The Globe & Mail ~ Public scrutiny in family courts

WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

May 2, 2009

If Canadians could cram en masse into the bitter courtrooms where child-custody disputes play out, there might be fewer nasty divorces. Since they can't, they should be allowed to read about them, which is why an Ontario judge was right to reject a request from the provincial Office of the Children's Lawyer for a gag order on the lawyers and family members in a notorious case of "parental alienation syndrome." A cautionary tale that no one can hear is not much good to anyone.

Would a gag order have benefited the children involved? Only if one believes that family law always protects children, that all the players have only the children's interests at heart and would arrange for the best possible resolution, without any public scrutiny. Such paternalism should have died out a long time ago. The OCL's request shows why World Press Freedom Day tomorrow remains important: Even in Canada in 2009, the openness of the courts is not guaranteed. Last month, a Quebec judge suggested that journalists could publish only information that people were authorized to give them.

Parental alienation syndrome is a label given to the brainwashing of children by their divorced spouses. No doubt such brainwashing happens, and is extremely harmful; but increasingly the courts have been ordering the Draconian solution of forced "deprogramming" at a clinic in the United States. This use of coercion, to the point of virtually kidnapping children, needs more public debate, not less.

Everything about the case before Ontario Court Judge Steven Clark this week cries out for debate. Why does the legal system tolerate a 10-year slugfest between parents? What can be done to protect children when parents use the courts as a boxing ring? What evidence made a previous judge in the case think that forcing a 12- and 14-year-old to submit to deprogramming would help, rather than traumatize them?

Print Edition - Section Front

Enlarge Image

What the courts couldn't fix, the siblings' 19-year-old brother appeared, heroically, to have managed. He brokered a deal among the warring parents in which the children would be reunited with the mother they had been alienated from, without the younger boys being forced to take deprogramming. A local therapist would be retained. "We emancipated ourselves from these professionals that have been breathing down our necks the whole time," the 19-year-old said outside court. Those words are well worth hearing.

And who could object to the deal? The Office of the Children's Lawyer, which insisted on the deprogramming while asking for the gag order.

Judge Clark, to his credit, accepted the arrangement worked out by the young man, while rejecting the publication ban. "The principle of openness is deeply entrenched in our system."

While people in democracies may associate World Press Freedom Day with the need to expand free speech in places such as China and Zimbabwe, there is no shortage of cases in Canada where limits are requested - or imposed - on free speech. Every time a judge gives in to a requested publication ban, more requests quickly follow.

All Canadians have an interest in making sure that the children of high-conflict divorce are protected, and that those charged with protecting them, including the courts and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, do good, and not harm. That is why the courts are open. The freedom of the press belongs not only to the media, but to all Canadians.

In OZ ~ CHIEF Justice Diana Bryant is a judge caught in a crossfire over Shared Parenting.

The Chief Justice of the Family Court has a battle on her hands

Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

Laurie Nowell

May 03, 2009 12:00am

CHIEF Justice Diana Bryant is a judge caught in a crossfire.

The battleground is not the sordid, blood-soaked trial of a gangland criminal. It is the far more thorny, emotive and mercurial landscape of family law.

Chief Justice Bryant, Australia's top Family Court judge, has found herself in the middle of a civil war between community groups over changes to the Family Law Act.

A new campaign kicking off Sunday seeks to overturn amendments to the Act that have established the principle of "shared parenting" and effectively given fathers a better chance of having greater access to their children in custody disputes.

But fathers' groups are adamant the changes are for the better and should stay. They say they will oppose the campaign "tooth and nail".

For both sides, the battle is emotional and personal and could easily descend into acrimony.

And, as in all emotional exchanges, sometimes fact, myth and assumption become blurred in the haze of propaganda and spin.

Chief Justice Bryant stands as an honest broker in the middle of the melee, with an armoury of case law, statistics and reason.

She said there was a "tension" between what the Family Law Act described as "the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents" and "the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence".

But Chief Justice Bryant said this tension had to be determined by judges on evidence - not populist public campaigns - but with a particular emphasis on child protection.

"Protection of children should need no debate," she said.

"We live in a society where we regard the protection of children as being vitally important and we want our courts and other institutions to support that position."

But she realised theory and reality differed sometimes, saying: "It is a controversial topic that usually breaks down on gender lines."

Chief Justice Bryant said there was a misunderstanding in some sections of the community that children's interests remained the ultimately defining factor in family law cases.

She said a widely held belief that the Act required courts to apply equal shared parental responsibility and equal shared time - and that the courts were routinely doing this - was wrong.

She pointed to statistics that show a 50/50 care arrangement was awarded in only 15 per cent of litigated cases. Parties agreed to a 50/50 arrangement in 19 per cent of cases.

In a third of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30 per cent or less of their time with their father. Abuse and/or family violence was the major reason those orders was made.

In 9 per cent of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30 per cent of less time with their mother. The major reason was the presence of mental health issues.

In 6 per cent of litigated cases, the father was ordered to have no contact with the children. The same order was made in respect of mothers in 1 per cent of cases. Abuse and family violence were the major reasons th0se orders were made.

In a broad-ranging interview with the Sunday Herald Sun, Chief Justice Bryant:

SAID the Family Court now dealt only with the most difficult and complex cases - mostly involving serious allegations of abuse or high conflict;

REVEALED the Family Court was trying to make the system less adversarial, with more counselling and judges talking directly to parties in cases;

ADMITTED enforcing the court's orders had become a problem;

CALLED for the establishment of a government official to bring enforcement proceedings against parents who breached orders; and

SAID family law was becoming expensive for ordinary people and that legal aid was underfunded.

Chief Justice Bryant said family law had become more complicated in recent times.

"The Act is not simple. The sections about proving breaches have been made more complicated by the 2006 rules," Chief Justice Bryant said.

"It's more complex than it was, there's no doubt.

"People have to bring their own applications and it's expensive. I think there should be some government official who brings enforcement proceedings.

"Perhaps we should have some sort of filter, where somebody looks at whether there is a need for some adjustment to orders or some assistance to make them work.

"Legal Aid is reluctant to give aid for enforcement and it's expensive, and I accept that that's a problem at the moment. It's difficult to bring enforcement proceedings."

But Chief Justice Bryant hailed gradual changes that were making family law less adversarial.

"I think the majority of family lawyers understand the dynamics and are keen to see people resolve things in a reasonable way," she said.

"We've gone through interesting changes. Originally the legislation was to make it less adversarial, but I don't think they understood in the 70s how it was going to evolve.

"What happened was that it solved the issue of divorce, which now is almost an administrative act.

"But people then started to fight about other things.

"In a defended divorce in the old days, you had to prove someone was at fault.

"But once you removed that you then got to look at other issues -- what happened was that people started to fight about the other issues, about property, about parenting.

"But in the past decade I think everybody's been looking at ways of trying to be less adversarial, because I think everyone is starting to understand now that one of the things that is bad for children is conflict.

"There are a lot of things that are happening - the family relationship centres that the government has set up to try to get people to come to agreements without recourse to court are playing a big role.

"And we have a new process in children's cases where the parties, on the first day of court, speak directly to the judge.

"The judges determine the issues with the parties before allowing them to file affidavits. And that's quite important.

"One of the things we do try to do is stop people filing huge affidavits, which just inflame the issue."

Chief Justice Bryant has a different style to her predecessor, the high-profile Alistair Nicholson.

She is said by people in the legal profession to be very conciliatory and not worried about her own legacy.

"She is a straight-shooter who just tries cases on the facts and by the law," said one experienced family law practitioner.

Indeed, she seems uncomfortable discussing the notion that she might have some influence on shaping society.

"I don't think that is the role of Chief Justice to the extent of the decisions of an individual court or the full court," she said.

"I interpret legislation. I suppose that's influence, but we have a lot of legislation and Parliament itself takes a much more active role in shaping how they want things to be than in the past.

"As for my own place in history, it's too early to tell."

It may be that if an emotive and polarised civic debate on family law kicks off in Australia, an arch conciliator armed with facts and reason will be much needed.

Anger in Action: The politics of “fathers’ rights” in Canada

The following are comments left at http://briarpatchmagazine.com/2009/05/01/fathers-rights-in-canada/ discussing a very one sided gender feminist approach disavowing the civil rights of fathers. Please also note the author, Deanna Ogle, has invented a new form of equality. Equal is not equal because there is more than one kind. Now dads you can better understand why there is this quagmire out there when you get rationalizations such as this. Read how to split the apple equally - or not - and then if you don't upchuck after that have a good chuckle. The gender feminists just don't get it. Karl Marx would love it though as Marxists can rationalize almost anything that involves collectivist thoughts. I guess when Adam took the bite of Eve's Apple he bit off far more than he could chew and it was more than equal because, according to the Bible, it changed the world. The apple is being used again by women to tease men. We are so weak! ;)

I see you have visited all the gender feminist web sites to do your research and used it to support your ideologically predisposed notion that women are an under class of victims requiring special status from the nanny state.

The arguments do not stand up to scrutiny or science. 75% of divorces in Canada are initiated by women. Very few of them are related to DV. Most are related to ethereal visions of greener pastures brought on by dreamy magazine articles, romantic books and movies and hormonal surges that never come to pass. The relative poverty placed upon children as a result is based on very bad decisions by women and then supported by the courts. Check the statistics for children who become social problems and their relationship to single motherhood homes.

In fact your whole notion of DV being a one sided gender issue with women as victims does not stand scrutiny at all. In a Centre for Disease Control study women were found to be initiators 71% of the time. In all categories of DV it is pretty much equal between genders yet men are excluded from every tax supported DV shelter in Canada. That is part of the gender apartheid contributed by articles such as this.

The longer you try to inculcate these myths the longer will the struggle be for true equality. The equality you and others of your ilk seek is already there but your ideology prevents you from seeing it. Real women have found it. Gender feminists are ideologically and perceptually blinded by it. You cannot ever expect to be equal by constantly pulling the victim card. Get over it, grow up and move on.

These following observations were left on May 15/09 in response to A DV Industry person spouting more mythology. All of these comments on the web site follow the excerpt below:

at 8:14 am May 15/09

MikeMurphy

I guess Shahnaz S lives in a feminist bubble and deals with “reported” DV. Men only report about 10% of the time so you won’t find stats from the police on them in proportion to their being battered and abused. When women kill their partners it is often not recorded as DV. Recently Adam Cunningham died from wounds received at the hands of his wife Ellie in Vancouver. The Crown was even wondering if they should proceed with charges given the death of the only witness. I have been in contact with the BC AG to disabuse him of the notion a gender discount is in order. In Edmonton a similar situation occurred recently where a drug addicted woman punched out her partner who fell to the ground and he was kicked further by this woman. He died later in hospital. This will not be recorded as DV. She got 6.5 months for killing a man.

Shahnaz S uses the old canard of children watching DV perpetrated by a dad but neglects to say, given DV is pretty much equal, what the impact is on the children when mom is punching, throwing objects, cursing, yelling, screaming at the top of her lungs, pulls out 4.5 foot rake handles and tries to kill dad, and hits him over the head with a 10 lb jug of water amongst other things. Indeed mom frequently in front of the children when dad is not around denigrates him to alienate the children and create allies creating greater emotional abuse.

You live in a feminist bubble and are in denial. You are ideologically and perceptually blinded by what likely is going on right under your nose. That makes you far less than professional. How many female addicts do you deal with? They are some of the worst bullies on the face of the earth to both their partners and children? They go to the DV shelter to dry out before going back to do more drugs and commit more DV. Some even commit crimes to get money for the drugs while at the shelter. Some do tricks to supplement their habit then go back to the shelter after getting the money and a fix. They feed off the self abuse of their own bodies and take it out on others.

I often hear the term “protective” parent used by the radical feminists in reference to the mom. Statistically the single mother is the most dangerous person to supervise children. You can check the USA stats here. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm. Mothers are the greatest abusers and killers of children by far in the USA and the greatest killers of children, in partnership with their boyfriends in Australia.

Its time to drop the victim persona and be real women. DV is not a single gender issue it is a family issue. Until it is recognized as such not much will change. Until these shelters start treating men not much will change. You practice a form of gender apartheid and a backlash is starting to be felt across the nation.

The federal public service is now 55% female and the Ontario Public Service close to 60%. The pendulum has swung way to far in terms of feminist instigated entitlements and it needs to stop. I am in the forefront of bringing the pendulum back to the centre instead of marginalizing fathers and ridiculing men with feminist mythology as appears in the article and in Shahnaz S post.

MJM

By Deanna Ogle
Briarpatch Magazine
May/June 2009

I first heard about fathers’ rights groups when I was working at a Vancouver drop-in centre for women several years ago. A family law advocate for a similar organization in a neighbouring community told me about a group of men who would show up at court in matching T-shirts to support male members of their organization who were engaged in custody and access disputes with their ex-partners. The groups would do this to try to influence the judges and intimidate the women, who were often there without a lawyer or any other support besides the advocate. Concerned, I wondered how organized these men were and if it was a local phenomenon. To my surprise, I learned that this group was part of a global movement with a membership ranging from Caribbean Canadian Senator Anne Cools to British anti-poverty activist Bob Geldof (though the vast majority of fathers’ rights leaders and activists are white, middle-class, conservative men) Click here for rest of article. http://briarpatchmagazine.com/2009/05/01/fathers-rights-in-canada/

Comments on Briarpatch Website

May 2, 2009 at 9:35 am

MikeMurphy

I see you have visited all the gender feminist web sites to do your research and used it to support your ideologically predisposed notion that women are an under class of victims requiring special status from the nanny state.

The arguments to not stand up to scrutiny or science. 75% of divorces in Canada are initiated by women. Very few of them are related to DV. Most are related to ethereal visions of greener pastures brought on by dreamy magazine articles, romantic books and movies and hormonal surges that never come to pass. The relative poverty placed upon children as a result is based on very bad decisions by women and then supported by the courts. Check the statistics for children who become social problems and their relationship to single motherhood homes.

In fact your whole notion of DV being a one sided gender issue with women as victims does not stand scrutiny at all. In a Centre for Disease Control; study women were found to be initiators 71% of the time. In all categories of DV it is pretty much equal between genders yet men are excluded from every tax supported DV shelter in Canada. That is part of the gender apartheid contributed by articles such as this.

The longer you try to inculcate these myths the longer will the struggle be for true equality. The equality you and others of your ilk seek is already there but your ideology prevents you from seeing it. Real women have found it. Gender feminists are ideologically and perceptually blinded by it. You cannot ever expect to be equal by constantly pulling the victim card. Get over it, grow up and move on.

May 4, 2009 at 2:29 am

Michael

Your quote:-
“According to Bruce Wood, “there are lots of men (as there are women) who are full of grief, anger, sadness and shock after a relationship comes to an end. These men deserve to be heard and to be helped heal - not to have their anger fed like a fire for political lobbying purposes.”
This is precisely what feminist groups have been doing for years now. The political purpose is clearly stated in their own manifesto ‘ to destroy the traditional nuclear family’ and replace it with what exactly?
This attack on the basic structure of society, and the consequential tragedy for children, has been instigated by feminists under the guise of equality.
Fathers retaliate in defence, and are accused as the instigators.!!
Who is right here? NO ONE. It’s a tragedy for all concerned.
Who is wrong? I propose the ones who wish to turn society on it’s head and replace it with unworkable chaos.

Another similar situation concerns PAS. Feminists deny it’s existence, and when fathers engage in PAS, the mothers ’support network’ cannot support them due to their initial denial of reality!!
Selective support only when it supports the underlying political agenda!
That’s typical irresponsible feminist thinking for you!

May 4, 2009 at 9:48 am

Elisa Hayse

The outmoded argument of domestic violence in marriage holds no water. According to Stats Canada, An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive Statistics Canada report on family violence. Look it up yourself: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm.

In popular culture, men get a bad blow as they are portrayed as simpletons, deadbeats, pedophiles, rapists, and wife beaters who wear “wife beater” shirts stained with ketchup. Today, men are just female side-kicks on TV commercials bobbing their heads in the background. Can we say also say that in popular culture women are prostitutes and gold-diggers? Do you agree with this? Obviously, not, so why should men?

You need to separate fiction from fact and realize that most men and women are decent people. We don’t live in the 60’s anymore. Stop propagating such nonsense and stop identifying with urban myths. Maybe it’s time to close up old-fashioned feminism and embrace an age of parental equality and responsibility. Be more compassionate and fair to both sexes.

Lastly, you’ll be surprised by how many women are involved in these “father’s groups”. Anyone with a conscience should speak the truth despite what sex is involved. I am an adult child of divorce and I experienced more abuse in the hands of my mother than my father. The stats also reflect this. I hope you love your father because I surely love mine!

Elisa Hayse

May 5, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Shahnaz S

Deanna Bravo for writting such a great article. I could not agree more.

In my 20 years work experience as an Educator and Counsellor, I have worked with many children exposed to domestic violence. In almost all the cases that were refered to me (specifically by the Ministry of Children and Families) children were the victims of experiencing their dad’s violence towards their mother. The only time a dad would come in contact with me is when the matter was going to court. Truth hurts and I think it is time for men to take responsibilty! Caring Dad program in Ontario is a great programs for dads who have taken responsibilty for their violence towards their child’s mother. Men who have participated in the Caring Dad programs have reported that taking responsibility of their violence has helped improve their relationship with their child.

