafa, whose book Women in Islam gave men specific instructions for hitting their wives.)

A 2002 poll taken by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion found that most Palestinians support wife-beating, and 57 percent agreed that “a man has the right to beat up his wife if she underestimates his manhood.” Souad recalls of her childhood in Palestine, “It was the law of men. The girls and women were certainly beaten every day in the other houses, too. You could hear the crying.”

Given this uncomfortable truth, the apologists have invented an interesting excuse: It’s the Jews’ fault. “Leftist feminists admit that Palestinian men are abusive, but argue they are so only because of the humiliation they feel under Israeli ‘occupation,’” Glazov writes. “As feminist author Jan Goodwin argues…if only American and Israeli oppression stopped, Palestinian men would no longer feel a need to beat their wives.”

No matter what the evidence, people who tell the truth about radical Muslims’ abuse of women are accused of “racism,” “Islamophobia,” and my personal favorite, “cultural imperialism.” (I know—how dare I think that American culture is superior to cultures that hang rape victims?)

Why? As the title of Glazov’s book suggests, the radical left is united in hate—which includes a hatred of their own culture, and a fanatical need to excuse the horrific practices of others.

For anyone who wants to learn more about this subject, I suggest reading United in Hate and visiting http://www.TerrorismAwareness.org, which has resources on Islam’s violent oppression of women.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Power' move by male students ruffles U. of C.

chicagotribune.com

By Sara Olkon

Tribune reporter

1:58 PM CDT, May 27, 2009

Click here to find out more!

A group of University of Chicago students think it's time the campus focused more on its men. A third-year student from Lake Bluff has formed Men in Power, a student organization that promises to help men get ahead professionally. But the group's emergence has been controversial, with some critics charging that its premise is misogynistic. Others say it's about time men are championed, noting that recent job losses hit men harder and that women earn far more bachelor's and master's degrees than do men. "It's an enormous disparity now," said Warren Farrell, author of "The Myth of Male Power" and former board member of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. He noted, among other things, an imbalance in government and private initiatives that advance the interests of women and girls. Further, Farrell said, just because some men are doing well is hardly a reason not to applaud efforts to boost the careers of other men. "It's like saying 'is it OK for the Yankees to keep recruiting new players because the Chicago Cubs have not won as often?' " Steve Saltarelli, the president of Men in Power, wrote a satirical column in March in which he suggested forming such a group. "Anyone with an interest in both studying and learning from men in powerful positions, as well as issues involved with reverse sexism, may become a member of MiP," he wrote. Shortly after the column ran, Saltarelli started getting e-mail messages from men eager to join. "Mainly people are just excited about the idea that men can have a group as well," Saltarelli explained. Sharlene Holly, associate dean of students and the director of student activities, said the University of Chicago has approximately nine women's advocacy groups on campus; this group would be the first male advocacy group. Saltarelli said some 125 students -- including a few women -- have joined the group via its Facebook page. He said the group would host pre-professional groups in law, medicine and business, foster ties with alumni, bring in speakers to discuss masculinity and mentor local middle school students as part of its "Little Men in Power" program. Holly said she expected to approve the organization's application this week. As a registered student organization, Men in Power could then apply for event funding. The group plans to hold its first event, a student panel discussion titled "Gender and Media: Trespassing the Taboo," on June 2. Saltarelli, who plans to attend law school, said the emergence of Men in Power has angered some students, especially "people very set in their ways." To be sure, its title attracts attention. "The name implies some things that I don't love," said Liz Scoggin, a third-year student who joined the group a couple of weeks ago and now heads its outreach efforts. "I feel like it implies there aren't enough men in power or that kind of thing." But Scoggin, who is close friends with Saltarelli, said she joined after learning more about the group's aims and after she felt assured that the organization would not pursue a sexist agenda. Jessica Pan, president of Women in Business and a fourth-year student, questioned whether Men in Power's goals were being met by existing student groups. "I'm not sure we really need another student organization that focuses on pre-professional development for men," Pan said, noting that, in just the area of business, there were five or six students groups that were gender-neutral. Similarly, Ali Feenstra, a third-year student and a member of the Feminist Majority, questioned Men in Power's utility. "It's like starting 'white men in business' -- there's not really any purpose," she said. Fred Hayward, founder of Men's Rights Inc., would disagree. Hayward, who is based in Sacramento, Calif., started his men's group in 1977. Then and now, he said, women have not paid enough attention to what it means to be a man in modern society. Hayward said one of the biggest myths borne of the women's movement was that men like to help each other out. "We are competing directly for access to women and jobs," he said. The group's birth comes at a time when the recessionary ax has fallen especially hard on men. In February, the national unemployment rate for men was 8.8 percent, compared with 7.3 percent for women. Future employment is also an issue, some experts say. Since 1981, women have collected 135 for every 100 bachelor's degrees awarded to men, according to Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint. The gap is even wider at the master's level, with women trumping men 150 to 100, he said. Saltarelli hopes Men in Power will help more men get ahead while raising awareness of the male experience. "If we have good men in our society, everyone benefits," he said. solkon@tribune.com

New Fathers 4 Justice ~ ‘Spiderpostie’ kicks up a stink with Gordon Brown

Well done NF4J. For those of you who think this is foolish. Think again. The notion of getting political change requires one get attention. The activity is about and for children. Children think of dads and moms, at certain points in their upbringing, as Super Heroes. Super Hero costumes are kid friendly. They do not scare children. No change can occur without getting the attention of the public and law makers. Finally these civil rights advocates for making children's lives more complete, secure, and fulfilled are doing it for love and the passion derived from being marginalized. The notion of dads walking away is not in their thinking process. I wish everyone hired to do a job had their passion. Wouldn't it be nice if your MP's had the same passion for children as they do for graft and corruption!MJM
'Spiderpostie' sends nappies to Gordon Brown 'Spiderpostie' sends nappies to Gordon Brown

By Chine Mbubaegbu May 27, 2009

A Tilehurst dad dressed as Spiderman posted nappies to the Prime Minister as part of a stunt to push for greater rights for fathers.

The man, who is in his 40s, donned his ‘Spiderpostie’ outfit and sent the nappies to Gordon Brown to urge him to stop ‘disposing’ of dads in society.

His nappy-posting follows other similar stunts by Fred Flinstone in Devon and Batman in Sussex.

Across the country, members of campaign group New Fathers 4 Justice have been dressing as superheroes and posting nappies to Downing Street.

The dad, who asked not to be named, recently joined the group and hopes his nappies will push the Prime Minister to action.

Spiderpostie said: “I don’t need to use my super powers to see what the family courts are doing to fatherhood and loving dads. It is incredible the Government and family court system can justify doing this to loving dads.

“It’s time this Government stopped acting like children, realised that we are sitting on a time bomb. Society is in breakdown and fathers should have a right to have contact with their children.

“We need to send messages that they will listen to and we are fighting for change. The recent opening of the family courts is just another web of deceit.”

The anonymous dad joined New Fathers 4 Justice – a group set up after Fathers 4 Justice disbanded in September 2008 – after struggling with the court system for two years while divorcing his wife.

Speaking to the Evening Post, he likened the family courts system to the latest MP expenses fiasco and said both needed greater transparency.

He said: “There’s lots of things going on behind closed doors. I have experienced a hell of a lot of bias against fathers in the family courts.

“Before I filed for divorce, there was no problem at all with child contact, but once solicitors got involved it was like throwing a hand grenade into the situation.

“They want you to argue between your ex-partner as hard and as much as possible. We want to change that with this campaign.”

COMMENTS

Well done NF4J. For those of you who think this is foolish. Think again. The notion of getting political change requires one get attention. The activity is about and for children. Children think of dads and moms, at certain points in their upbringing, as Super Heros. Super Hero costumes are kid friendly. They do not scare children. No change can occur without getting the attention of the public and law makers. Finally these civil rights advocates for making children's lives more complete, secure, and fulfilled are doing it for love and the passion derived from being marginalized. The notion of dads walking away is not in their thinking process. I wish everyone hired to do a job had their passion. Wouldn't it be nice if your MP's had the same passion for children as they do for graft and corruption!

MikeMurphy, Sault Ste. Marie, ON Canada 27/05/2009 at 20:44
Well done Spiderman!!! Labour has been in government now for 12 years and have done absolutely nothing to stop the plight of fathers in the UK. The likes of Brown, Harman, Straw and Ed Balls do not give a jot about Dads not seeing their kids. It must stop. The solicitor "gravy train industry" must stop.....for the sake of our kids. I for one will be sending a message in my nappy to Gordon too and hope everyone else does!!
spider on the roof, bristol 27/05/2009 at 17:20
Although I do support the cause they are fighting for, they could go about getting their message across in a more responsible, sensible manner. I mean, after all, they want greater access rights to their kids yet their stunts make them look like irresponsible morons who shouldn't be given any access to their own children.
Emma Royds 27/05/2009 at 12:54
Well done Spiderpostie WE hear on the news that there were worries some MPs caught with their fingers in the taxpayers’ pie were contemplating committing suicide. What about the fathers denied access to their children who commit suicide on a fairly regular basis due to the present family court system? This is a scandal and it seems only people in high office are able to fiddle their expenses while the rest of us have to cope with no access to our children, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, or the threat of redundancies. These hypocrites, many of whom are partners in law firms or have an interest in keeping the ‘family law gravy train’ going, should be treated the same way as fathers – ie confiscate their passport, deduct money from their bank accounts, and take their driving licences away if they refuse to pay back their expenses. Recently the welfare reform bill gave CMEC the ability to take maintenance payments without prior approval or scrutiny from a court. For fathers, this means the safety net of the court has been removed, despite the fact the present Child Support Agency has a well-documented history of making mistakes. These measures are draconian. Many divorced parents, mainly fathers, are fighting to keep themselves afloat after separation and many absent parents will be hounded for money they don’t have or owe. For years, many fathers have been struggling to overcome the debt, poverty and childlessness forced upon them to fight the system, Cafcass and the CSA. Often, the very people who proclaim to be acting in the child’s best interests are those who profit the most.
Neil Rees, Reading 27/05/2009 at 12:53
Man in Spiderman costume tells government to "stop acting like children"...
Millicent Reeves, Upper Caversham 27/05/2009 at 12:34

Deadbeat Social Scientists

Who do you think in Canada fits the bill here after reading the article? Does Jaffe at UWO and Balla at Queens amongst many other academic researchers come to mind?MJM
By: Robert Locke Monday, July 02, 2001

EVERYBODY HATES DEAD BEAT DADS. They are excoriated from the feminist Left to the family values Right. This has resulted in a national frenzy of efforts to tighten up child support enforcement, beginning with the Child Support Enforcement Act of 1975 (amended in 1984) and including numerous state statutes. Unfortunately, as a new book persuasively argues, they are largely a myth. In fact, they are frequently victims in their own right. Dr. Braver began his research intending only to refine the received wisdom, but his empirical findings changed his own mind. The prevalence of the myths he has exploded raises serious questions about the entire structure of liberal social science, on which our nation's public policies are based, and the susceptibility of statistics to manipulation by liberal academics. EVERYBODY HATES DEADBEAT DADS. They are excoriated from the feminist Left to the family values Right. This has resulted in a national frenzy of efforts to tighten up child support enforcement, beginning with the Child Support Enforcement Act of 1975 (amended in 1984) and including numerous state statutes. Unfortunately, as a new book persuasively argues, they are largely a myth. In fact, they are frequently victims in their own right. Dr. Braver began his research intending only to refine the received wisdom, but his empirical findings changed his own mind. The prevalence of the myths he has exploded raises serious questions about the entire structure of liberal social science, on which our nation's public policies are based, and the susceptibility of statistics to manipulation by liberal academics.

Dr. Braver refutes six key anti father myths everyone. He writes:

"1. Divorced dads are not overwhelmingly deadbeats in terms of child support compliance. They actually pay far better than assumed, especially if they remain fully employed."

The horrifying figures for nonpayment of child support that are usually quoted are wrong for a number of reasons. First, they are based solely on maternal reporting. Second, they are based on lumping together divorcees with never marrieds, who pay at a lower rate. Third, some studies of the problem record only payments made through court clerks, not all payments. Fourth, most of the remaining deadbeats are in jail, unemployed, in poverty, or otherwise unable to pay for understandable reasons.

"2. Divorced dads are not overwhelmingly disappearing or runaway dads. Most continue a surprisingly high amount of contact with their children, and much of whatever disconnection does occur can be attributed directly to mothers impeding or interfering with visitation."

Myth holds that divorced men are generally uninterested in their children, a view that derives mainly from a single inaccurate study and from the pop culture stereotype of the divorced father with sports car and girlfriend in tow. But, in reality, roughly three quarters of divorced fathers who live in the same town as their children see them regularly, according to Dr. Braver's own research. And they would frequently see them even more often if it were not illegal for them to do so under the visitation rules to which they are legally subject. Not to mention maternal denial of these visitation privileges, which is a serious and underappreciated issue in its own right.

"3. Divorced fathers do not end up noticeably more economically advantaged by divorce than mothers... in the long run, many divorced mothers will surpass divorced fathers in economic well being. Divorced mothers and children do not disproportionately end up in poverty, and those few who do almost without exception would continue to be in that state whether or not their ex husbands paid full child support."

An entire feminist obsession, which many non feminists have been taken in by, has been erected upon the so called "feminization of poverty." This turns out to be a statistical mirage generated by biased studies. Those divorced mothers who end up in long term poverty turn out to be (surprise, surprise) those who were from poor backgrounds in the first place, even when they were married. In only 2% of divorces would full payment of alimony and child support lift a poor mother out of poverty who is now in it.

"4. Divorced fathers are not far better satisfied or advantaged in the negotiations leading to their divorce settlements. In fact, fathers are significantly disadvantaged and dissatisfied compared to mothers, who feel more in control of the settlement process than fathers."

A substantial feminist inspired mythology claims that because the judicial system is run mainly by men, it favors fathers at every step in the divorce process. Despite the fact that every major feminist demand (starting with abortion and running right down the list) has been passed by male dominated legislatures and courts, this men vs. women mythology is emotionally satisfying and therefore believed in. But in fact, the court system has a demonstrable maternalist bias in custody awards and other issues which can be traced in the history of legislation and court decisions.

"5. Divorced fathers are not more content and better emotionally adjusted after divorce than mothers. In fact, overwhelming evidence suggests that they are far more emotionally devastated by divorce than mothers. Only with respect to calming their anger more quickly than their ex spouse do fathers have an emotional advantage over mothers."

The myth holds that divorced dads don't have a care in the world, with the possible exception of their new, younger, girlfriends. In fact, they tend to be less well adjusted emotionally than their ex wives by standard measures of psychological well being. According to a 1985 USA Today poll believed to be valid, 85% of divorced women claim to be happier postdivorce, compared to only 58% of men. Divorced women still usually have their children; divorced men often end up with nothing, relationship wise.

"6. Fathers do not generally trigger the marriage's demise by abandoning their wives and families."

The myth holds that women are devotedly maternal while contemporary American men are too immature to "commit" enough to make their marriages work and are therefore responsible for most divorces. In fact, 2/3 of all divorces are initiated by the woman. And women tend to initiate divorces not because they are abused or otherwise objectively ill treated, but for emotional reasons like "my husband doesn't communicate with me."

Not only does Dr. Braver exonerate deadbeat dads, but he documents a number of ways in which post divorce custodial mothers misbehave. The big thing mothers do is deprive fathers of their lawful visitation rights. The courts are set up to take very seriously the enforcement of child support payments by fathers, but they assign little seriousness to the issue of visitation rights. Mothers in most jurisdictions can arbitrarily deny court ordered visitation rights without fear of sanction from police or the judicial system. It would seem that one appropriate reform is to enable fathers to withhold child support payments when visitation rights have not been honored.

Mothers routinely practice more subtle forms of aggression. Because they have custody of the children most of the time, they are well placed to poison their minds against their fathers. They are particularly prone to do this if they remarry and wish to "reprogram" the kids to accept their new spouse as their father. They also have a tendency to do it simply out of spite at their ex husband. Some mothers cynically exploit the police to falsely claim harassment or domestic violence to keep their ex husband away, a tactic that the law stupidly encourages in a number of ways. It seems that the maternal instinct may not always be the good thing it is usually depicted as, if it drives women to behave like enraged she bears and clutch their children at the expense of their fathers' legitimate rights.

So where did these myths come from, if untrue? Basically, our society developed a massive emotional desire to believe the worst of divorced fathers. Then social scientists, despite their pretensions to objectivity and hard statistics, lamely translated these biases into research findings. The negative stereotyping of divorced fathers that routinely appears would get people arrested by the PC police if it were applied to minorities, women, or any other category of person. Dr. Braver suggests that our society is experiencing a great deal of stress over the ongoing decay of the traditional family and needed to find a scapegoat. Deadbeat dads conveniently appealed as villains to both feminists and family values types, guaranteeing political support and ideological cover on both sides of the aisle. Conservatives also sought to cultivate respectability with the liberal bestowers of moral respectability by endorsing the liberal line (a classic case of the negative consequences of allowing the Left the moral high ground.) There was also an appeal to a pseudo scientific version of sociobiology, which claimed that it is the nature of males to seek polygamous or serial monogamous relationships because of an evolutionary incentive to spread their DNA around. This has been called the "Darwin made me do it" defense and raises obvious questions on its own that this is not the place for. Once again, truth was intimidated out of people by the sheer self assertion of liberals who arrogated to themselves the right to decide which ideas are "offensive." We have got to learn to simply ignore them, and to use their mistakes on issues like this one as a battering ram to destroy their credibility. Fortunately, and partly due to Dr. Braver's research, which was expressed in a Presidential commission in 1996, the political system is starting to recognize the necessity of fathers again. For example, more states are establishing joint custody as the norm.

But the most disturbing thing Dr. Braver shows has nothing to do with divorced families per se, but pertains to the shabby standards of social science research. This research, which forms the picture of society on which government policy is based, is conducted almost entirely by liberal academics, and yet is taken by legislatures and courts, not to mention the general public, as being simply objective truth. He documents in devastating detail the degree to which sloppy research standards have opened the door to liberal bias. Properly disciplined research has epistemological safeguards built in to protect it from the biases of the researchers. Naturally, this makes one wonder what other received truths of our society are myths generated by biased research.

Liberal social scientists have mangled their research on divorce in a number of ways. Here are a few:

1. Almost all studies have been based on what people report to be true, not on verified tax returns or bank statements.

2. This reporting hasn't even included the father most of the time.

3. One notorious study that claimed to show a 73% decrease in maternal incomes after divorce used income adjustment figures based on Labor Department raw data gathered in... 1961!

4. This same study also measured pretax income, not after tax, ignoring the fact that child support is taxfree. (There is also a tax credit for child care.) Head of household mothers are taxed at a lower rate than now single divorced fathers, and can claim their children as exemptions.

5. Divorced fathers spend substantial amounts of money on their children beyond simple child support. They spend significant undocumented amounts on visitation and buying necessities and other items for their children. They must maintain larger residences than they would without children visiting now and then. They bear most visitational transportation costs.

6. Divorced fathers are often ordered to pay for their children's medical insurance over and above child support. Not only do most studies not count this, some even falsely assume the mother is paying.

7. Divorced fathers and never married fathers behave very differently, the never marrieds being consistently worse in almost every way. Studies tend to lump them together.

8. Studies of the decline in maternal standard of living tend to ignore the fact that after divorce, mothers tend to upgrade their job skills and otherwise move up the economic ladder, as is the general pattern over time of the whole population.

9. In the reams of studies being done about divorced fathers, almost none of the studies ever asked these fathers why they were abandoning their children, which the received wisdom claimed they were doing. Naturally, if they had, they might have found there was no reason, because they weren't.

No one on the peer review committees that oversee the publication of this research in academic journals, or the giving of grants to fund it, ever blew the whistle on these errors. The system failed.

But it gets worse. Many of the bad figures and illogical analyses are from the Census Bureau reinforcing the view that, like the National Endowment for the Arts, the Census Bureau and its budget should be ruthlessly gutted as soon as possible to restrict it to the narrow duty prescribed to it by the Constitution and keep it from spouting liberal nonsense by collecting figures the Constitution does not authorize it to.

The second great intellectual villain of divorce mythology is one Prof. Lenore Weitzman of Harvard University. She was the author of an immensely influential 1985 study that claimed that after divorce, mothers experience a 73% drop in their standard of living and fathers a 42% rise. This study was the basis for several pieces of legislation. It turns out that her finding was based on a simple misprogramming of the computer analyzing the data which reveal that mothers end up with 73% of their former standard of living, (a 27% drop) not 73% less.

This was not an innocent "computer error." The computer did what it was supposed to do; the investigator mangled the result. The idea that vast policy changes can come from such incompetence is nothing less than mind boggling. This incident needs to be treated as the My Lai of academic social science, which needs to be dethroned from its privileged position in policy disputes. Dr. Braver, who investigated this error and gave Prof. Weitzman a chance to respond, documents her mendacity and evasive behavior throughout this episode, which ended in her admitting the charges against her, for which she has never been disciplined.

The Left has chased conservative social scientists who could have blown the whistle on these shenanigans out of the academy. When will people learn that having a conservative presence in academia really does matter? If there had been an adequate number of conservative sociologists in the academy, someone could have critiqued these figures when they came out and before they had the chance to mislead the public and influence policy. Frankly, it is time to start pruning government funding for sociological research, which always seems to just prove we need more government spending, and to start cutting back sociology departments at the universities.

Dr. Braver's Dead beat Dads is thus probably the most important work of conservative social science in a decade, easily in a class with Charles Murray's Losing Ground


Globe & Mail ~ Mother of ‘missing' 10-year-old girl arrested in B.C.

