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, May 17, 2010

In Australia: FAMILY relationship centres Cuts to send family battles back to court

I suspect they will not cut the programs that buy votes but will do a disservice to families, the backbone of the country.MJM 



 

Cuts to send family battles back to court



FAMILY relationship centres created by the Howard government to keep families out of courtrooms have had their funding slashed by $43.9 million, a move experts say could drive family disputes back into the courts. 


Under changes outlined in the budget, families will have to pay for some counselling sessions that were previously free.

A spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland last night confirmed the cuts to the Family Relationship Services program.

A means test will be applied to counselling services, forcing separating parents to pay for the service if, individually, one of them earns more than $50,000.

The measure was hidden in the detail of the budget papers and was not mentioned in the document that details cuts and increases to programs.

Mr McClelland's spokesman said total funding for the program would be just over $200m each year, while family dispute resolution services would get $90m a year. "It is appropriate for those who use FRC services to contribute to the cost of their provision if they are able to afford it," the spokesman said.

The means test will be introduced from July 1 next year.

Even with the means test, about two-thirds of clients would continue to receive up to three free hours of mediation.

"Separating families will continue to receive a range of free services and support from FRCs, including intake assessment and screening interviews, referral services, information sessions and facilities for children," the spokesman said.

Family relationship centres have been set up across the country to keep children out of courtrooms, to reduce the financial cost to government of family break-ups and battles in the Family Court, and to lessen the number of acrimonious disputes and custody battles over children.

The centres offer a full range of relationship advice, including pre-marriage counselling, information for separating couples, mediation to help parents gain access to children and advice and help for children, grandparents and other family members.

Families in dispute are generally obliged to try to mediate before commencing proceedings in the Family Court. Centre clients now receive three hours of mediation free at 65 FRCs throughout Australia.
If a session runs longer than three hours, the FRC may charge a fee of $25 to $100 per person per hour for the extra hours.

The new means test will lead to a fee of $30 per hour for the second and third hours of mediation for those earning more than $50,000.

All clients will continue to receive the first hour of mediation free and those who earn less than $50,000 or who receive commonwealth health and social security benefits will continue to receive three hours of free mediation.

Relationships Australia vice-president Anne Hollonds, who runs about half of Australia's 65 centres, said the sector was baffled by the cuts, which would hurt families
.
"You can't resolve disputes in an hour," she said.

Ms Hollonds said the counselling sessions helped domestic violence victims as well as helping people going through separation.

"We are baffled that there would be cuts to a program that has been proven to be successful," she said.
Catholic Social Services Australia executive director Frank Quinlan said the government was abandoning a commitment to help families work through their problems without courts and lawyers.

"It looks like a shift from talking through problems to solving problems through legal dispute," Mr Quinlan said.

Family Relationship Services Australia executive director Samantha Page said no cuts were warranted.
"The major three-year study, 'Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms', undertaken by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, provided solid evidence that community-based services helped families," Ms Page said.

That study involved 28,000 people who said the support services they received helped them to manage in a more positive way the conflict and distress of separation where children are involved.
"By reducing current investment and planning even more cuts in the future, this government is walking away from family law reforms and acting contrary to its own evidence base," she said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cuts-to-send-family-battles-back-to-court/story-e6frg6nf-1225865755234

Domestic Violence Awareness Day in London Ontario

Domestic Violence Awareness Day

Saturday, June 5, 2010
 
 Wolf Performance Hall
 
251 Dundas Street
 
5:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M.

Attend a conference devoted to exploring the rarely talked about reality of domestic violence against men. Government and the media want you to believe it only happens to women. It’s time to come hear the truth and finally separate fact from fiction. With years of political experience and legal knowledge between them, these dynamic speakers have all had inside access as to how men are really viewed by our government and legal system, and after June 5th, so will you. A Q&A session will follow each presenter’s discussion. Doug Lucio will also be speaking in honor of his son David Lucio. Following the conference, a candle-lit vigil will be held in order to help raise public awareness of violence against men, which will also include a walk to the London Police Station in honour of David Lucio.

Presented by
 
London Equal Parenting Committee
 
Tickets will be available at the door
 
or can be purchased online at
 
www.canadianepc.com
 
You can also contact Brad
Phone: 519-614-8713
 
Email: lepcinfo@gmail.com
 
Web: www.canadianepc.com/lepc
 
Cost: $20/person

Speakers: 





Roger Galloway: Born in Sarnia, Mr. Gallaway holds a BA from the University of Western Ontario and an LLB from the University of Windsor. He practiced law before entering political life, initially as Mayor of Point Edward (1991) and subsequently as the Member of Parliament from 1993 to 2006. Gallaway was a Committee Chair in the House of Commons, a Parliamentary Secretary and was made a Queen’s Privy Councillor by the  Governor-General in 2003. In 1998 he was the Commons’ Chair of the Special Joint Committee of the House and the Senate on custody and access which produced the report entitled For the Sake of the Children. He now teaches and does foreign development work for Sarnia’s Lambton College.


Grant A. Brown has a BA (Hons.) and M.A. in philosophy from the University of Waterloo. A DPhil in political philosophy from Oxford University, and an LL.B. from the University of Alberta. He taught business and professional ethics, business-government relations, and political philosophy (among other courses) at the University of Lethbridge from 1990 to 1999. From 2003 to 2008, he practiced law, focusing on family law, in Edmonton, Alberta. He is currently a free-lance author and home renovator. Dr. Brown has published widely, both in academic and popular presses, particularly on topics related to political philosophy and gender issues. His forthcoming book is called "Deadbeat Judges: How Courts Separate Children from their Fathers."



Marty McKay obtained a Ph.D. and post-doctoral qualifications in psychology and has over 30 years of experience in working within the court systems both in Canada and the U.S. Her professional experience with interpersonal violence dates back to 1975 when she began consulting to Children's Aid Societies throughout southwestern Ontario and to women's shelters. In her work, she accumulated case history data which demonstrated that violent behaviour was a problem which was not gender specific. Her message has been that, in order to deal with interpersonal violence, it is important that objective data, rather than politically convenient myths, be used for formulation of public policy in order to effectively combat violence and to promote justice.



Sunday, May 9, 2010

Freud Was Right: Mean Mothers Scar for Life

Mean moms are almost always going to have some kind of emotional disorder and that particularity includes alienators. Mean dads may also have emotional difficulties left over from some kind of trauma whether developed from childhood or bad experiences after coming back from war.

My own experience with a mean ex finally found she had some mental health disorders that caused her massive misjudgments and her inability to keep the children out of the divorce. I learned recently she gave our daughters information from the divorce trial to try and further drive wedges between us.  Her internal rage takes over and in this case she was severely upset the court did find her criminal behaviour was so egregious they awarded her a much smaller "equalization" (an oxymoron)  than would otherwise be the case and I gained more access to the children, including half the summer holidays.  It was proved in court along with her prior criminal conviction and jailing for theft, fraud, and forgery she did the same thing in the family business which she managed for 10 years. She still owes $30K in restitution from the first conviction in 1997.

It is notable the quote in the article about 56% of all abusers are women based on a CDC study.MJM


 

 

 Freud Was Right: Mean Mothers Scar for Life

Some Children Mired in the Past, But Others Learn to Move on and Forgive Abusive Moms

By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES

May 7, 2010—

Leslie was never allowed to call her mother mom.

"We had to call her by her first name and when we were kids, if we tried to climb on her lap, she would move her legs and not let us -- there was no affection whatsoever," said the now-grown Oregon mother of two.


"She spanked us without warning and pitted my sister and I against each other," said the 45-year-old, who now works in a recording studio. "She was very clever at using emotional abuse to get my sister and I to do what she wanted. The two emotions I remember growing up were fear and obligation."

Leslie said she tries not to "embellish" the numerous dark incidents of her childhood, but she is convinced her mother "just liked to take the joy away -- to be mean."

As Mother's Day approaches, not all have warm and fuzzy memories of maternal love. Some adults say they never escaped the scarring clutches of mommy dearest, while others learned to forgive, move on and raise their own children in a far-different way.

