One thing is crystal clear on this site., They feel like they are oppressed by something. If it is someone with a union mentality then is fat cat corporations and if its a victim feminist it is patriarchal oppression. In the case of Dufresne he is a long standing victim feminist who gets off defending perceived victims and deriding his own gender and he has obviously got serious problems probably associated with major daddy issues. He is one of the most self loathing men (I assume he has a penis) I have come across.
What is transparent though with the rhetoric from the siege mentality of those on this site that 'its not about the best interests of children. Its about the best interest of victim feminists and their entitlements. I could do a fairly in depth psychological assessment of these commentators but I won't. Most appear to be ideologues with very entrenched notions and in many cases, especially Dufresne, its a little like extreme religious indoctrination. It totally consumes him.
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 12463
Joined: Dec 24 2005
July 19, 2009 - 1:46pm
People concerned with women's and children's rights would do well to warn their MP of a private Bill designed by advocates of what they call a « presumptive equal parenting » upon divorce.
Bill C-422, fashioned by Conservative MPs Maurice Vellacott and Steven Blaney - with the support of Liberal MP Raymonde Folco, is a new version of Motion M-483, which died on the agenda during a previous session.
It is aimed at what the proponents are calling an "overall bias" favouring women in divorce and child custody law. (No mention is made of the available statistics as to whom actually does the parenting before separation and whom commits to doing it after it.) This private bill is really about enthroning male entitlement, ending child support and imposing paternal authority.
Ignoring the reality of domestic violence - the main reason for divorce today - and criteria such as parental skills and demonstrated commitment, features NOT equally shared in most divorcing couples*, this law "would make it mandatory for two parents who are divorcing to discuss with either a mediator or a judge how they would divide the time with the children," said Folco to a Laval newspaper, adding that "equal parenting means that 50 per cent of the time a child would be with one parent and 50 per cent with the other."
The lobby behind this one-size-fits-all fathers' rights bill is the "Canadian Equal Parenting Council," and includes the obnoxious Fathers for Justice organization of Batmen and Spidermen-garbed media darlings.
"Men in Canada need to quite literally start protecting themselves from the flawed family law system," an anonymous spokesman from Fathers for Justice said in a statement supportive of Bill C-422.
The Canadian Equal Parenting Council claims support from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, quoting a 2002 book where he called unspecified shared parenting legislative changes « sensible and overdue suggestions ».
As for the Bloc Québécois, F4J accuses it of favouring women. It rants, on its website: « It's time for Mr. Duceppe to step away from the dark side and stand behind equal parenting... »
Source : « Private bill for 'equal parenting' goes on Parliament's order ». Martin C. Barry, The Laval News, July 15, 2009.
Background : http://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/canada-equal-parenting-bill-c...
http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/2003%20MV%20Speaks/June%2017,%202009%20-%20Backgrounder%20for%20EP%20press%20conf.%20press%20kit.pdf
Feminist critiques of « presumptive equal parenting » - such as that penned by Gatineau sociologist Denyse Côté in "La garde partagée: l'équité en question" (Éditions du remue-ménage, 2000, 202 p.) - can be found on various web sites, such as The Liz Library. This material amply documents that not all equal-custody claims are justified or respectful of the children's best interests. Most family court judges are aware of this, but the anti-feminist lobby goes on trying to force their hands, via conservative politicians.
For instance, The Ontario Women's Justice Network offers a detailed analysis of a good 2001 Supreme Court decision in the custody case between Kimberly Van de Perre and Theodore and Valerie Edwards, here.
Please remain aware of this issue, and don't let the patriarchalists pull the wool over your MP's eyes.
____________________________________________
* In The Canadian Family in Crisis (2003), John Frederick Conway wrote : « ...the anti-feminist men's movement has won some victories but they have not been total... it failed to win the imposition of compulsory joint custody... joint custody must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and situations of marriage breakdown that include domestic violence, addictions to drugs and/or alcohol, and psychological abuse ought not to involve joint custody, co-parenting provisions. » This caveat gets short shrift in C-422.
Mike Murphy
is
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 18073
Joined: Jul 25 2009
July 25, 2009 - 11:25am (new)
#85
(permalink)
Mr. Dufresne:
I want to impart some facts with respect to divorce in Canada, with some reference to other countries similarly predisposed to treating dads in a negative manner and to help you with your references and lack of citations.
Firstly not all divorces in Canada end due to Domestic Violence. This is an unfounded, non-scientific observation. In our country Intimate Partner Violence is pretty much equal. Here is a quote from Stats Can: "Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005. 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". http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm
Domestic Violence is serious problem but it is not gender specific. It is a family problem that needs a new paradigm to resolve. You may wish to read Dr. Don Dutton's scientific observations here Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf on the relationship of gender and DV.
Dr. Dutton, from UBC, is Canada's foremost researcher on this matter and is sought and cited the world over for his work.
You may also want to have a look at this link http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm which is REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY by Martin S. Fiebert , Department of Psychology California State University, Long Beach. This is the largest bibliography of its kind and current to May of this year.
In Canada 75% of all marriages are terminated unilaterally by the wife. Not because of DV but for a host of reasons. In the USA it is 66% and in OZ about 70%. My research shows part of the reason is the wife thinks there are greener pastures and that magical, mysterious long awaited prince charming is coming along to sweep her off her feet. This does not happen as second marriages and co-habitations end at a far greater rate than the first ones which combined run about 50% in Canada and the USA. Cohabitations have greater frailty and end in far greater numbers than do marriages.
Many studies show that children having both parents in their lives on an ongoing basis do far better on many social outcomes than if dad is marginalized to the standard 14% visitation of two weekends a month. Professor Edward Kruk's research at UBC shows children need a 40% contact with each parent to maintain a parent-child bond. Fourteen percent is not in a child's best interest. You can view the PDF summary of his study on Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility here: http://www.fira.ca/cms/documents/179/April7_Kruk_Summary.pdf
Dr. Kruk shows the legal system must be child focussed and take into account the many developmental needs of children. He also demonstrates a child-focused analysis of child custody determination contradicts your assertion of high conflict divorce as follows: " … 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."
Many studies show the positive social outcomes for children with active involvement by both parents and many show the negative outcomes for children in single parent homes. These are largely matriarchal homes. In Canada, according to Stats Can in 2004 custody went to the mother in about 90% of all cases whether contested or not. Your non-cited assertion of Fathers winning 55-70% of contested cases in this country is just plain not supported by any research. The number is very small at around 7%. Joint custody is the manner in which judges spread bread crumbs to dad by giving physical custody to the mom. About 8% to the dad in sole custody.
The 2004 table looks like this: total custody cases 31, 764, custody to dad 2,558, to the wife 14,309, joint 14,773. The rest were a small number to others not the mom or dad or not known.
We'll calculate a minuscule amount for cooperative shared/equal parenting which currently exists through agreement by very unselfish parents who do have the child's best interest at heart and works fine. My 11 year old, although not yet in a legal shared/equal parenting relationship, has no trouble with the transitions but it is important, where possible to ensure they keep the same friends and of course school.
I would recommend you do more research related to your articles. It will improve your credibility and I do suggest going beyond the Liz Library. It is the largest single compendium of male hatred on the internet and not overly scientific or unbiased.
The focus must be on the child. Unselfish parents with the best interest of the children in mind will be able to work this out. Several European countries have this in place with Belgium having one of the most emphatic mechanisms for children to stay in the lives of both parents. Interestingly this was brought into law by a Feminist Government Minister who wanted her husband to be equal. Isn't that what Feminism was about back in the good old days - equality.
Mike Murphy
Thanks martin, but I suspect few here are interested.
I am more optimistic than that. Many of us have seen children in horrific family conflict situations, and can understand how catastrophic it would be to let Vellacott and his FR cronies impose 50-50 shared custody and no child support on any person seeking divorce.
It is particularly interesting in the light of a court system that rewards those who have more money to spend on lawyers. Yep-- looks like men never really did lose that much of an advantage anyway.
Nevermind that, men have other advantages in tending to have more money. They have advantages in using the money to control the home and in using money after divorce to help ensure access. And some of this is not all bad-- after all one who pays support ought to be expecting more access than a deadbeat. One who pays support earns goodwill with the custodial parent as well and therefore more cooperation-- not always but often enough especially in those families that do not go to court to rip themselves up when they can't live together. Let us never forget that money has an advantage and that men still generally have that advantage so the whole fiction about men having no advantages in family court is dangerous since if we remove the advantages women have that tend to level things, then men will have an overwhealming advantage.
If people here are not interested-- they should be with a high divorce rate it is in the interest of children that people see this power grab for what it is.
As for the practice of women getting custody-- usually that is because they earned it throughout the building of the relationship with the children. And the court is obliged given a child first bias to consider that. In order to allow a so-called equal parent right option or father's rights consideration we would have to undo the child-first doctrine of family court. Do we really want to go there????
