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

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

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Ontario Family Law and its dysfunctional apparatchiks

Canada Court Watch has a series of videos on matters relating to citizens and their interactions with the Courts, particularly the Family Law regime, AKA as FLAW. This mechanism for resolving family disputes is very dysfunctional and very sexist.  The following video gives you some insight into the relationships between the welfare system, known as Ontario Works in that Province, the role of its functionaries, and the government collection agency called, oxymoronically, the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) - (it is a sexist agency targeting almost exclusively men).  These agencies interact with judges and Lawyers purportedly working in the best interest of children, a phrase that has no legal meaning, and is used ad nauseum without regard to consequences for the children.

Friday, January 7, 2011

What causes dads to be absent?

The following are my observations on the below article discussing why Hollywood rarely gets the story right.

There is a billion dollar plus industry tied to Divorce and the parallel asymmetric war against men, particularly dads. Misandric Feminism has portrayed women as perpetual victims at the hands of, based on their description of us,  evil and abusive men. It has gone on for over 40 years and now is entrenched in the culture.

Men are the last frontier for ridicule and we white men, according to the feminists, are the worst of the lot. We white males of privilege (WMOP) apparently control everything and not only hold women back but minority males as well. This is taught in feminist and minority run sensitivity classes.  If anyone sees a minority male as an incompetent idiot or being assaulted in a commercial let me know.

Females do about 80 to 85% of the shopping for intact families and more if they are single. It makes marketing sense to reach them because they control the money. Its an interesting conundrum for the feminists who say we men control everything - is it not? Therefore, men (as common culture would have you believe) who are interested only in drinking beer, watching football, and driving their truck are a niche market for those products specifically "manly". (note the satire).

In Canada, courts award mom sole physical custody in over 90% of cases and this starts a pattern of behaviour that is negative for the child, and eventually will see 50% of dads out of touch with their children completely. They just give up trying to see them as they are constantly faced with a series of events trying to stop them, including gatekeeper, move away, and alienating moms. These moms are abusive to the children by denying a relationship with 50% of their DNA, and don't care about the negative impacts of dad not being around, only their selfish motives for revenge. Yes, there are some dads who take off, and moms too,  but they are a tiny minority. Common culture wants you to believe dads are not necessary but impacted children and science says otherwise.

Other dads who continue to see their children are further marginalized as the children approach and grow through their teens. When the kids get to adolescence they care little about either parent most of the time. Friends are their main preoccupation. This means those dads who kept trying to see the children get to see them even less. It’s very uncool to go to a movie and sometimes even shopping with a dad. Mine get a tad embarrassed at water parks as I am handicapped (loss of left arm) and scold me if I appear too clumsy at boarding some tube rides.  A father might be able to coax them away on holidays but all he has become and can do is the role of the Disney Dad. Trying to be a real dad which includes coaching to give them a moral compass can be perilous and result in them not wanting to see him at all for periods of time. No attempt at using discipline if they cross a boundary can work well most of the time given they can opt to not see you or want to return to their mom's immediately.
The author's figures on “one out of three kids is considered "fatherless” may be low. About 40% of children are now born in the USA out of wedlock to single moms. The dad will be sought for payment of support but little else. Baby making can be a way to getting a living from the taxpayers and the dad – even if he isn’t the biological father. The latter can happen through a variety of methods including falsifying information. These are called dead beat moms and they are growing in number.

Where shared and equal parenting has been introduced Divorce rates have gone down and more dads can stay in the lives of their children. Eventually society will understand the single mom model is a failure and not in the best interest of children.

In Canada we have Bill C-422 languishing in Parliament. Write your MP to get it passed for the sake of the children.

