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.
It’s good to see that removing children from their families is still punishable 30 years after the events (at least in Argentina). Fortunately, there is no time limit in international law for charges of human rights abuses. That means ex-fathers and their children everywhere still have hope of restitution and justice. The hateful, systemic separation of fathers and children is the worst human rights abuse of our time. As Juan García says in the referenced article “We’ll continue this fight for justice”
Former Argentine dictators found guilty of baby thefts
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?
Co-Parenting and High Conflict