Psychiatrists say that good mothering is critical to healthy development and that children carry her voice, good or bad, throughout their adult lives, sometimes repeating the trauma upon their own children.
An estimated 56 percent of all abusers -- physical, mental and sexual -- are women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (ed note: These are 2007 data, the most recent available. A finer breakdown can be obtained here going back several years and other countries. I note with interest ABC News made the data hard to find in their article by not providing a direct link.)  through  The most common form is psychological.

"It happens a lot," said Dr. Philip R. Muskin, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University. "Neglect and emotional abuse are every bit as damaging as sexual abuse."

Abuse can include name calling; threatening to kill the victim's family or pet; controlling access to finances; isolating the victim from family and friends; coercing the victim to perform degrading, humiliating or illegal acts; interfering with job, medical or educational opportunities; or making the victim feel powerless and ashamed.

Numerous studies have shown that maternal behaviors like constant criticism, withholding affection or humiliation can take a toll on children, adversely affecting their academic achievement, social growth and self-worth.

"Mother's Day has always been tough for me as I always just wanted a normal Mom," said one middle-aged Missouri woman whose mother was a verbal tyrant. The most vulnerable years are when a child is in infancy and a toddler, when the mother is usually the chief nurturer.


"Freud was right in attributing a major responsibility to mothers in the culture as he knew it," said Robert E. Simmons, clinical psychologist from Alexandria, Va. "This of course includes fathers and any others who are caretakers for the child. The fundamental question is whether the child experiences an environment that is predictable and not chaotic and feels emotionally and physically safe."

"Freud did not sufficiently emphasize the importance of innate temperament, biological vulnerabilities or the quality of the attachment between child and primary caretaker," said Simmons. "But he was reasonably on the mark that very important developmental processes are shaped in the first few years of child's life."

Mother's Abuse Learned From Her Own Mother

At the age of about 5, Leslie remembers watching her mother fold towels and jumping in to help, hoping she could "earn some attention."

"She quickly grabbed the laundry basket from her left side and placed it next to me and said, 'Fine, you want to fold them, here you go,' and walked out of the room," she said. "So feeling a knot in my stomach because that was completely not the outcome I was seeking, I kept myself from crying and started folding towels thinking that maybe I could still salvage some attention by finishing folding the towels."

A minute later, still with no acknowledgement and a lump in her throat, Leslie found a way to do the job faster, folding two towels at once. But when her mother returned she slapped Leslie across her head and shoulder and undid all the towels.

"The saddest part of this story for me was the moment I was showing her my fancy new folding trick, when I saw her arm coming up out of the corner of my eye," said Leslie. "I thought for a split second that she was going to hug me for thinking of something so clever ... I was wrong."

Leslie says she was lucky to break free at the age of 17 when her mother changed the locks on the door while while she was at her high school job. Today, she has a loving and close relationship with her own children, 9 and 11, but Leslie has seen how the abuse can carry through generations.
"My parents didn't speak to their parents," she said.

She learned to expect the worst and not let herself get hurt emotionally, a survival skill that sent her into counseling later in life when she had trouble in relationships.

Wendy, a single parent from Monterey, Calif., was raised by a mother who likely had a narcissistic personality disorder, defined by the psychiatric diagnostic manual as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy."

"I felt like I grew up with no floor," said Wendy, who wrote to ABCNews.com but did not want her last name used. "The attention my mother needs is dumbfounding."

A pathological liar, her mother told her daughter she was "Queen Maria Theresa of Austria" -- a would-be Hapsburg princess or queen. She once advised Wendy, "If you say something enough it becomes true."
She exaggerated her accomplishments and took all the credit for her daughter's as well. "I thought there was something wrong with me a lot of the time," said Wendy, who was talented at art, but never got praise.
Her mother told her daughter to refuse a scholarship to college. "I loved my mom," she said. "I worked to get her love. I turned down the scholarship."

Sometimes mental illness plays a role in bad mothering.

Mental Health Disorders Can Trigger Child Abuse

Pamela grew up in the 1950s and 1960s with a mother who had undiagnosed bipolar and multiple personality disorders. "It was a horrifying experience," said the Springfield, Mo., woman who did not want her last name used. "Many things I have blocked."

"The embarrassment, the treachery, the verbal and physical abuse left me scarred for many years," she said. "I think my greatest fear was growing up to be just like her."

Pamela, now 52 and the mother of two, remembers her mother screaming that she hated the children, threatening to leave and never come back. "We formed a human chain against the door but she threw us to the side and left getting in her car and driving away."

Pamela doesn't know how long her mother was gone, but the "record player of her hateful words still play in my mind."

Her mother died of a stroke in March at the age of 79, and Pamela was finally able to forgive.
"Suddenly everything fell into place and I can say now that the forgiveness came easily after I knew I was living with insanity," she said.

"Clearly there are moms that are just not good moms -- they may wish to be, but they don't get it right," said Columbia psychiatrist Muskin. "Often they weren't mothered well themselves."

Learning to move forward from a painful past is difficult, though not impossible. And psychiatrists still don't understand why one sibling fares well psychologically and the other can be destroyed.

"We wish we understood the hearty child concept," said Muskin. "Through all the horror of growing up, some move on and marry, have a successful family. There are psychological factors that enable all of use to put things in perspective, to take responsibility for ourselves and to create the life we want. It doesn't mean we don't have limitations and issues, but my life is my life."

"Living in the past doesn't work," he said. "Some people get it on their own, some get it through therapy and some get it through religion. But it's very powerful to be able to say, 'She was what she was, and it wasn't good. But here I am today.'"

As for Leslie, she tried to reconnect with her mother when she had her own children, but was disappointed when the manipulation began again. They have since parted ways. "I don't feel compassion, maybe because she was the one who was supposed to be taking care of me," she said.

Leslie said she "broke the chain" of anger that had passed from mother to daughter. "I love my kids so much and I couldn't imagine not feeling any connection with them," she said.

On Mother's Day, her children will let her sleep late and try to make her breakfast. "They will shower me with cute and hilarious stuff they made and dad makes me things for the garden," she said.
Leslie has also learned not to be a victim and not to dwell on the negative. "I was born with a great sense of humor, so I was always able to find something funny in even a bad situation and it helped me through," she said. "The last and most important thing is that as we become adults we have to move on. There is some forgiveness there, but in many cases that may be really, really hard to do, but you have to."

Saturday, May 8, 2010

The moral Compass in Canada and the debate on Abortion - It is not settled as the feminists would have you believe

There has been much written on Abortion in the National Post (NP) over the past week in which I have offered copious comments. The following is my most recent based on a Lorne Gunter posting here.Those I refer to in my short essay are regular commentators on the NP's blog.

An issue like abortion boils down to the individuals moral compass and subsequent viewpoint. It deals with the ethics and values a person holds and indeed how much the propaganda of feminists has permeated their thinking process.



Feminists hold "abortion on demand" as one of their prime pillars. It is sacrosanct and, to them, boils down to dominion over their body no matter that another human also had a part to play in the pregnancy, the vast majority of which were between consenting partners.

Feminists want complete reproductive control (the Marxist philosophy of monopoly) and if they screw up on the control side, they want complete governance to dispose of their mistakes, also Marxist in nature despite, as mentioned above, two parties involved.

A goodly number of men have stated they must be right and must acquiesce to this mantra. We have acquiesced our legitimate role in creation of life, which has transferred to other areas such as family law where we are discarded as visitors to even those whom were born, not aborted, if we get to see them at all. Some patriarchy that is! In other words, feminists have won as they get complete control of reproduction, termination of life and ownership of children when born at the end of marriage. Between co-habitation and marriage we have a probable family breakdown rate of 50% within 30 years of living together. Cohabitation ends much faster than marriage. Men,  pay for all this marriage breakdown and abortion  in taxes, child support, spousal support, and many extras.