Unfortunately we are already there and in spades, Sean in Ottawa.
If I may comment on your very appropriate post, where you write "As for the practice of women getting custody-- usually that is because they earned it throughout the building of the relationship with the children", I wish this was true but genrally when women get custody, it is because men aren't asking for it, have disappeared or are blatantly lethal (and even then...).
And where you write "after all one who pays support ought to be expecting more access than a deadbeat", the twist is that by demanding 50% access, the fathers' lobby actually hopes to terminate men's child support obligations, even though the law stipulates an equalizing of parents' contributions according to their income, in the children's interest. They try to get women to sign away such entitlement in divorce agreements and make these binding without having to be cleared with the Court.
I don't disagree with what you say Martin-- I am making the point that money does make a difference.
I should have added that a lot of cases men are not interested- but was speaking more of contested cases since uncontested cases are not usually at issue. That women have the advantage in many contested cases has to do with the interests of the child and what they have put it. This of course does not contradict your comment about uncontested situations.
Those who pay child support include those who want their children to have the money they need- but in many other cases it is to ensure access. Just another example of money providing advantage. Still the issue of 50% custody end-running support is worrisome- especially as it is a bogus argument. Two households must be maintained and the one with the lower income will need almost as much support for a 50% custody situation as a 100% custody situation-- only a small amount of food makes that difference-- the idea that income between parents who live apart must be to some degree equalized remains regardless of whether custody is exclusive or not. That said the other parent also has to bear the costs of a home. Some parents have to learn the hard way that having custody can be an incredible pleasure but not an economic windfall. The courts hopefully will take a balanced view when considering this-- even if the father's rights groups don't get it.
That women have the advantage in many contested cases has to do with the interests of the child and what they have put it.
Fathers win 55-70% of contested cases.what do you call contested? The ones the fathers fight in court or including the ones the fathers don't fight because they don't have a chance-- because the mothers have the relationship with the children to win.I would include the ones the fathers go to a lawyer and are told not to bother. Most court cases are situations where one side has misread the situation as most are somewhat predictable. With better legal advice and money, the men are less likely to misread the situation.
I think the stats can go back and forth and I don't think we disagree-- when custody is contested-- the women have a lot of advantages but as you point out in the end money is the bigger advantage. Men will seldom go to court if they do not have something that can help them win-- but that does not mean they should win-- that something could be financial advantage, allegations that may or may not be baseless etc.
I suspect that where the women have equal abilities to mount a legal case financially, the numbers would go in their favour. All this supports the premise that I made which essentially supports the initial statement of concern you posted while still showing money makes a difference.
I realize you feel we are on the same side of this issue, but I feel it's important to gauge just how bad the situation is so allow me po pick at a few of your statements:
what do you call contested? The ones the fathers fight in court
Yes
or including the ones the fathers don't fight because they don't have a chance
or because they can't be bothered to impede "turning a new leaf"
-- because the mothers have the relationship with the children to win.
Fathers often win even when the mothers have the relationship with the children to win.
-I would include the ones the fathers go to a lawyer and are told not to bother.
That characterization is a FR myth and the stats prove it. Lawyers know how easy it is to win unsupervised access if not custody for just about any man , however incompetent or dangerous as a parent, if he applies the right amount of money, supportive testimonials and salgging Mom.
... I don't think we disagree-- when custody is contested-- the women have a lot of advantages but as you point out in the end money is the bigger advantage.
So women DON'T have lots of advantages.
I suspect that where the women have equal abilities to mount a legal case financially, the numbers would go in their favour.
Yes, and "if Blacks had lighter skin"... I think such a statement evades the issue: it seems central to this contest that women do NOT have equal financial capability, mostly because they are the ones sacrificing financial opportunities to care for the children, ensuring that unless they are lucky or the guy demurs, they stand a better than average chance of losing custody.
And things will be much worse for them of the Grits discreetly support C-422, so please, folks, share your concern with your local candidates.
I agree with all that you say except the part about the so-called FR myth. I would not underestimate the value of representation not just in court but in how to manage what goes to court.
I agree money is the bigger advantage and in the legal system I would caution you against trying to use stats without recognizing how that works.
If the men have the money and think that they would not do as well in court then they will use the high priced lawyer for a better forum -- a settlement conference and there get what they could not get in court. The skill to understand and control a legal case will deliver many advantages.
I made the point that in some areas women have the advantage but that money is trumping this. My point is if you focus on an advantage women have (even the stronger cultural presumption of a child being better off with the mother than the father) and level the playing field you will be tilting it severely against women if you do not recognize the role money is playing.
Money turns these cases into a minefield-- if they go to court the high priced lawyer will win- but if you think that you might win-- they will settle and get you in the settlement conference what they cannot in the court.
I am not saying men don't have the ultimate advantage-- what I am saying is those precious advantages women have if they are somehow compensated for as FR groups argue, then the cold hard cash will win-- as it almost always does now.
I don't think that it serves the argument to say that women have no strong cards because they do and people are aware of them. It it serves the cause better to make clear that there are other cards the women rarely hold that will trump those. That is the direction I have been following.
Yes, I do think we are on the same side. The difference is perhaps a tactic of logic. I acknowledge the few advantages women have that we all know about and show how theya re still nothing compared to what is stacked against them while you seek to establish that women in the end have no advantage. In the end, when all is considered, you are right but it may not be the best way to put it I think. This especially since FR groups point to things like apparent cultural bias that should advantage women but gets overwhealmed by the elephant in the room -- the money. I prefer to acknowledge the social bias (that in some countries works, along with the money in the opposite direction), and then point to how it is not near enough to level the field.
Again, I think these are tactics in argument not significant differences.
So if family court judges shouldn't start with the assumption that custody will be shared, what assumption should they start with? Something more fair, like mom gets the kids 99% of the time and dad gets 99% of the bills? Something like that?
I find it hilarious that you're actually arguing against something as obvious as the assumption that both parents are important to a child (in ways other than ze munnee). Horrors!!
Gee Snert, do you really expect us to take your catankerous "contribution" seriously or is this just a running snipe shot and you'll crawl back in the woodwork? Why do you want judges to proceed on assumptions, rather than on an examination of the evidence and of people's abilities, wishes and rights? If you really want to be helpful, try convincing men - before divorce - that both parents are important, instead of trying to justify carving out even more entitlement for them, regardless of merits...
No Snert I am arguing that the so-called rights of the parents (in this case fathers) should not displace the rights of the child in such cases--
The assumption that is reasonable is the court is to decide what is the best custody arrangement for the child and then back that up with an order on support.
To link the money to the custody or have some formula based on an assumption of father's rights is a trip backward and very dangerous.
Does that help clarify things for you?
My understanding is that that's exactly what they'll do. Specifically, I see this as an "onus" issue. Should we assume that only mothers can be good parents until the facts of the situation show otherwise, or should we assume that both parents can be good parents until the facts of the situation show otherwise?
Not even slightly.
I love how this is about "fathers' rights". Just like homosexuals who want to marry are after some kind of "gay rights". No, not just normal rights or equal right, but special, scary rights!
Anyway, judges are certainly free to, say, award sole custody to the mother if dad is an incompetent parent. That's not enough for you? The judge should have to start with some assumption that dad's incompetent, and let dad prove otherwise??
First of all, child support under the current system would mean that the 50/50 shared custody would balance based on HOUSEHOLD income.
Parent A grosses 25K
Parent B grosses 45K, plus their partners additional 20K
Table values of 25K vs 65K means parent B would be on the hook to pay the owed difference to parent A on 40K worth of income. They have recalc services; these cost less than court dates, and hardship cases can be heard. Keep in mind, court is the END of the road. There are numerous stages in between. Have you ever attended a FTSOTC course? Perhaps you should educate yourself before frothing at the mouth about abuse and the politics of men vs. women.
As to the rights of the CHILD - they were born to two parents - and THEY are entitled to both regardless of living arrangements. This has nothing to do with agendas and vendettas. Most divorces do not end due to abuse - some are for the good of both parties. Claiming that one parent is more/less safe based on a chromosome is ridiculous; as a parent I have things to offer my child that his other parent can/does not.
The fact of the matter is, it took two to tango, and if the court correctly says "50% access unless good reason is given" it means that it will discourage people from trying to use child access as a weapon to hurt the other party.
I guess this latest contribution clarifies the extent to which Father-Right lobby rhetoric and hostility to mothers is very much the driving force behind Mr. Vellacott's private bill.
Yep
martin, why do you think mothers should always get custody as a default regardless of the facts of the case? I agree that they should when there is abuse, neglect, etc. (And we all know that there is a MUCH larger percentage of fathers who have no interest whatsoever in their children as compared to mothers). But if there is a divorce occuring for mutual reasons (or even infidelity) - just two people who are not in love anymore and don't want to argue/be unhappy in front their children, why should the father not get equal custody rights as a default?
You do realize that there are custody cases involving two fathers - ie gay couples. Do you propose giving the birth mother custody in these cases as well?
Ya. Equal parenting can only be the result of hostility and rhetoric. Fathers For Justice pulled a Jedi mind trick on all of us.
That's gotta be it. And thanks so much for your usual smear.
Ignoring the reality of domestic violence - the main reason for divorce today -
If this is true, I would like to see the source for it, because it's not been my experience. BTW the bill is garbage. The only consideration should be the best interests of the children. If both parents are fit, then it might be that the best interests of a child might include maximal time with each parent. Or not. Every family's different, this kind of presumption would make it harder for a judge to tailor a custody arrangement that suits the child and reflects the reality of the family.
What does that even mean? Again I would be interested in the source.
I guess this latest contribution clarifies the extent to which Father-Right lobby rhetoric and hostility to mothers is very much the driving force behind Mr. Vellacott's private bill.
Is that addressed to stepped on? Because it's the argument I would use against the so-called fathers' rights jerks. Most of the time, judges DO consider 50/50 as departure point. All codifying a presumption does is reward the unfit.
(and even though I was asking for sources, I don't have any to give except, again, my own experience)
It would be fairer than the current presumption which is that kids belong with their mother unless there are extraordinary circumstances suggesting otherwise.
As I understand it, the bill only follows from a joint House-Senate report called "For the Sake of the Children", which explicitly recommends adopting a presumption of shared parenting because that's in the best interest of children.
Thing is, you have to assume something, and I think the assumption that women are "natural caregivers and parents" is so long-ingrained in us that we can't reasonably say "let's not assume anything at all".
And really, this is nothing more than "Employment Equity" for fathers. The law doesn't state that they MUST receive any particular level of custody, just that they have to be presumed capable and given a fair shake. I find it fascinating that people are arguing against that. Presumably the assumption that mothers are better than fathers is a more progressive one or something??
No such presumption exists.
Ghislaine asked: "martin, why do you think mothers should always get custody as a default regardless of the facts of the case?..."
I don't. Please point out where I suggested I did.
What I actually support is, in matters of contested child custody, a presumption in support of the person who has been (and usually will remain) the primary caretaker when there was/is one (almost all cases). In some cases, this primary caretaker is the biological father. In most cases, it's Mom, but it can be someone else (mother's new partner, even nanny (Michael Jackson's children).
"...I agree that they should when there is abuse, neglect, etc. "
Sometimes it's the mother who is abusive. And social service agencies routinely accuse women of neglect (almost never fathers, strangely). Men also do so, sometimes, in order to wrest custody, and they easily win, even when they have had little caretaking experience.
All these important distinctions are obscured in Vellacott's proposed legislation, that would create instant entitlement for biological fathers - whatever their skills - and would give them an unfair advantage in negotiations with anyone trying to protect the children's interests.
No such presumption exists.
Oh, I disagree. The most common arrangement seems to be kids live the mother, father gets access one day a week plus every second weekend. And I know fathers who after stating their wish to be the primary parent were advised by their lawyer "Don't even bother trying." There's a clear bias in favour of mothers.
"Most common arrangements" do not necessarily reflect bias. They generally reflect pre-divorce arrangements (or fait accompli ) between parents, e.g. Mom is left to do most of the parenting work. When the parenting has been equalitarian, breakups are generally less common and less adversarial, and joint custody is usually consensual. In short, most couples agree to leave things as is after separation or divorce. When they don't - and this can be for many other reasons than the child's best interests - lawyers and sometimes judges assess who has been doing the parenting and whether there are valid reasons - other than daddy's fat wallet - to change what has been the status quo.
In the same way that no such presumption as "the white job candidate is better than the black job candidate" exists.
(Firstly, are you talking about shared parenting or equal custody?) Anyway, by extension, it creates a presumption that in all circumstances, maximum contact with both parents is in the best interest of all children. This is not the case even in the majority of cases. Presumptions have to be overcome. The analysis becomes about the parent, instead of the childen. This is unacceptable to me.
Again, the parent-centred reasoning.
I think you know as much about employment equity as you know about family law.
You fail at analogies.
This is parent-centred reasoning too.
It also creates an entitlement for mothers, and as you've pointed out, there's no monopoly on unsuitability.
In the families that I know, both spouses work full-time and parenting is divided equally. In a divorce, shouldn't this type of family negotiate from a shared starting point?
Added: Sorry, I meant this in response to Martin's
In the same way that no such presumption as "the white job candidate is better than the black job candidate" exists.
Exactly.
I'd like to know what parellel universe this happens in.
The same one this happens:
LMFAO.
I'd like to know what parellel universe this happens in.
Not sure what you're referring to. The typical custody/access arrangement? That occurs very commonly in this universe. The father being advised not to waste his money on a custody application? Also common. I spent years typing up custody and access agreements and orders.
The same one this happens:
LMFAO.
Well, it's not a source of humour to my friends. They take it pretty seriously. This kind of bullying and aggression would count against you in a contested proceeding.
Me: What I actually support is, in matters of contested child custody, a presumption in support of the person who has been (and usually will remain) the primary caretaker when there was/is one (almost all cases). In some cases, this primary caretaker is the biological father. In most cases, it's Mom, but it can be someone else (mother's new partner, even nanny (Michael Jackson's children).
RP:This is parent-centred reasoning too.
I am not sure that it is. It discusses the parents because they are the parties litigating, but this criterion is based on the evidence-based presumption that children will do better if their parenting arrangements are not changed, unless there is good reason to do so.
I: All these important distinctions are obscured in Vellacott's proposed legislation, that would create instant entitlement for biological fathers - whatever their skills - and would give them an unfair advantage in negotiations with anyone trying to protect the children's interests.
RP: It also creates an entitlement for mothers, and as you've pointed out, there's no monopoly on unsuitability.
True for unsuitability, untrue for suitable parents. Taking into account that, in fact, women generally do much more parenting than men, a 50-50 custody presumption strips these mothers and their children of the entitlement to the parenting situation they had established through women's work.
Fathers win 55-70% of contested cases.
That was such a stunning and counter-inuitive statement (besides being downright weird - what does 55-70 even mean?), that I decided to look it up:
After their parents' separation, the vast majority of children live with their mother
Court orders place 80 percent of children under the age of 12 in their mother's care. Seven percent of children are placed in their father's custody and 13 percent of children are covered by what their parents described as a court order for joint physical custody. Interestingly, most children (69 percent) for whom parents had obtained a shared physical custody order actually lived with their mother only. A very small number of children lived under arrangements where care was shared equally: less than 2 percent of children for whom custody orders were obtained and less than 4 percent in other cases.
National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth
The study is admittedly 10 years old. It was conducted by Nicole Marcil-Gratton and Céline Le Bourdais, of the Centre interuniversitaire d'études démographiques at the Université de Montréal / Institut national de la recherche scientifique, and commissioned by the Family, Children and Youth Section of the federal Department of Justice. I don't know if there's a more recent survey, but it would exceedingly hard to believe that these trends have changed in 10 years in favour of fathers.
I completely oppose the "fathers' rights" champions and the social conservative sponsors of such legislation. But you won't get far in combatting it by pulling numbers and facts out of the air.
Maybe it's lawyers changing the goalposts as to what defines a win, e.g. I went for 50/50, should've got nothing, but got weekends. Win!
You are conflating court orders and contested cases, Unionist. When parents agree, there is still need for a court order. If you look only at contested cases, it is a fact that fathers win more often than not... and not for the best of reasons. Also, you are reducing the ambit of the issue to children under 12. Fathers often go for custody and its attendant advantages once the children are educated.*
Also, the fact that women end up doing the work in most joint physical custody cases makes my point that they are often exploited in an arrangement that has ensured paternal power - and often drastically reduced or eliminated support payments, the mother's mobility rights, etc.
*Marcil-Gratton & LeBourdais: "...Older children are more likely to be placed in their father's care or in joint custody arrangements. "
Oh I'm sure they take themselves very seriously and are certain of how much work they do. That's what's so funny about it.
As for the bullying and agressive comment? I'm LMFAO again. What I'm not staying in my place by taking your anecdotes as reality? Laugh at you is bullying?
The reality is that the women do the bulk of caregiving to children and and elderly/ill relatives. Regardless of how many men like to delude themsleves that they do an equal number of hours of household task the numbers don't back up their claims.
So save the garbage about what will happen to me if I'm not meek enough if I ever have the misfourtune to find myself in court it has nothing to do with the thread and it's actually pathetic.
