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, March 31, 2010

St. Lawrence College presents ~ Introduction to Parental Alienation

You are cordially invited to join the graduating Child and Youth Worker class in their annual conference featuring Dr. Abraham Worenklein.

Introduction to Parental Alienation

REGISTRATION AND PAYMENT
 
Date: April 15, 2010
Registration and Refreshments:
8:00-8:45AM
Time: 9:00AM-4:00PM
Address: Royal Brock Conference Centre
100 Stewart Blvd, Brockville
 
Cost: Professional $25
Student $10
 
Registration and Payment Deadline
April 11, 2010
 
Please note, lunch will not be provided.
 
There were 71,269 divorces in Ontario in 2005.

Join Dr. Abraham Worenklein as we explore the rising concerns of Parental Alienation
through unique case studies, videos, discussion and resources. From this interactive workshop you will learn the indicators, impact, long-term effects, distinctions between children experiencing Parental Alienation versus children who are abused, and how we as multidisciplinary professionals can help.
 
REGISTRATION AND PAYMENT
MAIL OR DROP OFF
 
Student Services—Front Office
St Lawrence College
2288 Parkedale Ave
Brockville, ON
K6V 5X3

EMAIL FORMS TO:
cywevent2010@gmail.com
Register early, there are limited spaces available!

Registration Form

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Media Release-Domestic Violence Industry Covers Up Half of Problem



          MEDIA RELEASE
March 2010

                                   
For Immediate Release

Domestic Violence Industry Covers Up Half of Problem


FathersCan, the National Voice for Canadian Fathers, estimates that more than two billion dollars of taxpayer money is distributed annually by all levels of government to various shelters and other domestic violence programs in Canada.   This figure is based on information from Statistics Canada, Status of Women Canada, Health Canada, and other similar provincial agencies and government departments. 

The entirety of this sum is provided to programmes and shelters that purport to provide services to women who are the victims of domestic violence.   Interestingly, and tragically, not a single cent is provided to any program or shelter to provide services to men who are the victims of such violence.

Health Canada (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/women-femmes/violence-eng.php) defines domestic violence as “Acts that result, or are likely to result, in physical, sexual and psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such an act, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty whether occurring in public or private life”. 

Nowhere in that definition is recognition of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadian men are victims of domestic violence, as defined by Health Canada, at the hands of their female partners. Jeremy Swanson, National Director of FathersCan notes that this alarming and seldom reported statistic is borne out by Statistics Canada information. 

Mr. Swanson stated, “In 2005, the last year in which Statscan has released information, it was reported that the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization indicated some 653,000 women and 546,000 men in Canada were the victims of spousal violence in the five years preceding the survey, or about 7% and 6% respectively. The Survey goes on to point out that  nearly all domestic violence victims (95%) who seek out assistance from social agencies, government programmes, or shelters are women.  The Survey totally ignores the fact that there are no such agencies, programmes, or shelters for men even if they wanted to seek them out.”

He went on to point out that there are about 550 shelters for woman in Canada, as reported by Statistics Canada, yet “they failed to even mention that there is not even one single shelter for abused men in the entire country”. 

StatsCan reported that in 2006 twenty-one men in Canada were killed by their female partner, an increase of 75% from just one year previous and a continuation of an increasing trend.  Yet in 2006 the number of women killed by their male partner decreased by 10% from the year previous, continuing a trend of 5 years of continual decline.

“Men in Canada are victims of domestic abuse in numbers almost equal to women. The courts ignore it, and in some cases even laugh in the faces of men who report it as part of their divorce testimony. Successive governments have lavished taxpayer money on women’s and feminist groups in support of Domestic Violence studies, programmes, and shelters, ignoring the fact that 85% of such accusations made by women during divorce proceedings are known to be false. ”

“Yet Canadian men continue to suffer, continue to bleed, and continue to die at the hands of their female partners. Do Canadian men not deserve equal help from their government in preventing, escaping, and recovering from such abuse? Do Canadian men not deserve even one single dollar in their fight for protection and justice? Is there any party or any party leader that has the guts to make this an election issue and to step up to defend and protect men from their female abusers?  There are a large number of votes out there that are waiting to be cast for the party that does.”


For more information contact:
 Jeremy Swanson ( 613) 237-1329 ext 2508  nationaldirector@fatherscan.com   

-30-

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Agony of the frozen-out fathers

A very rare look at the state of family law in the U.K. and almost supportive of dads left out on the margins.  The author thinks dads in Batman costumes are extremists. That's an interesting commentary on peaceful demonstrators taking direct action against what she now perceives as grossly unfair.  If dads protesting peacefully are extremists what then are Tamils taking over cities and disrupting life, students at the University of Ottawa (substitute Obsequiousness for Ottawa) denying Ann Coulter free speech through intimidation and damage, and better yet terrorists blowing up tube stations.

Could the BBC series discussed in the column be a history making or changing program? We'll need to wait and see but it sounds hopeful.

I left the following comments on site:

The specter of DV or sexual abuse by dads is the fallacious canard always trotted out by those who would not want to share custody with 50% of a child's genetic heritage. They often use cherry picked studies by pro-feminist academics whose conclusions are pre-determined before the study begins.

The facts are a child is safest in a two parent biological family, then with the biological father and then the biological mother. Single Mums are the most abusive to children in most western democracies.

In many recent studies on intimate partner violence it not only shows it is roughly equal between genders but in a large USA study showed 70% of initiation was at the hands of the female. Other studies clearly show if the woman does not initiate they will be injured less.

The best interest of the child requires both parents in their lives. Those who would say Obama had a single mom I would reply yes he did but he was largely raised by his grand parents. How many children given to single mums has that happened to and dad denied access?

Single moms who work and still deny dad access are incredibly selfish, alienating and narcissistic. They not only deny access to dad but the child's paternal heritage including grand parents.

The author thinks dads in Batman costumes are extremists. That's an interesting commentary on peaceful demonstrators taking direct action against what she now perceives as grossly unfair. If dads protesting peacefully are extremists what then are Tamils taking over cities and disrupting life, students at the University of Ottawa (substitute Obsequiousness for Ottawa) denying Ann Coulter free speech through intimidation and damage, and better yet terrorists blowing up tube stations MJM




 

 

A new BBC series explores the reasons why fathers lose touch with their children post-separation. Cassandra Jardine investigates.

Watching a preview of next week’s BBC series Who Needs Fathers?, I felt ashamed to be a woman. The men on the programme appeared to be loving, attentive fathers – not extremists in Batman costumes. All they wanted was to play their part in the upbringing of their children. But, at every turn, it seemed, vengeful, short-sighted women were selfishly trying to thwart them.


These mothers cancelled contact arrangements, scuppered telephone calls, made false allegations of abuse, and prevented the men taking their children on holiday. “Honestly, I feel like throwing in the towel,” said one tearful father, who sat in his car outside his ex’s front door, waiting in vain for the children to come out. Only an emergency court order won him the day.
Not only did these women want total control of the children – believing their love was enough – they also expected their exes to keep them in the style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived in cramped bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his own home to keep a working mother in hers, her response is: “OK, so I can book a holiday.”

The programmes not only seek to explain why 40 per cent of fathers lose touch with their children within two years of divorce – the figure is likely to be even higher when unmarried parents separate – but also why this matters. Looking at the confused faces of children being fought over by parents like favourite toys, it was not difficult to imagine what might happen when they grew into teenagers, unsure about their loyalties and identities. Indeed, in the third programme, we see fatherless teenagers behaving appallingly.

The prospects for children who don’t see their fathers are bleak, according to a Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less well. They are more likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse drugs and alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships. If Broken Britain – that over-used moral call to arms – has roots, they lie in broken homes.

A third of children are now growing up without parents living under the same roof. Each of the 150,000 to 200,000 separations per year is a source of sadness for the children involved, children who yearn – however unrealistically – for mummy and daddy to live together happily ever after. But those partings can be handled more or less well. “The emotionally healthy 18 year-olds,” says Judge Nicholas Crichton, who works in the family courts, “are those who can say, 'Whatever happened between my parents, I knew I was loved and that I was free to love both parents without feeling guilty.’?”

Too few children are growing up with that balance. Ninety three per cent of children live with their mother after a separation, and half then lose touch with the non-resident parent. That’s a tragedy not only for the fathers, but for the grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins who would otherwise provide a support network for those children.

Acrimony is unavoidable when relationships end, but some couples, such as Chris and Angela in the first programme, succeed in suppressing their irritation with one another for the sake of their children. Why then do so many children lose a parent to this game of bitterness and revenge?

“Henry” (not his real name), who is seen in the second programme, tells me he blames a court system that is biased against fathers, as well as being expensive, slow and ineffectual. When his daughter was born, Henry wanted to be involved, even though he had subsequently married. In return for maintenance, he saw his daughter alternate weekends and took her on holiday. “She was a massive part of my life,” he says. “Then her mother decided to live abroad.”

He fought the move but, as in 99 per cent of cases, the mother won in court. “All a woman has to say is that refusal will psychologically damage her. There’s a view that whatever is in the mother’s interests is also in the child’s interests, even though nine out of 10 non-resident parents then lose touch.”

Henry did not wish to be one of them, but despite a “mirror order” giving him visiting rights and regular contact, he has had to fight for every glimpse and chat, at a cost of £70,000, putting considerable strain on his marriage. “When we meet it’s wonderful, but it’s hard to slot into a role if you haven’t seen a child regularly.”

During the whole court process he felt “like the puppet in the hands of a puppeteer”. He says: “I can understand why mothers use whatever power is at their disposal, but there was an imbalance.” Many fathers feel the same. “In order to be considered equal, you have to be twice as good,” says Simon Ramet, who has fought for half his child’s time.

“The courts are still stuck in a 1950s paradigm of mothers doing the caring, and fathers doing the earning,” says John Davies, chief executive of Families Need Fathers.

Women are also more likely to get legal aid than fathers, who have to weigh up the cost of pursuing a case against the fear that the longer they go without seeing a child, the weaker their case for maintaining contact becomes. “As few parents with young children can afford it, access to the law often depends on having wealthy parents. It tends to be a middle-class privilege,” says Sara Feilden, producer for Films of Record, who made the BBC series.

Despite fears that speaking out will harm participants’ contact arrangements, Fielden is glad to have found the brief window of opportunity in which to tell their stories. Last year, it became legal to report on the family courts, but a Bill is going through Parliament that would make it impossible, once again, to film people who have been involved in family legal disputes. “It’s unlikely that we would ever again be able to make a programme about this important issue,” she says.

The men filmed are eager to highlight the shortcomings of an overburdened legal system. Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service), which appoints guardians to represent the child’s interests, is so stretched that it can take nine months to produce a report. When allegations of misconduct are made, contact is rightly refused until they have been investigated. But sometimes they are purely vexatious.

Families Need Fathers is fighting for a number of changes on behalf of all non-resident parents, mothers as well as fathers. These include publication of judgments so parents know what to expect (and may therefore avoid court), sanctions for those who make false allegations, and financial recognition that non-resident parents also have to maintain a home suitable for their children to visit.

The current system finds favour with few, least of all those whose lives are dominated by endless hearings and court orders. “You should be reasonable when splitting up,” says Juliette Thomas, who was brave enough to defend on air her reluctance to allow Alex, her ex, his share of their four sons’ time: she claimed lack of clarity in his plans. Unable to agree, the court process has made the gulf between them wider and Alex resentful.

