Empowerment through education

Best of Luck with this continuing venture from London to Chatham Dave. Your passion for change has and will continue to assistant men and women who are bewildered by the archaic, expensive, dysfunctional, and gender biased Family Law System.  It's major beneficiaries are  lawyers, whose pockets get lined with cash on the backs of our children's financial legacies and keeps incompetent Family Law Judges employed to perform negative social engineering on our children.MJM

Not All Dads are Deadbeats BOB BOUGHNER The Daily News A free educational workshop sponsored by Not All Dads are Deadbeats (NADAD) will take place Tuesday at the Chatham Central Public Library. Dave Flook of Chatham, founder and president of the organization, stressed it is not just a men's organization - "it's an equal parenting group.'' Flook, who recently moved to Chatham from London to be closer to his daughter, said there is a huge demand in Chatham-Kent for services offered by his group, which is designed to help those affected by divorce and separation. "We are a community oriented support group for proud parents who have been systematically removed from their children by the Canadian family court system,'' he said. Flook said Tuesday's hands-on, interactive workshop will be the first of many educational events scheduled throughout 2010. He said the workshops are focused on providing the practical skills needed to combat court injustice. "They also offer real world solutions to the growing problems of gender bias in the courts, radical feminist agendas and government and institutional corruption. "Tuesday's event will be an interactive workshop and participation in the proceedings will be strongly encouraged,'' he said. A former professor of graphic design at Fanshawe College, Flook is in the process of establishing a web design studio in Chatham. Flook said he created NADAD to reach out to others who have had their roles as fathers revoked by the state. "There is no reward for complacency,'' he said. "Our children need us now to fight for them and to ensure they do not become fatherless.'' The workshop takes place from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday at the Chatham library, 120 Queen St., Chatham. bboughner@chathamdailynews.ca.

Copyright © 2009 Chatham Daily News

http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2240361

Fathers 4 Equality in OZ ~ Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia

Oz certainly has its fair share of those who would be considered to be on the fringe of responsible parenthood, moms in this case, who will believe anything about dads or men as long as it is negative. The most vile I have found are those who have lost custody for the very attitudes they show on comment boards


With them its not about chldren's best interest its loss of status and economics. Can you imagine their difficulty trying to explain how they lost custody and the loss of self esteem. It puts them into overdrive to crusade against dads and all men. In some cases they have the nerve to call themselves protective parents when, in fact, they are the abusers. I see some have visited here already.


One of the usual canards they use is child support and it is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. "Dads just want shared parenting because they don't want to pay child support." It is as fallacious a piece of logic as exists. Dads will always pay for the support of their child but when it is shared custody they pay as any normal parent does. It goes directly toward the children not a second or third party.


The opposite is also true and closer to the real heart of the argument. The dead beat mom who may be relying on welfare and child support because she doesn't want to work for a living can't get all the entitlements she has been told she can manipulate out of the system. This really ticks them off even more so than before.


I have been observing Overington's highly biased and sexist reporting for a couple of years now from way up here in Canada and do wonder how she can get away with it. If she was doing this to anyone but men it would be considered racist, hateful, discriminatory and inappropriate. Her editors may well be eunuchs.


If you haven't lodged complaints with the newspaper itself, Mr. Murdoch personally, and ethics groups associated with the media it should occur. I've certainly complained myself to The Australian over the Canada Model article which was a letter, I believe, from a tiny group of radical feminist lawyers in my country who use the same well worn abuse canards as down under. We shoot them down with great frequency when they surface up here and it has to be frequent to dispel the entrenched mythology.


i wish you well and hopefully reason will prevail although I understand you have a socialist government and they are clearly in the feminist camp. Shared parenting is in the best interest of children and sole parenting, particularly by moms, leads to many negative social outcomes. One can see why with some of the comments by them here.MJM

Posted by Ash Patil on November 17th, 2009 | Category: Exploitation of Family Law

Most people on the street would be quite familiar by now with an avalanche of newspaper articles over the past year condemning Australia's shared care laws and suggesting that they put Australia's children at risk of abuse.

These articles have been so effective that most people actually believe that the current research supports this suggestion.

Articles such as " Courts continue to grant access to violent parents ", " Shared-parenting is 'gobbledegook' ", "'Flaws' in John Howard's parenting law" & " Replace shared care with Canada model " have been so one-sided and misleading in their depiction of these laws, that there is a clear expectation in the community that the 2006 shared parental responsibility laws will as a matter of certainty be repealed by the Rudd government.

This avalanche of articles were primarily the work of two journalists, Caroline Overington from the Australian and Adele Horin from Fairfax, who seem to have closely aligned their message with that of Barbara Biggs, a toxic extremist who promotes the idea that men on the whole are sexual predators and inherently violent, and cannot be trusted in the care of their children.

In response to these articles, I have often been asked by members of Fathers4Equality why I have not made important research available to the likes of Caroline and Adele, in order for them to provide more balanced and informative reporting on this very important issue.

