Girl's allegations of abuse 'unsubstantiated,' police say
Last Updated: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 | 7:08 PM ET Comments133Recommend160
CBC News
Ashley Gonis, now age 10, went missing in 2007 and resurfaced when she called Vancouver police Friday. (Family photo)A Montreal father says news that his daughter has been found safe in Vancouver more than two years after her disappearance is like "a gift from God."
Frank Gonis said police told him Friday they had located his daughter, Ashley Gonis, 10, at a SkyTrain station in the neighbourhood of East Vancouver.
"The police called me on Friday early in the morning and it was like, I don’t know, a gift from God. It's amazing that she’s safe," he said.
Ashley disappeared in January 2007, along with Gonis's ex-wife, after a parental dispute that he says ended with him being awarded sole custody of the girl.
When she surfaced on Friday, police said Ashley told them she had run away from an "abusive situation at home" in B.C. and walked for hours before making a 911 call.
Court must first recognize custody order
Although Gonis will likely meet with his daughter within a week, his custody order must first be recognized by a B.C. court before he can take her home, said Pina Arcamone, director of Montreal-based Enfant-Retour Québec, a non-profit organization that assists families searching for their missing children.
Vancouver police haven spoken with Montreal authorities to confirm the girl's mother breached custody orders from Quebec when she brought her daughter to B.C. in 2007, Const. Lindsey Houghton said.
But the orders are not directly enforceable in B.C., so the province's child protection service is working with its Quebec counterpart to arrange Ashley's return to her father, Houghton said.
Arcamone also said the father could face challenges reconnecting with his daughter.
"The real work starts when we actually do find" the child, she said in Montreal.
"But I know that the dad is very anxious to have his little girl. He's worked very hard to find her. I believe he can offer a loving environment. He's kept her bedroom intact, so that when she comes home she'll come home to her familiar bedroom."
Arcamone described Ashley's phone call to police as "exceptional." She said it's only the second time she's heard of a child who's alleged to be the victim of a parental abduction phoning for help.
Gonis said he can't imagine what Ashley's home life has been like since she disappeared from Montreal more than two years ago.
"The information I’ve gotten is there is a lot of work to be done with her,… a lot of brainwashing to cut through.... But hopefully it will be all for the best," he said. "She is still young. There is time for her to recover."
Gonis said he wanted to fly to Vancouver the same day he heard the news but was waiting to get his legal paperwork in order before going to B.C.
"I want to make sure I got all my ducks in a row so I don’t go there and end up having to fight social services to get my daughter back," he said.
Ashley in ministry's care
Ashley was placed in the care of the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development after being found.
Gonis said he's ready to give Ashley whatever help and support she needs.
"I just want her home, you know, and then whatever comes up, we’ll deal with it then, you know," he said.
Ashley was listed as a missing child due to parental abduction on Enfant-Retour Québec's website.
Gonis had made a public appeal for the safe return of his daughter after she and his ex-wife vanished, according to media reports.
Abuse reports disputed
Vancouver police say allegations of abuse involving Ashley are unsubstantiated.
Houghton said officers have spoken to several people, including the girl's mother, and found no evidence of abuse.
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/18 at 9:13 AM ET
If you think the scenarios posted by tsiehta are exaggerated one only has to look at Woodstock right now. An 8 year old child was abducted by a woman and it took the intervention of the OPP before it was declared an abduction about 8 days later. This would clearly have not followed the same pattern had a man been seen in the video. It is truly not in the best interest of this child that law enforcement has been using a gender card in the treatment of this case.
A form of gender apartheid is evident in matters relating to fathers and children by the divorce industry, police, media and some posters on this board including those posting deliberately false information against men or very clearly one side statistics omitting the other gender entirely.
- 1
- 0
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/18
at 9:02 AM ETFlyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/17 at 3:53 PM ET
Mike Murphy wrote: You are very "flippant" and dismissive but those of us who are trying"
Clearly, you dislike, maybe even hate women ...
___________________________________________________________
This is the standard statement brought out by all gender feminists when they are losing the argument. Over the years I can easily recognize when they have run out of any sort a valid debatable reasoned discourse.
Most frequently they use misogyny because it has a more robust quality to it and sounds more emphatic. Some even go as far as saying men who have a difference of opinion are abusive. That is why they need the nanny state as a protector.
I am very simply the "Devils Advocate" and a fact checker. If you get your facts wrong on a media blog or board like this you may be corrected. I do hate liars, myth makers, purveyors of misinformation and a goodly number of gender feminist spin doctors who appear to have as their main motivation hatred of men. A true equality feminist will agree that 50-50 shared and equal parenting is the right thing to do because it fits with their equality beliefs.
Did you know the equal shared parenting law in Belgium was fought for and introduced by an equality feminist? Did you also know in that country if one partner withholds access or as the case in this story kidnaps the child they get jail automatically. They consider withholding access as abduction and is gender neutral.
A child deserves both fit parents in their lives equally. If you cannot see that you don't have children's best interest at heart and are enabling abuse by denying them half of their genetic heritage. Women do not have ownership of children. A child is not property.
- 1
- 0
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/18
at 8:14 AM ETScenario 2:
Dad loses court battle for custody. In Canada that no big deal, happens all the time. Dad takes off with kid and heads out to Beautiful BC. Amber Alert is issued for Dad with license plate number and description of car. Flyers are handed out, posters litter the city and candle light vigils are held. All relatives are questioned. All fields are searched near the dads and Moms homes. Ponds are drained, no rock in left unturned. Nation wide manhunt begins. All Dads credit card use is checked thru nation wide data base, his bank activities are scrutinized, his employer is questioned. Child calls Police from subway station in Vancouver two years later, saying she is running away from an abusive situation with Dad. Child is whisked away and kept in the Chief of Polices home. News beamed video of proud Chief sitting in family living room with child. Chief announces child will be flown out by RCMP for reunion with Mom in Montreal. Reporters clog Vancouver airport for shot of child as she is escorted thru airport by Police Chief to the cheering parents. Same scene in Montreal airport as Chief deposits child safe and warm into arms of crying, hysterical Mom. Dad is located, tense stand off, armies of swat teams surround house, reporters scrambling, choppers hover overhead as ambulances scream in the night. Negotiating teams strike deal. Dad is lead out in hand cuffs to patrol cars.
- 1
- 0
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/18
at 2:57 AM ETScenario 1:
Mom loses court battle for custody. In Canada that would mean she a really bad parent or else Dad could never get custody. Mom takes off with the kid and heads out to Beautiful BC. No foul play is suspected, no fields are searched, no ponds drained. Dad pleads on TV for the return of the child. Mom goes to a women's shelter upon arriving in BC, says she is running from a violent and abusive man. She is registered with a number instead of a name, worker is assigned to get the Family into a decent home. All calls are screened at the shelter and any inquiries are told privacy and safety protocol demands that no information can be released. Child calls Police from subway station in Vancouver two years later, saying she is running away from an abusive situation with Mom. Child is taken by Children's Services. Dad gets a call to tell him his daughter has been found. Father is happy beyond believe. Horses had to hold him back from taking off on a sprint to BC. Dad is smart he restrains his joy and gets all his court papers in order. Mom is questioned and no abuse is found. Tbc.
- 1
- 0
Flyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/17 at 3:53 PM ET
Mike Murphy wrote: You are very "flippant" and dismissive but those of us who are trying" Clearly, you dislike, maybe even hate women ... ___________________________________________________________ This is the standard statement brought out by all gender feminists when they are losing the argument. Over the years I can easily recognize when they have run out of any sort a valid debatable reasoned discourse. Most frequently they use misogyny because it has a more robust quality to it and sounds more emphatic. Some even go as far as saying men who have a difference of opinion are abusive. That is why they need the nanny state as a protector. I am very simply the "Devils Advocate" and a fact checker. If you get your facts wrong on a media blog or board like this you may be corrected. I do hate liars, myth makers, purveyors of misinformation and a goodly number of gender feminist spin doctors who appear to have as their main motivation hatred of men. A true equality feminist will agree that 50-50 shared and equal parenting is the right thing to do because it fits with their equality beliefs. Did you know the equal shared parenting law in Belgium was fought for and introduced by an equality feminist? Did you also know in that country if one partner withholds access or as the case in this story kidnaps the child they get jail automatically. They consider withholding access as abduction and is gender neutral. A child deserves both fit parents in their lives equally. If you cannot see that you don't have children's best interest at heart and are enabling abuse by denying them half of their genetic heritage. Women do not have ownership of children. A child is not property.
Flyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 12:35 PM ETMike Murphy
You really ought to pass on your information to the authorities and the Maintenance Enforcement Programs, I am sure that once they realize how mistaken they have been, they will immediately begin passing legislation to ensure that all of the abusive women and mothers are dealt with and 'corrected' in the proper manner.
- 1
- 1
Mike Murphy Further response: The Link to Dr. Fiebert's report is here: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm With respect to economic circumstances being the main reason for non-payment of child support it is most interesting how this plays out. A man who is in an intact family gets laid off, (read the papers to see what is going on today) and his income drops. The family cuts back on everything due to the loss of income. The divorced dad on the other hand has no such option and is then called a deadbeat. "Braver and O'Connell, in their study found something even more important, something that makes the concerns expressed by Sen. Wellstone, (USA Senate) in his support of the wish by NOW to crush fathers in arrears who are alleged of habitually trying to escape their child support obligations by claiming bankruptcy, appear to be at the very least somewhat ludicrous." "We found that the single most important factor relating to nonpayment is losing one's job. For example, while the father-reported compliance rate at Wave 1 was 92 percent, this figure rises to 100 percent when fathers who experienced a period of unemployment are excluded from consideration.... (According to mothers' reports, the figure rises from 69 percent to 80 percent when including those fathers who held their jobs for the entire year.) (Ibid. p. 33)" Going even further it is estimated 20% of children in a marriage or relationship may not be the offspring of the male partner. Many women commit paternity fraud by forcing the non-bio father to pay child support. Some of this has made the newspapers in Canada, Australia, the U.K. and the U.S.A. recently. The State of Georgia ordered a paternity fraudster mother to reimburse her former partner for this fraud in recent months.
Flyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/17 at 11:00 AM ET Okay, Hmmmm.... I wonder why over half of the poor in this country are women and children? There isn't data to support that men and children are poor. This might have to do with the fact that on average men make more money than women. _________________________________________________ Mike Murphy response: In Canada a whole Industry has grown over the mythology of the Single Mother. The worst possible place for a child from a safety viewpoint. Check the USA site and the Australian Criminal Statistics site for their numbers. So many incentives have been put in place that 66-70% of divorces are initiated by the female lead to believe but this industry there are greener pastures out there. Unfortunately it is untrue but the female doesn't find this out until she turfs the first boyfriend out and then moves on to others. Social engineering by Family Court judges are largely responsible for the final disposition and ultimate poverty of single moms. The latter believe society owes them a living and collect all the benefits they can get. Many are just "baby makers" who grew up in a dysfunctional home doing the same thing and are carrying on in the same fashion. Your seem to think that these women are there because they are innocent victims. Far from it. They made the choices and the children suffer the consequences. Until the playing field is leveled and shared/equal parenting is the norm with no support by either party many will cling to the notion that motherhood trumps all and society owes me a living. Not so. I raised 2 of my children for 10 years while working from home and I stretched my day comfortably to be involved in their schooling, athletics and social activities. Society didn't owe me a living and I wasn't in poverty.
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 11:56 AM ETFlyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/17 at 11:00 AM ET
Here you go. Start actually doing some research before pontificating.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a This will lead you to a site about the 71% of women who initiated abuse.
If you are using Stats Can info then you must already know the following. 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.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm
This does not include emotional abuse or child abuse such as Parental Alienation which is skewed toward females as the majority of perpetrators.
The 10% is an estimate from social research done by reputable Canadian Scientists like Dr. Don Dutton, from UBC.
For the most comprehensive bibliography on female initiated violence on males go to Dr. Martin Fiebert's information here. REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
Last updated: February 2009
It has already been posted but you appear to have overlooked it and no doubt has her book of fairy tales and myths and doesn't want to know the truth.
If you want the USA government data on females as the greatest predators, and abusers/killers of children then there is multi year data on this site.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm
The same is true of Australia. I have more if you want to do real research.
- 1
- 0
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 10:17 AM ETThat's why there is a separate court for family cases, the Judges appointed to these courts are because of their bias and of the radical feminist mindset, and in the areas where they aren't the 'sensitivity training' brainwashing takes care of that. No ordinary Judge from a criminal court would put up with or let stand any of the decisions that come out of family court. So they created there own court far away from the public eye. The only time you are likely to hear about these abuses to our children is if you happen to be in the court waiting your turn on the stretching racks. The only time I ever got anything from the Family Courts was when I picketed at intersections and in front of courts with signs. It's the only thing that works. They hate signs educating the public about the abuses of our children and the most support you get for more help to carry signs are from men coming thru those doors. I must admit that I got a lot of support from Moms as well but they have the bucks to protect and can't afford the disfavor of these courts. Like anti-smoking and drunk driving lobbies Dads who speak up are a small bunch but look what the anti-smoking and drunk driving lobbies managed to achieve. Get out there with signs, Canadians are smart and can see thru corruption, dishonesty and unfairness, they will be outraged if they know.
- 1
- 0
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 9:58 AM ETHenry67 wrote:Posted 2009/04/17 at 6:45 AM ET
Many schedules give dad about 35% access (evey other weekend, one overnight), but no reduction in support which transfers a LOT of day-to-day expenses on Dad with no recognition for costs
______________________________________________________________
Henry you are right on all counts but the math needs adjusting by half. If you get every other weekend plus 3 hours mid week, the standard sentence given to dads, the most you will get in April of 2009 and most other months is 14-15%. April 3-5 is 2 days from Friday at 6 until Sunday at 6., April 17-19 ditto. 3 hours every Wednesday is 5X3 hours for 15 hours. Lets be generous for purposes of this demonstration and call it a day. That is a total of 5 days out of 30. 1/30th is 3%, 3%x5 days is 15%. To get to 35% you would have to more than double the standard visitation.
Studies show a parent needs to see their child at least 40% of the time to establish a child/parent bond. Family Law (FLAW) heaps abuse on children for helping to dismember the warm loving bond they had with a parent and both they and the custodial parent are guilty of abuse. This loss of bond is life lasting in a child and may manifest itself when they are adults and parents.
- 2
- 1
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 9:34 AM ETtsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 3:26 AM ET And, in my opinion, people who say men want shared parenting to evade child support doesn't hold water ...
______________________________________________________
The other argument is women WANT sole custody not because they are better care givers, even though the gender feminist mythology has permeated Judges thought process, but because they want the tax free money. If they get $1,000.00 a month that is equivalent to at least $15,000.00 per annum while her male partner pays the tax and if he is lucky see his children 14% of the time. This is only one of many financial incentives. Meanwhile the boyfriend, the one far more likely to abuse a female child, gets to see them 24/7. They don't want to give up their "entitlements".
That is one of the reasons why unilateral divorces are precipitated by females in 66-70% of cases. True DV is only evident in a small number of cases yet lots of women will go to a shelter to get a "leg up". Some lawyers are catching on to this and in Ottawa in late January a female litigant was ordered to pay over $25,000.00 of her husbands legal fees for this reason. She got caught doing what many do encouraged by the DV shelter industry as it keeps them looking busy for their statistical reports. It is no more than fraud and does a great disservice to those actually victims of violence.
- 2
- 1
Henry67 wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 6:45 AM ETThe laws, courts and society are full of double standards when it comes to mom and dad. Here are a few just for CS.
- Don' t pay support; jail. Kidnap a child; nothing.
- Retroactive support payments must be paid. But how come you can't get a retroactive refund for overpayments?
- We have to get rid of this imputing income nonsense. Do people really think that 100,000's of Dad's are going to drop their jobs and start cleaning ditches to save a few CS bucks. Nice double standard that a Mom can work, not work or do whatever with no repercussions.
- Why is it that a non-divorced family can adjust lifestyle when income is reduced, or someone is laid off, and make all kinds of financial sacrifices. yet the Dad must pay CS regardless. All the time. And don't you even dare think about getting sick, downsized, or laid off. You deadbeat!
- Why do reporters and newspapers never go into any depth. Discover the real issues. Instead we get sensationalist headlines "Physco Deadbeat Dad wants to save on CS. Film at 11."
- Why is it that Dad can legally seek an adjustment (i.e. lowering) of their support yet are instantly branded a bad parent. "How can you not spend every dollar you earn on your child!!" Yet you can challenge your tax assessments, phone bills, a parking ticket, etc. and nobody says a word. But if you challenge CS, you obviously do not love your child. You deadbeat!
- Lawyer fees for raising child support is tax deductible. Not for lowering child support.
- Many schedules give dad about 35% access (evey other weekend, one overnight), but no reduction in support which transfers a LOT of day-to-day expenses on Dad with no recognition for costs
- Dad must go to court to prove he has child expenses to lower support, but not Mom to get it.
- 3
- 1
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 5:02 AM ETWhen I was a part time, 2nd weekend, noncustodial parent 12 of every 14 days I came to my home exactly the way I left it, peace, quiet & serenity to enjoy painting, drawing & quietly listening to music & fine dining. In as much as I never had that before it didn't replace what I felt when my daughters moved in: the pitter patter of tiny feet, the laughter of children reverberating thru the house, the warm sense of being loved when my daughters crept up on me then pounced lavishing me with hugs & kisses, the quiet feeling of closeness sitting on the sofa cuddled on each side by daughters in the dark living room with candlelight watching a scary movie, the sense of protection when my daughters came jumping into my bed late at night during thunderstorms, the pride of watching my daughters during school plays, musical recitals, poetry reading & achievement awards. Of course it was infinitely better when Mom shared those things with us. Shared parenting is not about evading child support nor is about being just fair to me. As a part time parent after support payments I had more money left to take my daughters the Canada Wonderland, the Science Centre, the ROM, the Zoo, vacations, dining out & buying special things for them & more time to pursue my happiness. After they moved in they complained we didn't do a lot of those things anymore, we couldn't afford to. When they first had to lived with Mom full time they woke each other late at night & called me just to say how much they missed me. When I spoke up to see them more I was denied school plays, musical recitals, poetry reading, parent teachers nights and achievement awards because the school was cautioned that I might abduct them. A horrid thing sole custody and it's worst if seek more time.
- 1
- 1
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 3:26 AM ETWhen women didn't have the right to vote it was particularly difficult as they didn't have the right to vote to elect politicians who would pass laws to give them that right. They depended on their Fathers, husbands, sons to step up to the plate for their rights. But by perseverance men did come around to seeing the inequality and did the right thing.
I see a similarity with men wanting equal rights to have a reasonable hand in raising their children. When all is said and done the courts can force sole custody on women but the women can just as easily say no and make a more reasonable arrangement of a more equal parenting. Men are depending on women to step up to the plate for their rights because the current Laws on custody create dysfunctional families.
Fixing the custody arrangements more equally also fixes of the Access and Support disagreements. It is an uphill battle for the social awareness of men's rights at this time.
And, in my opinion, people who say men want shared parenting to evade child support doesn't hold water as I paid less in child support when I did pay than it cost me to raise those same children when they moved in. Paying child support is the easy way out and a cop out, the real hard part was raising my daughters when they lived with me. I had far more time to pursue my happiness and far more cash in my pockets when
- 1
- 1
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 2:40 AM ET**So, you lead me to ask... Is it women to want custody so that they can get child support, or is it men who want shared custody so they DON'T have to pay support??? **
Sole custody is child abuse by denying the child and non custodial parent a reasonable relationship with each other, in my opinion. Why should I pay anyone to abuse my child. Besides I can and am quite capable of providing love and nurturing to my child why should I pay anyone to do so for me, it's like a court forcing you to pay for a maid to clean up your house because by your gender alone the court considers you a slob, no thank you, I can clean my home myself.
- 3
- 1
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/17
at 2:25 AM ETcynical spinster wrote:
*As for your interesting presumptions on my accord, no, I never went to therapy.**
Pity! I am even more convinced you do need some help.
- 2
- 1
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 9:35 PM ETFlyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 1:41 PM ET These cases are rare and the odd one that happens is held up as 'evidence' that women beat men. There is a huge huge gap that cannot be ignored. By far, woman are abused 99% more by men then men are abused by women. Perhaps this is the reason politicians don't stand up and speak for these abused men. I would rather men like you stood up and made your gender responsible for the abuse put upon women and the very substantial and large group of men who are deadbeat dads. These deadbeat dads are why most of the poor in this country are women and children.
_______________________________________________________
You sure don't live on the same planet i do. Male/Female intimate Partner Violence is pretty much equal. In some studies when looking only at the initiator women have come out as high as 71%.
Men only report DV to the police about 10% of the time.
Read some of the posts here but read for comprehension as they include links to sites or information sources where you can get the real info not the gender feminist mythology you are spouting.
Did you also know that proportionately women who are required to pay support are worse deadbeats than men. Most men who don't pay do it because they don't have the money either from unemployment or injury. Economic circumstances play the key role. Many men pay but there ex withholds access. Now that's a deadbeat abusive parent if I ever encountered one using children as a weapon.
- 4
- 3
Flyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 1:41 PM ETRobber Baron said: 'As for "reported abusers", many of the same studies have illustrated time and again that the incidence of abuse of the male partner by the female goes either underreported or completely unreported because (a) the men fear the social stigma of having been "beat up by a woman" or "not able to handle their woman"; or (b) their complaints either will not be treated seriously by or will be dismissed outright by law enforcement agencies.'
These cases are rare and the odd one that happens is held up as 'evidence' that women beat men. There is a huge huge gap that cannot be ignored. By far, woman are abused 99% more by men then men are abused by women. Perhaps this is the reason politicians don't stand up and speak for these abused men. I would rather men like you stood up and made your gender responsible for the abuse put upon women and the very substantial and large group of men who are deadbeat dads. These deadbeat dads are why most of the poor in this country are women and children.
- 4
- 5
cynical spinster wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 1:26 PM ETtseihta:
Sigh. You just don't get it. Mental hardship is not necessarily abuse. I'm not sure why you want everyone (or at least me) to be a victim and filled with sorrow, but I don't see the world that way. Every bad thing that happens can be used as a positive experience, if you think about it the right way.
Conversely, good things can be turned into negative experiences. It's all in how you approach things. Personally, if you must know, I approach everything in life as a learning experience. I am not a victim, and I will not be a victim of anything or anyone. I rather resent your implication that I should be.
You claim to love your child and be abbhorred by the notion of losing him/her/them. If your partner left you and somehow gained sole custody, denying you access to your children, can you honestly say that you'd be a law-abiding citizen and respect that ruling? That you'd deserve to go to prison for defying that particular court order? There's no way you'd go a little mad and take your children against your better sense and the law? If you can honestly say all that, then I guess good for you. People react to circumstances, and sometimes they react badly. It doesn't mean necessarily that they deserve to be condemned to prison by a jury of internet peers who have only a small portion of the facts.
- 3
- 3
Flyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 12:50 PM ETI've been reading about a few single fathers here who are great parents. It's sad that we have to raise a toast them because they are great fathers. It should be a given that all fathers are great fathers.
Unfortunately that is not the case.
The reason there are so many single mothers and their children living in poverty in Canada is because there are so many not so great dads out there who aren't there to help financially or timewise. I know so many mothers who love for the fathers of their children to just follow through with some of their promises to their children. You can scream all you want about father's rights. They should have them, but if they can't show up when they are supposed to, why should the mothers allow them to continually let their children down with empty promises?
- 6
- 5
The Robber Baron wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 12:18 PM ETFlyintheointment wrote: "• Most of the reported abusers are male."
Study after published study has indicated assaults against men by their female partners occurs on an equal basis, yet our politicians (regardless of party) and courts ignore these findings because to do otherwise would seem to put them in opposition to the politically correct idea of the noble single mother. Meanwhile, thousands of Canadian men are denied access to their children either by those same courts or vindictive mothers who try to minimize the participation of the father in the child's life. (Now, before someone goes flying off the handle at me, some of my friends are single moms and they do absolutely wonderful jobs with their children. Some of my other friends who are single moms...not so much.)
As for "reported abusers", many of the same studies have illustrated time and again that the incidence of abuse of the male partner by the female goes either underreported or completely unreported because (a) the men fear the social stigma of having been "beat up by a woman" or "not able to handle their woman"; or (b) their complaints either will not be treated seriously by or will be dismissed outright by law enforcement agencies.
- 6
- 3
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 11:42 AM ETcynical spinster:
Seeing you don't have children then you can't possible know the devastation of the loss of a child the other parent feels in parental abductions. So I'll just say let's agree to disagree and open the floor tho the other posters to get a word in. Tally Hoo!
- 4
- 3
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 11:35 AM ETCynical spinster:
You said:
a). Did not go through "abuse".
You said previously:
I was "kidnapped" by my mom who had joint custody of me in the mid-80s. My dad didn't know where I was, and had to hire lawyers and such to find me. I was about the same age as this girl.
I say:
Kidnapping, parental abduction, is abuse, of the child and of the other parent.
You said:
b). Pretty much got through my "issues" so long ago that I barely remember what they might have been.
I say:
you still have issues you need to deal with....meaning your thoughts that stealing kids is not such a big issue means you still need help.