Family breakdown is not unique to the UK, but some countries seem to handle it better. In Australia, an assumption of shared parenting was introduced four years ago, backed up by family centres where separating couples could be given information and counselling on sharing their children. More children are now staying in contact with both parents as a result.

Dr Mandy Bryon, chief psychologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital, tells parents: “Whether you like it or not, you will remain in a relationship with one another as parents of your children.” To prepare for that, she believes couples need to acknowledge the errors in thinking that occur when people are angry and upset, and to anticipate the problems that cause flare- ups – late delivery back, changes of plans, and so on.

“If parents are living together and a child comes back from a visit to the park with the father in tears, the mother will try to reassure both parties. If they are separated she will say, 'Never again.’ The father might ask the child not to tell Mummy. Then, when the child blurts out what Daddy said, the mother thinks something sinister is going on.”

Judge Crichton already sends many parents on courses to learn about sharing. If we adopted a system similar to the Australian one, that would be compulsory before a couple go to court. “A good thing too,” he says, “as the courts are not the best place to sort these matters out.”

Both the Labour and Conservative parties have reviewed the family-law system. Henry Bellingham, shadow justice minister, talks of introducing automatic shared contact, if the Conservatives are elected, and using Sue Start centres for counselling. Looking at the worried eyes of children caught up in disputes that they don’t understand, change can’t come too soon.


'Who Needs Fathers’ starts on BBC Two at 9pm next Wednesday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html 

Tennessee moves to split custody evenly in messy divorces


This is another clear sign more sanity is gaining a foothold in legislatures in different jurisdictions around the world. For more links visit the Fathers & Families page here. 
Eric Kyle, a divorced father of two children, would like to spend 
more time parenting.
















By Mandy Lunn, The (Nashville) Tennessean Eric Kyle, a divorced father of two 
children, would like to spend more time parenting.

A Tennessee bill that would evenly split child custody in contentious divorce cases is drawing national attention and dividing groups along gender lines.

On one side is an alliance of women's groups, some judges and the Tennessee Bar Association, who say the change would make divorces tougher to settle and give abusive ex-husbands leverage they shouldn't have. Spending half of the time with each parent would also impose impractical schedules on kids, they say.

On the other side are fathers' rights groups who say kids get deprived of full relationships with both parents. Courts have too long ignored laws calling for custody decisions to be made in children's best interests, they say, and judges are overly influenced by notions about the mother-child bond.

The state's House Children and Family Affairs' Family Justice Subcommittee is scheduled to meet today to review divorce-related data it requested from the Tennessee Bar Association, as it works to determine whether to send the bill to a second committee that could send it to the full House.

Other states, including Missouri, start from a presumption of an even custodial split unless there has been abuse, said Janet Richards, a law professor at the University of Memphis who specializes in child custody matters. Tennessee would be alone in requiring clear, convincing evidence that one parent is unfit before dividing custody unequally, she said.

"This law sets up a standard of proof that's just short of the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt," Richards said.

Committee hearings on the bill have drawn standing-room-only crowds full of mothers wearing saucer-size lapel stickers that read "Vote no on HB 2916" and fathers wearing everything from military fatigues to business suits.

Right now, parents divorcing in Tennessee — or unmarried parents trying to work out custody arrangements — are urged to work out a plan with a mediator. Under the pending bill, courts automatically would divide children's time equally between moms and dads who are unable to agree unless one parent can prove the other utterly unfit.

The way Eric Kyle sees it, he hasn't been able to properly father his children since his 2005 divorce.
Kyle, who lives in Davidson County, Tenn., wanted his son and daughter to split their time equally between him and his ex-wife, who lives in Williamson County, Tenn. But when Kyle sought an attorney willing to try to negotiate that kind of arrangement, one after another told him the same thing.
"You either have to dirty up your ex and do whatever you have to to get full custody, or you accept what I understand is a pretty standard 80-20 time split," he said. "Of course, it's dads that get the children 20% of the time, in most cases."

Rep. Mike Bell, a Republican and the bill's key sponsor, said he introduced the bills after constituents' complaints and hopes it might encourage more parents to reconsider divorce.

"It's a concern that children are being deprived of one parent or another in most cases in a custody battle," said Bell, who has been married 25 years and has five children.

Opponents want to scare the public with claims about children being shuttled back and forth and attending multiple schools, said Mike McCormick, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

"I say — with the recognition that there is nothing like (this bill) in the country — all it would actually do is require parents to be on equal footing in courts of law," McCormick said. The bill ignores the problems some families have, said Kathy Walsh, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

Some parents divorce after years of the kind of controlling, domineering or even violent behavior by one party that doesn't go away just because the relationship ends, Walsh said.
She said the bill could prompt victims to stay with their abusers so they don't have to leave their kids alone with the other parent.

Monica Gimbles said she doesn't think the bill is realistic. She is in the process of finding an attorney to work out custody arrangements for her 5-year-old daughter with her onetime fiancé.

"This is the kind of idea that people come up with when they haven't ever actually taken care of a child, a small child that needs a lot of care and takes a lot of time," Gimbles said. "It just makes the child's life topsy-turvy."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-22-split-custody_N.htm

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Professionals seek help of Nanny State ~ Put limits on custody complaints, group urges


 The attempts by the professionals in the divorce industry to get nanny state intervention in their professional capacities is noteworthy.  These people do what they do because they chose to and they went in this direction because the money is good.  They perform these services in the most personal of any human interaction, family breakdown. The assessments relate to, in most cases, severing a child's relationship with one of their biological parents.

These assessments, as has been noted in the column, are expensive and can bankrupt the family, in most cases the father. They are done because dads want to stay in the lives of their children but it is a very tall mountain they must climb. Family Court Judges, Canada's most prolific negative social engineers, give mom physical custody in a 9-1 ratio.  This applies even if dad was the main care giver prior to separation and divorce. It can be defined as a form of gender apartheid.

Many of these lawyers and assessors are aligned with the Violence Against Women (VAW) industry, a billion plus dollar enterprise across the country and not without its own corruption.  There are about 569 DV shelters in Canada funded by taxpayer dollars. Not one provides services to men.  These centres are the heartbeat of modern 3rd wave feminist ideology focusing on women as an underclass of perpetual victims controlled by a patriarchy. This nebulous but apparently all consuming monster is male and dads are male.  What enters into all the arguments with respect to dads getting physical custody is some form is DV.  It is the vampire in the closet dragged out to denigrate good fathers.  It is the Lifeboat Feminists main weapon and is part of the indoctrination process at these shelters even if no DV has occurred.

Many of these shelters are referral agents to lawyers and assessors/counselors. These people have a vested and pecuniary interest in maintaining good relationships with the shelters because of the income stream. These shelters all require their clients to sign non-disclosure agreements to never utter a word with respect to their stay.  What deep and dark secrets are they keeping and what are these shelters afraid of. We know they harbour criminals, runaways, drug addicts, those hiding from  refugee/immigration issues and indeed some women who are actually abused.

" Nick Bala, a Queen's University law professor. (editor note: a feminist sycophant)

The report suggests three options, based partly on legislation in a handful of U.S. states.

-Require that a judge approve any disciplinary complaint, ensuring that it is more than merely an attack on the assessor's conclusions.

This will add to the workload of judges who are already biased in the extreme based  on their decisions noted earlier. Since when do we need another trial or session to determine whether one of the professionals acted appropriately. If the Assessor or lawyer has acted appropriately they have nothing to fear but heaven forbid they should get court protection from an already highly probable biased judge. This is absurd in the extreme.

-Require that the complaint be approved by both parents, again making it less likely the grievance will be just another appeal by the losing party.

This is ridiculously unreasonable. There will be no agreement between the parties based  on the fact the decision will likely favour one of them and on a balance of probabilities (9-1)benefit mom. All this does is further the adversarial, winner take all approach and does nothing for the children caught in the middle.

-Set up a vetting process within regulatory bodies that would throw out vexatious complaints before they are formally investigated.

A process like this would have to be completely transparently which is highly unlikely. They may well be making arbitrary decisions without a proper hearing to protect their own hides, as is the case with all self governing bodies,  and may be leaving incompetents and Charlatans doing harm to children.  The Durham Children's Aid Society  (so called child protection) used the services of a bogus PhD, named Greg Carter,  to perform assessments and then when found out he was a fraud defended their use of him.

His bogus assessment was used by a judge, which favoured the mom, to deprive a dad of his children. Another assessment by a qualified person had a different outcome. The corruption in the industry, including child protection,  is wide spread and runs deep.MJM

 

 

 

 

 

Put limits on custody complaints, group urges

Assessments
Tom Blackwell, National Post  Published: Monday, March 22, 2010



Canadian law must be changed to make it far more difficult for disgruntled parents to file disciplinary charges against psychologists, psychiatrists and other health professionals who do assessments in child-custody cases, says a group of leading lawyers and therapists.

The complaints submitted to professional bodies by the losing side in custody battles are turning experts off the important work, the group says in a discussion paper. The result is a "major social and legal problem," it says.

The group urges changing the rules so disciplinary bodies can only consider complaints from such parents if they have been first approved by the judge in the case or by the other, winning parent, or have been screened to weed out frivolous grievances.

"The family law justice system is seriously undermined every time a vexatious complaint is made by a parent to the college," said the paper signed by 11 psychologists, psychiatrists, lawyers and social workers. "It feels like a professional sucker punch and has no correlation to the skill, experience and savvy of the assessor."
Earlier this year, the Ontario Medical Association's board directed its staff to work with other professionals to push for changes to protect members against such complaints.

A parents-rights organization, however, says people embroiled in emotional disputes often feel the assessor is biased against one side, and need some recourse to question their professionalism.

Kris Titus of the Canadian Equal Parenting Council said she has heard from parents about psychologists or others who will spend a whole day with one parent in their home, and an hour in a "sterile" office environment with the other.

Or, in some cases, parents suspect the assessor appointed by the court is a "hired gun," inclined to reach a predetermined conclusion.

"When you're dealing with children, where every decision made is essentially going to affect someone's entire future, there has to be strict regulation of assessors," Ms. Titus said. "There are some assessors we have heard multiple complaints about."

The experts are appointed jointly in custody cases to interview, observe and sometime conduct psychological testing on family members to help determine who is best able to care for the children of divorces. The work can take months and cost the parties up to $75,000.

The lobby group is not looking to gain "immunity" for assessors from disciplinary charges, only to curb the high number of spurious complaints, said Nick Bala, a Queen's University law professor.

The report suggests three options, based partly on legislation in a handful of U.S. states.

-Require that a judge approve any disciplinary complaint, ensuring that it is more than merely an attack on the assessor's conclusions.

-Require that the complaint be approved by both parents, again making it less likely the grievance will be just another appeal by the losing party.

-Set up a vetting process within regulatory bodies that would throw out vexatious complaints before they are formally investigated

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2710042#email#ixzz0j1b7ZP80
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Staff "denied access" to family court by returning soldier who was denied access to home and children






Real fathers for justice Press Release 19/03/10
Staff ‘denied access’ to family court


This morning at around 5am a lone activist barricaded the entrance to Darlington county court with a motorcycle chain.

The action was to highlight an injustice meted out in the family courts to a serviceman who had recently returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan.
Real fathers for justice can confirm we were approached for assistance prior to this stunt by a serving soldier, he wishes to deny staff access to the building the way they have assisted his estranged wife to deny him access to his home and children.

An Rffj spokesman said:
“Although we were not directly involved in this stunt we have sympathy with this father and fully understand why he chose to break the law.”

“We suggested if he was determined to protest that as today was St. Joseph’s day, the patron Saint of fathers, it would be an appropriate day to take peaceful direct action”
“The father in question is a serving soldier so cannot be identified, we will call him Clive.”

Clive asked us to prepare the following statement as to the reasons he took the action this morning.

“I am a decorated soldier and have recently completed a 6 month tour of duty in Afghanistan; I also served in the conflict in Iraq.”

“I recently returned from duty fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan to find that judges at Darlington county court had granted my wife a non-molestation and an occupation order of the marital home, this was all done ex parte in my absence whilst serving Queen and country overseas.”

“My wife has since moved her new lover in and has been denying contact to our 2 young children.”

“If this is how the courts treat a serving soldier based on a false allegation, imagine how they could treat you.”
“All my wife needed was to say there was a ‘perceived fear’ of what I may do when I found out about her affair, the judge said because I was a soldier I was ’obviously violent’ he then granted her an occupation order and has denied me going within a mile of our home.”

“I’d prefer to be fighting the Taliban than fighting the legal system, they operate in secret behind closed doors and the judges remain unaccountable for their actions.”

“I’ve already seen a Cafcass officer who has told me I’m looking at an occasional hour with my kids in a supervised contact centre, probably for at least the next 6 months.”

“Due to the sheer frustration and the delays in dealing with my case, I feel I have no other option but to protest in this way, so I decided to give the Judges a taste of their own medicine and ‘deny access’ to their court.”

“Perhaps while they are waiting for the chains to be cut, they might reflect on the damage they have done to my children in denying them contact with their father.”

“We spend billions of pounds fighting the Taliban; they have killed hundreds of my colleagues.”

“The family courts are responsible for at least as many deaths through fathers deprived of hope, taking their own lives, yet we actually support them through our taxes”

He was quite upset, but went on to say;

“The Taliban sneak about and plant I.E.D's  (improvised explosive devices)  in the cover of darkness. These bombs not only kill soldiers but maim and kill children. I would say that family courts are just like the Taliban.”

“I left my family to serve my country, and to help other families live a life of freedom in Afghanistan.”

“My children have been maimed for life, just for like those children in Afghanistan that are caught in I.E.D explosions. They may not have lost limbs or have scars, but they have lost a father who loves them .“
Notes to Editor:

Real father for justice (Rffj) is a breakaway group from Fathers 4 justice and was formed in June 2005.

Rffj last hit the North East headlines on father’s day 2008, when Simon Anderton spent 3 days protesting on the Tyne Bridge Newcastle, after spending 4 days incarcerated for the peaceful protest he was later cleared of any wrong doing by a jury in Newcastle crown court.

Rffj campaign for accountability and transparency in family law, for the rights of a child to have a loving and meaningful relationship with both parents post divorce or separation.
Contact Mike Kelly on 07782 440072 or email info@realfathersforjustice.org


http://rffjni.blogspot.com/2010/03/real-fathers-for-justice-press-release.htmlhttp://rffjni.blogspot.com/2010/03/real-fathers-for-justice-press-release.html

Thursday, March 18, 2010

The Bigger the Government, the Less You Are Needed

Thanks to Chris Jones for the heads up on this column.

It is a significant analysis of the roles of individuals and organizations as the government assumes more responsibility toward its citizens.   As a person directly impacted by some of these events I can speak to their veracity.  Men, even though they are the majority in politics and, therefore, responsible for lawmaking are further marginalizing themselves and the rest of us by creating entitlements which create nanny state hand holding.

The more their chivalry overrides the family jewels given to them as a sign of biological differences, the more they create benefits for those they view as inferior, and the more they then create reliance of these same people on government largess. Note I use the word "inferior" and not victims.  If a politician felt people were equal they would not require the level of intervention now in place.  These programs require more civil servants and more money to run. For politicians it is a never ending make work project as more people, receiving the benefits, require more help in cutting through the red tape. This keeps riding offices busy directing traffic of the would be recipients.

Men who have been through the family law regimes in many western democracies know full well the outcomes of not being needed as fathers, an important role that develops self esteem for being needed and this is just one of the many areas spoken of by the author.

The above men are now financial drones to supply their ex's with child./spousal support while relegated to visitor status to their children if they are lucky.  Eventually our meaning will have to come from supporting the ever growing size of government who we have let take over our lives.MJM






Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist

by Dennis Prager




Among the things left and right, religious and secular, agree on is that one of the few real needs human beings have is to be needed.

When we are not needed, life feels pointless.

The need to be needed is universal. Men need it; women need it. The sexes may feel needed in different ways, but the depth of the need is the same. Many women feel particularly alive when needed by their young children; many men feel worthy when needed by their family and/or their work. That is why most women navigate difficult emotional straits when their adult children leave home and assume independent lives, and why most men find it so crushing to lose their job -- not necessarily because of loss of income, but because of the loss of meaning that comes from no longer being needed.

Only when we are needed do we believe we have significance. Give a boy a special task -- just about any task -- and he blossoms. Give a girl a person -- in fact, almost any living being -- who depends on her, and she blossoms.
Of course, there are also myriad unhealthy ways of feeling needed. If an unwed teenage girl has a baby in order to feel needed, it is usually a bad thing for her, for the child and for society. If a boy joins a gang to feel needed/significant, it is bad for him and society.

Though not consciously intending to, over time, the left destroys people's ability to be needed and, therefore, to be or feel significant.

