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
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.
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.
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. …