You said:
c). I'm not sure why remembered experience of being a child with bitterly divorced parents and having lived through a similar situation as the child in the article renders my opinion worthy of cussing at whereas being a happily married parent would somehow magically render my opinion valid.
I say:
if 'being a child with bitterly divorced parents' is your take on abduction I still maintain you might think of getting help.
You said:
**surving to be a strong, well-adjusted woman who views her childhood as a positive experience**
I say:
Further, ** views her childhood as a positive experience** a positive experience! **a strong, well-adjusted woman**!! You gotta be kidding!
**demand that the government do something about every ounce of mental anguish I've ever felt.** Well, as to the abuse of kidnapping' some one should demand the Government do something about parental abductions, if you can't - step aside - I'm demanding that tougher Laws be passed.
- 4
- 3
cynical spinster wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 11:26 AM ETtieshta: " I think in conclusion that hate for the other parent was stronger than love for the children in abductions, by some stretch of my imagination, because of your abduction & as part of your therapy you might have been told not to hate your parent who abducted you & you flew with that to mean **it's not a prison-worthy offence.** & **suggest that my mother should spend time in jail**"
Yes, in some cases, it's complicated by hatred for the other parent, but I very much doubt that it's the prime motivating factor in cases of parental abduction. As for your interesting presumptions on my accord, no, I never went to therapy. This is part of my whole point: it's not a situation that requires therapy in every case, and it's not necessarily abuse. You insist upon calling it "abduction", but my point is that it is really not the same thing at all when one parent denies a child access to the other parent. Is it hurtful and wrong? Yes, absolutely, but it's not at all the same thing as what we generally tend to think of as "abduction". It's not on the same scale as rape, murder, bank robbery, or car theft, maybe more in line with internet piracy, or perhaps more accurately adultery - as it deals with hurting other people emotionally. In short, it's something that happens, it's negative, but probably more in the realm of deserving a stiff fine than doing hard time in prison.
These days, doing anything other than doting on a child and giving it everything it wants all the time, with a healthy side order of syrupy love and affection is considered abusive.
It's unfortunate in this circumstance that the father wasn't able to find his ex-wife sooner before it became newsworthy, and worse yet that the mother angered her daughter enough the police were involved.
- 3
- 2
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 11:02 AM ETDeborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 9:24 AM ET Who pays whom what should be the last thing on any parent's mind when it comes to the welfare of their children...
________________________________________________________________
I would agree with you but the reality is there are so many incentives for the female to initiate divorce it leads to a very uneven playing field. 66-70% of divorces are initiated by the female with very few of them involving abuse.
She will get in almost guaranteed fashion in a 9-1 ratio, child custody, physical and most often legal and physical, tax free child support, cheques from the federal and provincial government, in Ontario an allotment of $208,000,000.00 for women's issues only, if she wants a leg up a trip to the DV shelter.
I think the key is, as you describe your situation, the parents have agreed on a circumstance rather than the court decreeing it. The children will benefit if the parents are not fighting and are cooperative.
The statistics for children raised in single parent homes are astonishingly negative and much of this is because of social engineering by lazy, status quo judges marginalizing fathers.
I am glad it works for you but I will continue advocating to have the legislation changed to one like the Belgium or secondly the Australian model of shared and equal parenting.
In the Belgium model the mother would have been in jail 2 years ago for abduction (police would have acted sooner because it is a legal imperative) and the child placed with her dad without the intervening pain of missing a parent and having her mind poisoned. There are thousands of children across this country affected by Parental Alienation which is egregious emotional abuse.
I wish you well and may your children prosper
- 7
- 3
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 11:02 AM ETDeborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 9:24 AM ET Who pays whom what should be the last thing on any parent's mind when it comes to the welfare of their children...
________________________________________________________________
I would agree with you but the reality is there are so many incentives for the female to initiate divorce it leads to a very uneven playing field. 66-70% of divorces are initiated by the female with very few of them involving abuse.
She will get in almost guaranteed fashion in a 9-1 ratio, child custody, physical and most often legal and physical, tax free child support, cheques from the federal and provincial government, in Ontario an allotment of $208,000,000.00 for women's issues only, if she wants a leg up a trip to the DV shelter.
I think the key is, as you describe your situation, the parents have agreed on a circumstance rather than the court decreeing it. The children will benefit if the parents are not fighting and are cooperative.
The statistics for children raised in single parent homes are astonishingly negative and much of this is because of social engineering by lazy, status quo judges marginalizing fathers.
I am glad it works for you but I will continue advocating to have the legislation changed to one like the Belgium or secondly the Australian model of shared and equal parenting.
In the Belgium model the mother would have been in jail 2 years ago for abduction (police would have acted sooner because it is a legal imperative) and the child placed with her dad without the intervening pain of missing a parent and having her mind poisoned. There are thousands of children across this country affected by Parental Alienation which is egregious emotional abuse.
I wish you well and may your children prosper
- 7
- 3
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 10:54 AM ET**Actually, my position would be the same if it was a mother or a father who "abducted" the child. In my mind, it's not a prison-worthy offence. I didn't say it's not a crime, but to put someone in the same category with rapist and murders whose only crime is loving their children and refusing to share them - that's absurd.**
While I respect your opinion, I disagree with your assumption that **whose only crime is loving their children and refusing to share them **. I believe that the most likely motivating factor for abducting a child is to hurt the other parent because the worst thing a parent could possibly go thru is the loss of a child, I doubt it is motivated by *loving their children* as you put it. As for *put someone in the same category with rapist and murders* is arguable at best. How about the same category as "car thieves" and "bank robbers" both of which are illegal and criminal and does carry prison sentences. As for abducting children to keep them out of abusive situations is flimsy excuses at best, keep the child, call the Police, report the abuse & resolve it in a reasonable manner & you break no Laws & harm no children. I think in conclusion that hate for the other parent was stronger than love for the children in abductions, by some stretch of my imagination, because of your abduction & as part of your therapy you might have been told not to hate your parent who abducted you & you flew with that to mean **it's not a prison-worthy offence.** & **suggest that my mother should spend time in jail**. Now that's absurd.
- 3
- 2
cynical spinster wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 10:47 AM ETtieshta: "I am sorry for the abuse you went thru. You said "Kids are resilient." proves nothing and by your attitude you were NOT as resilient, you still have issues you need to deal with.... as for having no kids. If you were a parent I would respect your opinion but since you are not then everything you think about this situation isn't worth a pint of parrot piss. With all due respect get some help."
a). Did not go through "abuse".
b). Pretty much got through my "issues" so long ago that I barely remember what they might have been.
c). I'm not sure why remembered experience of being a child with bitterly divorced parents and having lived through a similar situation as the child in the article renders my opinion worthy of cussing at whereas being a happily married parent would somehow magically render my opinion valid.
I suppose that my belief that jail time will not be beneficial to anyone in this case does reccomend me to "get help". I suppose living through the same thing and surving to be a strong, well-adjusted woman who views her childhood as a positive experience wherein the mistakes of others taught as much as her own personal successes - yeah, you're right. I need help. I should start blaming my mom and dad for all my problems, wallow in undeserved self-pity and demand that the government do something about every ounce of mental anguish I've ever felt.
What did I learn? That parents are not infallible, that people do stupid things out of love, that not everything is one-sided and simple, and that forgiveness is better for the soul than blame.
Whoa. Issues, huh?
- 2
- 3
Deborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 9:24 AM ETMike:
First of all, I must apologize... there's a comment I made that has not yet posted that indicates you continue to bring the subject around to money. Sorry, you did that only once. I was mistaking you for somebody else.
Now... In my particular case, it was my husband's decision to not uproot his children in any way. We live close by his ex and with the free and easy access, he figured it would be better for the children, especially his little girl who was only 7 at the time and very attached to her Mom.
My ex toyed with the idea of shared parenting but he outright told me why... It was the money. He quite simply didn't want to pay support. THAT particular idea didn't go over very well, as you can imagine, and was dropped pretty quickly.
As for when I was married to my ex, it was his choice at that time to leave his children where they were, with his ex. Again they were very small and he figured that they would be better with their mother (who incidentally didn't work and so could dedicate all her time to them).
- 2
- 3
Deborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 9:08 AM ETMike Murphy... One last comment.
It seems that with regard to money, it is you who consistently returns to that issue. I've been arguing about what is or is not in the best interest of the children. I never mentioned the word until you asked. It is you who consistently bring the subject back around to money.
So, you lead me to ask... Is it women to want custody so that they can get child support, or is it men who want shared custody so they DON'T have to pay support???
As you are the one who seems to have money first and foremost in your mind, I would suggest that in your case, it may be the latter.
Who pays whom what should be the last thing on any parent's mind when it comes to the welfare of their children. Sadly, all too often, it is the crox of the dispute.
- 2
- 3
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 8:56 AM ETDeborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 7:23 AM ETMike Murphy,
It has absolutely nothing to do with money. Think for a second... I was stepmother to two for years... hence I was on the PAYING end of the child support. I am receiving support for my son, yes. BUT I'm now, again, on the PAYING side of the support for my current two stepchildren. All in all, I've paid four times out more family income that I've received...
BUT that said, I acknowledge that the shared parenting I'm familiar with involved the children "moving" every two weeks... It was horrendous.
A presumption of equal/shared parenting must be the standard on separation and divorce. The parents can work out the arrangements if either is unable to do it equally. I note all the men in your situation did not have any custody and were required to pay. You say you paid but that is very misleading. Your husband, the man, paid and because you are the woman you received for your child.
There is no fairness in what you describe and any one who believes that nonsense is deluded.
The young child in this story has been badly alienated from her father by the mother. Any police officer who says no abuse is present is ill trained and does a disservice to children affected by the poison of an alienator. I can tell you it would be a far different story from this same police officer if the roles were reversed.
There is no equality in the system for dads and that has to change. You are defending the status quo and all studies show this is not in the best interest of children. Why do the fathers in your situation not have equal status. Was it a personal choice by them or did the court decide after the dads were told they didn't have a chance at legal custody let alone equal parenting?
- 5
- 1
KMTCarp wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 8:56 AM ET"his custody order must first be recognized by a B.C. court before he can take her home,"
Why would a court order in one province not be recognized in another?
That seems like a huge loophole. Is this only true for family court or is it true for criminal cases as well? Scary.
Hopefully they will recognice the court order, and then they will be able to arrest the mother for kidnapping , right ???!!!
- 6
- 0
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 8:12 AM ETDeborah64:.
You said *The best situation is for the non-custodial parent to have reasonable unlimited access.**
In this I have an opinion & if I may:
Whatever arrangement works for a divorced family & creates a good, safe & peaceful home for children is to be applauded. It is better to have any arrangement that creates that than no agreed arrangement that destroy the family & causes endless friction.
Having said that, I believe that the Family Courts should uphold Shared Parenting as an ideal. I won't get into all the studies that show that is probably the best for the children, you can research that.
Most families have to go to court for a divorce & most deal with issues of access, custody & support outside the courts & come to a arrangement that works for the most part.
However, for a minority of divorced family disputes arise over custody, access & support. I believe this is encouraged by lawyers to stretch out their involvement in divorces & play on the animosity of the underlying reason for the divorce in the first place & the lawyers enrich themselves. Whole industries of Family courts, support enforcement departments, mediation services, children's aid service are supported by the notion that sole custody is in the 'best interest of the child.' The courts bias doesn't help nor does the myth of Men as violent abusers & women as victims.
I believe that the courts should only become involved if parents disagree about access & custody & then only to enforce shared custody, except in cases of abuse. No child support (maybe in disproportionate salaries of parents) and parents equally sharing the duties woulld shut down the industries of family doom. Lawyers advocating this are blacklisted as father-friendly,unfair since most who hire lawyers are women.
- 5
- 2
Deborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 7:34 AM ETaefowler said:
"At this point I think we see more custody agreements arranged to suit what is "fair" to the parents than what is fair to the children."
"...Children are people not sandwiches, you don't get your "share".
Life is not fair, better to teach your children it is unfair and stable than unfair and chaotic."
Very, very well said.
- 6
- 2
Deborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 7:23 AM ETMike Murphy,
It has absolutely nothing to do with money. Think for a second... I was stepmother to two for years... hence I was on the PAYING end of the child support. I am receiving support for my son, yes. BUT I'm now, again, on the PAYING side of the support for my current two stepchildren. All in all, I've paid four times out more family income that I've received.
It is simply a matter of stability for all children involved. We are fortunate enough to all live within the same small city, so transportation is not an issue. We ALL (me, my ex, his ex, my husband and my husband's ex) think it's important that a child have one primarily residence as well as free and unfettered access to the other parent. It works very, very well.
As for my experience with shared parenting... Obviously I was never directly involved... But I do know of several of those situations within my group of family and friends and it has not worked out well. The two worst situations involved one boy turning into a little criminal and one little girl being stricken with obsessive compulsive disorder. A change in the parenting arrangement (back to the traditional custodial parent with reasonable and unlimited access to the other) proved to be the grounding that the children needed and they both became well.
BUT that said, I acknowledge that the shared parenting I'm familiar with involved the children "moving" every two weeks... It was horrendous.
- 6
- 3
lov2ski wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 12:44 AM ETTitle in another CBC story that just came up - "Man may have taken photo under girl's dress, police allege"
Title in this story - "Montreal dad eager for reunion with young daughter found in B.C. Girl's allegations of abuse 'unsubstantiated,' police say"
Now ask yourself if there is a discrepancy in the way the media, police and the public view men and women - men are ASSUMED guilty, women are ASSUMED innocent.
- 19
- 5
aefowler wrote:Posted 2009/04/16
at 12:00 AM ETI have noticed an on-going war here between a man who asumes a female commentator is after the dough and a woman who has insinuated all the men at different stages of her life have not been up to the challenge of co-parenting.
As a single parent with sole custody and guardianship of a toddler (there was no fight, it worked when the baby was born and will be reviewed when she is a bit bigger) I am completely open to the theory of custody sharing. But there are cases when one parent, of either sex, is either uninterested or unable to take the child 50% of the time.
I believe children should live wherever they can get the most love, respect and routine. If a rhythm can be accomplished where this can happen between houses than it is the right thing to do. At this point I think we see more custody agreements arranged to suit what is "fair" to the parents than what is fair to the children. If a routine cannot be established children should not be put through the chaos just so each parent can hold the moral high ground of " doing their best" and having half. Children are people not sandwiches, you don't get your "share".
Life is not fair, better to teach your children it is unfair and stable than unfair and chaotic.
- 9
- 1
NDP supporter Loves Hutterite Colony Concept wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 11:28 PM ETIf the Dad is so great why did she leave him.
She looks like she was well cared for and loved.
- 1
- 38
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 10:52 PM ETScenario 2:
Dad loses court battle for custody. In Canada that no big deal, happens all the time. Dad takes off with kid and heads out to Beautiful BC. Amber Alert is issued for Dad with license plate number and description of car. Flyers are handed out, posters litter the city and candle light vigils are held. All relatives are questioned. All fields are searched near the dads and Moms homes. Ponds are drained, no rock in left unturned. Nation wide manhunt begins. All Dads credit card use is checked thru nation wide data base, his bank activities are scrutinized, his employer is questioned. Child calls Police from subway station in Vancouver two years later, saying she is running away from an abusive situation with Dad. Child is whisked away and kept in the Chief of Polices home. News beamed video of proud Chief sitting in family living room with child. Chief announces child will be flown out by RCMP for reunion with Mom in Montreal. Reporters clog Vancouver airport for shot of child as she is escorted thru airport by Police Chief to the cheering parents. Same scene in Montreal airport as Chief deposits child safe and warm into arms of crying, hysterical Mom. Dad is located, tense stand off, armies of swat teams surround house, reporters scrambling, choppers hover overhead as ambulances scream in the night. Negotiating teams strike deal. Dad is lead out in hand cuffs to patrol cars.
- 20
- 0
James in Kanata wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 10:41 PM ETIn an era of shared-parenting, its very obvious why the father was awarded sole custody. The mother has proven she is a threat and danger to her children. She must be charged with child abuse along with abduction.
- 21
- 1
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 10:41 PM ETScenario 1:
Mom loses court battle for custody. In Canada that would mean she a really bad parent or else Dad could never get custody. Mom takes off with the kid and heads out to Beautiful BC. No foul play is suspected, no fields are searched, no ponds drained. Dad pleads on TV for the return of the child. Mom goes to a women's shelter upon arriving in BC, says she is running from a violent and abusive man. She is registered with a number instead of a name, worker is assigned to get the Family into a decent home. All calls are screened at the shelter and any inquiries are told privacy and safety protocol demands that no information can be released. Child calls Police from subway station in Vancouver two years later, saying she is running away from an abusive situation with Mom. Child is taken by Children's Services. Dad gets a call to tell him his daughter has been found. Father is happy beyond believe. Horses had to hold him back from taking off on a sprint to BC. Dad is smart he restrains his joy and gets all his court papers in order. Mom is questioned and no abuse is found. Tbc.
