Parental alienation involves the systematic brainwashing, poisoning and manipulation of children with the sole purpose of destroying a loving and warm relationship they once shared with a parent. My story involves this form of child abuse & exploring the bias favouring a mother in the social ecosystem around Family Law.
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.
According
to Statistics Canada, over one-third of all children living in poverty
in Canada live with a lone mother who earns zero income. At least half
live with a lone mother who earns not enough income to support herself,
let alone a child.
So why isn’t the government interested in rounding up all these
“deadbeat moms” with the same vigour that it pursues “deadbeat dads”? It
can’t be because they are all young, uneducated mothers of infants, who
are incapable of working. In fact, the average age of lone mothers is
38. Moreover, lone mothers have higher educational levels than lone
fathers. Yet lone fathers find a way to earn twice as much income as
lone mothers, which is why child poverty is rare among lone fathers.
If our courts and our politicians truly cared about the best interests
of children, they would make laws that (a) give custody to working dads
much more often than at present; and (b) tell single moms to get a job
or lose their kids. Is that too harsh? Then why are loving fathers
routinely subjected to this inhumane treatment — dozens of times every
day in Canada? Grant A. Brown, Edmonton.
I offered some comments on Mr. Brown's letter on the letters page as follows:
Mr.
Brown's letter with respect to the bizarre new law in Ontario
confiscating a father’s vehicle is instrumental in showing how our
country, and this Province in particular, is turning into a gynocracy.
We have multiple laws targeting men as unfit to be a custodial parent
after divorce (but we seem to be OK before this happens), even though
the Divorce act is Gender Neutral (it clearly states maximum contact for
both parents is important).
Judges
make up the rules as they go along awarding over 90% of sole physical
custody to moms. Why? Judges receive training from a secretive
organization called the National Judicial Institute. Within this
training they are told men have power, women are victims and it is their
job to ensure moms get the entitlements at the expense of men - and
sadly - at the expense of the children. Dads seldom get more than a
visitation schedule of 15%. Yet, mom's boyfriend gets to see them 24/7
setting in motion many negative outcomes for children that last a
lifetime. These range from abuse to being killed as mom and her new
partner are far more likely to bring harm to the child than dad.
Family
Court Judges are, by far, the most negative and insidious social
engineers in Canada. They deplore 50-50 shared custody for reasons
already mentioned yet they then send the largest group of people into
poverty by awarding sole physical custody to mom. Single mothers are
then revered, but yet, they are the single largest group of deadbeats in
Canada. They live off dad with alimony and child support, the latter of
which is tax free but taxable to dad. This income does not show up on
any statements, including from the CRA, as it is tax free. They collect
welfare, live in subsidized housing and receive bonuses in the form of
child tax credits. There are lots of incentives to work on yet they
whine and complain about how hard done by they are. It is as though the
system is set up to encourage single motherhood and cater to the
whining.
Judges
are responsible for billions upon billions of tax dollars to be input
into the cult of single motherhood while, at the same time, denigrating
the children’s biological fathers.
Want
to save tax dollars, decrease poverty, and reduce divorce. Pass 50-50
equal shared parenting legislation and free up mom to get some further
training and a job while allowing children to bask in the glow of two
loving parents looking after their needs not the current acrimonious and
adversarial system lawyers love. They make billions from it. Eighty
percent of Canadians across all political stripes support Bill C-422 for
equal shared parenting. The Canadian Bar Association and Feminist
Lawyers like Pamela Cross and Tasha Kheiriddin don’t. Who is right? I’d
vote for the 80% of Canadians.
The
Minister's in the incompetent Liberal Government enacting these
draconian laws are Madeleine Meilleur, a feminist Liberal lawyer, in
charge of the Mom Stazi Police collection agency called FRO, who will
enforce these laws. Laurel Broten is the Minister responsible for Status
of Women and is also a Feminist Liberal lawyer and has at least
$208,000,000 at her disposal for women's issues, none for men. Kathleen
Wynne, Minister of Transportation has this on her books now as the
person responsible for the safety on our highways. She is a pro-feminist
sycophant along with her male colleagues in the cabinet who see this
new law as useful in their war against fathers. It certainly is a
highway safety issue to seize a father's car, which he likely needs to
try and keep a job. All of the money taken from the father as a result
of these rules will not go to his children. it will help employ more
public servants.