I challenge the postion of the Father’s Rights Activists/Supporters who have commented above that domestic violence is mutual. Please reflect on why is it that almost 99% of high profile domestic violence homicides in
BC are that of women who have been killed by their intimate partners? These are the forgotten victims. Can you even imagine what life is like for these children whose moms were shot /stabbed to death right infront of their eyes???? Please reflect and rest your EGO’s!

May 7, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Tricia

As the new partner of an incredible father who, after his wife divorced him, lost his children, home and assets, you clearly have never seen the effects of the “womens” movement in action. What might get you to change you mind?

How about this scenario : You have a son you love and who you know is a good person. He gets married and has children. You are a grandmother and love his kids. He gets a divorced. He is relagated to a “visitor” in his children’s lives. He loses his home and lives in a shabby apartment while giving his ex-wife 50% of his net income. His ex-wife continually ignores the court ordered visiting time. He takes her to court. The court informs him they cannot enforce his visitation rights. But if he is one day late on his child support, they will garnish his check so he can’t pay rent. You lose your grandchildren, and have no rights to visiting them. Your son is in financial ruin and may have to maove back in with you to survive. It happens every day to GOOD men and GOOD fathers.

I hope this never happens to you, because then you’ll realize the damage you’ve done perpetuating the stero-type that woman are infantile citizens who deserve special treatments and almost unliminted power in the area of famiy court.

May 15, 2009 at 8:14 am

MikeMurphy

I guess Shahnaz S lives in a feminist bubble and deals with “reported” DV. Men only report about 10% of the time so you won’t find stats from the police on them in proportion to their being battered and abused. When women kill their partners it is often not recorded as DV. Recently Adam Cunningham died from wounds received at the hands of his wife Ellie in Vancouver. The Crown was even wondering if they should proceed with charges given the death of the only witness. I have been in contact with the BC AG to disabuse him of the notion a gender discount is in order. In Edmonton a similar situation occurred recently where a drug addicted woman punched out her partner who fell to the ground and he was kicked further by this woman. He died later in hospital. This will not be recorded as DV. She got 6.5 months for killing a man.

Shahnaz S uses the old canard of children watching DV perpetrated by a dad but neglects to say, given DV is pretty much equal, what the impact is on the children when mom is punching, throwing objects, cursing, yelling, screaming at the top of her lungs, pulls out 4.5 foot rake handles and tries to kill dad, and hits him over the head with a 10 lb jug of water amongst other things. Indeed mom frequently in front of the children when dad is not around denigrates him to alienate the children and create allies creating greater emotional abuse.

You live in a feminist bubble and are in denial. You are ideologically and perceptually blinded by what likely is going on right under your nose. That makes you far less than professional. How many female addicts do you deal with? They are some of the worst bullies on the face of the earth to both their partners and children? They go to the DV shelter to dry out before going back to do more drugs and commit more DV. Some even commit crimes to get money for the drugs while at the shelter. Some do tricks to supplement their habit then go back to the shelter after getting the money and a fix. They feed off the self abuse of their own bodies and take it out on others.

I often hear the term “protective” parent used by the radical feminists in reference to the mom. Statistically the single mother is the most dangerous person to supervise children. You can check the USA stats here. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm. Mothers are the greatest abusers and killers of children by far in the USA and the greatest killers of children, in partnership with their boyfriends in Australia.

Its time to drop the victim persona and be real women. DV is not a single gender issue it is a family issue. Until it is recognized as such not much will change. Until these shelters start treating men not much will change. You practice a form of gender apartheid and a backlash is starting to be felt across the nation.

The federal public service is now 55% female and the Ontario Public Service close to 60%. The pendulum has swung way to far in terms of feminist instigated entitlements and it needs to stop. I am in the forefront of bringing the pendulum back to the centre instead of marginalizing fathers and ridiculing men with feminist mythology as appears in the article and in Shahnaz S post.

I find this article and subsequent posts to be of three opinions. One from a feminist’s positon, one from a Men’s advocate’s opinion, and the rest from ill informed people who have not been through the hell of modern divorce.

I am a men’s advocate. I also advocate for equal shared parenting. I help non custodial parents in getting over their grief and try to help them find the way back into a more meaningful relationship with their children. I also try to recomend that the people try to keep communiocation open, and try not to let things get into a legal slug fest.

I know that there is a lot of miss information out there put out by all sides in this debate. However I can tell you that there is only a Status of Women’s ministry, and to me that says it right there about how our government feels.

There was a comparison of equal shared parenting to a substantive equality. There was an analogy of an apple. I would like to discuss this therory. Let’s take one apple a day, and one child and one adult. Put them on a deserted island. Feed them each half of the apple per day. Lets see who lives and who dies. I am sure the child will possibly atleast maintain weight, yet the adult will loose weight, and eventualy die. But lets compair the same situation with two adults and the one apple. They both will loose weight, until they learn to work things out and find another source of food. This is equal shared parenting.

But now lets look at substantive equality as put forth in this article. Ms. Ogle implies that the courts use substantive equality because women work harder at child care than men, or they do not have as much knowledge or are at a disadvantage because of oppression. Under this idea of substantive equality, you take that one apple, and cut it into two parts, with one part containing 1/3 the apple and the other part the remaining 2/3. You give the larger portion to the woman, and the smaller portion to the man. The apple is not large enough for both of them to survive, but the woman will live longer than the man, and they will most likely bicker of the apple before they learn to work together. That is how our current system works. They both die.

Now let’s look at the economice side of things. Ms. Ogle puts forth statistics that more women take time off from work for child care. That is undissputed, but is worthless information if you want to use it as an argument for why our system is the way it is. She implies that this proves that women take more of an active role in child care. She does not include the prior take home salary of the two spouses prior to the desision of who would take time off for child care.

Most women still earn less in their day to day work than men. This is largely due to the different career paths each sex takes in life. Young men and young women may both start working at the local McDonalds, but as soon as the young man is offered a job in the oil patch or a trade, he takes it. The girl often is not interested in such jobs, and takes up a less physical job. Now this is the difference in salaries. He gets paid more because of the demands of his job compaired to her. Now these tow young people get married and have a child. Lets say that they both can take time off for child care. So he makes $50k a year, but would drop down to only $30K for that year if he takes time off to raise the baby. She makes $30k a year, but would only take home $15k for the year if she took the time off. So if she took the time off and he still worked, the family income for the year would be $65k, and if he took time off from work the family income would be $60k. $5k a year less. That is food for a year, or a car payment for a year less in real terms. Now most men are able to pick up some overtime in the typicaly male dominated blue collar jobs, where as most white collar jobs have fixed hours, so men have a higher earning potential. I think it is clear why there are more women taking time off to raise the children then men.

Ms. Ogle also discussed child support. Now this is where things get complicated. Most men pay child support. Most pay what they are ordered to pay, and they pay it. Now most also complain that they pay too much, and I may not always agree, but this money should be able to be a tax write off, and the person should have to declare this income, but not be taxed on it. I also think that both parent’s have a responsibility to pay equally based on incomes. In Australia they had a screwed up system like Canada, but they fixed it by taking into consideration both parent’s incomes, time spent with each parent, and any other children that each parent had to support. Then there is a math formula, and depending on the incomes, it was possible for the custodial parent to have to pay the non custodial parent some support, and this my friends is what is called ensuring that the child continues to enjoy the same lifestyle at both parent’s homes. What we have is only the non custodial parent paying support to the custodial parent, regardless of that parent’s income, or the responsibilites of the other parent to other children. So a debtor who remarries must have his children with the new family go without so that the creditor who also has remarried can spend the money on their new children. You wonder why so many men’s second marriages fail? It is because many of their spouses get tired of having to see their husbands earnings go to support his first children, and then the ex’s new children, while her’s have to make due with less.

Now there was a discussion about DV. This is one of the other myths. Feminists want to have the world believe that it is only men who abuse women and children. This is not supported by any study today. I will conceed that more women seek medical help after domestic violence than men, however this is more to do with power of a man. More women use weaopns than men. Just ask Riahana. She attacked Chris Brown with her stilletto heal while he was driving, before he beat the hell out of her with his arms and fists. I do not condone violence, but why do we only hear about poor Rihana? She started the attack, and it most certanly was reciprical. But it is Chris Brown who was arrested, and everyone gives Rihana the sym[pathy because Chris Brown is a monster. What if she had caused them to crash before he stopped and disarmed her? She would have been responsible for there crash and possible death. Lets place the blame on the real problem here, and that is their mutual in ability to control their emotions.

I have custody of my kids. It took nearly 6 yrs and over $160k. I have had to go to court many many times, just to keep seeing the same bias. It was only when my ex started to not pick the kids up from school, and had neglected the kids that something finaly happened. Unfortunately I still do not have an actual order declaring this, and this still causes problems for me, but my kids are doing better in school, and they are having a better life. I also have been much more flexible with my ex over access then she ever was to me. If we followed the access order, my kids would not have had birthdays, chrismas, easter or half of spring break with their mother. I did this not because I could not look after my kids, but because it was the right thing to do for my kids. If only the courts made parents be fair and reasonable, then the kids would not be so affected by divorce.

The government needs to make presumpton of equal parenting. This will eliminate the financial grab that divorce starts off with many women. Too often some unscroupoulous women go to court and get an ex parte order, claiming abuse or the fear of abuse, and then she gets the house, the kids the car, and support, why he ends up living on a friends couch until they can get into court to deal with things, but often this takes too long, and he looses meaningful his access to his kids.

I am not saying that all women do this, but the courts are biased towards this. With the presumption of equal parenting, then there is no financial incentive for divorce, and more people will try to work out their problems.

I also feel that the government needs to bring back fault into divorve. Let the person who has caused the breakdown to suffer the results of their behavior.

May 15, 2009 at 5:00 pm

C Barbeau

I am one of the few, I have my boys with me. The mother left and moved to a city 400km away. I AM, the rock in their lives, their mother was a stay at home mom, with substance abuse issues. Now we are learning to live just the three of us, the abuse continues, but now it’s mostly financial and with some superficial psycological hits whenever her attention reverts to us. I instill respect in my boys towards their mother, but it’s one of the toughest things to do when your child degrades his own mother the woman who once was your world and now cares nothing for anyones well being, But her own. I know I’m doing the right thing by promoting the boy’s relationship with her. I hold on to the hope that one day she will see the damage she’s caused, her sons will be her jury!

In the mean time I try to fight her lawyer and have the $1500/months spousal support payment removed, reduced or at least limited to a term. Lectur et emergo

My position, biased I might add is that no human being should be ordered to support someone who of there own free will made a decision to live their life in a certain way. But as they change there minds on the decisions they made that someone else should became their welfare state. The provider in a traditional marriage suffers just as much disadvantage, usally ends up working harder, and longer hours to make up for the spouse that stays home to nurture the children. But some how the courts see this as career advancement!!! How about self sacrifice in the name of your family. The law itself deflects support of an individual to the ex spouse, because it has this same opinion that the state should not have to support anyone!

May 15, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Denis Pakkala

Quoted references are documented at National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center http://www.NFVLRC.org Policy Statement on Family Violence

LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
Males disproportionately arrested

“Reports from the WHO (Archer, 2006) also make it clear than in many countries around the world, particularly where women have little political or socioeconomic power, women represent the much larger share of IPV victims. However, the most reliable population of surveys indicate that in Western industrialized democracies such as the United States and Canada, where they enjoy higher status, women engage in physical aggression at rates comparable to men (Archer, 2000; Fiebert, 2004; Straus & Gelles, 1990) and are as likely or more likely to be the initiators (DeMaris, 1992; Morse, 1995; Dutton et al., 1999; Straus, 1993; Williams & Frieze, 2005).”