Martin, would you mind providing a cite for that? I'd be really interested in seeing it.
G.Pie would you mind not cherry pick fragments of quotes to further your sexism.
Context is everything.
I said they take their parenting seriously and they do. Why that amuses you I have no idea.
Yes, when it's in response to a simple statement that I know some good and committed fathers.
I agree with you that if you added up all the hours society spends on parenting and caretaking that women are responsible for more of it than men. That does not mean, however, that all men shirk their responsibility. Your impotent rage is inexplicable to me. I merely stated that there exist some families where presumed equal parenting would be an appropriate starting point.
Fixed quote, per your request.
If acknowledging that some men are good fathers and equal and committed parents makes me a sexist, then a sexist I'm happy to be.
This thread hsa mad we reflect on how Ms. C. and I interact with our children. For that, I am grateful.
Not sure if I can find this source online to check but this quote as stated is ambiguous. "Older children are more likely ...." More likely as compared to what? Younger children?
Added: I did find this:
here: http://www.fira.ca/article.php?id=96
I'm not sure about the website (it seems to be from a fathers' rights group) but the numbers quoted certainly align.
Myth -- Family courts are biased against fathers in custody disputes.
Fact: "Despite the powerful stereotypes working against fathers, they are significantly more successful than is commonly believed. The Massachusetts [gender bias] task force, for example, reported that fathers receive primary or joint custody in more than 70 percent of contested cases."
Schafran, Lynn Hecht, "Gender Bias in Family Courts," American Bar Association Family Advocate, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 26
Ruth I. Abrams & John M. Greaney, Report of the Gender Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial Court [of Massachusetts] 62-63 (1983), also citing similar finding from California and other parts of the nation.
Fact: "The various gender bias commissions found that at the trial court level in contested custody cases, fathers won more than half the time. This is especially significant in light of the fact that not only do fathers win more often in court when they take these cases to trial, but also that an overwhelmingly higher percentage of fathers gain primary custody -- by any means -- than were ever the primary caregiver of their children during marriage. Statistically, this dashes the argument that 'only the strongest cases are taken to trial,' and in fact indicates an extraordinary bias against mothers and the value of mothering and mothers' work."
liznote re the more than 40 state gender bias task force reports. Available from the National Judicial Education Program, 9 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013.
Also see: AZ Battered Mothers Testimony Project Report
Also: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html
Warning: This material risks laying waste to a lot of preconceptions, carefully built up over the years by F-R disinformation and conservative media and politicians.
SO PLEASE CIRCULATE IT FREELY!
Not sure if I can find this source online to check but this quote as stated is ambiguous. "Older children are more likely ...." More likely as compared to what? Younger children?
Pretty clearly it means, "more likely than the 7% and 13% figures quoted for under age 12" respectively. It certainly doesn't mean "more likely to be placed in their father's care than in their mother's care". I don't think the study focused on children 12 and older. Here is a more detailed breakdown of custody stats by province and age group under 12 - again, with the caution that these percentages are about 15 years old. "Mother exclusive custody" ranges from 74.5% in the Atlantic Provinces to 87.4% in Québec. "Father exclusive" ranges from 5.3% in the Prairies to 7.2% in Québec and the Atlantic Provinces.
What rage? I'm laughing at you. But if you can't imagine why women might be justifiable enraged by inequality then really, what the are you doing at babble? Trolling? Its also textbook sexist behavior to suggest a woman is irrational enraged when one isn't doing well in an argument- it seems to score points with other boys.
"Here is a more detailed breakdown of custody stats by province and age group under 12."
Again, this is NOT for the contested custody situations, which is what Vellacott's legislation would weigh in to and we are discussing. I am disappointed, Unionist.
The 70% figure is misleading because it clearly states that's where the outcome is primary OR joint custody. In these disputes, joint custody isn't a win, it's a tie. If you include joint custody as a win, then of course fathers are going to "win" over half the time.
Thank you for acknowledging that fathers win more often than not. Call the wresting of joint custody from a woman who doesnt want it "a tie" if you find that "soothing", but for a mother trying to protect what had been her primary caretaking situation from paternal authority, from someone who often becomes a distant foreman calling the shots and dragging her to court whenever he is displeased (I can get anecdotal too...), it's a loss. For all of us, such a presumption would be a step back from acknowledging women's work (Scout's excellent point) and the entitlement that should go with it. And then there is all that male money saved in child support... mais il ne faut pas le dire, right?
American numbers don't mean much here, I mean look at the wide range of differences between provinces, and they all share the same Divorce Act (many of the Family Law Acts are the same, too). American divorce schemes vary wildly from one another, and from Canada's. You know, it wouldn't surprise me for a minute if I learned that there was open bias written write into the statute in favour of the mother getting custody the U.S. Or vice versa or some other crazy thing.
Jesus, Scout, you're getting tiresome. I did not say that women aren't justifiably enraged at inequality. I'm saying that you are unjustifiably enraged at the notion that I know some equal parents. See the subtle difference in those two statements?
I don't know who "one" is here but I do think you are behaving irrationally, yes.
That may well be true but not so in the cases I was referring to. Sure, I guess it's technically possible that the fathers I'm talking about are the only ones.
Actually, no, I didn't comment on parenting skills. I just asserted that they spent equal time and effort.
Simply untrue. Some fathers do their share. Sorry you have such trouble with the concept.
No problem, if we're using that definition of the word. Let's just redefine the word "rich" and then I'll be wealthy. This is great, great news all around.
Some fathers do their share, sure, no one is denying that: it's Vellacott and the FR lobby's presumption that they all do that we are fighting.
For a less simplistic view of the matter, please read Deanna Ogle's excellent "Anger in Action: The politics of "father's rights" in Canada" in the May-June 2009 issue of Briarpatch Magazine.
Your bias is showing, Martin. "From" a woman? It wasn't hers.
How the hell do you measure that anyway?
Actually, that's exactly what Scout seems to be denying.
How the hell do you measure that anyway?
Well, time is pretty easy to measure. We have these clock things now. Effort is more of a nuanced calculation, I concur. Yet we do the best we can.
Actually, that's exactly what Scout seems to be denying.
No one is responsible for your obdurate misreading of posts.
Well, then, since you know so much about the time and effort put in by your friends, and you insinuate that you have measured, enlighten us, who does what work for how long when? What kind of and how much credit does mom get for carrying and/or feeding the babies with her body?
In G.Pie's world, it's not time, it's effort, RP. Like changing a diaper takes ten times more effort if you're a guy...
Read liz in the hyperlinked material above about the notion of "quality time".
Aw, you're right. The fathers are all a bunch of fucking assholes completely useless for everything except paying child support. As you were.
..at least, we want to get 10x more the credit for being so big and egalitarian minded about have done it.
That's not what we're saying G. Pie. Why so irrational?
Okay, for starters, GPie is female.
She is from Vancouver Island as well. And having lived all over BC, Vancouver Island, with out a doubt, in my anecdotal experience, has the highest incidence of actual equal shared parenting responsibilities, that I have ever found anywhere else in this province. So perhaps it is not a stretch for her to have witnessed such amongst her friends. Progressives on VIsland do actually walk the talk, I have found.
Is it predominent? No, not in my opinion, but it is significantly better than other places, I have found.
ETA: Aside from weighting the significant physiological impacts upon a woman's body, as time, and duration of carrying and breast feeding (if said mother does), measuring equal parenting activities is quite easy, RP.
That's not what we're saying G. Pie. Why so irrational?
Okay, that was a good one :)
But I am out of this thread now.
Here I was just going to apologise.
I totally support equal parenting and applaud it wherever I find it - the real thing, not the media image.
But I find it telling that the very worst of fathers (the malignant FR advocates that protect abusers, push men to harass women and to rob children) can so easily coopt good fathers' work to the benefit of bad fathers with legislative tricks such as this presumption.
Sorry for my lip, G.Pie.
It is the centre of my universe, though I recognize it may not be yours. ;)
I agree completely with you about not stopping to pat the "very few" men on the head. Was just making an observation that her observations may be valid in her case as too much time was being spent on that aspect IMV.
In respect to the thread topic, I see this proposed Bill as harmful to women and children and that some men, especially those advocating for it, see it as a way to extend their control and domination of women and children.
Am I wrong in assuming that whatever money a father "saves" by not giving his child's mother money to buy food, he then spends himself, buying food?
Or do kids usually fast when they're with dad?
My brother-in-law and sister-in-law have a contested custody case ongoing, but whenever I see the boys at dad's house, they appear to be eating food, and as my brother-in-law isn't a farmer (nor a food burglar) I guess I assumed he paid for that food, just like mom would have.
Can you explain how dad is getting any kind of a net savings out of custody?? If there's some way he could feed those boys for free, I'd like to pass it on to him.
