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.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Another abusive parent rewarded with custody despite proven Parental Alienation

We are getting snippets of a complex case as shown below in Kirk Makin's G&M report.  A link to the actual case law is provided after my comments.

Firstly, judges and lawyers are decidedly incompetent to deal with such complex personal relationships. They might know the law but divorce is less law and more emotions. The system tells us we need lawyers to end our relationships and we hire the most expensive people on the planet, save a few, at our most vulnerable emotional state in history. These very first steps are bad for us and particularly so for children.

Secondly, courts, particularly judges, are completely and utterly biased toward females. This judge just rewarded the mom for emotionally abusing her daughter so much she hates her father. Think of the issues this child is facing now and when she is an adult because of the manner she has been shaped to hate 50% of her DNA. She will become, on a balance of probabilities, in need of or incarcerated by the state in the future. The mom's family apparently threatened the dad and intimated bad things could happen (death) through a biker gang thug. What was the incompetent judge(s) doing while the child abuse and threats were occurring. If it was dad doing this the judge would have issued restraining orders and had him thrown in jail.

There are about 280 divorces occurring each workday across Canada. This is but one selected by Makin because it has "colour" and he apparently likes and empathizes with the "poor" judge. The government , both Feds and Provincial have set up Family Law to be as adversarial as is civil and criminal law. The tragedy is we are dealing with fragile emotions of adults and the frailties of children who want to love both parents barring abuse. This child, because she shared 50% of the DNA of a parent she hates, will likely become self loathing. Mom has said part of her is a deadbeat and a dick head and they are likely not the worst of it.

Bill C-422 is in Parliament and is an instrument to offer a rebuttal presumption of equality for both fit parents after divorce. It deems both parents as equal unless proven otherwise. This can allow for a reduction in acrimony and get the government out from making arbitrary and often incorrect decisions pushing people over the edge. Equal parenting, where implemented, reduces divorce, acrimony, emotional child abuse, and other negative outcomes for children.

The actual detailed decision is here. You can download a PDF once there.MJM  http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc6568/2010onsc6568.html#_ftnref33



In family court, a judge turns to ridicule to defuse the rage


JUSTICE REPORTER— From Friday's Globe and Mail

Faced with warring ex-spouses besieging one another with threats and verbal abuse and dragging their children into it too, Ontario Superior Judge Joseph Quinn resorted to the only tool he had left – a highly unusual verbal roasting.

“Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud,” Judge Quinn began a recent judgment that has gone viral in the family-law community. “Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment. The source of difficulties is hatred: a hardened, harmful, high-octane hatred.”

More related to this story

Judge Quinn’s 31-page decision boils over with the frustrations of a family-law judge who is called upon time and again to referee bouts between couples who were once in love. He even takes a shot at family law itself, saying that spousal support is “the roulette of family law – blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional.”
And he anticipates criticism of his tone: “The parties repeatedly have shown they are immune to reason.

Consequently, in my decision, I have tried ridicule as a last resort.”

In a novel twist, Judge Quinn granted the wife, Catherine, sole custody of the feuding couple’s 13-year-old daughter. However, he ordered Larry to pay Catherine just a dollar a month in spousal support.

Judge Quinn expressed disgust with the way Catherine has induced her daughter to detest her father. “The harm is irreparable,” he said. “Generally, it is unwise to place an immature 13-year-old in charge of her life. Here, however, Catherine and [her current partner] have engineered an alienation that is so complete as to leave the court with no feasible option.”

Toronto lawyer Phil Epstein, an expert in family law, describes Judge Quinn as a respected jurist who was justified in ridiculing the couple. “I’m sure there will be some who criticize Justice Quinn for this,” he said.

“But others will say that sometimes you have to step back and laugh at the foibles of mankind.”

Family law judges spent their time dealing with inflamed litigants whose stories are “highly conflicting and replete with inappropriate behaviour and misconduct,” Mr. Epstein said. “They use the courtroom as a forum for all the wrongs that have been done to them in their marriage. It is not surprising that some judges try to find a better way to help resolve their problems.”

Alternating caustic gibes with amusing observations, Judge Quinn portrayed Catherine – a 36-year-old school caretaker – and Larry, a labourer, as vile, foul-mouthed creatures who had burned through an enormous amount of police and court time waging their futile blitzkrieg.

He said that they cannot attend their son’s ball hockey games without erupting into loud conflict, and that Catherine once tried to run over Larry with a van. “This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart,” Judge Quinn remarked dryly.

On three occasions, a niece of Catherine’s who is engaged to a Hells Angels biker called Larry to warn him that he would be shot dead, Judge Quinn said. “On Oct. 18, 2007, a nautical theme was added,” he remarked. “According to Larry, ‘Catherine’s sister-in-law yelled out her window that I was going to be floating in the canal dead.’”

Judge Quinn said that Larry, 38, possesses “a near-empty parenting tool box,” and was fond of venting his anger by sending Catherine insulting text messages and giving her ‘the finger’ as he drove by her home. “A finger is worth a thousand words and therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words,” Judge Quinn added.

Catherine gave her children “advanced animosity-tutoring,” and repeatedly denied Larry access to them, Judge Quinn said. He said that on one occasion, Larry and his daughter were thrown out of a McDonald’s restaurant because she was yelling that he was ‘a deadbeat.’

“This is language she would have learned from Catherine,” Judge Quinn noted. “They are the result of persistent, behind-the-scenes brainwashing by Catherine.”

He said that Catherine also warned the children several times that if they attempted to telephone their father, they would go to jail. She also once text messaged her daughter while she was on an access visit with Larry to ask: “Is dickhead there?”

Judge Quinn said that he foolishly called a four-month hiatus during the trial in the hope that Larry and Catherine could benefit from mediation. “It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench,” he said.


Another comment I made on the G&M site:
After reading the comments I find it interesting and very disappointing that people think this Judge is an appropriate person to make decisions about peoples lives. It is patently obvious to the Judge the child was emotionally abused by the mom to hate the dad. Psychological abuse is a bruising of a person's psyche and takes a very long time to heal, if ever. A more learned and reasoned Judge, The Honourable 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.”

He made this observation in a decision in 1991, one of the first public recognitions of Parental Alienation in a Canadian Family Law Court. He awarded the target mom, with custody, as dad was the alienator in this case but the damage was already done. The mom subsequently moved to Texas and to this day still works with alienated children.

Let me posit the question to those supportive of this incompetent judge. If the child was physically abused and the bruises were visible, in the same manner the daughter's attitude toward her dad is visible, would you then support the judge sending the child back to her abuser. I think not, but why do you think this clown, and clown he is, is so spot on otherwise. Words have meaning and the mom in this case is an abuser of the worst kind. She is tearing her child apart emotionally and the daughters relationship with men will be flawed to say the least and perhaps she will continue the cycle with her own children. 

The child should be taken from the mother and given therapy and allowed to have a better relationship with her father, if it’s not too late. At 13 there is still hope.

His pathetic attempts at humour in denigrating the parents, who may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer, is because of the adversarial system the judge works in and supports, along with his colleagues in the bar.