“Shernock’s (2005) analysis of over 2000 IPV incidents in Vermont revealed that men were categorized as perpetrators 3.2 times more often than women on the initial police report, but subsequently arrested 9 times as often. At issue is the extent to which this pattern of gender bias reflects flawed “dominant aggressor” guidelines and assumptions about IPV based on discredited sociopolitical theories of patriarchy”

“Victimized males do not have access to services because of the assumptin that they are only minimally impacted by IPV, if at all. This assumption, however, runs contrary to an overwhelming body of research evidence. A significant minority of IPV-related physical injuries, between 25% and 43%, are incurred by men (Archer, 2000; Laroch, in preparation; Mirrlees-Black, 1999; Straus, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), an men are the victims in nearly a quarter of intimate homicides (Rennison, 2003)”

FAMILY LAW AND FAMILY VIOLENCE
“IPV assumed to be male-perpetrated”

Many states now incorporated into their family law statutes guidelines that discourage or prohibit violent parents from obtain custody of their children (National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (1994). These guidelines are good in theory, but when improperly applied may result in substantial harm to children and families. Advocates for mothers (Silverman et al., 2004) argue that many fathers who have perpetrated IPV and child abuse are able to manipulate the courts to their advantage and obtain primary custody of their children; and advocates for fathers (e.g., Leving & Dachman, 1998) present the same argument regarding abusive mothers. However, research efforts to resolve this issue have been decidedly skewed, concerned almost exclusively with finding evidence of abusive fathers gaining custody (Kernic et al, 2005; Morrill et al., 2005; Silverman et al., 2004)”

It is also the case that parents for whom there exists little or no empirical evidence of abuse have been denied custody and visitation of their children via restraining orders due to mere allegations, or when the documented abuse is minor or situational (Epstein, 1993; Heleniak, 2005; Pearson, 1997). More often than not, these cases involve fathers rather than mothers, because many family court mediators, evaluators, attorneys and judges share in the general assumptions that men are rarely victims and women rarely the dominant aggressors of IPV (Dutton, 2005).”

May 15, 2009 at 10:31 pm

Ebi

Dear Deanna, I do not believe that equality is subject to your interpretation. Every honest person walk to the family court can see the bias against the males in almost every motion and trial. Your hypothetical, practically worthless and scientifically unbiased article and allegation has no circle of truth around it. It is simply an emotional reaction to growing voices against the unjust system called family law, trade mark of feminism Canada. Ever literate person who can read the case laws can predict the judgment by observing the gender of the applicant. Marriage is not a charity foundation and choosing to stay home and taking care of children is not an excuse to gain legal grounds and collect the wealth, becoming pensioner of a hard-working man. Let alone that your argument can not even apply to the cases of a three-year old marriage with no children which faces years of spousal support (always paid by males).
And for Shahnaz S, as a Middle Easterner who landed in a tax payer- funded fake job, called “counselor’ you have every right to provide an false %99 homicide rate by ‘intimate’ partners. After all you could not get such an easy life in Iran for selling BS to people.
Unfortunately the fact does not work the same way here in Ontario, where the mothers are killing their kids and walk free crying abuse, where almost in ever case DV allegations against the fathers are dropped by the prosecutor as being unproven and men are losing %100 of their rights and life savings trying to save their children from abusive mothers. Have seen enough of them. Have seen enough of your fellow countrymen in Toronto courts, while demanding support from their ex husbands back home in form of ‘Mahrieh’ dragging the men in courts in Canada.
I understand your business gesture though. It is recession-proof position where you live a descent life by selling crap.
Did it ever happen to you to ask yourself a simple rational question?
‘If after decades of feminism rulings in Canadian courts and all the steps taken by law and police and law maker to an extent that all it needs to have a man arrested and eliminated from the family is a 911 call, still you believe in what you say about DV and the murder rate, then isn’t that obvious that the feminists have miserably failed in addressing and solving the issue? What it takes for a policy to be considered as failed when it does not produce the result after decades of swallowing billions of dollars?’

May 16, 2009 at 5:15 am

Paul M. Clements

Mz. Ogle proves the point of fathers rights activists whom she goes to such lengths to disparage. It is the accepted norm for media to publish diatribes and mis-information such as this article without questioning or fact checking, and without seeking rebuttal opinions from the opposite side. That’s one of the facts that make fathers upset and angry, and prompts them to speak out against the outrageous discrimination we face. Mz.Ogle was given much space in this magazine to spew her malicious and venomous lies. Fathers, if they’re lucky, might get the equivalent of a “letter to the editor”. Certainly not an equal amount of ink, space, and time to rebut all her lies.
To begin with, editors and readers should ask why, if women were as oppressed and put upon as Mz. Ogle would have us believe, there are so many fathers rights groups, and only a scarce few women’s groups complaining about inequality and unfairness? Could it be that women really don’t have much to complain about?

The cause of Mz.Ogle’s angst can be seen in her comment that fathers’ groups “have adopted the language of “equal rights” and resistance to oppression, but wield these terms in defence of traditional ideas of fatherhood and male privelege.” In other words, father’s groups are using the same words and concepts as feminism, and that outrages feminists. Not much equality there, is there? They feel, apparently, that what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Ogle mentions a government study on custody and access, disparaging the opportunity for fathers to have their grievances heard. But, Ogle misses the most important point of her own diatribe. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE WERE COMPLETELY IGNORED! A government minister overruled the results of a nationwide study in favor of entitlements for women. Proving, of course, that fathers’ complaints about government bias against fathers were valid.

Ogle goes on to opine that a strict formal equality approach in marital cases is detrimental to women. She argues for a “substantive” approach, which would continue the preferential treatment accorded women. She argues that women suffer more, economically, from divorce, ignoring research which shows that divorced women actually prosper more than the fathers. She further decries a reduction in legal aid offered to women (but never to men), but ignores studies that show that mothers get custody in more than 90% of cases, and a hefty child support cheque as well. Who needs legal aid, when the courts are known to be that biased against fathers?
In typical feminazi style, Ogle brings domestic violence into the equation. Of course, she totally ignores violence against men, pretending that violence is something only women suffer, and always at the hands of a man. Combining two concepts, Ogle wants “substantive equality” provided to any women who lodges a false complaint of abuse (as most have been shown to be). Even feminist lawyers have publicly agreed that most complaints of violence occur during proceedings for divorce and custody.