And there is an overwhelming amount of credible research to debunk these stereotypes of men and shared parenting promoted by those who have questionable motives in replacing Australia's shared care laws.

For example, recent research from the WA Department of Child Protection (amongst others) has shown that up to 80% of all child abuse occurs in single mother households, research from the Australian Institute of Criminology (amongst others) has shown that family violence is instigated equally by both men and women, a report from Childline in the UK has reported the skyrocketing of allegations by children against women for sexual abuse, and an article in the Wall Street Journal has reported on a German study highlighting the neurological damage caused to children who are raised without the ongoing presence of a father.

Further articles have highlighted the recent national poll in Canada showing 80% support for the replacement of their sole-custody family law model with shared care family laws, or the unprecedented outburst by UK Lord Justice Ward who spoke out against the sole-custody UK family laws by saying that the courts were powerless to help decent fathers to see their children if vengeful mothers stood in the way.

When one was to view all the research in this area on the whole, the conclusion is unmistakable. That there is a foundation of research and broad recognition within the community that sole custody laws are bad for children, and that shared care on the whole is in the best interests of children. In fact, the natural transparency afforded by shared care provides the best safeguards against the risk of child abuse or neglect.

Now, truth be told, I have corresponded with the likes of Caroline and Adele quite extensively in this past year.

So one would assume that given our history, that both Caroline and Adele would be open to reading and/or reporting on vital information on Child abuse and Shared parenting passed on to them by Fathers4Equality.

Given that Caroline and Adele have devoted significant time and effort in writing article after article suggesting that children's welfare is at stake if they have shared care arrangements with their fathers, then as any credible investigative journalist would do, they would cross-reference their conclusions with the latest research and information on these claims.

Correct?

Well, No, not so.

Fathers4Equality have gone out of our way to inform both Caroline and Adele on very important research that critically undermines the premise that shared care is bad for children. At the very least it provides a strong counter-argument to the repeated mantra from these two.

So have they reported on it?

Well, based on the below return receipts from emails sent to both Caroline and Adele on this very important research, not only haven't they reported on it, but they have also refused to even read it. They simply deleted it from their inbox without reading it.

Let me repeat that. They have DELETED, without reading, emails purporting to contain key information on the very topics they have devoted so much time on. And then they proceeded to write further articles on this topic, and done so in selective ignorance of the facts.

Investigative journalism? I think not! Not convinced? Just look at the emails below and ask yourself why they were deleted without being read.




















http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/FiDBlog.nsf/dx/investigative-journalist-or-lobbyist-the-shared-care-debate-in-australia-

Comments

1. Mike Murphy
   
   

   @split -"Your reference also to articles highlighting the poll in Canada I am guessing is the rather biased letter that came from a spokesperson for a "Shared Parenting" association in Canada ie, effectively a representative of a "father's rights" group, hardly reflecting the opinions of all Canadians. That would be like saying Edward Dabrowski, in all his ignorance, speaks for all of Australia (God forbid)."

   ____________________________________________________

   You are correct in that you are guessing. The poll was conducted professionally by a polling firm under the auspices of the MP who is sponsoring the equal parenting bill in Canada. It effectively duplicates one taken back in 1998 during a joint Senate/Parliamentary committee study on shared parenting which resulted in the production of a report "For the Sake of The Children" which was never implemented.

   Studies have been done by many reputable scholars on shared parenting outside of OZ and they clearly show children have far more positive outcomes when both parents are in their lives after divorce. It is important when they are doing a week about rotation the parents live close together and which will not interfere with their schooling or friends. As they approach the tween and teen age years friends are far more important than either parent - to them.

   My reference to deadbeat moms living off the system applies more to the earlier comments by women with obvious personality disorders. They have only one thing in mind and that is entitlements and revenge. The children are collateral but important pawns to meet their goals. They are not uncommon here in Canada and they have the same views of ownership of children.

   You seem to be a more reasonable person who understands children need both parents and I wish there were more moms like you. If there are two reasonable parents then appropriate schedules could be worked out in a more coherent and "best interest"

   manner.

   I do recommend F4E keep the comments by the earlier posters to show the decision makers the real truth behind those who shriek loudest and who the likes of Overington is cheerleading.

2. on 19/11/2009 9:01:03 AMPhillip
   
   

   There are no surpises in your article. It goes much further than just demonising fathers as parents. There is a blantant and overwhelming shift in society over the last 5 - 10 years towards anti-male sentiment. Our very government organisataions that are supposed to put children first put the mother first. Watch ninemsn.com.au - almost every day there are multiple anti-male stories. And recently we find a woman who gets off a jail term for two counts of statutory rape.

