Is the bias against men at work, in the family court, and even in the home becoming a painful burden for you. It’s not surprising. Well, maybe this will help — a little shot of self-esteem from someone who doesn’t have to do it. Prof. Janice Fiamengo, the University of Ottawa, Canada, has an ongoing series of videos that debunk feminist propaganda. In this video she discusses the indispensable nature of men. Just what you need; nice.
Canada’s family law system is family hostile, child abusive, and extremely misandric. Perhaps for Christmas Canada’s Rulers will get nothing more than lumps of coal from Santa in their stockings. Thanks to Paulette MacDonald for giving us this.
My name is Paulette MacDonald and I am a Family Justice Advocate\Activist in Canada and that came to be once I witnessed first hand the devastation that occurs in the hands of our “secret” Family Court House’s. – and all I want for Christmas is equal, shared parenting at the onset of divorce or separation. Tall order, I know but I’m confident together we can do it. …
Read all of Paulette’s letter to Santa:
London Free Press online — Dear Santa
According to the story as released by the Globe & Mail (Toronto), the Supreme Court of Canada has commissioned a report on family law “out of concern that justice is fast becoming inaccessible to a vast proportion of the country”. Unfortunately, the report totally ignores the fundamental human rights of parents and children. Although the report says, “estranged spouses and their children are seriously damaged by the adversarial system”, its only solution is to further abuse parents by putting them through quasi-judicial proceedings with no guarantee that they will continue to be meaningful parents to their children. Speeding up injustice is not justice.
Apparently the report suggests that judges lawyer and law schools must embrace a culture of mediation and settlement. Mediation and settlement will do nothing to stop the current bias against fathers in Family Court. Mediation in fact will be the tool that will be used to further subjugate fathers to their children’s mother just as is happening now.
Interestingly the report notes that “cuts the family legal aid have a disproportionate effect on women and children, …”. This is a red herring. First of all, women receive the bulk of legal aid. Legal aid is seldom available to fathers. Consequently, when legal aid is cut women continue to receive a far larger cut than men do. More importantly, the more obvious “disproportionate effects” are the disproportionate loss of parenting by fathers, and the astronomically disproportionate amount of child support paid by fathers. All of which happens to fathers who are more than willing and able to look after the children themselves. And indeed, poor fathers even end up paying mothers who are more than capable of supporting of the child, even to the extent of sending the child to day care when the father is available to look after the child.
The simple facts of the matter are, that Mr. Justice Thomas Cromwell, the head of the Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, has failed to recognize the fundamental human rights of parents to raise their children. There is no reason why good parents should have to fight to have an equal parenting role after their separation. If the Supreme Court were simply to put its much touted role of supporting substantive equality there would be no need for the fuss about the problems with mediation and payments and most importantly lawyers, family courts, and, of course, judges.
Apparently the report admits that estranged spouses and their children are seriously damaged by the adversarial system. Yet there is nothing in the Globe and Mail article to suggest that the court is accepting any responsibility for the decades of damage for which it is responsible. When we stop to consider the extent of the damage done to the individual parents, to their children, and to society by this maniacal family-law regime that has been ripping families apart without the slightest indication that it has any understanding of justice or human rights, with no feelings for the victims, with nothing but the financial gain of the divorce industry in its sights, and that there is to be no justice for any of those victims that have gone before, we must be outraged, we must take action, we must demand restitution.
It’s not that justice is fast becoming inaccessible, it’s that justice is impossible for the vast majority of fathers in Canadian family law, just as it is in most of the Western world. Until the family-law courts accept that the only principle upon which a parent can be denied their parenting rights and the child can be denied its equal parenting rights is the abuse or neglect of the child, and the courts cease to preach the unachievable, undefinable, unjust and irrational mantra of the “best interest of the child”, there can be no justice in a family-law court. And this applies equally to fathers and mothers and all other child caregivers.
Gentlemen, in spite of the seemingly favorable rhetoric, this is not a step in the right direction, this is another divorce-industry challenge to fathers. Prepare yourselves.
Lucien Khodeir in the referenced article tells us that the Canadian Divorce Act requires that the Canadian child-support regulations be based on the principle that parents have a joint financial obligation to provide for their children in accordance with their relative abilities. Mr. Khodeir makes the point that Canadian Child-Support regulations do not respect this law defined in the Divorce Act. For example, the regulations do not consider the special financial burden of parents who do not have primary residence for the child but who must nevertheless keep a home suitable for the child’s visitation.