The feminists in this country then take it further and say not only do we want all this Marxist central planning over population control but we want the state to pay for it. Many men have also bought into this utter nonsense as well because they are highly feminized. The propaganda over the years has worn them down, they throw up their hands and said "shucks I have to keep peace let them have it."  They now believe they are being chivalrous by kneeling at the altar of uncontrolled abortion and have been co-opted into the further consumer shopping for the right sex of the child  by aborting the developing life because it’s the wrong gender. Gee it’s not what I wanted lets terminate this life and try again.

Its eugenics by another name.

It will lead to moral collapse, as a likely outcome and by allowing sex selection; those who support abortion on demand are leading the charge.

I posit most Canadians, when faced with the right information, will choose to restrict abortion in a reasonable manner.  After all, we are such a polite country - are we not?

If we leave it to the feminists, we cannot survive as a culture and eventually a stronger force will take over. It is called Islam and one only needs to read the daily paper(s), especially those in Europe,  or watch the world news to get an idea of their strength and our accommodating weakness.

Mr. Pilgrim represents the accommodating, passive side of the equation although he says he is pro-life. It was like pulling teeth to get him to admit it. Joe Shmoe represents the completely feminized faction and a mere sock puppet of feminist desires. I represent the side of pro-lifers who want restrictions and no tax support unless medically necessary.

What do we want to leave for our grandchildren - if anyone gets to have any in the future - the eroding of our values, population and the onslaught of a totalitarian religion - or something better and different?  By 2050 we will see we are much closer to half the country being foreign born. It’s not far off.

Women's program cuts raise feminist ire

My comments left on the Calgary Herald Site in multiple posts as they only allow short bursts.

Ms. Arab, you are very old school in your thinking. Radical Feminism took over back in the 70’s when they drummed Erin Pizzey, the woman who created refuge shelters for abused women,  out of the movement and threatened her life.  One of the reasons she was drummed out was her finding that many of the so-called abused women were also abusers. 

Feminisim today is a toxic and Marxist movement to create entitlements for feminists, create propaganda that men are abusers and marriage is a form of slavery no woman should entertain.  I have identified many flavours of this current feminism and one increasingly in favour is LifeBoat Feminism which invokes the dual term women and children. This is used to show women and children are victims of the patriarchy, when in fact, single moms are the largest single abuser of children, and is clearly shown in countries such as the USA and OZ who breakdown the information to clarify biological fathers are the least likely to harm children.

You describe some men as feminists. That is part of the propaganda machine that contributes to the feminization of men.  Feminist derives from feminine, which means “of or relating to women or girls., Characterized by or possessing qualities generally attributed to a woman, Effeminate; womanish.”  There are no doubt men displaying these qualities but the male of the species is no more a feminist than an alligator is a cat. Some have fallen for the rubric and fallacious argument feminist = equality, therefore I must need to be a feminist to portray myself as an equal being with the opposite gender. What rubbish. They sell out their own masculinity to try and prove they believe the opposite gender is equal. Feminism hasn’t been about equality since the 70’s.

There is nothing wrong with masculinity. It conquered barbarians and turned our part of the world into a democratic place where people can achieve success through their efforts not nanny state entitlements. It produced most of the worlds inventions leading to the Industrial Revolution, explored continents, the oceans, the mountains and space. It can nurture children as I did for 10 years as a stay-at-home dad and saves lives daily as first responders around the world. Who would you have wanting to save you from a collapsing and burning building, an entitled feminist living off the tax payer trough, or a burly man, big and strong enough to risk his life in a burning collapsing building, who will seek you out, find you and place you over his shoulder and carry you to safety. Masculinity works and can be as gentle as a lamb or as ferocious as a beast but in the vast majority of cases is the protector of those physically weaker including women and children. He can also believe the opposite gender is an equal human full of different strengths than he.

