Tag Archives: parental role

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/

Prevent support payments from unwanted pregnancy

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. (shonig@srhs.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.