Ogle admits that “even when joint custody decisions are made, children are typically cared for by the mother.” That’s because “joint custody” usually means “joint LEGAL custody”, a term that is meaningless for the father. The mother still gets sole residenial custody, and the equal sharing of responsibilities is lost by the wayside. Ogle is trying to confuse the reader by insinuating that “joint” custody means and equals “SHARED PHYSICAL CUSTODY”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ogle also believes that mothers should get sole custody because they do most of the child care and housework, including taking time off from a job to care for sick children. However, she neglects to credit dad for providing transportation for the kids, or time spent playing with them, helping with homework, repairing their toys, or reading to them. Her idea of housework are all the indoor chores, such as cleaning an cooking. She completely ignores dad’s work on car maintenance, plumbing and electrical repairs, house painting, raking, snow shoveling, and all the other “male” jobs that allow mom and the kids a comfortable and safe home.

Ogle then discusses changes in Aussie and British law, and disengenuously hints that those changes involve “shared parenting”. She lets the cat out of the bag, however, by admitting that those plans allowed each parent to “keep their pre-separation roles and responsibilities”. Those intact family roles generally have the father as breadwinner, and mother as homemaker and child carer, BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT. So, what she fails to say is that those changes weren’t much change at all. Mother was given custody, and Dad was reduced to breadwinner for a family he was no longer a part of, and no longer benefited from. It’s no wonder that the supposed changes had not reduced conflict or litigation. It’s actually funny, in a way. Feminists, like Mz. Ogle, created entitlements for women, at men’s expense, and now are complaining that those entitlements are actually detrimental to women. Reading between the lines, one would suspect that Mz. Ogle would like to make men return to their lost homes to change diapers, do the ironing, cleaning, home repairs, etc, in addition to providing half his income to the mother in a Communistic “TRANSFER OF WEALTH” scheme.

Mz. Ogle goes on to accuse fathers’ rights activist of trying to “bully” a supposed mens support group. The group bills itself as “Male Positive”, so it’s no wonder they get “flooded” by phonecalls, emails, and faxes from fathers ” voicing anger at everything from the courts to womens’ violence against men.” Agencies supporting men and fathers are both scarce and needed. A phonecall from an abused man looking for help is not “bullying”.
The real purpose of Mz. Ogle’s diatribe against men and fathers comes out when she discusses FUNDING for feminist groups. She decries the loss of government funding for these agencies, while (almost comically) admitting to the reason. She makes it clear that these agencies are more about gender politics than violence prevention. They provide no services for abused males, and won’t even allow mens groups to participate in discussions of violence prevention. The funding was lost because the groups discriminate against men. The attempts of the fathers rights groups to END the discrimination was, apparently, terrifying to the feminists, who derive huge financial and political profits from such agencies.

Bruce Wood, of the Saskatoon Men’s Resource Centre is again quoted, saying, in effect, that men suffer grief, sadness, and anger after divorce, and need to be heard and helped to heal, not to “have their anger fed like a fire for political lobbying purposes.” But isn’t that exactly what he does by supporting the adversaries of men? Ogle did describe his group as “pro-feminist” and “gay affirmative”. And Wood himself admits that his groups’ uwillingness to support and deliver comprehensive education for adult men, is a significant contributing factor in our failure to reduce the rate of violence against women.” So, although he presents his group as “male positive”, when a man reaches out for help, he finds this is just an adjunct to a gay/feminist support group. Once again, the divorced father is made to feel put upon, mistreated, ignored, and trivialized. Not exactly a good way to reduce violence.

Ogle ends her piece by repeating her ideology of “lifeboat feminism”. She would have us believe that it is somehow wrong for men to adopt the “equality language” of feminism in their own quest for equality. Good for the goose, not for the gander. She seems to be suggesting that feminist superiority is actually “equality”, and that father’s rights is a criminal endeavor requiring opposition and oppression.

May 16, 2009 at 7:50 am

Denis Pakkala

Quoted references taken from
CHILD CUSTODY, ACCESS AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE SEARCH FOR A JUST AND EQUITABLE STANDARD
Edward Kruk, December 2008
http://www.fira.ca/cms/documents/179/April7_Kruk_Summary.pdf

“Research is clear that children fare best in post-separation relationships in which they maintain meaningful routine parental relationships with both of their parents beyond the constraints of a ‘visiting’ or ‘access’ relationship, in which they are shielded from destructive parental conflict, and in which they are protected, to the highest degree possible, from a marked decline in their standard of living. Contrary to current practice and dominant socio-legal discourse in Canada, when parents disagree over living arrangements of their children after separation, new evidence suggests that these conditions are best achieved by means of a legal shared parental responsibility presumption, defined as children spending at least 40 per cent of their time with each parent. The current framework of sole custody in contested cases is associated with high rates of father (and sometimes mother) absence, increased inter-parental conflict, and a marked reduction in children’s standard of living.

A child-focused analysis of child custody determination must also include a careful consideration of the issues of child abuse and family violence, which warrants against a ‘one shoe fits all’ approach, even though the majority of contested cases of child custody, including high-conflict cases, do not involve the type of “intimate terrorism” necessitating the removal of a parent (as a routine parent) from a child’s life via sole custody. Contrary to current practice and dominant socio-legal discourse, children are not shielded from post-separation violence and abuse by means of sole custody. Although it is clear that shared parental responsibility is contraindicated in cases of established family violence, research shows that inter-parental conflict increases with court-mandated sole physical custody in cases with no previous violence, as fully half of first-time battering occurs after separation. New research evidence makes clear that inter-parental conflict decreases within a shared parental responsibility custody arrangement, as neither parent is threatened by the loss of the children and parental identity. The current framework of primary residential custody in disputed custody cases, contrary to dominant discourse, exposes both parents and children to violence”
…
“Sole maternal custody often leads to parental alienation and father absence, and father absence is associated with negative child outcomes”

“Children of divorce want equal time with their parents and consider shared parenting to be in their best interests”

“A recent meta-analysis of the major North American studies comparing sole and joint physical custody arrangements has shown that children in joint custody arrangements fare significantly better on all adjustment measures than children who live in sole custody arrangements (Bauserman, 2002).”

