Families are becoming aware of the loss of their rights to raise their children. Some examples:
– Swedish homeschooling father and public advocate for homeschooling, Jonas Himmelstrand, has been forced into exile in Finland by Swedish authorities.
– Montreal mother chose to remove her son from high school, enrolling him in an online learning course, the principal threatened to call social services.
– In contradiction of freedom of religion, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec parents do not have the right to remove their children from the controversial new Ethics and Religious Culture Program.
Still the cry of ex-fathers is not being heard. This canary-in-the-coal-mine has been ignored at the peril of all families in the western world on now in the third world as well. Fathers have been summarily excluded from their children’s lives without the slightest occurrence of any wrong doing, only to find themselves further victimized by being legally robbed by the very persons who abducted their children. It is only a matter of time until this mugging by the State spreads to all aspects of family and individual rights.
Men want families. Most men are happy to work hard for their families. Many work under deplorable conditions risking their lives on daily basis in construction, mining, farming, and the other death industries. If they are part of a family they contribute as best they can. If they have their family taken from them then they at least expect to be left alone to re-build they own lives. They don’t work to support the abductor of their children. They don’t accept indentured servitude. They don’t work to pay a baby-sitter they don’t want. Men don’t have children so they can be wallets.
The Government programs to drive fathers out of their families presently cost American taxpayers $ 100 Billion per year in direct costs alone according to the National Fatherhood Initiative. These costs do not include any indirect costs such as the cost to society of fatherless children. This is the tip of the iceberg of the Government’s patrophobic neurosis. The Government aided by its minions in the Divorce Industry and the bullies of the Shelter Racket are systematically destroying fatherhood, replacing it with the indentured servitude of ex-fathers. Every rational person knows that the governments and the Nation would receive an enormous financial benefit by giving that money to fathers to allow them to raise their children (rather than using it against them) but the government cannot overcome its issues created by an unresolved Mommy complex. Indeed, simply stopping the funding for the father-hate programs and implementing family law guaranteeing equal parenting for fathers would not only save the $100 B, but would also permit the re-unification of fathers and children, and stop the social decline. Unfortunately, Ex-fathers is of the opinion that the future is bleak as these hate programs simply continue to grow and spread into all aspects of family life. Intensive therapeutic treatment is required.
The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man: The Costs of Father Absence
The Annual Public Costs of Father Absence
The federal government spends $99.8 billion dollars every year on programs – such as child support enforcement and anti-poverty efforts – to support father-absent homes …
Karen Selick (see referenced article) makes a good point about access to justice. It’s a sad commentary on the courts when ordinary citizens in the general public are subjected to security restrictions in their own courthouses. In fact, in Ontario Canada, the jurisdiction in which Ms. Selick practices law, the Courts of Justice Act specifies that the courts are open to the public. In spite of that law the public entering most court houses is subjected now to security searches by the Police. Police are present at all times in the courts. It is not uncommon for litigants to be arrested in the courthouses by the Police for charges having nothing to do with their behaviour in the courts.
Letting the Police vet those entering the courts is a violation of the separation between the Police and Judiciary. In other words Ontario’s courts are Police traps, making them inaccessible to many people who would go to the courts for help or to support those who are going to court. Running a Police gauntlet is hardly an open court system. Indeed, it is much closer to a Star Chamber.
There are, of course, the usual public-safety smoke screens — protecting the public including witnesses from the criminals and terrorists. However, terrorism is a red herring as Ontario’s other public places such as subways and shopping malls receive no such treatment. Protection of the public is the job of the Judiciary, performed according to law by placing known criminals and suspected criminals behind bars. The presumption of innocence is a rule that Police should never be permitted to ignore. As long as the courts are afraid of the general public, they should expect the public to be highly dubious of the courts.
As Ms. Selick points out, the predominant issue bringing the courts into disrepute, and causing most of its problems is family law. Blatant and continuing injustice, harassment, and robbery by the family courts can only result in total breakdown of the respect for the Law; and the resultant tyranny can go either way. Meanwhile Ontario citizens, like those in many other western countries, can expect to increasingly live under the Mubarak/Assad/Soviet/etc. conditions Ontarians despise, blindly believing it could not happen in Ontario.
National Post, Feb 8, 2012 – 7:30 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 7, 2012 7:00 PM ET
Karen Selick: Your honour, what’s with the bulletproof glass?
It’s no wonder courthouses fear the public. These days, people view courts as purveyors of injustice …
Karen Selick is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
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.
According to the headline “Absent town dads owe £9m” (Hartlepool Mail, 3 February 2012). Let’s understand this. We are really talking about fathers, perfectly good parents, who had done no wrong. Nevertheless, they have had their children abducted by the mother under colour of law in the misandric family courts. Why would the parent who is a victim of a child abduction would owe the perpetrator anything? This is the worst human rights abuse of our time. Clearly the debt is properly owed to these ex-fathers for their loss.
As far as the “cash [the children] are owed” addressed by the Minister is concerned, yes, the children are owed plenty. They are owed as the victims of the Divorce Industry for the painful, unnecessary, and wrongful loss of their fathers. As long as the the people of Hartlepool continue to force this travesty on separated fathers and children, let the people of Hartlepool pay for this crime against humanity. And the sooner the score is settled justly the sooner the problem of separated fathers and children will end.
Absent town dads owe £9m
Published on Friday 3 February 2012 10:11
ABSENT parents in Hartlepool owe a whopping £9m in unpaid child support.
The town’s child maintenance debt reached £9,071,000 in December last year, up four per cent on the previous year’s figure of £8,743,000. …
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.
Local opinion: jail time for failure to pay child support?
By BECKY PURSER – firstname.lastname@example.org
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. …
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 email@example.com
Pat Mazorol (R), Vice Chair 651-296-7803 firstname.lastname@example.org
Sheldon Johnson (DFL), DFL Lead 651-296-4201 email@example.com
Susan Allen (DFL) 651-296-7152 firstname.lastname@example.org
Diane Anderson (R) 651-296-3533 email@example.com
Bobby Joe Champion (DFL) 651-296-8659 firstname.lastname@example.org
Tony Cornish (R) 651-296-4240 email@example.com
Glenn Gruenhagen (R) 651-296-4229 firstname.lastname@example.org
Debra Hilstrom (DFL) 651-296-3709 email@example.com
John Kriesel (R) 651-296-4342 firstname.lastname@example.org
Carolyn Laine (DFL) 651-296-4331 email@example.com
John Lesch (DFL) 651-296-4224 firstname.lastname@example.org
Tina Liebling (DFL) 651-296-0573 email@example.com
Joe Schomacker (R) 651-296-5505 firstname.lastname@example.org
Steve Smith (R) 651-296-9188 email@example.com
Chris Swedzinski (R) 651-296-5374 firstname.lastname@example.org
Bruce Vogel (R) 651-296-6206 email@example.com
Doug Wardlow (R) 651-296-4128 firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Where there is a wrong there is a remedy. Restitution of the family finances and dignity of fathers is the remedy for the systematic destruction of fatherhood in the western world. But is it possible? Examples of governments providing redress, including paying damages, and restoring dignity to previously persecuted persons abound. Classic examples are the WW II interned national citizens of Japanese descent in Canada and the USA., German reparations to Israel, apology and compensation to Chinese laborers for the ‘head tax’; and the recent apology to Canadian POWs by the Japanese government (see link).
Japanese government apologizes to Canada’s World War II POWs: