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

New Fathers 4 Justice ~ Gwent Police arrest two dummies

Oh to have been a Fly on the wall during the negotiations! MJM :)

16/11/2009

Last Thursday Gwent police spent 45 minutes trying to negotiate down two dummies from Newport transporter bridge believing that they were New Fathers 4 Justice protestors. At 4am that morning New Fathers 4 Justice activists scaled the Newport Transporter Bridge leaving the dummies behind. They also suspended a large banner from the centre of the bridge that read “New Fathers 4 Justice Fe GODWN NI ETO” (We shall rise again) on the reverse side the banner reads where’s daddy gone. One was dressed as Batman and the other as a Power Ranger.

Third of family break-up children lose contact with fathers in ‘failing’ court system, poll

Canadian Politicians and Judges take note. It is the same in Canada and what the Children's Minister spouts about new support in this article is nonsense just as it is in this country.MJM

Tens of thousands of children a year are losing contact with their fathers because of “failing” family court system and disastrous custody arrangements, a study has found.

Iain Duncan Smith: Iain Duncan Smith attacks Ken Clarke over marriage tax breaks
Iain Duncan Smith said the family court system was 'a mess' with fathers too often shut out Photo: GEOFF PUGH

One in three children whose parents separated or divorced over the last 20 years disclosed that they had lost contact permanently with their father.

Almost a tenth of children from broken families said the acrimonious process had left them feeling suicidal while others later sought solace in drink, drugs or crime.

They complained of feeling “isolated” and “used” while parents admitted having used children as “bargaining tools” against each other.

Lawyers said the study showed that the court system itself was making family break-up more acrimonious with children used as "pawns".

They warned that so-called “no fault” divorces were encouraging warring parents to channel their “bloodletting” into disputes over contact.

Opposition politicians said the poll presented an alarming picture of a system “in a mess” which was all too often leaving fathers “shut out”.

The poll of 4,000 parents and children was carried out to provide a snapshot of the workings of the family court system exactly 20 years after the implementation of the landmark 1989 Children Act.

It found that a third of children from broken families had been tempted by drink or drugs while as many as 10 per cent had later become involved in crime.

A quarter of the children said that they had been asked to lie to one parent by the other and 15 per cent said they had even been called on to “spy” for their mother or father.

Meanwhile half of parents polled admitted deliberately drawing out the legal process for maximum benefit and more than two thirds conceded that they had used their children as “bargaining tools”.

About 250,000 couples, both married and non-married, separate every year affecting 350,000 kids, according to the Department for Children Schools and Families.

“The adversarial nature of the system invites people to come and use the courts system as a punch up and the children get used as pawns," said Sandra Davis, head of family law at Mishcon de Reya, for whom the poll was conducted.

“It polarises parents and it puts children in the middle of the antagonism.

“Some fathers back off because it is too painful to carry on litigating, they give up.”

Tim Loughton, the Tory Shadow children’s minister, said: “This is alarming evidence of the very detrimental impact it is having on the welfare of the children themselves.”

“Clearly, the court system is failing and is positively encouraging conflict - and continuing conflict.”

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader and founder of the Centre for Social Justice, warned that young people were bearing the scars of a divorce “boom” and a resulting lack of father figures.

“It is a mess, it needs a complete overhaul," he said. "It is an organisation locked in secrecy and deeply unhelpful to the parents and the children and all too often able to exacerbate the problems that they are about to face.”

David Laws, the Liberal Democrat children’s spokesman, added: “In too many cases the children become caught up in the crossfire between two warring parties in a system which sometimes encourages the parents to take entrenched positions.”

Miss Davis called for compulsory mediation for parents hoping to use the divorce courts rather than the current ”tick box” exercise for those seeking legal aid.

But a spokesman for the Children’s Society said that compulsion “goes against everything we have learned from many, many years of experience”.

Delyth Morgan, the children’s minister, added: “Divorce and separation can have a devastating impact on children caught in the middle.