“The job of a father is this : to help his children develop, to teach them to express and master their emotions; to avoid physiological distress, to provide a context for their experiences; to help them persevere, reach their goals and take on responsibilities; and to instil the roles of citizen, partner and parent. In short, it is to fill their bellies with bread, their brains with wisdom and their hearts with love and courage.” Camil Bouchard, “On Father’s Ground” 2002.
Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and say, "Why not?" ~ George Bernard Shaw ~ also quoted by Robert F. Kennedy, US Senator and Presidential Candidate assassinated in 1968.
Happiness makes up in height for what it lacks in length. ~ Robert Frost
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi
Canadian & World Wide Petitions on Shared & Equal Parenting
Go to the two petition sites and add your name to this national & worthwhile worldwide effort to get Shared and Equal Parenting in Canada & every country in the world.
Search my blogs with a custom keyword search by Google
Custom Search
Eastern Standard Time - North America
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Western Australia (DST from last Sunday in Oct. to last Sunday in March)
Perth, Western Australia
Some Gems on relationships
Marriage is a relationship in which one person is always right, and the other is a husband.
The motto of this Father's Rights Activist
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again ... and who, at the worst, if he fails at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt,
Facts on violence in Canada Domestic and Otherwise
Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2009.
Of the nearly 19 million Canadians who had a current or former spouse in 2009, 6.2% or 1.2 million reported they had been victimized physically or sexually by their partner or spouse during the five years prior to the survey. This proportion was stable from 2004 (6.6%), the last time the victimization survey was conducted, and down from 1999 (7.4%).
A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women.
Keep in mind what you see in the paper is what is reported to police. The numbers above from Stats Canada are those based on surveys which are more comprehensive.
Total 611, men 465, women 146 Rate of homicides with firearms has increased 24% since 2002. Handgun use on increase (gangs don't register their weapons) Women victims 24% - lowest proportion ever Men Victims 76% Both the rate of females killed (0.87 per 100,000 population), as well as the proportion (24%), were the lowest since 1961 62 spousal homicides - no change from 2007 Lowest rate in 40 years 45 women 17 (27.4%)men
Many DV homicides of men are not classified as such and this number is higher than 27.4%.
In 2009 based on a million couples it can fairly be said 999,998 wives do not kill their husbands and 999,995 husbands do not kill their wives. (See Pg. 15 chart modified from the rate per 100,000.)
In 2009, 49 women and 15 men were killed by a current or former spouse (excludes one same-sex spousal victim).
Total homicides 610, Men 450. Gang related 20.3 percent. 69.1 % of firearm related deaths involved handguns Women 160, In 2009 it represented the second lowest proportion (26%) of female homicide victims since data were first collected. The rate of female victims has generally been declining since the late 1960s.
I am Politically active and right of centre on most issues with the odd exception such as legalization of "Mary Jane".
I advocate on changes to Family Law - an incredibly dysfunctional arena where parents are pitted against one another and children are the victims.
My picture will sometimes show me as a younger man simply because I like them.
American Coalition for Fathers & Children Petition
A quote by a well known Canadian Jurist
The Honorable Justice John Gomery of Canada stated, “Hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child. It has to be taught. A parent who would teach a child to hate the other parent represents a grave and persistent danger to the mental and emotional health of that child.”
(The above quote arises from PSM vs. AJC, a decision rendered by Mr. Justice John Gomery on February 15 1991 (SCM 500-12-184613895), and confirmed by the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal on June 14 1991, the trial judge was confronted by a case involving four children caught up in a heated custody battle between their parents whereby the children became "catastrophically" alienated from their mother.) A good paper on PAS for lawyers by a lawyer, Anne-France Goldwater (Avocate), and excerpts from the above trial are located here.