I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Another Family Law Court Judge gives a man the death sentence

This is a story sadly repeated daily across Canada. Eight men a day kill themselves but few get their story told like this.  I fear many are quite parallel and although Capital punishment does not exist in this country of Canada, Family Court Judges give the death sentence to men like Frankie every day. 

If you are a parent think of the devastating effect loss of your children and your status as a parent would have. One day you are a father seeing your children 24/7 and the next you are a visitor with no legal rights but you do have horrendous financial obligations. Its as though you are stopped being treated like a human and have become a drone working for the stazi "mom police" at FRO. This is Ontario's version of the male gulag apparatchik designed solely to hunt down men, humiliate them, remove their drivers licenses and passports  and throw them in jail even if they cannot afford child/spousal support.

I wrote this for another column but some of it fits for this story as well. Governments, including the judiciary, have created a very unfriendly environment for males - not on entry to marriage but certainly on exit from it. We have moved to a society where the government believes if a man cannot hold a marriage together, despite it purportedly being an equal partnership, then the man is turned from a productive member of society, a father and husband to a marginalized bystander and a financial lever to be bled dry in the new Gynocracy. In other words despite the fact heterosexual marriage is the best and most stable environment for children to be raised, incentives exist for a woman to remove herself from it with the complete support of the nanny state. Seventy five percent (75%) of divorces are initiated by the wife. Ninety percent (90%) of physical custody goes to her along with most of men paying child and often spousal support. Dad, if he is lucky, ends up seeing his children 4 days a month if mom doesn't act as a gatekeeper. These orders are given even though there is no fault found but fault is often alleged by the divorcing female if it will enhance the opportunity for custody.  We don't know what allegations were made in Frankie's case but he is gone and it is history.

Part of this eco system is Women’s Domestic Violence Shelters found throughout Canada. There are an estimated 550 to 569 of them across the land and they are represented in every province and territory. This is the viral training ground for female advocacy in family law where each participant must sign a non-disclosure agreement. They cannot, under duress, reveal their indoctrination or the instructions given on how to proceed against their male partner. If one thinks they are there for Domestic Violence only I have this property to sell you… They will not serve males who are abused by their female partner. And yes – they adhere to a feminist dogma. In fact, when they seek employees one of the criteria is the employee must be willing to allow themselves  indoctrination into the cult of ideological feminism if they are not already.  This is not your early flavour of equality feminism but a cultistic dogma used as mendacious propaganda to belittle men and masculinity.
Canada’s Budget to keep these shelters operational is $377 million annually (StasCan 2005-2006)
Stats Can states In 2008 the percentage of abused women reporting domestic violence by male partner = 8%
In 2008 percentage of abused men reporting domestic violence by female partner = 7 %
Number of Shelters for abused Men in Canada = 1 (privately run. In Calgary, Alberta)
Canada’s budget for men’s shelters = $ 0

In Ontario alone we have a Status of Women budget of $208,000,000 not including targeted legal aid of 10’s of millions. The reader should understand the public policy side of marriage is heavily skewed in favour of the matriarchy. The Patriarchy died, along with the cojones of lawmakers and judges, amongst others, decades ago. If in doubt check to see how many deadbeat moms are in jail for withholding access, withholding child support when they have lost custody, (they are proportionately less likely to pay), recheck the number of females working in education, health care, social work, all levels of Government, registered and graduated from University. You will find females outnumber males in all those mentioned. And as we know from the employment equity debate  they are still at the top of the list as needing affirmative action in employment.

Public Policy needs to change to strengthen and keep marriages together not make it easier for them to fall apart. Partnerships are hard to maintain whether it be marriage or business and when the rules favour one partner over the other it is troubling.  It can lead to tragic deaths like Frankie in the poignant story below. Don't forget, this happens 8 times a day, on average in Canada, much of it, on a balance of probabilities, directly related to family law. Also keep in mind it is not the law causing this, although it is truly a ass and needs changing,  it is people. The principals are Judges, Lawyers, Politicians and mendacious feminists.MJM






Fiorito: Driven to death by the legal system

Frankie Robertson poured drinks for the men who sat at the bar and bet on the horses; he knew how to read them well; the men, if not always the horses. His ear was easily bent, and everybody liked him; best bartender in the city, they all said.

An irony: the bartender listens to your troubles, but who listens to the troubles of the bartender?
Frankie died recently.


He left behind two daughters, and many friends with sore hearts; men and women alike, they came to the Turf Lounge last week to pay their respects.

There were photos of Frankie in a back room, and photos of his girls, and Frankie must have known there would be speeches.

Nicholas Xynnis said, “I knew Frankie for seven years. I met him soon after the bar opened. We became good friends. My office is around the corner. We’d have a drink and a chat. He was separated, I was separated; we had that in common. We’d hang out, outside of work; him and his kids, my son and I.”

This is not about the failure of Frankie’s marriage; marriages fail all the time; instead, it is about what happened to a lovely man who found himself dragged through the long slow hell of family court, and . . .

Stop right there.

Yes, it is a given that there are two sides to every story. But let it also be a given that Frankie was a stand-up guy who was broken by the system.