   I worked 100+ hours per week to keep my ex-wife in the lifestyle she demanded (which were damnded by abuse, threats and violence). I did almost all of the housework, cooking, and extra curricular work, whilst she watched TV and spent time with her mother, and what was shocking is that she is not an isolated or extreme case. Her bahaviour is far more common than you might think. To this day she still uses the children as a weapon with which to direct her anger at me. I won my shared care case, after two years and $35,000 and complete and utter financial destruction. I may have got 50/50 parenting, but I lost my career, my superannuation, my assets and my self esteem, but it was worth it. The kids are happier, performing better in school. Any person who thninks shared care is not approapriate is a fool, is blindsided by continual lies and deception of not just caroline and adele, but by key child related organisations in australia (they know who they are!) Anyone who cares about children supports shared parenting.

3. on 19/11/2009 2:31:06 AMSplit
   
   

   I should also say that I don't support the bizarre views that children should be subject to sole custody either, nor the anti-male sentiment of some female posters here. However, I do not believe for one moment that it is in a child's best interest to be shuttled back and forth between two houses like an object, particularly not a breastfeeding infant, which is happening more and more frequently, as reported recently by Overington and can be substantiated in the actual case files (Farmer v Rogers is just one example).

   The school of thought that says women should "just express" (such as the comment by Edward Dabrowski) or that the father could just use formula, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process of breastfeeding.

   Each feed effectively "puts in an order" for the next and it relies completely on the premise of supply and demand. Expressing is not in any way a substitute for feeding at the breast and while it might suffice for a feed or two, it certainly would not allow a woman to maintain supply over a period of days or a week. Some women who breastfeed find expressing excruciating or impossible. Further to this, "comp" feeding with formula would simply cause the mother painful mastitis as the only way to maintain supply is to properly drain the breast. Yes, there may be women who prolong feeding in order to gain an advantage, but I would argue that most do not. Most women breastfeed because of the uncontested health benefits to both child and mother, because it is cheaper and more convenient. Do not make all women and children suffer because of the behaviour of a few - sound familiar? You guys don't all want to be tarred with the same brush because of a handful of deadbeats, so don't do it to us either.

   The reason I raise this particular issue is that any reasonable father who had his child's best interest at heart wouldn't try to interfere with this process. Any reasonable mother would accept this sign of respect and do her best to facilitate as much time as practical with the father without compromising the baby's health, or the breastfeeding relationship.

   If we want to take this whole thing further, why not find a way to allow men to gestate and breastfeed. I wonder then if they would be so prepared to hand their babies over for extended periods of time, causing themselves pain, discomfort and extreme inconvenience? Come on guys, most of us do it out of love for our kids, not to make your life difficult.

   Unfortunately, as we all know, we are often not dealing with reasonable people, as if we were, the courts would not be being asked to decide cases like this. In my humble opinion, any man who would seek 50% custody of a breastfeeding infant (under 12mths of age), or in fact any over nights does not have his child's best interest at heart.

   I would just like to point out that there is a very strong anti-female sentiment in many of these sites, unless of course it is reference to current partners who are obviously in favour, or ex partners who simply agree to whatever the father asks for.

   I would argue that what is in the child's best interest might not necessarily be what either parent is asking for. Actually, like I said in my previous post, what is in the child's best interest is for the parents to remain together in the first instance. Already in separating at least one parent has put their own interests above that of their children.

   I would also like to take the opportunity to object to comments about mothers on welfare. I have found myself in this category as a result of the unplanned pregnancy of another child of our now defunct marriage. My ex is the one who ended it for no real reason, he kicked us out of the house, is paying scant child support, I no longer have an income and am reliant for the first time in my life on welfare. I am an intelligent, educated and mostly reasonable person and I am deeply offended by the comments of one of your posters to the effect that I am a dead beat because of this.

   As much as possible, I have done what is in my power to be as reasonable as I can, but for every guy out there who has been wronged, I can assure you that there is a woman or two who is suffering more, simply by virtue of her biology.

   Honestly, I do not know what the answers are to this issue, but I do know that slagging women off or accusing all men of being abusers is not productive. Both parents should be involved in raising their children if it is possible. Neither one is more important than the other, but I reject the premise that this makes them equal. Men and women are different and they parent differently. The relationship is a complementary one and one can not readily be replaced with the other as the failure of sole custody has shown us, but that doesn't mean that children need equal time with both parents.

4. on 19/11/2009 1:44:43 AMSplit
   
   

   I think your German research article from WSJ was actually about degu pups and voles, not human children and in fact, the researchers themselves cautioned against extrapolating their results to human populations.

   Your reference also to articles highlighting the poll in Canada I am guessing is the rather biased letter that came from a spokesperson for a "Shared Parenting" association in Canada ie, effectively a representative of a "father's rights" group, hardly reflecting the opinions of all Canadians. That would be like saying Edward Dabrowski, in all his ignorance, speaks for all of Australia (God forbid).

   I have read extensively on this subject and I can safely say that your own representation of "research" is not without bias. Clutching at straws is not a robust way to further your cause. These two women have reported on real cases and real issues that our Family courts are messing up. I have read the actual transcripts of the cases they refer to - have you? So in 20 years time when the real research comes in and we find that we have a whole generation of children with mental and emotional problems related to homelessness, health problems like diabetes from a massive reduction in numbers of children breastfeeding, an inability to bond and form stable relationships, creating even more broken families that the courts have to deal with, will you say "sorry" to us for using our children as guinea pigs and destroying their lives? Sorry, but you only get one chance at life. The research needs to be done first, not the other way around. There have been nothing but debacles and screw ups as a result of these amendments and the wording of them is ambiguous. They are clearly not working.

   I would dearly love to know how much parenting John Howard did of his own children to make him such an authority on the subject. Amusingly it obviously didn't win him the votes he thought it would. It is widely accepted in legal and academic circles that the 2006 amendments were not based on research, but simply on pressure from lobby groups (ie men's groups), so I find it a bit rich for you, as a lobbyist to be so prepared to hang these reporters for doing what you perceive to be the same.

   Perhaps if more fathers strove for equality in parenting and domestic tasks prior to separation, there would be a lot fewer separations to begin with and then our children could have what they truly deserve - both parents together in the same home. If it weren't so sad, I would probably find the whole notion of men striving for equality to be completely absurd. You want relevant statistics? Check out the Australian Bureau of Statistics HILDA survey and you will find that women still do 76% of the parenting and domestics tasks in Australia, despite often being in paid employment. If you think that is equal, your maths is worse than mine.

   It is hardly surprising that we have such major issues when so many men are so focused on self promotion and what their own perceived rights are that they lose sight of what children need and have a right to and they simply resort to attacking women in the process. Incredibly juvenile and not very good role models. So too, the genuine fear I feel when I read some of the nasty, ignorant, vindictive and hateful comments written about women by men in these forums on these sites. Yes, there are some women who write nasty things about men too and I'm not condoning that, I have just found the vitriol and hatred towards women by men to be far more sinister.

   It would do many of you good to just grow up and instead of looking for ways to discredit, abuse and denigrate women, try looking for ways to work together for the sake of your children.

   After all, you get more flies with honey

5. on 18/11/2009 11:47:09 PMRon deMouilpied
   
   

   It is sad that a power war exists between parents "using" children post separation and divorce to what advantage. For $$$? For property??? To maintain and extended control of a former spouse??? I used to sit sadly and watch my step children checking every car that past by waiting for their weekend once a fortnight sleepover at Dad's home. "Is it Dad"? Anguishing if he happened to run ten minutes late. I was just as saddened to hear that my children became high as 'their fortnightly sleepover' with me drew closer. Bags packed days in advance. A new toy or teacher's praising comment or star in a school book proudly shared with me IMMEDIATELY upon arrival.

   Time with Dad that was denied! Facts that were hidden! It was a torrid, emotionally draining period. Then as the universe unfolds so did they, all of them into young adulthood. No longer could they be controlled for a vested interest and the facts poured out. I could only listen. And hear I did! All the discourse strengthened their resolve for 'Dad' to be a part of their life. And the those with vested interest by their own doing, cling to the outer fringe to where they have been banished.

   When will parents learn to truly demonstrate love of their children they promote a healthy relationship with a former spouse: even in an extended family. The rewards when they start to flow are insurmountable as 'Father Time' has revealed to me.

6. on 18/11/2009 9:03:29 PMDavid Lam
   
   

   It is the child's right to able to spend time with both parents.

   Neither parent should prevent the child from seeing the other parent.

   The child does not owe the mother bacause she gives birth.

   The child did not asked to be born but to be loved by both parents. Why should the mother or the father prevent the child from being loved and cared for the father.

   It is precisely the attitude of some mothers who think that they own the child that share care and control is important to prevent abuse of sole custody rights.

   Our prime minister has recently apologise for taking away the child from the parents. I hope our legal systems will not make the same mistake of taking away or allow the child to be taken away from the father

7. on 18/11/2009 8:56:36 PMLiam
   
   

   I just read the survey Ash. I am stunned that there is so much support for equal parenting in Parliament.

   It tells me that this anti-shared care campaign is being driven by a few zelouts only.

   The far majority support shared parenting.

8. on 18/11/2009 7:14:54 PMAsh Patil
   
   

   Michael,

   Log into the below section of our website and read.

   You will find that we did do such a survey of Parliament in 2007.

   The results were very interesting.

   { Link }

   We also sent 1 and a half million emails to parliament via the F4E megaphone. We may need to re-install the Megaphone again going by how successful it was last time.