- 13
- 0
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 10:01 PM ETDeborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 7:21 PM ETMike Murphy... I just noticed the last part of your post where you said that I have no experience or understanding of this issue.
How's this for experience... I spent 18 years during my first marriage as step-mother to two children, I have a child of my own from that marriage, and now I'm stepmother again to two more children. So I have one of my own, two "ex" stepkids (who are now adults) and two current stepkids. One natural child, but I've raised or am raising a total of five.
________________________________________________________
Why, if you are so flexible is there any non-custodial parents at all? Do you just want to collect child support? You can't have any experience at shared parenting as you described it earlier or you wouldn't be arguing it is such a burden on children. They don't think so given they can have one set of friends, one school and the two sharing parents have their best interests at heart. Its clear to me you have never experienced it or you would know it works.
Is it the tax free money you don't want to give up? It usually boil's down to monetary incentives for most not wanting to equally share the parenting.
- 10
- 4
Amywaterworks wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 9:24 PM ETWonderful news to the father to realize she is alive and hopefully coming home! Hope the past two years have not been too hard on this young girl and she settles in just fine.
- 31
- 0
lov2ski wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 8:38 PM ETArticle "Vancouver police say allegations of abuse involving Ashley are unsubstantiated.
Houghton said officers have spoken to several people, including the girl's mother, and found no evidence of abuse."
How do they know the allegations aren't true so soon? Are they just taking the moms word? And they know where the girls mom is, they've SPOKEN to her? Why the H@LL is she not in JAIL on kidnapping charges? Would they treat a male child abductor the same way?
- 36
- 2
cubicrube wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 8:22 PM ETDeborah64 wrote:
" ........One natural child, but I've raised or am raising a total of five.
You?"
Well played. Game, set and match.
- 6
- 2
Deborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 7:21 PM ETMike Murphy... I just noticed the last part of your post where you said that I have no experience or understanding of this issue.
How's this for experience... I spent 18 years during my first marriage as step-mother to two children, I have a child of my own from that marriage, and now I'm stepmother again to two more children. So I have one of my own, two "ex" stepkids (who are now adults) and two current stepkids. One natural child, but I've raised or am raising a total of five.
You?
- 7
- 6
Deborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 7:17 PM ETMike Murphy & Lov2ski:
Never did I advocate that a child have only one parent. I was talking about having a primary residence.
The best situation of all is not to have this "every 2nd weekend and every Wednesday night" crap. The best situation is for the non-custodial parent to have reasonable unlimited access. That is the situation that I have with my ex and that my current husband has with his ex. The result is that sometimes we have no children, sometimes we have one, or two, or three. There's no quibbling over when. If the kids want to come and go, they do so as they please, and as their parent finds convenient (If they have to work or have a social engagement.)
As it happens, my son lives with me and my husband's children live with his ex, but there is no friction and no restriction. And each child has their own home, their own room(s), and their own lives, with no need to "move" on a constant and regular basis.
- 15
- 4
Ella's Mom wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 7:06 PM ETMichael W wrote:
Posted 2009/04/15
at 6:18 PM ETRickrazor wrote: "Why is the name of the woman who kidnapped the child not being published?"
***************************
Simple: To protect the identity of the child, which is standard, common practice throughout Canada and has been for decades. In Quebec, it is much more common than elsewhere in Canada for children to have hyphenated surnames (surnames of both mother and father), so publishing the surname of the mother would assist in identifying the child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They can't be too worried about the protection of the child's identity if they are allowing photo's of the child as well as the child's name to be published. It really isn't that hard to determine who the child's mother is by knowing the child and the father's name and city of residence.
- 14
- 2
Icebyrg28 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 6:55 PM ETThis is wonderful news!!! Congrats!!! Good Fathers are a blessing!
- 42
- 0
Wisdom wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 6:45 PM ETPosted by SonnyboySlim:
Let's hope for the best for all concerned.
I have a little girl this age and an ex-wife. We share custody and a generally positive line of communication but to get to this stage is not easy (and not ideal in every situation). I turst my ex completely (I think she'd say the same) but sometimes parents confuse their own anger with an ex with their love for a child.
I can't say what the situation is in this case (I could speculate as we sometimes do... ) but some people hate their exes more than they love their children and everyone sufferes in the end, the children most. There have been other stories where single parents (men and women) have put new relationships before their own children. How sad.
Let's hope the future can help build this child anew.
My thoughts:
I think this is one of the most reasonable, uplifting, non-political, non-religeous, non partisan in any way comments I've read on this forum in a very long time - including my own. I've nothing else to sat but thank-you, regardless of who and what you are or represent.
- 21
- 0
Habfanforlife wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 5:11 PM ETEvery custody battle is different, but it sounds like the Quebec judge got it right if two years after the abduction, this child was living in an abusive home. I hope she gets back on her feet and that her mother has the book thrown at her.
- 37
- 0
ducksinarow wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 5:01 PM ETthe best gift I can give my children is to cherish and nurture the relationship I have with their father...
- 46
- 2
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 5:01 PM ETcynical spinster wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:14 PM ET:)And don't pity my kids, good sir. I don't want any, and won't have them. :)
I do not have to say anymore you said it all in your last statement.
- 14
- 3
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:50 PM ET**And don't pity my kids, good sir. I don't want any, and won't have them. :)**
I am sorry for the abuse you went thru. You said "Kids are resilient." proves nothing and by your attitude you were NOT as resilient, you still have issues you need to deal with.... as for having no kids. If you were a parent I would respect your opinion but since you are not then everything you think about this situation isn't worth a pint of parrot piss. With all due respect get some help.
- 20
- 2
BlueParadise wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:41 PM ETI used to think that children from divorced parents should live with the mother. I changed my mind years ago when I met a single father who has raised his girl by his own. He is the most oustanding parent that I know (from both moms and dads) and I have wondered so many times which would have been the faith of his girl living with the mother. It's scary.
I can not imagine what Ashley has been through. She had the courage to run away and call 911 and she has the fortune to have a responsible and loving father who will take care of her now. A lot of work is waiting for him to help Ashley to recover but this is a story with very good chances to have a happy ending.
- 38
- 0
Kahlest wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:38 PM ETHmmmmm.... wrote:
Of course she was safe - she was with her mother. This is hardly news-worthy.
____________________________________________________________
FYI: just incase you were not able to read it in the article:
When she surfaced on Friday, police said Ashley told them she had run away from an "abusive situation at home" and walked for hours before making a 911 call.
She was NOT safe, the Mother either abused her or allowed her to be abused so No she was not safe. Try acutally READING the article before you throw out flip little statements like that.
- 52
- 0
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:29 PM ETFamily Courts in Canada & around the Western world are much the same judging from fathers rights groups that have sprung up most everywhere & have become international like 'Fathers 4 justice' & they are complaining about much the same things. Fathers are marginalized & are treated as wallets, shut up and pay. Judges, compelled to undergo "sensitivity training' leads them to bring down judgements with a slant that is 'sensitive' to the demands of special interest groups who lobby Government. These small but very powerful Lobby groups terrorize our Politicians to cater to the demands of their ideology. Some of these groups like Gay & anti-tabacco lobbies have legitimate causes most Canadians would have no problem with & have caused a shift in our collective social awareness. In my opinion & those of others who experience family courts first hand, sensitivity training of our Family Courts created a huge blatant bias against Fathers. This sensitivity training takes mothers as 'primary caregivers', that mothers lose financially in divorces and add the myth that men are violent abusers & women & children are their victims destroys countless families. Giving sole custody to mothers with every second weekend visitation to Dad is abusive to kids, except in rare cases of real abuse. It denies children the right to a meaningful relationship with their Fathers and have created an industry of child support enforcement that has crippled the fight for equal parenting. This industry 'builds a case' against fathers that accepts false accusations of physical, psychological & even sexual abuse by fathers not as heresy but 'facts'. This leads to sole custody, leaving mothers to deal with kids alone, unnecessarily creating dysfunctional families. I have had it all of this & worst.
- 17
- 9
Flyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:29 PM ETlov2ski said: 40% of their net incomes?
lov2ski: Get your facts straight!
The best kind of debate is based on FACTS and opinions clearly stated.
- 5
- 4
cynical spinster wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:14 PM ETMike Murphy:
Yup. I guess not lining up for the lynch mob heading for a non-custodial parent who made the bad choice of taking their kid away from the custodial parent is proof that my brainwashing is still intact. I better get that fixed before the next one.