From the father's perspective, the net saving appears whenever his joint custody situation isn't accompanied by a 50-50 sharing of caretaking time, which is most of the time, according to most sources (including Marcil-Gratton & LeBourdais).
From the mother's perspective, the net loss is clear. Without child support (i.e. parental income-sharing), it can be hellish to try and survive divorce when you will still be caring for the children at least half of the time - and therefore cannot simply rent a studio as fathers often do. Which is why many men use the threat of going for joint custody to stop women from leaving.
It seems you have not bothered reading Deanna Ogle's article. I wish you would.
first of all...
In the same way that no such presumption as "the white job candidate is better than the black job candidate" exists.
Snert don't even go there.
Snert, and G Pie, and our new friend stepped_on, you guys are spouting the same old "fathers rights" crap that gets trotted out whenever these threads pop up, it doesn't bear scrutiny, and you don't know what you're talking about. Do a little homework, and maybe listen to people who've actually done a bit of research.
From what I've seen in my Children's mental heath and CAS days, is that the one who can afford the most lawyerin' does best.
If I would be making any "presumptive assumptions" as an adjudicator in a divorce situation, it would be that I was dealing with a situation that had become inequitable, unbalanced, and fucked up.
That's off limits somehow? I'm not sure I follow. I was giving an example where no official presumption does, or could, exist, but where an unspoken bias keeps that "presumption" alive just the same. We've absorbed, to some degree, the message that a white job candidate is "better" and I think we've also absorbed, to some degree, the message that a female parent is better.
Because I think that shared parenting is a good thing, now I'm in league with F4J? WTF?
Did Martin hack your account? If you're going to accuse people of being "fathers rights advocates" then you're working his corner.
Like the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access? They're the Parliamentary committee whose report strongly recommended this.
Or have they been discredited as "F4J supporters"?
The idea of anyone having rights other than the children in such cases is counterproductive.
There ought to be no assumptions going in other than an examination of what is best for the children.
There are many decisions and texts written about the fact that more contact with both parents is better for children unless there is some reasons for there not to be.
There are many times when the 50-50 ideal is destroyed by the custody battle itself which can force the court to choose between teh parents rather than award joint custody because the paretns are spending too much time poisoning each other.
50-50 custody as an ideal may be fine when both parents live close by but if they don't then the child can't go to one school one week and another the next-- again a decision as to what is best for the child should trump even a 50-50 presumption-- especially when the aprents are unable or unwilling to work to make that presumption workable.
Many parents who split up work out these arrangements themselves- when they don't and have to seek a judgement, there is already a breakdown in the kind of cooperation necessary to have a workable 50-50 arrangemetn between the parents.
Mr. Dufresne, in regards to your original post, I would like to inform you on some things as a separated parent. "Who does the parenting?" Well, that is the reason this bill has been designed. Many poeple (fathers being a large part) are never given the chance to parent, which is why we end up having to spend thousands, sometimes 10's of thousands, to be a part of our children's lives. This money could be used for a college fund, for a better standard of living, for a new car or pretty much anything other than flushing it down the toilet, paying a lawyer. I know I can speak for many people, that have tried to work things out with the other parent, only to be left with tiny amounts of time to spend with their children. If there was any other way to come to an agreement, we'd be all for it.
It has nothing to do with ending child support, although some people's is so unreasonably high that they can barely afford to pay their own basic living expenses.
I don't believe you are aware of the ratio of males that are subjected to domestic violence, compared to that for females. It is almost one to one.
The only reason someone should be denied the right to be a parent to their child, is if they're unfit because they could be a danger to their child. This bill will not allow this.
If you are interested in some "facts", I recommend reading some main points from the government study "For the sake of the children report" that was published over ten years ago. In just a few minutes, you will see why it is so important for both parents to be a part of their children's lives. I won't waste this post stating facts that can be easily read elsewhere, but it shows how much better a chance a child has at pretty much everything while growing up.
I love my daughter and so does the rest of my family and if this bill will give us the chance (and save valuable years for parents that end up separated in the future) to be a larger part in my daughters life, then I am in full support of it.
"I know I can speak for many people..."
You certainly claim to.
I have read, indeed contributed to the "For the Sake of the Children Report" process, and I could tell you how biased this report was because of Co-chairman Roger Gallaway's virulent hostility to women: he actually publicly denounced his Committee's researchers!... Still, the Committee's report did NOT endorse the joint custody presumption that Mr. Vellacott would saddle Canadian women and children with.
Since I have read the document you recommend, how about you take in the ones I hyperlinked to in post #47? Or did you just saunter in here to drop your load of platitudes and disinformation?
"...I don't believe you are aware of the ratio of males that are subjected to domestic violence, compared to that for females. It is almost one to one..."
Give us a break.
Snert, you're wrong. What Vellacott is proposing is a 50-50 joint custody presumption, the kind that would allow men to shirk child support obligations..
Here is what the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access wrote in its Final Report about that formula, and why they didn't endorse the FR lobby's demand:
"(...)many witnesses, including individual fathers, fathers' groups and shared parenting advocates, recommended strongly that the act be amended to include a presumption in favour of joint physical custody, meaning an arrangement in which children would spend roughly equal amounts of time with each parent and where decision making would also be shared. Its proponents argued that such a presumption would be the best means of levelling the playing field or overcoming any unfair advantage women might have in disputes about parenting arrangements because of gender bias. Others thought it would increase the significance of the parenting roles played by fathers after divorce, to the ultimate advantage of their children.
The Committee was interested in testimony about the benefits of joint custody, for both parents and children, when it is agreed to voluntarily and works effectively. This type of arrangement generally involves joint decision making by parents, at least respecting important issues such as schooling, religion and medical care, with significant periods of time spent in the care of each parent. There seems to be at least anecdotal evidence to the effect that, with sufficiently mature children, willing parents, and conducive economic circumstances, joint custody offers benefits to children. However, legislation that imposes or presumes joint custody as the automatic arrangement for divorcing families would ignore that this might not be suitable for all families, especially those with a history of domestic violence or of very disparate parenting roles.
Presumptions in favour of joint custody or the primary caregiver have been adopted in a number of U.S. jurisdictions, but in some cases legislatures have subsequently withdrawn them after finding that they were not having the intended desirable effects. Presumptions that any one form of parenting arrangement is going to be in the best interests of all children could obscure the significant differences between families. As Edward Kruk, a professor of social work, warned:
First, because there is so much variation in our society in the way women and men enact their parental roles, any form of "one shoe fits all" approach to child custody, whether that's a joint custody or a primary caretaker presumption, is problematic. Research tells us that children fare best within an arrangement that attempts to approximate as closely as possible the parent-child relationships in the original two-parent home, within as co-operative an atmosphere as possible between the parents. (Meeting #27, Vancouver)
Members of the Committee were warned that advancing any form of presumptive model for parenting after divorce would conflict with the best interests of children. Fundamentally, there is too much variation among families for either presumption to offer a benefit to the aggregate of Canadian children.
In the past, there have been suggestions that a presumption in favour of the primary caregiver or in favour of joint custody would be beneficial. We disagree. It is our view that the courts must retain the discretion to deal with the unique facts of each case. Relying upon a presumption will not assist, whether the presumption is based upon the status quo prior to separation or based upon assuming that parents are equally willing or capable of meeting the needs of their children. In particular, a presumption in favour of joint custody is a presumption in favour of a legal concept, which is extremely elastic. This lack of definition of joint custody is, in our view, sufficient to make such a presumption fruitless. (Angus Schurman, Lawyer, Meeting #30, Halifax)
Presumptions can also have the negative effect of compelling families who might otherwise have been able to make constructive, amicable arrangements to apply to a court if they want to avoid the application of the presumptive form of parenting arrangements. The Committee was asked to consider this unintended consequence by lawyer Daphne Dumont.
Please do not establish presumptions that will require parents to go to court. Under no circumstances should the federal government establish presumptions that custodial parents must rebut in order to protect their children. Custodial parents tend to be poorer than non-custodial parents, particularly before the child support starts to flow, and it rarely flows early. The need to agree on the terms of access in order for access to occur is a great encourager of agreement. If you impose some sort of 50-50 parenting time arrangement, we will lose that benefit. (Meeting #31, Charlottetown)
On the basis of this argument, a number of witnesses concluded that the Divorce Act should not be amended to include any presumption in favour of a particular type of parenting arrangement. Instead, they suggested strengthening the "best interests of the child" test, which is the current basis for custody and access decisions. In addition, it was argued that families would benefit from the expanded availability of non-litigation services to give divorcing couples better information about their options. With more resources and better information, parents would be able to promote the best possible outcomes for their own children through their post-separation behaviour and decision making. As lawyer Michael Cochrane pointed out to the Committee:
I think what we really need to have, rather than presumptions of joint custody, which I do not favour, is a much more sophisticated shopping list, one that the judge is aware of and the lawyers and clients are discussing. From that more sophisticated list of choices and with informed consumers, we will get better parenting plans and we'll get people asking for things they know they're entitled to, rather than lying down at the wrong moment in a case and not taking what's really in their interest or the child's interest. (Meeting #13)
In sum, it wrote: "...the Committee is not recommending a presumption that equal time-sharing, or what is currently referred to as joint physical custody, is in the best interests of children."(...)
(Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, For the Sake of the Children, Chapter 4, A) I, 1. "No Presumptions")
I don't believe you are aware of the ratio of males that are subjected to domestic violence, compared to that for females. It is almost one to one.
This is an interesting statistic. Of course it depends on what you mean by domestic violence.
It is true that a high number of women do in fact yell at and even hit men. In fact it is possible that the numbers are not far off what you say- not sure if I believe that but I can concede it is possible..
Of course those who throw this stat around (it is not a new one) don't qualify it with the fact that violence that leaves bruises, causes serious injury, sends people to hospital sometimes to the morgue is not doled out equally. Well, men I am afraid are the experts there. Very few women inflict that much damage-- and no its not just about physical power -- I know some women that could certainly do serious damage if they wanted. No, the violence is different most of the time. I am not saying that it does not happen that some women do inflict serious injury-- just not anywhere near the 1 to 1 stat you refer to. Stats are funny aren't they -- depends on your definition. Like the woman who dies later in hospital from her injuries is just one stat as is the man whose face was slapped without any injury. Yes both are violence. But don't bother trying to tell anyone here that female violence is anywhere near male violence in damage.
It seems clear you make this comentary based on not alot of real facts.
here in Nova scotia there are 17,000. (roughly) custody cases only 14,000. are given to the mother summarily.
does that seem right in any context? especially when the facts of family court cases regarding access are extremely high in Nova scotia. but for only a short time after the custody (like approximately 1-2 yrs, but when interviewed the fathers explain this oddity.
they ran out of money to pay the lawyer.
it is people like you, that children should fear. child studies in behavior shows that because of the "rule of thumb " that the child is best left with the mother has been failing dramatically for years. look at the stats can reviews. they show youth crime increasing , and not only in Nova scotia, or canada
check out the U.K. where this unfair and unjust rule of custody going to mothers have caused father suicides and children being led astray because their fathers are not anylonger there.
so I have to say to you, this.
you obviously do not have any real intellectual arguement. and are another example of a person who has sold their soul to bad feministic ideals that distroy families.
its great to know there are more intelligent people who will push for the bill to go through, and allow common sence over rule unjust treatment of human rights.
and intelligent people want whats best for the children. and not what you want whatever that is.
That women have the advantage in many contested cases has to do with the interests of the child and what they have put it.
Fathers win 55-70% of contested cases.
the very fact you refer to it as a win lose situation reveils that you are as ignorant as Ive suspected in facts and morals.
the facts are that it should never be a win lose contest.
it HAS to be whats best for the children.
and to summarily give over to one side or the other IS NOT THE BEST INTEREST OF ANYONE as it is against the charter of human rights and freedoms.
thankfully there are obviously more caring people in canada that want a fair custody arrangement, for the best interest of all our children.
I haven't noticed this mentioned, and I'm not sure just how it plays into the stats of which parent ends up with custody, but by about 12 years of age, the childs preference of which parent they want to go to, has a very considerable weight. I fact judges will tend to go along with that even if they think it may not be the best idea unless there's some fairly clear reason not to. The age is a bit of a grey area, but 12 is seen as a bit of a cutoff. Even younger though, the wishes of the children are given strong consideration (among other factors of course).
Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Mr. Dufresne:
I want to impart some facts with respect to divorce in Canada, with some reference to other countries similarly predisposed to treating dads in a negative manner and to help you with your references and lack of citations.
Firstly not all divorces in Canada end due to Domestic Violence. This is an unfounded, non-scientific observation. In our country Intimate Partner Violence is pretty much equal. Here is a quote from Stats Can: “Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005. 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”. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm
Domestic Violence is serious problem but it is not gender specific. It is a family problem that needs a new paradigm to resolve. You may wish to read Dr. Don Dutton’s scientific observations here Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf on the relationship of gender and DV.
Dr. Dutton, from UBC, is Canada’s foremost researcher on this matter and is sought and cited the world over for his work.
You may also want to have a look at this link http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm which is REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY by Martin S. Fiebert , Department of Psychology California State University, Long Beach. This is the largest bibliography of its kind and current to May of this year.
In Canada 75% of all marriages are terminated unilaterally by the wife. Not because of DV but for a host of reasons. In the USA it is 66% and in OZ about 70%. My research shows part of the reason is the wife thinks there are greener pastures and that magical, mysterious long awaited prince charming is coming along to sweep her off her feet. This does not happen as second marriages and co-habitations end at a far greater rate than the first ones which combined run about 50% in Canada and the USA. Cohabitations have greater frailty and end in far greater numbers than do marriages.
Many studies show that children having both parents in their lives on an ongoing basis do far better on many social outcomes than if dad is marginalized to the standard 14% visitation of two weekends a month. Professor Edward Kruk’s research at UBC shows children need a 40% contact with each parent to maintain a parent-child bond. Fourteen percent is not in a child’s best interest. You can view the PDF summary of his study on Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility here: http://www.fira.ca/cms/documents/179/April7_Kruk_Summary.pdf
Dr. Kruk shows the legal system must be child focussed and take into account the many developmental needs of children. He also demonstrates a child-focused analysis of child custody determination contradicts your assertion of high conflict divorce as follows: ” … 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.”
Many studies show the positive social outcomes for children with active involvement by both parents and many show the negative outcomes for children in single parent homes. These are largely matriarchal homes. In Canada, according to Stats Can in 2004 custody went to the mother in about 90% of all cases whether contested or not. Your non-cited assertion of Fathers winning 55-70% of contested cases in this country is just plain not supported by any research. The number is very small at around 7%. Joint custody is the manner in which judges spread bread crumbs to dad by giving physical custody to the mom. About 8% to the dad in sole custody.
The 2004 table looks like this: total custody cases 31, 764, custody to dad 2,558, to the wife 14,309, joint 14,773. The rest were a small number to others not the mom or dad or not known.
We’ll calculate a minuscule amount for cooperative shared/equal parenting which currently exists through agreement by very unselfish parents who do have the child’s best interest at heart and works fine. My 11 year old, although not yet in a legal shared/equal parenting relationship, has no trouble with the transitions but it is important, where possible to ensure they keep the same friends and of course school.
I would recommend you do more research related to your articles. It will improve your credibility and I do suggest going beyond the Liz Library. It is the largest single compendium of male hatred on the internet and not overly scientific or unbiased.
The focus must be on the child. Unselfish parents with the best interest of the children in mind will be able to work this out. Several European countries have this in place with Belgium having one of the most emphatic mechanisms for children to stay in the lives of both parents. Interestingly this was brought into law by a Feminist Government Minister who wanted her husband to be equal. Isn’t that what Feminism was about back in the good old days - equality.
Well, we seem to be experiencing an onslaught of Father-Right defenders... all in the name of the children, of course, complete with straw men:
"...not all divorces in Canada end due to Domestic Violence. This is an unfounded, non-scientific observation."
...which is why I said no such thing. But don't expect me to lose more time rebutting their all too familiar factoids.
As co-president of Canadian Equal Parenting Council, I note that Mr. Dufresne has the honour of being the first encountered instance against the proposed legislation of Bill C-422 for Equal Parenting. We're delighted to see the lively exchange of views as there is ultimately no more important topic than families and children as the bedrock of any society.
I invite all to read the Bill C-422 directly to minimize debating misinformation. In general, the proposed legislation seeks continuity of relationship for the child with both parents and relatives post-divorce. After all, parents divorce each other, but not the child. The legislation is based on a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting in which both parents and the child start legal deliberations from the same basis of equal rights, responsibilities, and benefits as pertained in marriage for presumed fit parents. In other words 50:50 is the starting assumption which may be relaxed if either parent is unwilling or unfit for whatever reason (including Domestic Violence) to care for the child.
The legislation aims to set a level playing field for both parents- a situation which does not exist today. I challenge anyone to find a Canadian family law lawyer who would disagree with the assertion that the current system is biased against men. Sadly, western nations have not kept detailed statistics by gender outcomes making it difficult to have a rational discussion. I will say that an analysis of ON Court of Appeal Family Law cases during the period 1996-2008 indicates female appellants have a 4:1 advantage over male appellants in general, and for specific instances like child custody, the ratio rises to 18:1. Statscan indicates over 80% of children live with mothers, and that about 6-8 % are shared/equal parenting.
Apologists for the current system often like to assert the situation has improved for fathers by often referring to current awards of 49/42/9% for maternal/joint/paternal custody respectively. What is not explained is that Joint Custody refers to joint legal custody but not joint physical custody, and that the term is really a form of sole maternal custody in disguise- hence the reason 80% of children live with mothers.
There is no disagreement about "Best Interests of the Child" (BIC) being paramount. But did you know that BIC is not defined in the Divorce Act? In other words BIC, like beauty, is arbitrarily in the eyes of the beholder. The proposed legislation aims to define BIC as the starting point for consistency in judicial decision making to achieve "maximal contact" provisions already existing in legislation, but clearly not reflected in jurisprudence.
It also sets out to avoid individual belief systems or preferences being imposed on the litigants and the child. Thus, the reasonable-sounding hypothesis may be advanced that custody should be awarded to the "Primary Caregiver". This then raises the issue of how to define "primary"- is it the parent who logs the most time with the child, or the parent who earns money to provide food, shelter, clothing, and education, or are both "primary"?
Another example is the assumption that divorce is caused mostly by Domestic Violence (DV) with males being the sole perpetrators. DV is far from being the primary reason, but may seem that way to judges who only see the 5% of divorces that go to trial which do indeed have a high DV content. Of course, there is no standard legal definition for DV and it spans the range of physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, and financial abuse. Statscan has long shown that DV occurs in approximately equal proportions by gender and that DV is not a gender issue but a social dysfunction independent of gender. Canadian DV findings are consistent with findings in all western nations.
Some will argue that males are unwilling to be parents. Whether it be males or females, the legislation specifically takes into account parental willingness as a factor in custody awards.
There's also the old chestnut in argumentation that equal parenting is just a guise to reduce child support obligations. I have never understood that one as the obvious answer for the aggrieved parent is to seek variation of child support rather than change in custody. Moreover, if Child Support Guidelines are financially neutral as required, then any reduction in child support by virtue of equal parenting would be offset by a commensurate increase in child residential costs. Lastly, if one assumes the child support Guidelines are indeed economically biased against the non-custodial parent, the costs and likelihood of a male winning a custody battle are greater than any child cost savings in all but very few instances.
It's pretty well settled social science that equal/shared parenting is the second best option to an intact household. That may be why western nations are increasingly adopting equal parenting and moving away from sole custody. It's why all political parties agreed to the concept in the 1999 "For the Sake of the Children" report. This legislation follows on from the report and CEPC is working with all parties on a non-partisan basis to move ahead with the commitment they themselves made a decade ago.
CEPC is a family rights coalition of 40 organizations representing the extended divorce community (single fathers/mothers/children, grandparents, second spouses, step-parents). Our mission is to achieve family law reform based on equal parenting, gender equality, recognition of domestic violence as a social dysfunction rather than a gender issue, and incorporation of UN Conventions on the Right of the Child.
As a side note, I add that Fathers-4-Justice is indeed one of the coalition organizations. Their membership have adopted the "caped crusader" superhero theme as part of their successful media advocacy strategy, and these costumed Moms and Dads (yes, there are Moms and even Grandmoms in the organization) are the same ones that MPs call to get help for their divorcing constituents, or even ask to participate in policy deliberations.
I refer you to Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard (Dec 2008) by Dr. E. Kruk for a comprehensive analysis of this issue.
I trust this will facilitate the debate. It's a pleasure to see this issue being discussed.
I haven't noticed this mentioned, and I'm not sure just how it plays into the stats of which parent ends up with custody, but by about 12 years of age, the childs preference of which parent they want to go to, has a very considerable weight. I fact judges will tend to go along with that even if they think it may not be the best idea unless there's some fairly clear reason not to. The age is a bit of a grey area, but 12 is seen as a bit of a cutoff. Even younger though, the wishes of the children are given strong consideration (among other factors of course).
This is true in child welfare cases as well (at least here). Prior to that age, the child's opinion is given no weighting legally - it is solely the social worker's discretion (based on their evidence as relevant to the legislation). At age 12, a judge in a child welfare proceeding will take the child's views about whether he or she wants to stay in their home and thinks it is safe.
(Relayed with the author's permission)
Hi!
Call me cynical but I don't think that much (or enough) has changed when it comes to parenting.... and one also has to consider the source when you look at who is proposing or backing Bill C-422.
Gerri Thorsteinson
Dear Prime Minister:
I am writing to express my concern and disapproval of Bill C-422 put forth by Conservative MPs Maurice Vellacott and Steven Blaney.
The 'overall bias' favouring women in divorce and custody law, which the bill's proponents claim, only reflects the reality that women continue to bear most of the daily responsibility of/for child care.
Bill C-422 will be used and abused by many in positions of power to add to the load that many women carry.
Those who feel so hard done by should be putting their efforts into helping to raise well-grounded children, rather than harassing the mothers endeavouring to do the job, often under extremely difficult circumstances. If passed, this legislation would be a dangerous tool in the hands of violent men to continue abusing their former partners and their children.
Sincerely,
Gerri Thorsteinson
This kind of pressure on the government, Opposition parties, Senators and on your own MP is necessary to hold back the smarmy patriarchalists.
Unfortunately "Martin", you don't seem overly concerned about being entirely truthful or fair in your comments.
The very simple fact is that many, many children will be better served when Equal Parenting becomes law. I will provide my own personal example, which will explain why this is so:
My ex-wife and I separated in 2003 and although I was very involved with my children prior to the separation, my ex-wife threatened that she would not allow me to have access to my children until I granted her sole custody. I consented to interim sole custody - knowing that I would get joint custody later, which I did - because I did not want my children to lose out on the wonderful relationship that we all shared.
Immediately after the children's first overnight visit with me, which immediately followed me granting her sole custody, my ex-wife allowed her mother to assault my daughter in an attempt to frame me for sexual assault. (Two different doctors cleared my name and I was never accused, nor charged with anything.)
The reason that my ex-wife thought that she could get away with what she did was because - unbeknownst to me at the time - when I granted her interim sole custody, I granted my ex-wife the legal right to deny me access to doctor's files and Children's Aid Society files.
The simple reality is that, had my ex not had the power and control of having sole custody, she would not have had the opportunity to commit the crime that she did.
I would ask you, "Martin", to reconsider your closemindedness about why some of us are fighting for Bill C-422. I would like to prevent other children from having to endure what my daughter went through.
People concerned with non-custodial parents and children's rights would do well to canvass the support of their MP's on Bill C-422.
Bill C-422 picks up on the all-party commitment made in the 1998 "For the Sake of the Children" Report. In May, CEPC met with two Justice Critics and found they support the principle of equal/shared parenting together with a non-partisan approach to this legislation. Subsequent to those meetings, Justice Minster Rob Nicholson agreed to contact all Justice Critics to explore legislative options to proceed on a non-partisan basis. This suggests that the current Private Member's Bill status of the legislation may be escalated in parliamentary priority.
Canadian support for these reforms has remained uniformly strong over the past decade. A recent Nanos poll indicated about 80% of Canadians support shared/equal parenting with little variation by gender, region, age, or political affiliation.
RE: Equal Parenting Bill C-422
Hello Paulette,
Thank you for your email and understanding. MP Brown is in support of Bill C-422 and will be voting in favour of it.
I have printed a copy of the report and will forward it to his reading file.
Regards,
Alison
Alison Eadie
Executive Assistant
Patrick Brown MP
Barrie
____________ _________ _________ _________ _
Private bill for 'equal parenting' goes on Parliament's order paper
http://www.. lavalnews. ca/articles/ TLN1714/parentin gBill171408. html
"That's so that the two parents can come together for the good of the child."
Canadian Parliament Considers Equal Parenting Bill http://www.glennsac ks.com/blog/ index.php# blog
"Not only that, but the emphasis of equal parenting is on the best interests of children, not parental rights."
I am a divorced woman, a mother, grandmother, step mother and second wife. I have seen both sides; "Second Wife Sees the Family Court System for What it is" http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/06/06/second-wife-sees-the-family-court-system-for-what-it-is/
The System as it stands right now is not working in the best interest of the child and it is time for change.
Bill C-422 will release all innocent "Prisoners of Divorce" allowing both (fit) parents to have a loving unhindered relationship with their children.
Paulette MacDonald
Love Is For Everyone!
Support Equal Parenting Bill C-422
Call or Write:Your Member of Parliament
Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson at Nichor1@parl. gc.ca
Prime Minister Stephen Harper at pm@pm.gc.ca
Tell them to support MP Maurice Vellacott and Bill C-422.
They're well organized. You gotta give 'em that!
Nope
I couldn't agree more, and the numbers speak for themselves. Putting a child with a lone-guardian makes them more at risk for all varieties of abuse, and in fact the hightest perpetrating population of child abuse in lone-parent homes are mothers. It is not only in the best interest of the child to have an equitable parenting framework, but the statistics actually indicate that this is in fact the safest position for a child to be in.
In case you are curious where those numbers came from:
Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect - Major Findings - 2003
...in fact the hightest perpetrating population of child abuse in lone-parent homes are mothers.
Yes, well that is kinda to be expected, with men out of the picture...
The population of parents in lone-parent homes is almost exclusively women, "hightest" or not. Men rarely want and demand sole custody if they remain unmatched.
So-called "shared parenting" allows the worst of them the continuing control and reduced or suppressed financial responsibilities without actually taking on the work.
Well how about we point out that male abuse against children, say nothing of women, is the highest in 2 parent homes. FFS what idiots the FRA crowd are.
But then of course, they are overlooking the fact of how fathers not wanting to be involved in the child's life is actual abuse too. Say nothing of the fact it is men murdering their children in far far greater numbers than women. And I won't even bother pointing out incest and sexual abuse rates.
My ex always had equal access - he just refused to participate. I know many women in a similar position...once the separation happened, for whatever reason, the dad who was involved with his kids morphed into some other being. I was left to raise our children on my own and that job was further complicated by his almost-complete withdrawal from their lives. I know the reality of where a Bill of this nature leads, ordered equal access (which is usually linked to no child support being paid) but the woman almost always ends up raising the children by herself (with, if she's lucky, an occasional weekend visit to dad's).
My ex left it all to me. Following our separation, there was no participation in raising our children, no discussion about their lives, and no problem solving around their struggles. We have joint custody and he does not exercise any responsibility in the areas of involvement with our children. They are grown now and one is a post-secondary student who still needs help. My ex stills refuses to comply with the court order that was the result of negotiations with me and his lawyer around annual disclosure of income.
I know many more women in similar positions to mine than I do dads who are involved with the children after separation and/or divorce. They have continued on their worklife/careers, unencumbered with getting kids to daycare, making lunches, being up in the night, etc, and most moan and groan about how mercenary we are...those guys are not thinking about "the best interests of the children" and it's my belief, (based on anectodal evidence, for sure) that they are in the majority.
...in fact the hightest perpetrating population of child abuse in lone-parent homes are mothers.
Yes, well that is kinda to be expected, with men out of the picture...
The population of parents in lone-parent homes is almost exclusively women, "hightest" or not. Men rarely want and demand sole custody if they remain unmatched.
So-called "shared parenting" allows the worst of them the continuing control and reduced or suppressed financial responsibilities without actually taking on the work.
Are you suggesting then it is OK for sole parent females to kill and abuse children. In the USA and Australia the mom is by far the greatest perpetrator. For the USA stats go here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm Are you afraid that equal parenting will keep children safer and thus ruin your ideological predisposition that females are the "owners" of children. If so many dads don't want custody why do you think 10's of thousands of us want this legislative change?
Would you provide citation for your assertions or did this just come out of thin air that the "worst of them" want shared custody. Isn't that counter intuitive?. The facts are children are by far safer in two parent biological homes and secondly in shared parenting environments. I just love how your supporters are so intellectually endowed with insight one of them calling us "idiots." Is that the level of reasoned debate and intelligence I am likely to find here?
Well how about we point out that male abuse against children, say nothing of women, is the highest in 2 parent homes. FFS what idiots the FRA crowd are.
But then of course, they are overlooking the fact of how fathers not wanting to be involved in the child's life is actual abuse too. Say nothing of the fact it is men murdering their children in far far greater numbers than women. And I won't even bother pointing out incest and sexual abuse rates.
Would you provide your citation for these assertions. Is "idiot" the best you've got. Surely you can do better than that when discussing the most important resource in the world - that being our children.
Your second comment belies the gravity of your fundamentally flawed "off the top" and non-verifiable remarks. Please show us the stats on this information. What have these assertions got to do with equal shared parenting for fit parents. Do you not understand that 50-50 is the starting point and couples would then work out the best fit for them. With the vast majority of women in the workforce do you not think they would benefit from a greater share by the dad? It may not be 50-50 but perhaps 60-40. What are you afraid of? Your ideology appears to outweigh your tolerance for men and fathers. Would I be correct?
Yep, in respect to post #98 not the one above this, especially given the recent occurance of a 7 week old baby being assaulted in a 2 parent home, and that men by far commit the largest amount of c rimes, and against women and children too, in Canada.
BTW crime rates in Canada have been going down for years, so you can take you contentions that single parent families are causing the "higher" incidence of crime, and shove it.
If you don't like what you "find here", no one is keeping you from waltzing right out again... You folks dismiss detailed cites rebutting your claims with cheap insults such as "not overly scientific" and "compendium of male hatred," and you whine when some of us call you idiots?
Indeed, you are so immersed yourselves in very real hatred for the women you are fighting ("for the sake of the children", natch...) that you can't write three paragraphs without slipping back in your phantasy of murderous abusive mothers.
The kind of men who do share parenting before relationships break down and women have to pull the plug to save the family fdon't want anything to do with your pity pot and your devious proposals to strip children and women of their rights and livelihood in the name of pie-in-the-sky promises such as "shared parenting".
People are smart enough to look at the bottom line of your demands and see who gets what and who loses what... and how horrific such compulsory arrangemnents will be for women and children wanting to escape a controlling or abusive spouse or father.
Are you suggesting then it is OK for sole parent females to kill and abuse children. In the USA and Australia the mom is by far the greatest perpetrator. For the USA stats go here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm Are you afraid that equal parenting will keep children safer and thus ruin your ideological predisposition that females are the "owners" of children. If so many dads don't want custody why do you think 10's of thousands of us want this legislative change?
No one suggested that it's OK for sole parent women to kill and abuse children. The comment came from the reality that, because sole parent families are led by women, by a huge majority, that it's no surprise that single parent violence would come almost exclusively by women. It's kind of a silly observation, really. How does one go from that to speculating that children would be safer if they were being single parented by their fathers?
Most dads could be taking advantage of shared access and custody agreements or even access that is granted when they don't have shared custody. Many, many don't. My belief is that it's almost always about money...they don't want to pay it and this is a way (not for all) to get around having to do so. Martin has argued the very points on a statistical basis that I have experienced in my life, as have many women I have known. One dad that I know well finds himself in similar circumstances and he, too, is living close to the line financially and doesn't have access to the legal help he needs to sort it out. It's all about who has the best lawyer and mostly, due to differences in financial ability, that's not women.
Yep, especially given the recent occurance of a 7 week old baby being assaulted in a 2 parent home, and that men by far commit the largest amount of c rimes, and against women and children too, in Canada.
BTW crime rates in Canada have been going down for years, so you can take you contentions that single parent families are causing the "higher" incidence of crime, and shove it.
You continue to use abusively framed and intolerently formed statements without any citation for these. I remember in grade 7 a child saying similar things to me in the school yard that I was an idiot and I should get lost. The best one though was I should go "play in the traffic". We all laughed with careless delight when she said that. Are you angry with someone or do you just not have anything better to offer? The logic of your comments does not follow You appear to be able to read but not for comprehension. Please reread or if you haven't already go to the source links I have provided. For your benefit DV rates in most western democracies are pretty much equal. In one Centre for Disease Control Study the perpetrators were 71% female. We can have statistical debates ad nauseum but that won't get to the fundamentally fair environment that children need and want both fit parents in their lives equally. How can you justify that is not in their best interests? Is your rationale related to entitelements you fear you will lose?
Can't be bothered citing anything or making much of an effort to indicate how freaking whacked you people are. You aren't on some poorly educated right wing forum, where your anti-women efforts will float.
As for your accusations of entitlements that I fear I will loose, indicates, that you are looking at things from a patriarchial perspective and worrying about the unfair entitlements men want back.
Wow interesting thread. For starters IMHO posters shouldn't be allowed to throw out percentages without a direct link to the source.
Not so much
Well remind thats too bad you think that way. I always thought the way forward was to debate an issue in a reasoned manner to explore the issue thoroughly and see if there was common ground. You clearly don't subscribe to that model. By the way if I am patriarchal for wanting shared equal parenting as a presumption I am deliciously curious about your comment "...worrying about the unfair entitlements men want back." Do you mean the entitelements are unfair to men because that is how it reads. Are you assumimg men don't want to pay these or are you confused because dads will still be supporting their children in shared parenting but if it is 50-50 doing it directly with the children. Moms will be doing the same thing. If it is 60-40 then a fair assessment will have to be made as they do in Belgium and other countries with the presumption of equal shared parenting. By the way these countries haven't seen any major changes in their viability but their children have more positive social outcomes. Are you willing to deny children this for selfish reasons - perhaps because you hate your ex?
In any event you have a nice day.