As I regularly note, the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. One can add: The bigger the government, the less significant the citizen -- especially men.
This is easy to explain because it is definitional. The more the state does, the less its citizens are needed to do. One well-known example is the way welfare robbed so many men of significance when women and their children came to depend financially on the state.


And it goes further than that. In order to feel significant, men not only need to have others depend on them, they also need to depend on themselves, on their own work and initiative. But that, too, is destroyed as the state gets bigger. Fewer and fewer people work for themselves (which leads to, among other things, the disappearance of that quintessentially American ideal of the risk-taking entrepreneur).

It gets worse. As being needed and significant shifts from the individual to the state, the state increasingly determines who is needed and who has significance.

That means, first of all, politicians. Obviously, whoever controls the ever-expanding government has the most significance in a society.

Another significant group in the leftist state are media people. They are significant in a non-leftist state such as America, as well. But there is a huge difference. Since American media are largely independent of government, there are a far greater number of significant media people in America than in the much smaller world of consolidated state media in Europe or Latin America. There is nothing like the BBC or French Radio and Television in the United States. Therefore, no one in American media is nearly as powerful as are the heads of the BBC or RTF. So the American state cannot anoint who is significant in media.


Another significant group in the leftist state is intellectuals. They, too, are largely determined by the state, which funds nearly all education and intellectual life. One reason intellectuals in America and Europe are so often estranged from American culture is that intellectuals have rarely had the fame or significance here that they have had in Europe. There are no American intellectuals who have had the celebrity or influence that Jean-Paul Sartre did in France, for example.

So, too, artists take on greater prominence as the leftwing state grows. And they, too, are funded and celebrated by the state.

In the ever-expanding state that the left creates, the vast majority of individuals lose significance in that they are simply less needed as the state takes over many of their roles. Fifty years ago, the men of the local Rotary Club had prestige and societal significance. So did fathers. So did clergy. With the ascendance of the left and the expansion of their state, much of their power and societal significance has eroded.

Now, as the state expands further into health care, the same will happen to doctors as power and prestige are transferred from them to the heads of dozens of new government health regulatory agencies. Over time, neither you nor your doctor will fully decide your treatment.


Indeed, over time, if the left has its way and the state keeps expanding, you will also not decide what temperature to keep your house or how to get to work. Nor will you be needed to educate your children (that is already the job of the state, and much of Europe now bans home schooling), or to raise and discipline your children (the state will ensure you are doing it correctly, and spanking is now illegal in 25 countries). Fathers will be needed primarily (and after divorce, only) as providers of child and spousal support.

In short, you will be needed essentially for one thing: to finance the one thing that is truly needed -- the state.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2010/03/16/the_bigger_the_government,_the_less_you_are_needed?page=full&comments=true

In OZ Overington writes more sexist columns ~ Children sent back to violent father in NZ

Overington must be Australia's leading gender biased feminist writer and how her editors let her get away with such sexist reporting may be a function of how testicularly challenged they are.  It is rumoured she may have a dog in the shared parenting race and could gain if her marriage is on the rocks. Is the rumour she is marriage challenged true and wants to ensure ownership of the children? 

There appears to be much more at play in this story than what is being reported but it is clear there is mutual violence between the parties. That salient point didn't make it into the headline which should have read "Children being returned to New Zealand, to be reunited with their father who has not harmed them.  Studies show the female can initiate Intimate Partner Violence in upwards of 70% of cases.  Is this violence less impactful on the children who observe it.

It appears the mom is regurgitating info from an OZ DV shelter. I've heard similar stuff from women in Canada who are indoctrinated to leave the marriage rather than be referred to non-sexist family counselling as the ideology propounded in these shelters is strictly one sided. Man is bad ~ woman is benign.

How a 13 year old could be involved sexually with a then 20 year old and then move in with him at age 14 is of interest in terms of New Zealand's social services and criminal law.  Its clear her mother had problems and was her biological father driven out of her life at an early age? It is important to understand she sought his protection in OZ not her mother's wherever she is.  Chances are pretty good she is an addict or alcoholic who did not protect her daughter.  The whole shabby affair may be another good reason to ensure the biological father stays in the child's life through shared parenting not the other way around as Overington wants to portray it.

Overington is a shallow and sexist reporter.MJM





A 19-YEAR-OLD Maori woman who abducted her two children from New Zealand has lost her bid to keep them in Australia after the Family Court rejected her claim that the children are at "grave risk" from their violent father. 

The woman, who cannot be named, told Australian authorities the father had started a sexual relationship with her when she was 13, and that she had begun living with him a year later.

She fled to Sydney last June after a violent assault in front of one of the children. Her biological father lives in Sydney and she has been staying with him.

But judge Stewart Austin, in the Sydney branch of the Family Court, ruled that the woman must return the children to New Zealand, saying it would be "presumptuous and offensive to the extreme" to assume New Zealand did not have a court and welfare system able to support her.

The father made his application to have the children returned under the Hague Convention on international child abductions, which provides for the rapid return of children from one signatory country to another, except where there is risk of harm.

The mother, known in court documents as Ms Morton, argued that she and the children were at "grave risk if forced to return to New Zealand" because her relationship had been "punctuated by domestic violence".
In May last year, there was a "violent incident" in the home in front of the children. The father was convicted and sentenced to 50 hours of community service. In June, the mother fled on one-way tickets purchased by a friend.

She told Justice Austin she was "particularly vulnerable" to the man because he had been having sex with her since she was a child and because she had whanau (friends) but no family in the small town where they lived.
The judge agreed there was "an imbalance of power" in the relationship, since the father is seven years older and owns property in the area.

But the mother had been able to "muster the courage to sever her relationship with the father" when she fled from New Zealand, and she was "beginning to realise that a relationship at that age (13) was inappropriate". With that knowledge, she might be able to resist slipping back into the relationship.

The judge said the father must agree not to "assault, molest, harass or otherwise interfere" with the mother, or come within 100m of her home.

The father did not deny assaulting the woman, telling welfare agencies he had "whacked her in front of the children", but he said the mother was violent towards him, and that they "willingly engaged in heated arguments and intimidated one another".
 
Justice Austin agreed there was "little doubt" the children had been exposed to domestic violence between their parents, but said the children "were never physically assaulted" by the father.

"I therefore conclude there is little or no risk of the children being exposed to physical harm if they return to New Zealand."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/children-sent-back-to-violent-father-in-nz/story-e6frg6nf-1225841576535

Monday, March 15, 2010

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERT DR. DONALD DUTTON TO SPEAK AT VANCOUVER ISLAND UNIVERSITY


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NANAIMO, BC (March 10 - 2010) – MARS BC, the Men's Affordable Resources Society of British Columbia and the Faculty of Social Sciences, Vancouver Island University is presenting a talk on domestic violence by Dr. Donald Dutton on March 19th at VIU's Nanaimo Campus.

Dr. Dutton is a Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia. His books include The Abusive Personality, The Domestic Assault of Women and Rethinking Domestic Violence. Dr. Dutton has served as an expert witness in several prominent legal cases involving domestic abuse and spousal homicide, including the O. J. Simpson case and more recently at the Oak Bay Inquest investigating the Peter Lee murders.

"In spite of a widening stream of statistical evidence to the contrary, the myth persists that it is women, and only women, who are the victims of intimate partner violence." says Dr. Dutton. "The stereotype of the male as a bully and the female as hapless victim is not supported by the data. Surveys from 1989 to 2007 keep finding the same thing; the most common form of domestic violence is two-way - both partners assault each other at about the same level of severity."

"The default demonization of one sex and victimization of the other is an insult to scientific integrity, a stumbling block to rehabilitation, a strong contributing factor in the ruining of many lives, and a shameful blot on our human rights record."

Dr. Dutton's talk on Domestic Violence is being held at Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, Friday, March 19th from 7pm to 9pm, in the Student Union Building (Bldg 200), Room 203. Limited seating is available. A live internet webcast will be available – go to www.marsbc.com For more information phone: 250-716-1551 or email: info@marsbc.com .

(30)

The Men's Affordable Resources Society of British Columbia (MARS BC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping & representing individuals and service organizations which provide resources for fathers and men throughout British Columbia. We strive to create healthier communities through education, advocating and developing relevant tools for fathers and men to build stronger communities in BC.
For more information about the services of MARS BC call 250-716-1551 (extension 14) or log on to our website www.marsbc.com.

Contact:

Kim Howland
Men's Affordable Resources Society of BC (MARS BC)
418D Fitzwilliam Street
Phone: 250-716-1551
Fax: 250-716-1557
Email: kim@marsbc.com
Website: www.marsbc.com

Sunday, March 14, 2010

RONA has been Co-opted in the war against Men

RONA your local building center largely with a male customer base has bought the feminist propaganda that men are abusers and the Domestic Violence Industry needs their money to rebuild shelters.  They will have the effrontery to ask these males customers for a donation.  What the  clearly chivalrous brain trust who dreamed this up  at Rona doesn't know is the initiation of DV is often done by the female in upwards of 70% of situations. Harvard Medical School and the American Psychiatric Association both recently announced a major national study in the U.S. that found half of heterosexual domestic violence is reciprocal and that: "Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women."

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

Part of their verbiage is found here: http://www.rona.ca/rona/servlet/rona/women.jsp?storeId=10001&jspStoreDir=rona&langId=-1


Help us rebuild lives

Our objective is to raise $100,000 – we can do it with your help

RONA is proud to be associated with an organization that works every day to help women facing serious challenges and give them a second chance.

To highlight this commitment, RONA is launching a fundraising campaign online and at all RONA stores across the country, backed by a commitment to match the donated funds with labour and building materials to renovate women’s shelters.

Supporting the Canadian Women’s Foundation reinforces the role the company plays in society by giving these women an opportunity to rebuild their lives, not only for themselves but for their children as well.

Here's what else RONA doesn't know:  Domestic Violence is pretty much equal in Canada

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, according to a comprehensive Statistics Canada report on family violence.

Canadian Homicide Stats 2008

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/091028/dq091028a-eng.htm

Total 611, 465 men 146 female
Rate of homicides with firearms has increased 24% since 2002. Handgun use on increase (gangs don't register their weapons)
Women victims 24% - lowest proportion ever
Men Victims 76%
Both the rate of females killed (0.87 per 100,000 population), as well as the proportion
(24%), were the lowest since 1961
62 spousal homicides - no change from 2007
Lowest rate in 40 years
45 women 17 (27.4%)men

Do biased family law regimes in Canada complete with the acceptance of false allegations of abuse as truth, the denigration of dads and men have anything to do with the murder suicides in families?

RONA doesn't know about single moms in the USA and Australia being the most likely to kill or maltreat their children.

Australian Data on Children killed. Total of 16 by mother and new partner and 5 by biological father.

Of the total substantiated cases of abuse in 2007-08, including by parents and where the gender of the perpetrator was determined, 463 were carried out by women and 353 by men.

University of Western Sydney academic Micheal Woods said yesterday that the statistics debunked the myth that fathers posed the greatest risk to their children.

Mr Woods, co-director of the university's Men's Health Information and Resource Centre, said if similar data was available in other States it would show similar trends.












Victims by Perpetrator Relationship, 2007
This pie chart presents victims by relationship to their perpetrators. More than 80 percent (80.1%) of victims were maltreated by at least one parent. Nearly 40 percent (38.7%) of victims were maltreated by their mother acting on her own.
Note the rate by mom and other is 44.4% while dad and other is 18.8%. The rate by the mother is 2.36 times higher than dad. That is 236% greater. Now how to explain that away to those who believe only men are abusive.   




RONA doesn't know these shelters are used for many other purposes including criminal behaviour. At any time 25% of the capacity is shown to have residents not there for DV. Others may say they are there for abuse but may not be as follows. One woman was able to hide successfully from Police for several weeks after kidnapping a child.  They are used by drug addicts who after abusing their families go to these shelters to "unwind" but can access drugs while present, illegal immigrants and bogus refugees  can hide undetected by immigration officers, some are used by transient women as rest stops. No independent financial or operational audits are undertaken and all clients are forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. 

DV is a serious issue in Canada but all RONA's behaviour does is support the notion it is a single gender only issue.

There are 569 tax supported female shelters in Canada. There is not one tax supported Domestic Abuse shelter for men.  I'm suggesting men who believe in fairness to both genders, as DV is serious but not gendered, take their business elsewhere. There are lots of building centers to choose from.

Rona is no stranger to male bashing.  Peter Regan took them on in 2007 and the following column appeared in the National Post:








National Post 
Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Excuse my gender

David Menzies,  National Post   


Published: Wednesday, November 28, 2007

To adapt the old Molson Canadian tag line: I am ... an idiot. You read it right: I'm an incompetent goof. A pathetic primate who can barely function in our oh-so-complicated world.

Why the lowly self-assessment? No, I didn't invest in Bre-X. Nor do I drive an Aztek. Rather, it's the advertising industry that's convinced me I'ma loser due to one glaring prerequisite: I'ma guy.
For the last several months, I've taken note of radio and TV ads that involve situations involving two people: one a man and the other a woman. In every spot except one (by FedEx), men were portrayed as imbeciles. Even if the script established the male character as a successful business owner, he still came across like the classic Phil Hartman character, Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer from Saturday Night Live. (The defrosted Neanderthal continually grunted that common-place things in today's world -- "flashing neon signs" and "fast-moving cars" -- would "frighten and confuse" him.)

In today's advertising world, unfrozen cavemen abound.

In a recent Toyota radio ad, a male Toyota owner comes across as virtually brain damaged when he addresses a female Toyota customer-service clerk. He can't remember (or doesn't know) what needs to be serviced on his car. He doesn't even know what he wants to drink. Thank goodness for the know-it-all service rep who tells him what needs to be done to remedy his engine (without even popping the hood). She also informs him he's experiencing a craving for caffeine.

A CIBC radio ad establishes "Tom" as a successful businessman. Along comes a female customer who's not in Tom's line of business but, naturally, is an expert when it comes to Tom's trade. She tells him to install a CIBC e-commerce solution in a tone reminiscent of a principal addressing a kindergarten student.

Of note, one man recently had enough of the male-bashing. Peter Regan, a single parent in Calgary, filed a complaint with Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) after he took exception to a Rona ad. The spot depicts a female Rona employee dealing with a female customer who laments that her husband never helps around the house. The clerk responds: "That's OK. They [husbands] are all like that." In August, ASC decided the commercial indeed contravened regulations and "disparaged men and/or married men" and asked Rona to remove or alter the ad.

What is the unspoken strategy of having men cast as dimwits? It cannot be random chance. In fact, it's statistically impossible that in almost all ad scripts, the male is the one who is dazed and confused while the woman (or child) is portrayed as an oracle of wisdom.

My hunch: When it comes to getting slagged, men tend to take it, well, like a man. Aside from the aforementioned Rona complainer, men tend to be stoic and silent about such slights.

York University marketing professor Alan Middleton adds another noteworthy point: Since women in many households control the purse strings, ad agencies figure it's not a prudent idea to upset the individual who is likely to make the purchase. Thus, if the script calls for a dolt, it's a no-brainer the man will play the fool.
Indeed, as long as complainers such as Peter Regan remain the exception as opposed to the rule, expect men to be depicted as dumbbells in advertising for decades to come. Then again, what do I know?

d.menzies@sympatico.ca - David Menzies is a Toronto writer and pundit.


In Australia ~ Violence law faces challenge

A TASMANIAN group has filed a $200 million class action against Premier David Bartlett and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is believed to be the first Australian class action against a law.

JAIL (Juries Against Illegal Laws) filed papers with the Federal Court of Australia on February 4 claiming that the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tasmania) was invalid.
The group is claiming $200 million in damages under Section 46 of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.

JAIL is also seeking an additional $200,000 in damages for unlawful assault, trespass, negligence, conspiracy to cause economic loss, intimidation and defamation.

The writ further seeks an order that the Tasmanian Government and DPP Tim Ellis cease to engage in arresting people without proper evidence or procedures, giving police judicial powers, denying people the right to a fair and proper hearing and usurping the proper role of the courts.

JAIL president Ray Escobar said that if the class action was successful the money would be given to all the Tasmanians who had suffered under the Family Violence Act.

JAIL, formed in early 2008, now has more than 200 members around Tasmania who have been, or are related to, victims of false applications for violence orders.

Mr Escobar said JAIL was being represented by one of the finest legal minds in Australia, Sir John Walsh of Brannagh, who lives on Norfolk Island.


Sir John said he agreed to represent JAIL because the case raised important and fundamental questions of human rights, such as the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and the separation of powers.
"The legislation, and the way it is enforced, is contrary to human rights and to international law as accepted by Australia," Sir John said.

"The legislation conflicts with the Constitution of Australia and with the fundamental rights of all Australians."
Sir John said he was confident a federal judge would apply the law of the Commonwealth and the fundamental principles of Australia's legal system.

JAIL's application has been set down for hearing in the Tasmanian registry of the Federal Court of Australia at 10am on Monday, April 12.

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/14/133845_scalesofjustice.html