But seriously: Kids are resilient. I'm not saying this kid wouldn't benefit from some therapy, but I am saying: don't feel sorry for this kid. She shouldn't feel sorry for herself. She's had it rough, and made it through, that's something to be proud of, something to help make her stronger. Same goes for her dad. Honestly, folks, a little pain and suffering in this world can be used for self-improvement instead of self-pity. If this girl has all of her limbs intact, there's plenty of time to heal her mind.
And don't pity my kids, good sir. I don't want any, and won't have them. :)
- 4
- 23
lov2ski wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:04 PM ETDeborah64 says "Shared" parenting may be good for the parents but it is WRONG for the child. Can you imagine spending two weeks in one home and then two weeks in another, on and on and on??? Where is your "home"? How can you possibly feel secure? You have no roots. "
___________________________________________________
Another question for you Deborach64 - Would you feel the same if, 93% of the time, the father was awarded sole custody, and the mother's were relagated to every 2nd weekend seeing their kids, and sending their ex-husbands approx. 40% of their net incomes?
- 28
- 7
Flyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:04 PM ETBy the way, all of the information I supplied in my last post came from StatsCan so people can agree or disagree all they want. The facts are the facts.
- 3
- 8
alfsmith wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:02 PM ETKids need BOTH parents. My son's father and I are raising him separately - he'll grow up with TWO homes, TWO parents, THREE families (as I'm adopted & reunited w/ my birth family 15 years ago) with LOTS of aunts/uncles/cousins, and HAPPY, wanting for nothing. I don't think a child could ask for more. Don't get me wrong, running a household as a single parent (especially now as we live in different cities) is really tough! But we make it work :) I grew up in the 'traditional' household and I never had it this good!
- 24
- 1
Golightly wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 4:00 PM ETI have so much respect for this brave little girl who had the courage to run away and the sense to call 911 to ask for help. I shudder to think what she has been through, but she is obviously a strong person. He dad is ready to provide her with the help she needs to recover from her ordeal and she has the strength to do so. I wish Ashley and her dad luck and happiness.
- 15
- 0
Rayser213 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:57 PM ETI thought that the child was safe? What is she doing in the custody of a corrupt Child Services Agency? The Father should worry, in case this corrupt agency keeps the child for God knows what reason.
- 10
- 11
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:55 PM ETcynical spinster:
I don't want to be mean as you are entitled to your opinion and I welcome it and you seem to have suffered much. However, if I may and in my opinion, the loss of a child is the hardest thing a parent will ever have to go thru. You can never be absolutely sure if it was the other parent who took your child. It causes the most immeasurable pain and suffering to have your child taken out of your life. Most times parents abduct their children they tell the children the other parent somehow did something bad and that they are protecting them from or the very, very worst imaginable thing a child can be told is that their Mom or Dad doesn't want them or love them. If it's criminal to steal a car (which can be replaced) I would like to think it is criminal to steal a child. I had every 2nd weekend visitation and it felt as if someone wrenched out my heart, it would be unimaginable to lose them for years. My daughters came to live with me as soon as they were old enough to do so at 12 years of age. There is a distinction to be made however if one parent asks to removes a child from abuse but that can be done by the police pending an investigation. No parent show have the right to remove a child and take off with them because they feel there is abuse. There is a legal recourse for that.
- 18
- 0
Hmmmmm.... wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:48 PM ETOf course she was safe - she was with her mother. This is hardly news-worthy.
- 2
- 49
lov2ski wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:27 PM ETDeborah64 says "Shared" parenting may be good for the parents but it is WRONG for the child. Can you imagine spending two weeks in one home and then two weeks in another, on and on and on??? Where is your "home"? How can you possibly feel secure? You have no roots. "
___________________________________________
This has been proven wrong over and over in legitimate studies. Kids prefer and do better overall when BOTH parnets are actively in their lives.
The senseless dribble that fathers aren't needed is exactly what is hurting so many children today. It should be 50/50 custody (where both parents are "fit") and NO money changes hands. therefor money will never be a motivating factor to "keep" the kids, and then it TRULY will be about the children.
Are you really saying ONE MAIN HOUSE is more important than a FATHER? Houses don't raise kids, parents do. These children can have TWO homes and feel very special at each home.
- 44
- 5
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:26 PM ETkfccanada wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 2:27 PM ET . Intimate Partner Violence is pretty much equal between genders. In fact in a Centre for Disease Control study it was found 71% of initiators of violence were female.
Females are the greatest predators and abusers of children by a wide margin in the USA and Australia.
It sounds like you have been indoctrinated by the gender feminist mythology of the Duluth Wheel. It states all men are violent and all women are victims. Don't you read the newspapers. Just this week a woman charged with murder and rape of a young girl in California. Another mom in Florida may get the death penalty for murder of her daughter and a funeral was just held for two girls in Laval killed by their mother. And that is just recent.
Women are just as violent as men but men only report it about 10% of the time.
- 41
- 9
Flyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:20 PM ETOver half of all single parent mother led families in Canada are poor.
Men make on average $10,000 a year more than women.
Most with monthly support payments involve amounts of $400 or less.
7% - the estimated percentage of women in a current or previous spousal relationship who experienced spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004. Rates of spousal abuse were highest among certain segments of the population: those aged 15 to 24; those in relationships of three years or less; those who had separated; and those in common-law unions.
23% - the percentage of female victims who reported that the most serious form of violence experienced was being beaten, choked, or threatened by having a gun or a knife used against them.
44% - the percentage of female victims of spousal abuse who indicated that they suffered injury because of violence, with 13% seeking medical attention.
38% - the percentage of women who reported the abuse to the police who sought a restraining order.
Sexual Abuse
Most offenders are not strangers to their victims. In most cases, they are well known to their victims. Approximately 25 percent of offenders are adolescents.
• Most of the reported abusers are male.
- 11
- 23
tsiehta wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:17 PM ET*"Shared" parenting may be good for the parents but it is WRONG for the child. Can you imagine spending two weeks in one home and then two weeks in another, on and on and on??? Where is your "home"? How can you possibly feel secure? You have no roots. **
Deborah64:
You make valid points. If the child moved around every 2 weeks that might be the case. But most people I know do every 6 months, half on summer holiday and half on school time straight 6 months. 6 months to a child feels like a long time. The benefits are the child don't cry themselves to sleep wishing about seeing her Dad. Sole custody is child abuse, it denies the child the right to a meaningful relationship with their Father. I say Father because 93% of cases give Mom sole custody. The huge fight against shared parenting is because most families don't pay each other child support and is supported by the child support enforcement industry, lawyer and domestic violence industry and women's shelter advocates. Besides it is unfair and really tough for one parent to have to bring up say 4 boys. It's a huge strain on the Mom and the quality of the relationship with her children suffers being it would stress anyone out to raise 2, 3 or 4 children. Parents have some time for themselves when the children are with the other parent and they can arrange every second weekend visitations. Every family I know with shared parenting have healthy, well adjusted children and every family I know that with sole custody has a nightmare of a life with dealing with courts, child support, and the kids. Why should the Father get off with responsibility of just every second weekend, he was there at conception and he should be there after as well. Sole custody creates dysfunctional families and cause endless, unnecessary sufferin
- 24
- 5
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:14 PM ETHereInSask Locking up the mother will do little for the child unless the abuse was criminal
_____________________________________________________________________
Last time I checked kidnapping was a crime not including the abuse.
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:11 PM ETcynical spinster wrote: Actually, my position would be the same if it was a mother or a father who "abducted" the child. In my mind, it's not a prison-worthy offence
You are indeed a very liberal thinker to believe that abduction by anyone is not a crime. The removal by stealth, cunning and lying of a child from the other loving parent is egregious child abuse. The act is deserving of jail and almost always in these cases the abducting parent alienates the child causing great emotional trauma that can last a lifetime.
I pity your children if that is how you rationalize things and I would suggest some of the brainwashing you received is still intact.
- 34
- 1
fixer1 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:07 PM ETFor once a happy ending to a sorry story. I hope they manage to get the mother into custody and make sure she pays a very long sentence for the damage she has done. It would only seem fair and as for the father I hope he does get to hug his daughter and bring her home, for that is going to be just the start of a very long and hard road to repair her mentally for what I can only assume was a one sided brainwashing attempt by her mother to villainize the father. It is just so much better when parents who grow to hate each other, can remeber the child was a give of a different time when love was the connection. When one or the other then see the daughter as a way to hurt the oher then it is very bad for all. Frank Gonis will have a big job ahead, but one I hope he will manage with the positive in what we all know was a bad time. Good luck
- 21
- 0
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:00 PM ETDeborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 1:10 PM ET "Shared" parenting may be good for the parents but it is WRONG for the child.