Feminism  focuses on the LifeBoat. It states, as an example, men and women cannot share parenting after divorce because dad is an abuser, even if he is not. This is taught by your local DV shelter, strong subscribers to radical feminist privilege,  and is often a first step for mom to ensure custody. Despite the fact DV  affects a small percentage of the population 8% female, 7% male (StatsCan 2005) they would have you believe mom needs to be in the Lifeboat with the children and dad can only be a visitor who pays dearly financially and emotionally for his marginalization. What this achieves is not good for the children (see Kruk, 2009) and continues the impression feminism brings to the market that women are but children and cannot stand on their own. 

Femisim is leading more  women on a further step with technology and seeking to be single moms through choice because they don’t have time to meet and mate the right guy. That being the case how much time will she have for her child.  More and more children are being raised by proxies. More and more children are suffering negative outcomes whether it be jail, promiscuity, obesity, diseases uncommon before including SDT’s, truancy, drug taking and more.  You can read the Kruk study for more info on these consequences A goodly part of the problems described above results from fatherlessness. Dads are the missing link and shut out of their children’s lives as an active parent and role model in over 90% of divorces and marginalized.

All of this is supported by today’s brand of feminism funded by Status of Women Canada and each of the Provincial equals. No government, at any level in Canada, has a Status of Men despite the fact 8 of us kill ourselves through suicide each and every day of the year. If this number of deaths were from the flu, WHO would call it a worldwide pandemic and Governments everywhere would be at war with the virus. It is men, however, and does not matter, as we are replaceable drones according to the feminists. SOW Canada is no more than a misandrous propaganda machine as are the Provincial equals. The real money is with the Provinces. Ontario has $208,000,000.00 alone targeted solely for women not including the 10’s of millions for legal aid intended for them solely. We, as humans socialized to suck up our pain, suffer both emotional and physical injury in DV incidents, lose our children to social engineers called judges in family courts and pay a high financial price for a divorce, 75% of which are initiated by mom. 

Feminism today is the new "F" word for very good reason, none of it positive.








The Harper government's latest showdown with women's rights groups, suggests the time has come for Canadian women -- and men -- to reclaim the word feminist. Bring it back to its mainstream roots.

A day after Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth warned aid groups that they risk a backlash if they don't "shut the f---up," news reports revealed Status of Women funding for at least 14 women's groups wasn't renewed for the current fiscal year.

According to the government, these organizations are victims of limited resources, even though they do valuable work that advances the cause of women's health, rights and equality.

So what does feminism have to do with it?

If the word were used properly, there would be less of a divide that occurs when programs rightly or wrongly get cut. Feminism simply means a belief that all people are equal, regardless of gender.

Most voting Canadians are feminists, they just might not know it. Even many men are feminists by the true definition of the word. Anyone who believes it's wrong to discriminate against the opposite sex because of their gender, falls into this category, whether they want to admit it or not.

The great 20th century author Rebecca West once wrote: "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute."

A decade or so after her death, universities had defined feminism. I was taught that there are three types of feminists: Most fall into the category of liberal feminists; those focused on equality. Marxist feminists believe equality can never be achieved in a capitalist society, without an overhaul of the economy. The smallest group goes to those, unfortunately, with the biggest mouths, the radical feminists, whose views are the most extreme. They include the wacky belief that women need to live in a society free of men, if patriarchy is to be truly transformed.

Yet, this small, radical view has become the mainstream definition in the past 10 years. The rise of the ultraconservative right has succeeded in turning feminism into a dirty, weak word.

Chris Hilton, a spokesman for Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose, denies there is anything ideological about the funding decisions. "Unfortunately, not all projects that submit proposals can be accepted," he said Wednesday. True, but there is ample evidence feeding the perception.

At least two organizations in Alberta are among the casualties. Womanspace Lethbridge, a resource centre for women in southern Alberta, has since closed its office to clients, with a recorded message blaming "funding cuts."

Alberta Network of Immigrant Women is also on the wrong end of the funding decision. The network has championed a number of valuable projects geared at increasing the participation of women in all aspects of society. It's also been instrumental in building a system that addresses the recognition of internationally educated or trained professionals.
In 2000, the network partnered with the department of family practice at the University of Alberta, and eventually founded the International Medical Graduates program. The association helps integrate international graduate physicians into the Canadian health-care system, without compromising our medical standards.
Perhaps denying access to Status of Women funding is nothing more than a case of too few resources, were it not for a pattern of such questionable, ideologically driven decisions.

