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.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Dr. Hedy Fry, Progressive Liberal, doesn't like equal parenting, in Bill C-560

Another rant from me based on a Liberal politician who has no idea what "Children's Best Interests" are. The life of a political advocate has up and downs and this is a "down" but all too typical of the progressives in office.

Here is a classic example of how intelligent people can be swayed by the media and Bar Associations, who have no expertise in the best interest of the child, and have little idea what it means. She quotes the selfish mom Tasha Kheiriddin who writes anti-equal parenting advice in the National Post using unsubstantiated Australian Data (the McIntosh effect I call it).


http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.ca/2010/06/views-of-red-tory-feminist-on-child.html

Note her last comment. " I do believe that this is an issue that should be appropriately addressed by placing children first."

In her world having two parents in their lives ongoing and who love them isn't putting children first.

In the 21st century it is tragic for children these Luddites are still around.

From Dr. Hedy Fry:

"Dear Mr. Michael Murphy,

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office on Bill C-560, An act to amend the divorce act (equal parenting).

Consistent with the 1998 Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on Custody and Access’s report For the Sake of the Children, I recognize that parenting is only an enhanced process when both parents are active participants; however, the Supreme Court of Canada has placed the best interests of the child as the foremost principle to be considered in such litigations.

That being said, the Supreme Court declared in Gordon v. Goertz that “each child is unique, as is its relationship with parents, siblings, friends, and community. Any rule of law which diminishes the capacity of the court to safeguard the best interests of each child is inconsistent with the requirement of the Divorce Act….” I, along with both the Liberal Critics of Justice and for the Status of Women, oppose this bill with the concern that this legislation will only weaken the Divorce Act’s principle of representing the best interest of the child in favour of the rights of parents.

The Canadian Bar Association strongly opposes this bill on the premise that “the best interests of the child are not always met by exactly equal ongoing parental involvement. Each case must be evaluated on the facts and each child treated as an individual.” After all, family circumstances vary considerably from family to family, as does the interests of the child. Placing a presumption on the courts of equal time-sharing only seeks to overly simplify a personal matter that has no “cookie-cutter” mold to fit. While the considered bill seeks to remedy such concerns by making the assertion that judges may go against the presumption if the child would be substantially better off; however, there are legitimate concerns that rebutting such a presumption would not be easy due to the burden of proof that would be required to do so substantially.

Tasha Kheiriddin of the National Post has also voiced her concerns on this matter by invoking a report by the Australian government that provides that equal shared parenting leads to the “prioritization of parents’ rights over those of their children” and another report by the University of Virginia that found that 43% of babies “with weekly overnight visits to the other parent were insecurely attached to their mothers, compared to 16% with less frequent overnights.” In short, there is a considerable amount of literature and discussion that disproves that equal shared parenting will address the best interests of the child.

Bill C-560 fails to truly improve upon the current Divorce Act and will instead only sacrifice the best interests of the child in order to appease the rights of parents. Our country can no doubt do better than that by working to improve existing laws that allow judges the capabilities of considering the interests of the child on a case to case basis.

Once again, I would like to thank you for contacting me on this issue. While I do not believe that C-560 truly improves upon the lives of children involved in such matters, I do believe that this is an issue that should be appropriately addressed by placing children first."





Sincerely,
Hon. Dr. Hedy Fry P.C., M.P.
Liberal Health Critic
Vancouver Centre

No comments: