A judge decries false accusations — finally

Retiring judge Justice Collier of Australia says, “The worst are those mothers who direct false allegations of abuse against former partners. … They’re difficult to disprove. The allegation lingers there.” He says he had trouble sleeping when making decisions after sexual abuse accusations were made.

According to the story, the judge is unhappy about retiring in such times after having had a rewarding career on the bench. Apparently the judge kept a magic wand. ”I wished I could wave that magic wand and say, ‘Be nice to each other’,” Justice Collier said. It is his belief that if parents would just be nice to each other there would be no need for difficult family-court decisions.

Although we don’t agree that false accusations are anywhere near new, it’s good to see at least one judge talking about them, even if it’s only when leaving the bench. He says he even lost sleep over them. Based on the current situation of the separation of fathers and children by Family court, you have to wonder if there is any sentient being on the bench in Family Court. Of course, (I guess to be able to get some sleep) the judge blames the parents rather than the Divorce Industry in which he has played a major role. Of course there is no mention of serious punishment for the evil doers, though.

If judges would only follow the simple rules:
– impose equal parenting as the standard (always of course In the Best Interests of the Child)
– punish recalcitrant parents — that magic wand can deal a severe caning

False abuse claims — new court weapon

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

Equal Parenting solves “parent conflict”

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?

Co-Parenting and High Conflict

Riots Panel strikes up the band as ship sinks

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.

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/04/04/uk-panel-on-riots-gets-it-wrong-on-fathers-and-children/

Don’t let the Pros set family law

Family Law is a growth industry. At the trough, gorging on the lost futures of our children, are the family-law lawyers, attorneys, judges, court staff, politicians, the child-support Tonton Macoute, and of course the feminista child-abduction centres, as well as a plethora of apparatchiks running the government programs designed to amputate fathers from families.

The Canadian Equal Parenting Council (CEPC) is right to point out that Children’s Issues are Parenting Issues and that parents need a voice to provide balance to media coverage of children’s and family issues. In the coverage of children’s issues, the voice of parents is often missing, and too often denigrated or dismissed as self-serving or self-interest. The “professionals” and “experts” so often quoted have their own agendas and financial interests involved. Without the viewpoint of parents, who do successfully the vast majority of child-raising, the issues are one sided and incomplete.

Parents are stereotyped unfairly as “deadbeat dads” or “lazy welfare moms”. Often, governments refer to professionals in law and social agencies as the only “stakeholders”, while neglecting or refusing equal consultations with parents. It’s the parents (in particular, the fathers) and children who are the victims of the misguided and selfish actions of those stakeholders who are so clearly in a conflict of interest through their industry profit objectives.

canadianepc.org

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. …

Calls and Emails Needed Now

Minnesota has state legislation for presumption of shared physical custody before the House. Let the legislators know that expect them to support Minnesota families by voting in favor of this legislation. Contacts are given below. Please call or email any or all of these legislators and tell them that you support House File 322, the presumption of shared physical custody. Show the House that their voters and the whole world is watching them. When you contact them, let them know where you live and that you support MNFamilyLawReform and Ex-fathers.

Your feedback from them is welcome here.

Appreciation to CH of MN Family Law Reform. This organization is posts at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MNFamilyLawReform/

Minnesota House Judiciary Policy and Finance Committee:

Ron Shimanski (R), Committee Chair 651-296-1534 rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn
Pat Mazorol (R), Vice Chair 651-296-7803 rep.pat.mazorol@house.mn
Sheldon Johnson (DFL), DFL Lead 651-296-4201 rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn
Susan Allen (DFL) 651-296-7152 rep.susan.allen@house.mn
Diane Anderson (R) 651-296-3533 rep.diane.anderson@house.mn
Bobby Joe Champion (DFL) 651-296-8659 rep.bobby.champion@house.mn
Tony Cornish (R) 651-296-4240 rep.tony.cornish@house.mn
Glenn Gruenhagen (R) 651-296-4229 rep.glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn
Debra Hilstrom (DFL) 651-296-3709 rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn
John Kriesel (R) 651-296-4342 rep.john.kriesel@house.mn
Carolyn Laine (DFL) 651-296-4331 rep.carolyn.laine@house.mn
John Lesch (DFL) 651-296-4224 rep.john.lesch@house.mn
Tina Liebling (DFL) 651-296-0573 rep.tina.liebling@house.mn
Joe Schomacker (R) 651-296-5505 rep.joe.schomacker@house.mn
Steve Smith (R) 651-296-9188 rep.steve.smith@house.mn
Chris Swedzinski (R) 651-296-5374 rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn
Bruce Vogel (R) 651-296-6206 rep.bruce.vogel@house.mn
Doug Wardlow (R) 651-296-4128 rep.doug.wardlow@house.mn

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