The money he was required to pay was calculated on his after-tax income, and Frankie was not rich. He was a guy who’d had a home, a family, and a couple of sweet kids. And then he didn’t have those things.

He worked two jobs. His credit cards were maxed. He was behind in all his bills and couldn’t pay his rent.

He feared eviction. He owed his lawyers. Worst of all, the time he had been granted with his kids was limited.

He’d had hope.

He was planning to take the securities course in the fall; he thought maybe he could make a better buck on the big board than he could behind the bar. He’d sent a note to a friend, asking for advice about the course.
And then, a short while later, on a day that had begun with optimism, Frankie learned that a family court judgment for thousands of dollars had gone against him.

How does hope end?


Nick, who is a lawyer, spoke slowly now. “I’d spent the day in court. I went back to the office and checked my email. There was a note from Frankie. The subject heading was, ‘Goodbye.’ I called his cell, his home, his work. Then I called the police and the ambulance.”

And then he went to Frankie’s place and found his friend. Nick also found two letters.

Frankie’s last wishes: He wanted the people he loved to set up a trust fund for the education of his girls, and he wanted his friends to take a hard look at the family court system that broke him.

Barry Callaghan, a regular and a friend of Frankie, also spoke. He said, “The letters drive me into a rage . . . I have such disdain for the law I can hardly express it . . . it is clear the justice system ate Frankie alive, and it’s got to stop . . . Frankie got swallowed by the flippant judgment of judges . . . what was the purpose?”
I don’t know.

But I hope — and hope is such a pale word — that Frankie’s friends honour both his wishes.

Joe Fiorito appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email :jfiorito@thestar.ca


Lorne Gunter: Heterosexuals are the greatest threat to marriage

I disagree Lorne. Lawmakers, Judges, and Lawyers are the greatest threat to marriage.MJM

  July 28, 2010 – 9:18 am
This month marks the fifth anniversary of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada. In that time the sky has not fallen in on traditional, opposite-sex marriage.

Or perhaps the more accurate thing to say is that same-sex marriage has not caused the sky to fall in on traditional marriage any faster than it was already falling before July 2005 when Parliament made same-sex marriage legal. Same-sex marriage has not sped up the deterioration of traditional marriage.

I disappointed many social-conservative readers half a decade ago when I wrote in favour of same-sex marriage, but at the same time won few friends among advocates of Samesex marriage. It’s not so much that I am in favour of Same-sex marriage as I don’t see the harm in letting gays and lesbians marry. Heterosexuals have already hollowed out the institution of marriage so thoroughly that it no longer means what it once did and I see no great interest among heterosexuals in tightening up opposite-sex marriage.

Let me back up a step: Marriage can still mean a great deal, but only if the couple in the relationship make it meaningful to themselves. Governments lost interest in preserving the original significance of the institution decades ago.

There are, to my mind, two aspects to marriage: the personal-commitment side and the public-policy side. Most marrying couples are looking for love, stability, companionship, commitment and a nurturing environment to bring up children. If they can split the family duties in a way that is acceptable to each and have some fun together until death parts them, that’s a bonus. Governments have very little influence over whether marrying couples reach those goals, so most Canadians’ personal interest in the public-policy impact of marriage is negligible.

Government’s interest in sanctioning marriage has mostly been in registering what churches and couples have already sanctified. It could be argued that the state can bolster the family. By creating the legal framework around marriage it can keep marriages intact and ensure children are raised by their birth parents together, all of which has a beneficial impact on social problems: Crime goes down, along with alcoholism, addictions, poverty, dropout rates, spousal abuse and so on.

But states no longer search for the right marriage laws and hadn’t tried to for decades before Same-sex marriage became an issue.

For instance, the move to give common-law relationships the same standing in law as traditional marriages started in earnest in the 1960s. By the time the same-sex marriage debate began in the early 2000s, common-law couples had for two decades had nearly all the same legal protections as married couples regarding pensions, communal property, income taxes and insurance awards.

Long before gays and lesbians began insisting on equal marriage rights, heterosexuals had stripped marriage of its public-policy special-ness. More importantly, we heteros were in no hurry to put that humptydumpty back together — to make divorce more difficult, for instance, or strip those living together of their spousal rights.

There are about 9 million families in Canada according to StatsCan. Of those, a little more than 1.4 million are common-law and about 1.4 million are single-parent, while under 55,000 are gay or lesbian. Almost 6.2 million are married families.

Well over half of common-law and married couples have children, while just under 10% of same-sex couples do. That means there are maybe 6,000 gay and lesbian couples with children, versus more than 500,000 commonlawfamilies.

Just statistically, then, which nontraditional family type is likelier to have the greater impact on Canada’s social well-being?

A 2007 study in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that children of cohabiting parents are five times as likely to suffer a family breakup as children living with both of their natural parents, and we know the children of broken families are more likely to drop out, have a run-in with police or take drugs.

So why aren’t all those opposed to Same-sex marriage in the name of defending marriage for the good of children, not fighting common-law relationships every bit as energetically?

Over the past five years, same-sex marriage has done nothing to harm the personal-commitment side of heterosexual marriage and no more to harm the public-policy side than we heteros had been doing for decades.


Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/28/lorne-gunter-heterosexuals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-marriage/#ixzz0uzdn0cdg