Leave it to a feminist Sociology Professor quoted in the article, Andrea Litvack,  to speak gobbley gook then point out a fictional family on a TV show as representing the real world.  I watch the show but often have to turn my head away at some of the antics of the prissy gay couple. Her bottom unspoken line is dad's are unnecessary.MJM

Absent dads – Hollywood rarely gets the story right


From Friday's Globe and Mail

Judging from the depiction of fatherhood in most movies, you’d think all dads are simply a variation on three stereotypes: a bumbling but lovable idiot, a distant workaholic or a nutcase. And that’s if he’s even around.
In Sofia Coppola’s film Somewhere, which opens today in limited release, a bored, womanizing movie star named Johnny Marco, played by reputed real-life womanizer Stephen Dorff, is left to care for Elle Fanning’s Cleo, the adolescent daughter he rarely sees, in the days before she leaves for summer camp.

More related to this story

Somewhere is not unlike Ms. Coppola’s other beautifully shot movies about beautiful girls (Lost in Translation, Marie Antoinette). But her new film is centred ona father who is, except for their week of video games and burgers, as unavailable to Cleo as he is preoccupied by strippers and sex. The sympathetic take on the relationship between Johnny Marco and his placid daughter is sweet, but far removed from the reality of most children of absent fathers.

The problems that affect the increasing number of children without dads (or with dads who drop haphazardly in and out of their lives) and the profound social issues they generate have been documented in many studies, most of them based in the United States, where one out of three kids is considered “fatherless.” The U.S.

Census Bureau notes that children who grow up without fathers are five times more likely to be poor. And the Journal of Adolescent Health reported last fall that upper-middle-class girls without dads are likely to experience early puberty, which has been linked to early drug use and sexual activity. Fatherlessness is routinely stated to be a major predictor of criminal behaviour and poor health. Boys who grow up without fathers have a greater likelihood of repeating the pattern.So why are so many films and television shows casual about bad dads?

Andrea Litvack is a professor of social work at the University of Toronto. Asked why absent fathers are something that Hollywood rarely gets right, she says: “It may not translate well because it’s a very complex issue. There are many combinations of factors that impact on anyone’s situation.”

Except for the disapproving glare that Cleo gives her dad over breakfast after a starlet spends the night, their relationship is portrayed as fun and undemanding. Whatever feelings she has about her father aren’t discussed. The other side of this Hollywood habit of diminishing an issue is that thorny social problems are sometimes exaggerated, which is no more plausible than Ms. Coppola’s withdrawn approach.

Paul Moore, who teaches sociology at Ryerson University, says that depicting a social problem “is a form of exposure even when it isn’t realistic.” He says that sometimes issues have to be glorified to work onscreen. This is especially true when it’s something that the audience may still be figuring out. Dr. Moore cites the 1979 classic Kramer vs. Kramer as an example, and says that while it was “revolutionary for its depiction of divorce at the time, we would now see it as utterly melodramatic.”

It’s unlikely that Hollywood will change its depictions of absent dads any time soon, but innovative ideas are out there to help combat the problem. Two years ago, Tom Matlack co-founded the Good Men Project, which includes a book, a magazine and a not-for-profit foundation dedicated to at-risk boys. Mr. Matlack says: “One of the core problems with manhood in America is that so many children grow up without fathers.”

He felt that no one was really talking to boys about issues such as death, divorce, war and sex, and when he speaks to audiences in places ranging from private schools to prisons, “jaws drop.” Mr. Matlack wants to make being an engaged and active dad appealing. “What a mother gives a child is obviously essential, [but] I think what a father gives a child is equally essential and different,” he says. “Every boy is asking themselves a question, ‘How do I be a man?’ and they’re looking for role models, mentors, clues.”

Prof. Litvack points to ABC’s hit sitcom Modern Family as an example of how much the family unit has changed in the past 50 years. “We have to stop thinking of the mother, the father, the two children, the white picket fence as the norm,” she says, and that in many families an absent father is “not necessarily perceived as a negative thing.”


Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, a radical Feminist or suffering from early onset Alzheimers?

Real Women of Canada sent out the following release over some of the less cogent and potentially misandrous comments of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.  To say she is a sexist feminist is fair, based on her single gender only opinions. I pity men who are appealing sexist court decisions based on Family Law having to deal with her.

Media Release
Ottawa, Ontario
December 7, 2010

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin – was she confused or just presumptuous?