9. on 18/11/2009 6:34:51 PMdavid aldridge
   
   

   Michael. A very good idea you bring up as far as lobbying of MPs is concerned, and finding out what they think on the issue and i'll certainly be doing a bit of this myself now. As regards the press council, i believe F4E have put in complaints to the press council regarding bias and inaccurate reporting by the aforementioned journalists, and i know that i put my own complaint in regarding this issue, all to no avail. This is NOT to be taken as a political statement but perhaps since he is lagging in the opinion polls, and as he was brought up by a single father himself Malcolm Turnbull may be brought onside. He may not gain any of the feminist vote but as they are nearly all voting labour he won't lose any either, he could however win thousands of alenated fathers votes if he could be persuaded to take up our cause.

10. on 18/11/2009 6:09:42 PMMichael
    
    

    What are the positions of all the members of Parliament?? Both Federal and State Members.

    Lobbying would be an effective educational tool.

    maybe these Parenting stories and a few of the offensive biased comments should be packaged and sent to them?

    - can someone in this "group" help automate sending responses to MP's and other organisations?

    These "journalists - columnist" should be reported to the Press Council and the complaints sent to overseas equivalents, of the Press Council. along the with breaches of the UN Charter on Human Rights.

    Overseas Publications may also be interested in knowing about the "bias of reporting" on this issue?

    The issue of the Safety of Indian students is an explain of the Presses interest in Accurate reports - from and of Australia.

    The safety of our Children and well being of our society, now and in the future depends on the Shared Care Laws being extended and the "racism and bias in the media" stamped out.

11. on 18/11/2009 6:04:39 PMAsh Patil
    
    

    Scott,

    You may be shocked at the level of cyber-bullying, cuber-stalking and email threats generated from these so called women's groups.

    These bizarre postings on this blog, along with the threatening and astonishingly hostile private emails are one thing, but the online stalking of innocent fathers and posting of inflamatory and innacurate allegations against 'named' individuals is quite another.

    It is in fact illegal activity, but they engage in this activity behind the protection of anonymous postings, in order to prevent decent people from excercising their right to freedom of speech.

    This is the real face of the toxic mothers clan, as they are sometimes referred as.

    Really nasty people who are full of rage and hatred.

    They really are the WRONG type of people to be involved in such a child-sensitive issue as this.

12. on 18/11/2009 5:46:01 PMdavid aldridge
    
    

    Thankyou paulette and maureen.I'm well aware that most women/mothers are not like this. My own fiancee and her ex husband were also able to put together their own parenting plan without the need to go to court, despite their differences, and all their 3 children have thrived and are achieving well. One is currently doing her phd, the other daughter has done a baking trade and is now happily married and presented my fiancee with her first grandchild and her son who is still at school has plenty of certificates for high academic achievment.My fiancee gave her husband pretty much all the time he wanted with the children and he in turn paid her the required child support as is right and proper the result has been 3 well adjusted and achieving young adults. Unfortunately it is mothers/women like the first few posters on this thread who currently have the ear of the government and who are intent on taking us back to the bad old days which saw my own daughter end up as a half feral child in a class for slow children after only 3 years with her mother. Just as mothers get emotional, so do fathers when we see our children getting abused and neglected and the family court and social workers being complicit in children ending up as my own daughter did.

    Welcome and i hope you put your own submissions and stories in.

13. on 18/11/2009 5:01:16 PMMaureen Jennings
    
    

    Wow! I am shocked to hear some of the women's opinion's as a woman myself. I can only presume its emotional, rather than logical. We are rather emotional beings aren't we. It does give us women a sad reputation. I know guys aren't perfect but hey, nor are we.

14. on 18/11/2009 4:43:26 PMScott
    
    

    Ash,

    Maybe a useful addition to the "Fathers Stories" we are compiling for the A-G would be a collection of the hate-ridden posts from the likes Florin, Cynthia J and Jill McGee.

    To me, they and their messages are the strongest and most powerful reasons for maintaining the current shared parenting laws. Not one of them even mentions the best interest of the children, its all about them getting revenge on their ex'es.

    Which is what the old system assisted them to do.

15. on 18/11/2009 4:09:07 PMLou’s daddy
    
    

    I think its obvious from the posts on this blog who the abusers are.

    Rather than put forward arguments, these spiteful mothers can only make offensive remarks.

    If this is the extent of their ability to reason, then I can understand why they have lost custody of their children.

    Ladies, engage in good faith in this discussion. making abusive posts is helping no one, least of all your kids.

16. on 18/11/2009 1:29:18 PMdavid aldridge
    
    

    Cynthia, How stupid are you. There are many reasons a child might be bed wetting. You can't be much of a mother if you don't know this. If you read on the internet that the world was going to end tomorrow i suppose you would believe that too. If a doctor doesn't believe you then i know who i would sooner believe.To your friends florin, l mont and jill, you have been allowed to post here, yet if i posted the poisonous lies and dribble that you have posted, on a feminist site, i would be deleted and banned from the site immediately. Guess that shows who the bullies really are.

    Ian, feminists such as have posted on here are not exactly renowned for mature discussion or well reasoned arguments. On almost every forum i visit they almost always resort immediately to the denigration of ALL men, and the rationale that mothers and only mothers have rights, children have virtually no rights and men have no rights at all, only responsibilities.

17. on 18/11/2009 11:35:46 AMPaulette MacDonald
    
    

    Shared Parenting It Should be the Norm

    By Lisa S. Ebert, JD

    My marriage ended almost five years ago. And of course we share the parenting of our two children equally. I say “of course” because I can't imagine it any other way. I am often astounded at the parenting arrangements I see that are anything but shared.

    { Link }

    I would urge all you moms out there that don't agree that shared parenting is indeed in the best interest of the child to read the above write up!

    My comments;

    I am a divorced woman, mother... when my ex and I decided to divorce we agreed to put our children first and life went on. My ex husband and I never stepped foot inside a court room. My ex remarried a wonderful woman that loved and nurtured my children (then 4 and 5 years old) right from the start and I loved her for loving my children. My children are now loving, caring adults and I have 4 beautiful grandbabies with number 5 due any day... my daughter and her husband are celebrating their 10th wedding anniversary on the 19th of November.

    I had no idea that this CRAP! Was going on in our so called 'Family Law System'...

    I met my partner and his two young children in 2005 and sadly, that is when we were all introduced to this shamefully flawed, family law system and parental alienation...

    It was my partner's ex that ended their marriage for her lover, who was also her boss. Her income is double that of my partners so you know that her current husband's income is at least double that of hers. We have been to court 6 times since May 15, 2007. They can continue the fight indefinitely...

    My partner and I on the other hand have been forced into an emotional, mental, physical and financial nightmare from hell and we are on the verge of losing everything because of it.

    The saddest part of all is that, whatever my partner and I are feeling and suffering through, it is ten fold for our innocent children who wanted more time with Daddy!

    How sad for all children!

1. on 18/11/2009 9:54:08 AMMike Murphy
   
   

   Oz certainly has its fair share of those who would be considered to be on the fringe of responsible parenthood, moms in this case, who will believe anything about dads or men as long as it is negative. The most vile I have found are those who have lost custody for the very attitudes they show on comment boards

   With them its not about chldren's best interest its loss of status and economics. Can you imagine their difficulty trying to explain how they lost custody and the loss of self esteem. It puts them into overdrive to crusade against dads and all men. In some cases they have the nerve to call themselves protective parents when, in fact, they are the abusers. I see some have visited here already.

   One of the usual canards they use is child support and it is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. "Dads just want shared parenting because they don't want to pay child support." It is as fallacious a piece of logic as exists. Dads will always pay for the support of their child but when it is shared custody they pay as any normal parent does. It goes directly toward the children not a second or third party.

   The opposite is also true and closer to the real heart of the argument. The dead beat mom who may be relying on welfare and child support because she doesn't want to work for a living can't get all the entitlements she has been told she can manipulate out of the system. This really ticks them off even more so than before.

   I have been observing Overington's highly biased and sexist reporting for a couple of years now from way up here in Canada and do wonder how she can get away with it. If she was doing this to anyone but men it would be considered racist, hateful, discriminatory and inappropriate. Her editors may well be eunuchs.

   If you haven't lodged complaints with the newspaper itself, Mr. Murdoch personally, and ethics groups associated with the media it should occur. I've certainly complained myself to The Australian over the Canada Model article which was a letter, I believe, from a tiny group of radical feminist lawyers in my country who use the same well worn abuse canards as down under. We shoot them down with great frequency when they surface up here and it has to be frequent to dispel the entrenched mythology.

   I wish you well and hopefully reason will prevail although I understand you have a socialist government and they are clearly in the feminist camp. Shared parenting is in the best interest of children and sole parenting, particularly by moms, leads to many negative social outcomes. One can see why with some of the comments by them here.

   I will put your post in my blogs on top of the world to give it wider distribution.

2. on 18/11/2009 1:04:19 AMIan Mc
   
   

   Its a real shame Ash that the facts aren't being debated but are simply being obscured by these self-interested parties.

   And what's with all the personal attacks? This is a forum for discussion not for abusive behaviour.

   Girls, if you want to make denigrating comments then do it in your own private forums. This blog is for mature discussion and well reasoned arguments.

3. on 18/11/2009 12:45:37 AML. Mont
   
   

   Caroline is the most honest and wonderful journalist in this country.

   She is doing this to help our kids.

   Stop whinging and start paying your child support, and leave the parenting to those who really care about our kids.

4. on 17/11/2009 5:57:14 PMJill McGee
   
   

   Reporters like Adele Horin and Caroline Overington know you Father Rights guys like to manufacture your own statistics and cannot be relied upon to provide any type of intelligent recourse. You have revealed too much over the years and have exposed yourselves as the misogynistic bullies that you are. Your time has come to an end and the era of the Fathers rights bullying is over.

5. on 17/11/2009 5:53:25 PMCynthia J
   
   

   I reported my ex for child sex abuse but no one believed me. They all said that I made it up.