Sanity can prevail. When no action was perceived on this case the justice system fell into further disrepute. Hopefully the child can get counselling and be reunited with her father.MJM




Girl called 911 to say she had been abused; police learn she had been declared missing by father two years ago 
 
Vancouver — From Wednesday, Tuesday, May. 26, 2009 09:55PM EDT
 
The mother at the centre of a cross-country custody dispute that gained considerable attention when the child in the matter ran away from her Vancouver home and called 911 has been arrested.

Araceli Bravo was detained by Vancouver Police at an undisclosed location in the city. Montreal police are expected to arrive Wednesday to escort her back to Quebec.

Police in B.C. were acting on a Canada-wide warrant for abduction in contravention of a custody order, said Constable Jana McGuinness, a spokeswoman for Vancouver Police.

The arrest was “uneventful,” Constable McGuinness said, noting that police in Vancouver acted on information from their counterparts in Montreal. She declined to be more specific.

Constable Yannick Ouimet of the Montreal force said he could not comment on the information supplied to B.C. police. “We never reveal our tactics,” he said Tuesday, noting that he had not even heard about the arrest of Ms. Bravo until told about it by a reporter.

Ashley Gonis, 10, turned up at a Vancouver SkyTrain station last month and called 911 suggesting that she was being abused at home.

Police dismissed that suggestion. Ashley's Montreal-based father, Frank Gonis, had been looking for her for two years after Ms. Bravo allegedly kidnapped her in a custody dispute. Although Montreal police had issued an arrest warrant for Ms. Bravo, it was enforceable only in Quebec until recently.

Mr. Gonis, a home renovator, said Tuesday that his focus now is on his daughter.

“Ashley is coming home. That's all that's important,” he said in an interview. He said he expected his daughter, now under government supervision in B.C., would be placed in foster care when she is returned to Quebec while decisions are made about how to proceed.

“I know she's mixed up,” he said.

Mr. Gonis travelled to B.C. after his daughter turned up, but the custody dispute with Ms. Bravo continued in the courts and he was unable to see Ashley.

“It didn't go well,” he said.

He noted that authorities lost track of his former partner after the hearing, until Tuesday.
Mr. Gonis said he never gave up due to concern about his daughter.

“I knew I could offer her a lot,” he said.

As for Ms. Bravo, he added, “she'll have to go before the courts and we'll see what happens.”

WHAT IS THE COST OF FAMILY BREAKDOWN IN CANADA?

New research finds family breakdown costs billions annually; quantifies the savings were family breakdown to decrease

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada invites you to join us for a briefing on June 3, 2009. In “Private Choices, Public Costs: How failing families cost us all,” authors Rebecca Walberg and Andrea Mrozek examine the relationship between poverty, families and government. They quantify government spending directed at poverty alleviation for broken families through welfare, child care costs and housing. That cost rises into the billions annually; the exact price tag will be released at the lunchtime briefing on Parliament Hill on June 3. Consistently, not only in Canada but in OECD nations, lone parent households are more likely to live in poverty. “Certainly the main concern around family breakdown is the emotional toll,” say the authors Rebecca Walberg and Andrea Mrozek. “But the fiscal costs are evident, and those can be more readily measured.”

The report describes

• the relationship between strong families and a strong economy • the feminization of poverty • how Canada compares with other nations • the methodology used to reach our conservative estimate • recommendations

The report highlights the costs province by province, discussing why and how stable marriages contribute to a stronger economy. “If we are serious about reducing poverty,” say the authors, “especially children and women in poverty, we must address the effects of family breakdown.”

Please join us on June 3 to learn more about the costs of family breakdown.

For more information, check www.imfcanada.org To register, click here

EVENT DETAILS Date: June 3, 2009 Time: 12:00-1:30 Place: Room 214, Wellington Building, 180 Wellington St., (corner of Wellington and Bank)

This briefing is open to the public and free of charge, however, registration is required for parliamentary security and to confirm numbers for lunch. (A light lunch will be served.)

For additional information or to arrange an interview, please contact Andrea Mrozek, Manager of Research and Communications at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada at 613-565-3832.

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada conducts, compiles and presents family research to ensure that marriage and family-friendly policies are foremost in the minds of Canada’s decision makers.

2001-130 rue Albert Street Ottawa Ontario Canada K1P 5G4 t 613.565.3832 f/t 613.565.3803 1.866.373.4632 www.imfcanada.org