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin may have confused her role as a judge in her recent speech to the feminist oriented North-South Institute when she made a proposal to include women’s impact assessment in future international trade agreements. Previously this was solely the role of legislative policy workers and elected MP’s.

Modestly admitting that she was not a “trade policy person” she nonetheless believed herself qualified to provide the advice to government officials on trade.
Alternatively, if Chief Justice McLachlin wasn’t confused, she then must believe that her appointment as a judge provides her with rare insight and understanding that transcends that of the experts in the field, who would benefit from her guidance. If such is the case, her comments were only an extension of the remarks she made in another speech, in December 2005, that judges may base their opinion on unwritten norms “even in the face of enacted laws or hostile public opinion.” She reached this bizarre conclusion on the belief that judges have a “judicial conscience [which] is founded on the judges’ sworn commitment to uphold the rule of law.”

There is also a third possibility for the comments of the Chief Justice – namely, that she threw all caution to the wind in her speech in pursuit of her feminist concerns promoting the cause of women. If this were not the case, why then was she not equally concerned about the rights of men, children, the aged and the poor in trade agreements?

Regardless of the reasons for her agitation on behalf of women in her speech, Chief Justice McLachlin has displayed a remarkable lack of judgment and common sense. This discredits her personally as well as the judiciary.

For Further Information Please Contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt                                        
National Vice President                                        
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993
Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001

Monday, January 3, 2011

Another Female Killer gets a Gender Discount

My Letter to the editor at the National Post.

Dear Editor:

Re: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/case+fuels+debate+over+domestic+violence/4051267/story.html

Based on the slim evidence in this article, which quotes heavily from Shelter workers, but not real experts on DV who are neutral in the war against men, this couple have all the appearances of having a mutually violent relationship, possibly fuelled by an addiction. In this case it might well be alcohol.  Some women in shelters are addicts, based on anecdotal evidence, seeking refuge from mutually reciprocal violence or are violent against their partner.

Take note this women started beating the man when he was unconscious. Does that sound like a person defending themselves? DV studies done with scientific rigour clearly show the mutuality of aggression between partners is equal.  In a study done by the CDC it not only showed equality but it showed that in many cases 71% of non-reciprocal violence was initiated by the female. I would direct you to the link below to get some real scholarship on DV equanimity. Harvard Medical School and the American Psychiatric Association published a major national study in the U.S. that found half of heterosexual domestic violence is reciprocal and that: "Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women." http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=111137

Other studies clearly show women are injured far less often when they do not initiate DV against their stronger male partner.  The issue of women only acting violently in defence is a myth perpetrated by sexist researchers with an agenda. One of these researchers, whose work is used extensively, testified Karla Homolka was a battered wife. We all know how much credibility that argument has. Those of us who have been attacked with weapons by a partner know only too well self defence is a rudimentary argument, at best.
There are many credible researchers in Canada who can provide scholarship on DV including Dr. Don Dutton, UBC, Dr. Grant Brown, a Lawyer and PhD, from Edmonton, Dr F. Christensen, UOA, Edmonton, Dr. Anthony Synnot, Concordia are those that come to mind immediately. There are many others.

This woman will likely get into another violent relationship and someone better be watching over her children. Thank goodness the Crown is sensible enough to appeal.

Mike Murphy

Tamsin McMahon, National Post · Monday, Jan. 3, 2011

After a night of drunken revelry that escalated into a violent street fight, Crystal-Dawn MacKenzie grabbed a knife from her neighbour's kitchen, yelled "I'm going to kill him" and stabbed her common-law husband in the collarbone.

If the knife had moved just a centimetre in either direction, Patrick Andrew Thomas likely would have lived, a pathologist later testified. But the 29-year-old bled to death on a downtown Saint John street.

Eight months later, Ms. MacKenzie walked out of a New Brunswick court a free woman after a nine-woman, three-man jury in Saint John acquitted the 28-year-old mother of three of second-degree murder, accepting that she had finally snapped after years of abuse at the hands of Mr. Thomas.