The real problem here is not the Guidelines, but the Divorce Act itself, and more importantly, the whole concept of child care after parental separation as practiced in the Courts. The normal community standard for intervention in the parental role is prevention of abuse and neglect. Parents who look after their children in their care such as by providing a home, food, clothing, education and the necessary emotional care have nothing to worry about in the way of government interference. This is the situation for intact families and all other family types and is independent of parental income or wealth; except separated parents. Family law as practiced throughout the Western World has put the focus on collections rather than parenting. Consequently, family law has violated the equality between separated parents and other parents; the equality of fathers and mothers; and the equality of children in separated families and those in intact families.
One can only wonder how in a country like Canada where the highest courts have adopted a standard of equality based on equality of outcomes instead of equality of opportunity, that family law would be allowed to produce such unequal outcomes as we see in custody determinations and financial collection orders. The obvious reason must be that the courts are not in fact interested in equality or even justice but in some malignant ideology, that has produced the misandry that is driving fatherhood to the brink of destruction, and has driven many individual fathers to destruction.
In her article on the Smart Stepmom When Kids Believe a Lie, Laura Petherbridge says,
“However, many stepmoms believe once dad gets remarried and takes on a second family, that the other children should have compassion and understanding about his financial strain and receive less.”
“This is incorrect. He brought those children into the world, and he is still fully responsible to provide for them. And he signed a divorce agreement making a vow that he would deliver. It is his duty and obligation.”
In a short article like this, Laura Petherbridge cannot be expected to go into the kind of detail needed to do justice to the subjects of child and spousal support payments. However I think a little more “truth” is in order. So, truth be told, we have to understand right up front than everyone needs a little more “compassion” when a new family comes along. This is true in intact families — if new children come along there is less to go around for the other children and for the parents; there is no reason it should be different in separated families, be they blended families or any other type. This is also true if a new family member such as a elderly parent or an unemployed family member comes into the family. Furthermore, it is totally contrary to fundamental equality that children should be subject to different standards just because they were first or were not first or because of a divorce or of separation agreement or because of laws for so-called child-support. We need also to remember that all current alimony/spousal-support and child-support agreements are made under duress. Any father facing family court in America or the rest of the Western World knows he is dead meat before he even starts, and that the children he considered to be his children are no longer his, but are nothing more than tokens for misandric peonage that clearly work contrary to any concept of the child’s best interests or any kind of realization of parental rights, justice or equality. The level of fatherlessness in America is clear proof that family law and the family courts in particular are working against children at every turn. The long path to fundamental justice that we thought had been established or soon would be established in the beginnings of the civil rights and gender equality movements have detoured around family law which has now submerged itself into a morass of deceit and avarice that deserves universal contempt. And that contempt should continue until fathers receive the restitution of family, finances and dignity they deserve for the systematic and systemic injustices they have been forced to endure.
What do I think of Family-Court justice? I think it would be a very good idea.*
To have justice in family court we have to get rid of the meddling morons who suddenly think they have to decide if a father should parent his child just because he is no longer living with the child’s mother. We will get justice in family court when we stop the impossible task of trying to figure out who is the only parent that could possibly be in the child’s best interest and instead we start letting fathers parent their children. Let us recognize that there are not too many fathers parenting their children. Simply stated, we will have justice in family court when we get misandric family courts out of the lives of families and put equal parenting in the lives of our children.
*With apologies to Gandhi: “What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea.” Mahatma Gandhi
It’s a shame that we have to go to so much trouble just to state the obvious. This is what happens when an outlandish ideology takes hold of the ruling class. In this case it’s feminism that after decades of screaming and badgering has managed to infest the legal, political, and media spheres. Consequently stupidity has ruled in family law for many decades, particularly from the early part of the 20th century. Of course there was that glorious period in the ‘sixties’ when the hope of equality was showing its face as the laws were, at least superficially, turned into gender neutral territory. That equality quickly vanished when the feminists saw women’s historical special status starting to disappear They claimed victim status contrary to any kind of logic, reason, or fact. The current state of misandry throughout our family law system is the result of the bullies and their toadies who currently decide the fate of families, with the resulting indentured servitude of fathers and the collateral damage in many families, and to our society.
Dr. Kruk, in the referenced document, gives the scientific data on the outcomes for separated families when there is “family conflict”. Equal parenting is shown to be far better than the feminist solution that has been the norm for so many unfortunate separated fathers and children for decades. Those improvements in family outcome with equal parenting are not only undeniable from the data but were always to be expected because they are so reasonable to anyone other than a rabid feminist or family-law lawyer. Of course, requiring scientific support for equal parenting should not be necessary in any society that claims equality of rights regardless of gender, but then our present ruling class has never really believed in such a thing, has it? What is it about equality that is so hard to understand?
Unlike women who have an unquestioned right to have or not have a child after becoming pregnant, men have no choice. However, men can choose to take steps to prevent pregnancy. The use of a condom is the first line of defense. However, accidents happen including damaged condoms. Consequently a more secure approach is desirable.
The most secure method is a vasectomy. This requires a surgical intervention. Unfortunately, there are complications. For example, Wikipedia reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy#Vasectomy_reversal) that Post-vasectomy pain syndrome (PVPS) is a chronic and sometimes debilitating condition that may develop immediately or several years after vasectomy. ne survey cites studies that estimate incidence at one case every ten to thirty vasectomies. The pain can be constant, or it can be pain that occurs only at particular times such as with intercourse, ejaculation, or physical exertion. It is possible to have a vasectomy reversed in some cases, should a return to potency be desired at some point in time. Again this is not an assured procedure. Wikipedia reports that Vasectomy reversal is effective at achieving pregnancy in only 50%-70% of cases, and it is costly, with total out-of-pocket costs in the United States often upwards of $10,000. Some men opt for cryostorage of sperm before sterilization but again costs of artificial insemination can be prohibitive.
Another possibility that has revealed itself is the use of anabolic steroids. According to .Stanton C. Honig M.D. (firstname.lastname@example.org) in a recent newsletter from Men’s Health Network (www.menshealthnetwork.org),
“When a man is taking anabolic steroids, it is virtually impossible for him to get his partner pregnant.” So this could be interpreted as saying there is a male contraceptive. Of course anabolic steroids are regulated drugs and it might be difficult to obtain a legal prescription for the this application. Furthermore, Dr. Honig points out that anabolic steroids can cause health problems that sometimes can be irreversible: “These include aggressive behavior, acne, baldness, prominent breasts, liver disease, high blood pressure, heart attack and stroke. In adolescents, it may result in stunted growth and accelerated puberty changes. [Performance Enhancing Drugs] can also cause sexual dysfunction. When the anabolic steroids are stopped, the “sexual rush” is gone and this will cause testosterone levels to crash to virtually zero. This may cause symptoms such as tiredness, loss of energy and loss of sex drive. Testosterone production may return in a few months, however, in certain situations, it may be a permanent problem. Luckily, there is medical treatment for this problem to raise testosterone levels back to the normal range.
Hence, it is possible to mitigate the possibility of an undesired child birth by pro-active steps, but the reliability and full consequences must be weighed carefully.
Having said all the above, remember if your partner does get pregnant by another man you can still be held responsible if you are married to her or if you have assumed any parental role toward the child (which can be interpreted as living in the same residence). Even if the mother fraudulently fails to let you know the child is not yours, she faces no punishment and you receive no alleviation of your support penalty.
Ex-fathers recommends that you should not rely to any extent on the generalized information given here, but seek competent legal and/or medical advice as applicable if you are in any such situations.
Claiming “Canadian Government is misusing the institutions of the State and is using the criminal code as a cover to achieve political ends”, Kevin Galalae has fled the country seeking foreign asylum. We understand that the root of Mr Galalae’s problems is the loss of his children in a family separation. In his personal pursuit of justice, Mr Galalae has forwarded a deposition to the five judges of the self-styled “People’s Protection Court” in a lawsuit he launched against the Kingston Police (Kingston, Ontario); a lawsuit that he claims reveals the corruption of the police and judiciary by the executive branch of government. We understand that this process is ultra vires established Canadian law and may itself be illegal. The anonymous People’s Protection Court has now found the Kingston Police ‘guilty’ on a number of charges and has ‘ordered’ restitution.
Mr Galalae says he fled from Canada with nothing but the clothes on his back. He reports that he “is in the best of health and in high spirits, though he suffers greatly because his children have been torn away from him. He vows to continue his defense of human rights and civil liberties and to fight for the release of his children, which the Canadian Government continues to hold hostage … .”
Ex-fathers advocates for and supports fathers and others fighting against the misandric separation of fathers and children and we call for restitution for the victims. We do not condone violence or any illegal action.
The panel looking into the severe riots that ravaged British cities has failed to recognize the contribution to the riots of the the British family courts and the divorce industry. Once again the establishment has turned its blind eye on the real problem while advocating for ever greater interference with families and wasting ever greater amounts of money on unnecessary or useless approaches including “involvement of ‘communities’, ‘community volunteers’ and ‘mentors’.” The linked article by Robert Franklin, Esq tells how the panel actually reported on the extensive data they received on the problem of separated fathers and children yet failed grasp the root cause and to recommend meaningful corrective action. Yet another opportunity lost for British, its children and its fathers.