“Inter-parental conflict decreases over time in shared custody arrangements, and increases in sole custody arrangements. Inter-parental cooperation increases over time in shared custody arrangements, and decreases in sole custody arrangements.”

“Both U.S. and Canadian research indicates that mothers and fathers working outside the home now spend comparable amounts of time caring for their children”

May 16, 2009 at 11:29 am

Wes Wojtowicz

I am one of many men falsely accused of committing all imaginable family crime. I have been reported to police about 40 times during last three years; none of the allegations resulted in any charges due to lack of evidence of wrongdoing. However, as a result of those false allegations I was thrown out of my house, business and separated from my children for months in violation of not only common sense but, also, in violation of my Charter rights. On the other hand, the court(three judges) ignored evidence of abuse inflicted on my little son by his mother. Now, I find it very difficult to believe a woman alleging abuse, unless, there is very strong evidence and the allegations do not produce financial gain for her and her attorney. She’ll never be held accountable for her words in court, they will pretend that they believe her and extort from a man huge amount of money for legal fees necessary to “defend” himself and keep from jail. This is an extortion racket perpetuated with help from feminists such Deanna Ogle.

HOW FAMILY COURTS CONTRIBUTE TO FAMILY DESTRUCTION:

DADS ON THE AIR

www.dadsontheair.net

Local Sydney Time: 10.30am to 12 midday Tuesday 5th May 2009
USA Eastern time: 8.30pm to 10pm Monday 4th May 2009
USA Pacific time: 5.30pm to 7pm Monday 4th May 2009
UK GMT time: 12.30am to 2am Monday night (Tuesday morning) 4th May 2009

2GLF FM 89.3 in Sydney
and ONLINE via live streaming at http://www.893fm.com.au
or in MP3 format at http://www.dadsontheair.net

HOW FAMILY COURTS CONTRIBUTE TO FAMILY DESTRUCTION:

With special guest:

"Diana"

This week we present a compelling interview with a separated Australian mother of three, whose ex-husband successfully resorted to all the malicious tools available to BOTH parents under the Family Justice system. Her appalling experience as a victim of the system will resonate with many fathers, as statistically these very same tactics are mostly used by mothers in order to separate fathers from their children. “Diana”, not her real name, because we’re prevented by law from using her real name, describes in great detail how her ex-husband was able to use false child sex abuse allegations and take out an AVO against her, in order to separate her from her children, safe in the knowledge he would not be punished as a result of his perjury.

Our Prime Minister made it known in no uncertain terms recently, that “those that trade on the tragedy of others should rot in jail” and in fact “should rot in hell”. In his view, those that do so, “are engaged in the world’s most evil trade and represent the absolute scum of the earth... the lowest form of life”.

Well Mr Rudd, we have a whole industry trading on the tragedy of others, who have done so with the blessing of successive Australian Governments for the past 35 years. This industry has wreaked absolute havoc and destroyed millions of lives during its long reign of terror against separating parents and their children, yet hardly a whisper of concern is raised by our legislators.

This week’s program exemplifies much of what is wrong with a morally bankrupt Family Justice system which systematically fails both parents and their children, and raises a lot of questions as to why it has been allowed to flourish unimpeded for 35 years.

Alarm bells have been ringing loud and clear for more then 30 years about how easy it is for separating parents to subvert the course of justice in a perjury-friendly Family Justice System.

This week’s program again illustrates how easy it is for both responsible fathers and mothers to be separated from their children when a malicious, vindictive ex-partner decides to make use of false child sex abuse and domestic violence allegations, in order to obtain valuable time to set in motion the insidious Parental Alienation process, which turns children against their own family.

The Family Justice System, by turning a blind eye to perjury and awarding primary custody to only one parent, provides a fertile breeding ground for this situation to flourish. Cut off from rational alternative points of view, these children are programmed to turn against the very people who love them and are able to provide a healthy balance to their life during their formative childhood years. As a consequence, effectively stifling their chances of growing into well balanced and emotionally stable adults.

It is no accident that so many of our children are acting out in anger at having been abandoned in a hostile environment by a society which forces them to have to deal alone, with complex problems they can’t possibly comprehend or resolve. Sadly, many of these vulnerable unfortunate children are growing up with perverse views and opinions which are based on a distorted perception of reality, forced upon them by a disturbed dysfunctional adult.

The question has to be asked of all those engaged in the Family Justice Industry and their supporters who are busily “trading on the tragedy of others”, which part of the words "Justice" and "Equality" they have so much trouble with?

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DADS ON THE AIR, CLICK HERE.

‘Never again’ father weds second time ~ Matt O'Connor

‘Never again’ father weds second time

5:50am Saturday 2nd May 2009

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4337586.___Never_again____father_weds_second_time/

‘Never again’ father weds second time

THE founder of Fathers 4 Justice will wed his partner of four years today after vowing “never again” to get married.

Matt O’Connor, from Winchester, will marry Nadine Taylor, pictured, from Romsey, at Romsey Abbey.

They will wear handcuffs as a sign of their campaigning past and their commitment to each other.

The pair, who have a three-year-old son, Archie, first met at a Fathers 4 Justice meeting in Southampton, in February, 2005.

Matt founded the organisation in 2002 after divorce led to him losing contact with his two sons.

He said: “I never imagined I’d meet anyone in an organisation full of big, ugly blokes like me, let alone get married to one of them. I had vowed never again, but we have learnt the value of commitment and marriage. I guess it’s what you would call wedlock.”