The Crown filed an appeal last week, a rare move for a jury trial. Prosecutors are arguing that the judge erred in his definitions of murder and self-defence and that Ms. MacKenzie had alternatives to killing her husband to escape his violence.

"Of course she had other options," said her lawyer, David Kelly. "But she had been drinking and that impaired her judgement."

The case has riveted the community and polarized opinions about just how far a battered woman can go to defend herself, an argument that has raged since a landmark 1990 Supreme Court of Canada ruling found women could use a history of abuse to defend themselves from murder charges.

People were surprised that Ms. MacKenzie didn't face any consequences for killing her partner, such as family violence counselling or community service, said Nancy Porter, executive director of Coverdale Centre for Women, a women's shelter that neighbours Ms. MacKenzie's apartment.

"Has the jury sent the message that if you're in a situation of family violence it's OK to bump off the other half ?" she asked. "I can't imagine the Crown would be on some kind of witch hunt."

Ms. MacKenzie's acquittal has renewed public criticism of the battered women's defence despite overwhelming evidence that women are far more often the targets of domestic homicides than men, said Deborah Doherty, executive director of Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick. Ms. Doherty has studied 20 years' worth of domestic homicides in the province, which until recently had all been committed by men and many of which were murder-suicides.

"Certainly there seems to be people who wrote comments when she was acquitted that it's just another sign of bias against men in relationships," Ms. Doherty said.

"But in terms of domestic homicides, three out of every four victims are women. Yes, women are killing their partners, but it's much more uncommon. It's much more likely that women are the victims of serious domestic violence."

Ms. MacKenzie's rocky and often violent four-year relationship with Mr. Thomas was played out in detail at trial as the judge asked potential jurors to excuse themselves if they had strong feelings on domestic violence.
A friend testified he once saw Mr. Thomas sitting on Ms. Mackenzie when she was pregnant and punching her in the face. Others told the jury they saw Mr. Thomas bite Ms. MacKenzie, call her names and smash her head into tiles. The jury saw two years of police photos of Ms. MacKenzie bruised and battered and in 2009 Mr. Thomas pleaded guilty to assaulting Ms. MacKenzie. Although he was ordered not to go near her, he breached his probation three times.

Still, a social worker told the court that although she was concerned about the domestic violence complaints, she had never removed the couple's children from the home.

In the early hours of March 15, the couple was coming home from partying at a Saint John bar when Mr. Thomas passed out on the steps of their building. Witnesses said they saw Ms. MacKenzie trying to wake him up by smacking him in the head.

It escalated into an argument and then a physical fight. Ms. MacKenzie grabbed a broom and ran at Mr. Thomas in the street. He put her in a headlock and began to choke her.

When she broke free, neighbours heard her say "I've had enough, I'm going to kill him," before she ran for a kitchen knife.

"I just didn't want him to go in the house because my kids were in there," Ms. MacKenzie testified. "I knew if he went in, that would be the end of me," she said.

It was Ms. MacKenzie's pledge to kill her husband that has left some applauding the Crown's decision to appeal her acquittal.

"They need to say enough is enough — it doesn't matter what gender you are if you commit murder, it should be treated a murder," said Ed Hoyt, founder of the New Brunswick Children's Equal Parenting Association, which held a Christmas Eve protest outside the Saint John family court.

That argument ignores a huge body of research that shows women and men often kill for very different reasons and under very different circumstances in relationships, Ms. Doherty said.

Men often kill their partners in the midst of a breakup, often out of jealousy and control. Women mostly kill within intact relationships, often to protect themselves and their children or because they see no other way out of the abuse.

"If you read all the literature on battered women, they tend not to see the other options," Ms. Doherty said.
"Even if they go to a neighbour, they think he's going to follow them. There's no hope unless they kill him."

Although courts have been doing their best to understand the plight of abused women, the acquittal risks setting a troubling precedent, said Coverdale shelter's Ms. Porter.

"In the world of domestic violence, nothing is right."

National Post with files from the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/case+fuels+debate+over+domestic+violence/4051267/story.html#ixzz19zRoSmC6