In his first year in power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper cancelled the Liberal's promised universal child care program, and replaced it with an old-fashioned baby bonus system, payable to parents with children under six. The $100 per month supplement is purely a symbolic nod to the traditional nuclear family. That kind of money can only buy token babysitting services
The Status of Women's independent research fund was eliminated, 12 of 16 regional offices closed, and literacy programs were cut, which benefit women most. But the most damaging policy change was the elimination of the Court Challenges Program, one of many moves applauded by REAL Women.
No longer can those who feel they've been discriminated against seek financial assistance to launch significant court cases that guarantee equal rights under the constitution.
REAL Women cheered when the feds decimated the Status of Women, expressing hope it would be eliminated entirely "since it does not represent 'women' but only represents the ideology of feminists."

That's simply untrue. There's no "ideology" in working to improve the participation of women in all aspects of society, "putting particular emphasis on increasing women's economic security and eliminating violence against women," according to the organization's mandate.

For its part, the government insists the Conservatives are committed to improving the lives of Canadian girls and women. They want accountability, "less talk and more action," said Transport Minister John Baird.

Let's hold the Conservatives to that promise, by getting over the stigma of calling oneself a feminist, and ensuring the voice for gender equality is heard.
parab@ theherald.canwest.com

Saturday, May 1, 2010

More lawsuits fly in Chlidren's Aid Society + foster-mom sex abuse case


I wonder what the law suits do to the budgets of these incompetent child protection agencies who are whining to the Provincial Government about not having enough money.MJM.





  


By Sarah Sacheli, 

Windsor Star

April 30, 2010



Photo of Windsor Superior Court
  The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society has been slapped with yet another lawsuit related to allegations that a foster mother had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy placed in her care.



WINDSOR, Ont. — The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society has been slapped with yet another lawsuit related to allegations that a foster mother had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy placed in her care.

The boy's biological father is suing both the society and the foster parents for $150,000, plus any "punitive and aggravated damages" the court deems just.

His lawsuit, yet to be served on the defendants Friday, comes after criminal charges against the foster mother and a civil suit by the boy's biological mother were made public by the Windsor Star.

In his statement of claim, the man says he has lost the "opportunity to experience a normal father and son relationship" because of the "reprehensible" conduct of the foster parents and the CAS.

According to the nearly identical statements of claim filed earlier by the boy's biological mother, the boy was placed with the CAS in 2008 following the suicide of his sister. The boy's mother said she was in a "fragile" emotional state at the time and CAS staff convinced her it would be in her son's best interest to go into foster care. She signed a temporary care agreement voluntarily giving custody of her son to the CAS.

The biological father, in his statement of claim, says he was in a similarly fragile state at the time, having been severely injured in a car crash.

The biological parents had been common-law spouses but were no longer together at the time. The father had joint custody of the boy and maintained a "close relationship with the child," said his lawyer, Enzo DiGioia.

The parents cannot be named to protect the boy's identity.

The foster mother, 46, is before the criminal courts charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. According to a statement of defence filed by her husband, she was having sex with the 14-year-old boy placed in their home in October 2008. The husband said he was unaware of this until he caught his wife and the boy in a sexual act in February 2009. He said he took immediate steps to keep his wife and the boy apart and turned in his wife to authorities.

It appears from court documents that the foster parents are no longer living together.

The foster father is being sued on the basis that he ought to have known his wife was sexually abusing the boy.

The biological father's lawsuit repeats the allegation that the foster parents introduced his son to drugs, a claim the foster father denies in his statement of defence to the biological mother's suit.

The biological father also repeats the claim that, while his son was in foster care, he voiced concerns to the CAS but its workers failed to act.

The biological mother is suing for $450,000. She is suing on her son's behalf, claiming $250,000 for the boy, $150,000 for herself and $50,000 for the boy's sibling.

No court dates have been set in the civil lawsuits. A preliminary hearing for the foster mother is set for June.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service