“But this survey, looking as far back as 20 years ago, simply doesn’t reflect what support is available for families now … we have acted to give families comprehensive counselling, practical and legal support.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/divorce/6575997/Third-of-family-break-up-children-lose-contact-with-fathers-in-failing-court-system-poll.html

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves Again

Phyllis Schlafly Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The feminists are going through one of their periodic soul-searching psychological examinations of what the women's liberation movement did or did not do for them, and why they are not happy with the result. Feminist dominance in newspapers, magazines, book publishers, television and academia makes it easy to command a full media rollout for their agonizing.

The media are glad to divert public attention from the failure of Barack Obama's stimulus to create jobs. So, we have ponderous discussions: Maria Shriver's report (with help from a liberal think tank) called "A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," a Time Magazine cover story headlined with the double entendre "The State of the American Woman," Gail Collins' book "When Everything Changed" and articles from all the feminist columnists.

We wonder if it's just a coincidence that this torrent of words immediately precedes Halloween. The writers are scared of their own research because it contradicts much of their gender-neutral ideology.

These well-educated writers long ago identified the major goal of the women's liberation movement as getting more wives out of the home and into the labor force. They've been strikingly successful with this goal -- women are now half the labor force, and 40 percent of women are essential family breadwinners.

In the current recession, the majority of workers laid off have been men (especially from construction and manufacturing). Jobs where women predominate have not been much affected.

Even so, the feminists demanded that the Obama administration give half the stimulus jobs to women rather than to the shovel-ready work that was the reason for passing the stimulus funds. Whatever the feminists demand from the Democrats they get, and the stimulus money was directed to jobs in education, health care and social services.

So what are the feminists complaining about? They want the taxpayers to provide high-quality daycare and paid family leave, to pass laws to prohibit employers from ordering women to work overtime (as men are often required to do) and probably to force men to assume half the household and baby-care duties.

The feminists are still crying about President Richard Nixon vetoing a federal program to make daycare a middle-class entitlement. But Nixon's action was popular then and still is because the majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars to pay for babysitters for other people's children.

No doubt this will come as a shock to the feminists, but Time Magazine reports that "a majority of both men and women still say it is best for children to have a father working and a mother at home."

Women's percentage in the labor force keeps rising because of who is going to college. Thirty years ago, the ratio of males to females on college campuses was 60 to 40; now it's 40 to 60, and women receive the majority of college degrees.

But the feminists are griping because women students choose humanities majors that lead to lesser-paid jobs than male students, who in larger numbers choose math and science. The feminists want government to remedy this gender difference by bribing women with taxpayers' money to make other choices.

Joanne Lipman, who has held several of the biggest jobs in publishing but still whines that "progress for women has stalled," nevertheless makes a couple of sensible comments. She writes that feminists defined "progress for women too narrowly; we've focused primarily on numbers at the expense of attitudes."

She's right about that. Attitude is the problem with feminists -- as long as they believe they are victims of an oppressive patriarchy, they will never be successful.

Women won't be happy as long as they believe the false slogan (repeated in most of these current articles) that women make only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. The Equal Pay Law was passed in 1963, but it requires only equal pay for equal work, and women in the labor force don't work nearly as many hours per week as men do.

Lipman also urges feminists to "have a sense of humor" -- a very constructive proposal. When I tell a joke during my college lectures, I can identify the feminists by the students who are not laughing.

Only one sentence in all these feminist articles confronts the fundamental reason that today's women are not as happy as women were in 1972. Time Magazine wrote, "Among the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the detachment of marriage and motherhood."

That's what the feminist movement did to America. All those impressive statistics about women holding well-paying jobs and receiving college degrees will not produce happy women as long as 39 percent of children are born to unmarried mothers who lack a loving husband and look to Big Brother Government as provider.

And one more glaring point: The lack of grandchildren isn't mentioned in these exposes of women's unhappiness. In rejecting marriage, most feminists also rejected the grandchildren who could have provided a significant measure of women's happiness.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserve http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2009/10/27/feminists_psychoanalyze_themselves_again

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.