   Everyone knows that mother's don't make these things up. My boy wet his bed. On the internet it says that if your child wets his bed its because he was sexually abused.

   I did not make it up. The doctor and DOCS were jelos of me that's why they said I lied.

   If the laws are changed I will get my child back and people will have to believe me.

   John Howard was stupid to make these laws. Father's should never be believed.

   I left him because he was jelos of me. Now he has stolen my child with the help of John Howard.

   Thanks to Caroline and Adele I now know that I will get my son back and stop him from seeing that sex abuser forever.

   Thank you girls. Yeah girl power!

6. on 17/11/2009 5:36:05 PMFlorin
   
   

   I can't wait for the old family laws to come back.

   Then I will stop my ex from seeing my kids ever again.

   Its my right and these shared care laws are bad.

   I am the one who gave birth to my kids and only I should be able to decide where they go and what they do.

   Hooray for Caroline and Adele. You go girls!

Equal Shared Parenting Seminar ~ Ottawa ~ PMB C-422

PARLIAMENTARY BREAKFAST SEMINAR:

EQUAL SHARED PARENTING

FOR

SENATORS AND MPs

Did you know:



80% of Canadians support Equal Shared Parenting

Equal Shared Parenting would pass in a free vote



Equal Shared Parenting - Coming to a Parliament Near You.


DATE: NOVEMBER 19,2009

TIME: 7:45 AM – 8:45 AM

PLACE: 253-D Centre Block



REFRESHMENTS: Coffee, Tea & Muffins


1.INTRODUCTION/INTRODUCTION

2. THE SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE/ PERSPECTIVE DE LA SCIENCE SOCIAL

3. WHAT’S THE ISSUE/ QUEL EST L’ENJEU?

WE HAVE ALL SIGNED ON TO THE SOLUTION/ NOUS AVONS TOUS APPUYÉ LA SOLUTION

WHERE DO PARLIAMENTARIANS STAND/ QUELLE EST LA POSITION DE NOS PARLEMENTAIRES?

4. Q&A/PÉRIODE DE QUESTIONS

And in the evening the Canadian Equal Parenting Council and the Canadian Council for Co-Parenting are proud to do a presentation with Professor Edward Kruk on Equal Parenting and Why it Matters, Thursday, November 19th @ 7PM at the Bronson Centre, Rideau Room. No admission.

RSVP: email: kristin.titus@canadianepc.com

or telephone: (905) 987- 5777


Seminar hosted courtesy of Madame Raymonde Folco MP and Mr. Maurice Vellacott MP

In OZ ~ Family Court in the dark over violence, says judge Diana Bryant

The discussion is interesting and confusing just like family court. The feminists and maternalists want it both ways. They raise the issue of abuse, often falsely, in their court affidavits but then advise people like Chisholm they didn't raise it because they didn't think any one would listen. Which is it? Is Bryant or Chisholm starting to see through the smokescreen they put up to maintain ownership and possession of children at the expense of loving dads.MJM

Michael Pelly | November 02, 2009

Article from: The Australian

FAMILY Court judges are not getting enough information to make a proper assessment about the risk of violence in divorce proceedings, judge Diana Bryant says.

However, Chief Justice Bryant says it is a "cop-out" for people to say they do not raise violence issues in the belief nothing will happen - or that it will work against them.

It has been a difficult year for the court, with the death of three-year-old Darcey Freeman in January leading to criticism that it is not attuned to the risk of violent parents.

There has also been criticism of the shared parenting laws, which require the court to presume a child's best interests are served by a continuing relationship with both parents.

The Chief Justice said those who shift blame to the Family Court for their troubles should instead look to the litigants when things go wrong.

"We get the cases where no one is going to be particularly happy," she said. "In children's cases, mostly they have got substance-abuse issues, mental-health issues, family violence - significant family violence or child-abuse issues.

"I don't think that things are caused by decisions. I think people's personalities and motivations drive them in the end."

She said violence cases were the most difficult in family law.

"They are all about risk assessment," she said.

Six inquiries into the shared-parenting laws are under way, with former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm likely to report to the government first.

Chief Justice Bryant said she had had "informal discussions" with Professor Chisholm.

"One of the things he has said to us ... is that many people say 'we don't raise these allegations because we don't think anything will happen'.

"But the judges say they do raise them. They are in every affidavit." She described it as "a circular argument which gets you nowhere". "If you don't raise it, you are never going to find out what the result's going to be and so I don't accept that argument," Chief Justice Bryant said.

"I hear it but I think it's a cop-out. If you don't raise it, then you can't expect an outcome."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26291437-17044,00.html

Toronto Star ~ More reaction to divorce series

There are two series of letter at different links. This is the first with link at the end.

What's the delay on shared custody?

