Category Archives: child protection

Supreme Court of Canada report misses the whole point

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.

Supreme Court Chief Justice calls for family law overhaul

Canada’s top cops play fast and loose with the law

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.

http://www.troymedia.com/2012/11/07/canadas-top-cops-play-fast-and-loose-with-the-law/

The Big Lie: “We don’t lock up parents who can’t pay. We lock up parents who won’t pay. There is a big difference.”

According to the article (in the Sun News from Macon,Georgia on Macon.com, see below), David Cooke, a senior assistant district attorney in (Houston County) Georgia who leads the county’s child support division said the court works with parents and only jails those unwilling pay. “We don’t lock up parents who can’t pay. We lock up parents who won’t pay. There is a big difference.” Of course Cooke is ignoring the fact that only non-custodial parents who “won’t” pay get locked up.

Across the western world, innumerable custodial parents don’t pay to care for their child themselves but instead receive every imaginable help, including of course “child support” from their victim in (in our opinion) an undeniable child abduction under color of law. The only “big difference” that matters is that the people getting locked up are by and large fathers. This is a shakedown of fathers. The misandry of the family law system is undeniable. The separation of fathers and children is the worst human rights abuse of our time.

Attention David Cooke: it’s time to end the fatherhood shakedown and start a shakeup in family law that restores the rights and dignity of fathers.

www.macon.com/2012/01/30/1884381/local-opinion-divided-on-jail.html
Local opinion: jail time for failure to pay child support?
By BECKY PURSER – bpurser@macon.com
Monday, Jan. 30, 2012
WARNER ROBINS — Whether parents should be locked up for failing to pay child support is debated in Houston County.
Houston Public Defender Nick White is opposed to locking up people who don’t pay, equating it to a debtor’s prison. …

Tell-tale lie: “child’s welfare is the paramount consideration”

According news, Britain is about to ‘enshrine’ parents’ right to their child in the child welfare law. Oops, no, it’s actually the child’s right to both parents. Well, that’s one big difference. It means that someone can decide for the child that the child does want to exercise that right. So bring on the lawyers. That’s the first issue. Then we see that Mr Loughton, one of the select ministers working on the new law, says (according to the linked article in the Telegraph by Christopher Hope), “Quite clearly, ordinary living and working arrangements make an equal division impossible, and undesirable, in all but a small minority of cases.” So, with that flip of the lip, equal parenting is gone. Bring on the lawyers. Then, as a ‘coup de grace’ to the long maligned fathers of Britain, said minister adds, “the most important thing remains the principle that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration and this must not be diluted.” So we must still decide precisely how child’s welfare is best achieved — bring on the lawyers. We see then that the minister throws out any sense of changing the mantra “the best interests of the child” that has destroyed fathers and families ‘en masse’ for generations, and effectively announces “Divorce Industry as usual”.

Here’s what the select ministers including Mr Loughton need to know and understand:

Parental rights: parents do have rights including equality rights just like everyone else in every other aspect of modern society;

Equal parenting: 50-50 parenting is easy to arrange in all but the most unusual cases because it does not have to be on a daily, or a weekly, or a monthly, or even on a yearly basis — it just has to work out that the parents share the child equally over time (no need to chop the child in two as proposed by King Solomon);

Welfare of the child: the community standard for the welfare of the child across the western world is protection of the child from abuse and neglect. It is a matter between the child-protection agency and any remiss parent. Child welfare has no business being discussed in family separation arrangements unless the child protection agency is engaged in the matter. Family law should encourage diversity in parenting (subject to the community standard) just as we encourage diversity throughout modern society, including our schools. Applying different standards for child welfare to parents in separation is arbitrary and unfair to both parents and to the child and it must be defeated in the best interests of a just society.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9058018/Children-win-legal-right-to-see-both-parents-after-divorce.html