________________________________________________________
You are incredibly selfish. Children do best when both parents are in their lives as equals. Children do just fine in these arrangements provided one parent doesn't sabotage the situation. You obviously have no experience at all and clearly no understanding of the discussion.
In Belgium if one parent tries to withhold access under their laws it is called abduction and they go to jail. That usually fixes recalcitrant parents quickly.
- 25
- 4
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 2:55 PM ETMontag451 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 12:03 PM ETWhile men have certainly cornered the market on physical violence in relationships, very sadly I might add, women too are equally capable of domestic violence; including psychological, emotional and mental cruelty.
_________________________________________________________________
Wow what century do you live in with your know-it-all posts. Intimate Partner Violence is pretty much equal between genders. In fact in a Centre for Disease Control study it was found 71% of initiators of violence were female.
Females are the greatest predators and abusers of children by a wide margin in the USA and Australia. Do your homework before posting this drivel.
- 34
- 14
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:14 PM ETHereInSask Locking up the mother will do little for the child unless the abuse was criminal
_____________________________________________________________________
Last time I checked kidnapping was a crime not including the abuse.
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:11 PM ETcynical spinster wrote: Actually, my position would be the same if it was a mother or a father who "abducted" the child. In my mind, it's not a prison-worthy offence
You are indeed a very liberal thinker to believe that abduction by anyone is not a crime. The removal by stealth, cunning and lying of a child from the other loving parent is egregious child abuse. The act is deserving of jail and almost always in these cases the abducting parent alienates the child causing great emotional trauma that can last a lifetime.
I pity your children if that is how you rationalize things and I would suggest some of the brainwashing you received is still intact.
- 34
- 1
fixer1 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:07 PM ETFor once a happy ending to a sorry story. I hope they manage to get the mother into custody and make sure she pays a very long sentence for the damage she has done. It would only seem fair and as for the father I hope he does get to hug his daughter and bring her home, for that is going to be just the start of a very long and hard road to repair her mentally for what I can only assume was a one sided brainwashing attempt by her mother to villainize the father. It is just so much better when parents who grow to hate each other, can remeber the child was a give of a different time when love was the connection. When one or the other then see the daughter as a way to hurt the oher then it is very bad for all. Frank Gonis will have a big job ahead, but one I hope he will manage with the positive in what we all know was a bad time. Good luck
- 21
- 0
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 3:00 PM ETDeborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 1:10 PM ET "Shared" parenting may be good for the parents but it is WRONG for the child.
________________________________________________________
You are incredibly selfish. Children do best when both parents are in their lives as equals. Children do just fine in these arrangements provided one parent doesn't sabotage the situation. You obviously have no experience at all and clearly no understanding of the discussion.
In Belgium if one parent tries to withhold access under their laws it is called abduction and they go to jail. That usually fixes recalcitrant parents quickly.
- 25
- 4
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 2:55 PM ETMontag451 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 12:03 PM ETWhile men have certainly cornered the market on physical violence in relationships, very sadly I might add, women too are equally capable of domestic violence; including psychological, emotional and mental cruelty.
_________________________________________________________________
Wow what century do you live in with your know-it-all posts. Intimate Partner Violence is pretty much equal between genders. In fact in a Centre for Disease Control study it was found 71% of initiators of violence were female.
Females are the greatest predators and abusers of children by a wide margin in the USA and Australia. Do your homework before posting this drivel.
- 34
- 14
Mike Murphy wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 2:50 PM ETGuyRich wrote: Do you read for comprehension there GuyRich? The abuse was with the mom who kidnapped her. Have another coffee or more to wake you up!
- 26
- 3
photo-op wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 2:33 PM ETwhy in the name of all that is sacred has this young girl been given up to the custody of child services??? is her father not her legal guardian??? has her mother not abduced and held her against her will for two years now??? all effort should be made by the legal authorities involved in this situation to reunite this young girl with legal guardian
- 53
- 2
kfccanada wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 2:27 PM ETflyintheointment wrote:
The reason people abuse their children is because our society believes that it 'owns' its children. When you own something, you have the right to treat it anyway you want.
This is why we have so many parents abusing their children.
............................................................................................................................
IMHO, this is EXACTLY the same reasoning of which men are guilty in abusing their wives, ex-wives etc. and why incidents of domestic violence still run rampant today. In the earlier days of our century, women and children were considered property of the husband. At one time, he could even sell the children without permisssion of the mother.
Once a divorce takes place, a significant number of men feel no obligation to support the ex-wife ( or the children). They no longer 'own the property' so 'why maintain it' appears to be their incorrect logic. And, in a growing number of incidents, they kill off their former 'property' so no one else can 'own it'. That is why 'control' is the underlying issue in every domestic violence situation.
IMHO, society won't affect change in the areas of domestic violence or familial child abduction until they acknowledge the correct motives for both and develop new strategies for bringing about change.
Thank you for being the first person to 'hit the nail on the head.'
- 7
- 20
Rickrazor wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 2:06 PM ETWhy is the name of the woman who kidnapped the child not being published? If it had been the *man* who kidnapped his child and take it from his mother for two eyars his name would be published and he would already be facing charges of kidnapping and abuse.
I hope the woman gets charged with some kind of cirme here.
- 96
- 10
kfccanada wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 2:06 PM ETChuck D. wrote
As a child of abuse,both from father and my aunt,my fathers's sister,I really can't say what this young girl has gone through before every abuse victum is differnt. i hope her father is extremely patient with her and gives her all love and understanding she deserves. It took me years and a lose of my own son to cancer to finally come to terms with my own childhood. Now I'm a single man,living with a twisted cat and keeping to myself,going through the internet.
............................................................................................................................
MY heart goes out to you......and to all adults still in the throes of dealing with childhood abuse. It's unfortunate when the events in our childhood succeed in robbing the happiness of our future, as well. Somewhere, deep down, one has to grab the courage to acknowledge the hurts of the past, forgive the actions of the abuser ( not necessarily the abuser) and move on into the sunshine.
I suggest searching out a support group ( in real life ...as well as virtually lol). You are still grieving from the loss of your son, too, and support groups really help a lot in dealing with that process. Remaining alone in life is not the answer. Life is for the living and you only get one chance at it. Please, open the door and work towards finding personal peace and new meaning to your life.
Don't allow those who have hurt you in the past to succeed at robbing you of your entire life. ...not just your youth. I know a 'twisted cat' ( lol) may bring you comfort in your seclusion ...but, it's obvious to me, that it isn't helping to relieve your deep-rooted sorrow. Please take that first step.....
- 32
- 0
Naval Gazer wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 1:47 PM ETEver notice God is always there to pick up the credit, yet is oddly absent when its actually happening?
World1Me wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 1:36 PM ETI wish him well. He is dealing with Latte dripping, tree hugging B.C. All his abusive ex-wife has to do is to complain to the the B.C. Human Rights Commission and Bob's ur monkeys uncle, she gets the kid and the abuse continues!
ChuckD. wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 1:36 PM ETAs a child of abuse,both from father and my aunt,my fathers's sister,I really can't say what this young girl has gone through before every abuse victum is differnt. i hope her father is extremely patient with her and gives her all love and understanding she deserves. It took me years and a lose of my own son to cancer to finally come to terms with my own childhood. Now I'm a single man,living with a twisted cat and keeping to myself,going through the internet.
Deborah64 wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 1:10 PM ETlov2ski:
"Shared" parenting may be good for the parents but it is WRONG for the child. Can you imagine spending two weeks in one home and then two weeks in another, on and on and on??? Where is your "home"? How can you possibly feel secure? You have no roots.
Every child needs their own place.... one place... where they keep their stuff and have their own space. How can a child possibly pack up EVERYTHING that they will need for a two week span and cart it back and forth, back and forth, between Mom's house and Dad's?
You say that they feel like "visitors" when they are with the non-custodial parent... Well it's better than feeling like a visitor every single day, regardless of where you are.
I know kids who have been thrown into this situation and NONE of them are well adjusted.
- 16
- 45
Flyintheointment wrote:Posted 2009/04/15
at 1:06 PM ETThe reason people abuse their children is because our society believes that it 'owns' its children. When you own something, you have the right to treat it anyway you want.
This is why we have so many parents abusing their children. I have often heard parents say "If I want to spank my kid, I will! She/he is my kid!" "don't you tell me how to treat MY kid!"
Of course, this is just my opinion and is not backed by any scientific data, just observation.
Posts
- 1
- 0
You agree with this comment Policy Report abuse