Published On Sat Oct 10 2009

• Email
• Print
• Republish
• Add to Favourites
• Report an error
• Share

• Article

Re: Breaking up: Family courts in crisis, Series Oct. 2-6

There are gaps in the legal system, leading to both fathers and mothers feeling that they are being treated unfairly. But, the real victims are the children who are losing out on a loving relationship with both parents, because of their parents' conflict – who are too consumed with fighting each other, ignoring what's in their children's best interest.

Parents need to work together for the sake of the children, not against each other for vengeance, control and destruction of their ex partner.

Deborah Moskovitch, Divorce Consultant, Author, "The Smart Divorce",

Toronto

I am so glad the Star is examining, in an intelligent way, what works best for children when parents separate. Having mediated hundreds of "good divorces," I think the key is the way parents treat each other, and the way they negotiate their separation. Mutual dignity and respect, positive and fully engaged parenting, and fun and meaningful time with both parents is far more important for the kids than the exact split of parenting time.

Hilary Linton, Mediator, Lawyer, Toronto

"The good divorce." It is a lovely concept and, in cases where two mentally healthy, mature adults are splitting, possible – with a lot of work. But the problem is that most marriages break up exactly because one or both people are not those things.

Are children better off with two parents? Sure, in an ideal world. But not everyone who fathers or gives birth to a child is fit or capable of being a "parent." It takes the giving up of one's self to a large extent.

Joint custody assumptions become a nightmare for all of us trapped in a divorce struggle with someone suffering from a personality disorder. For those ex-spouses, custody is a game and a weapon. A parent who wants custody and the love of their child does not use power, control and money to destroy their children's spouse at their children's expense.

Each case needs to be assessed on its own merits, because people are not something you can classify so easily. "Best" for the kids is not one size fits all, even if it makes life more complex for the judges.

Sadly judges are too busy to even read files, and so the pendulum of opinion as to what is "best" swings with the media.

Mara Cole, Toronto

I sympathize with fathers who have to beg to see their children. I sympathize with mothers who want to protect their children and raise them alone. The incredibly sad reality is that the children of divorce remain the truly suffering victims.

This article represents the tip of the iceberg, I am afraid to say. If you want to embrace your lack of faith in the justice system, take a wild ride on the divorce train courtesy of the reformed Family Law Act. Abandoned children, bankrupt mothers and fathers, you name it, abuse of the system still proliferate and all within the sketchy boundaries of "family law."

Joanne Ryan, North York

Thousands of children suffer due to severed or significantly reduced contact with one of their parents. Does anyone consider their emotions and their sense of loss?

Pamela Cross does not. It is appalling that Ms Cross stated that men who want shared custody of their children only do so because they are control freaks and want a decrease in child support payments. How insulting and irresponsible. It is a shame that she cannot conceive that men have children because they want them and love them. Does she think that women have cornered the market on loving their children? That is the implication of her sexist stance.

Joanne Miller, Toronto

It was both shocking to read how common my story was, yet heartening to see that something might be done with the anti-father-biased family law system in Ontario. From false and discharged allegations of abuse to huge legal bills ($125,000 to date), Susan Pigg's piece about frustrated fathers was my story put more calmly and eloquently.

As a divorced father, it is profoundly difficult not to be emotional. It simply touched the tip of a system that exacerbates rather than fixes the divorce and custody battles in our society that puts our children squarely in the middle of the battlefield.

Our family courts are over burdened, under skilled and fed by greed and emotion rather than logic and vision for the good of the children. Australia is leading the way in family law reform. Since its 2006 reforms, divorce court filings are down 18 per cent.

Canada has still not acted on a 1998 report, "For The Sake Of The Children," calling for changes to our family law system. Blimey Canada, throw a lawyer on the barbie and get with it.

Peter Krakus, Toronto

http://tinyurl.com/ylcewr5

Published On Sat Oct 10 2009

• Email
• Print
• Republish
• Add to Favourites
• Report an error
• Share

• Article

Re: Breaking up: Family courts in crisis, Series Oct. 2-6

What's to debate anymore? Shared parenting has sat on the backburner for 11 years while people wait in court as one or two judges deal with 50 people or more per day. Courts are backed up with uneccesary cases, taxpayers lose, children lose, both parents waste tons of money and animosity remains much higher as fight goes on for years. The only people winning are lawyers. Shared parenting solves most of this.

Women's groups worry about shared parenting helping abusive fathers when angry woman use this system in horrible ways to deny access to childen, accuse fathers of violence, abuse of kids, etc. Fathers often end up in jail on false charges. Shared parenting will help keep this problem under control.

This problem is rampant and fathers and children lose out from angry women who know the system listens to them. The system is archaic and biased. This system will save taxpayers millions of dollars.

Congrats to the Aussie politicians for making it law.

Scott Robinson, Toronto

The kids in "The Good Divorce" (Oct. 4) are obviously misguided. Somebody must tell the Margison children that they are actually dissatisfied with shared parenting.

Mother-only households are superior despite the fact that practically all studies show children need both parents.

After all, as Pamela Cross, director of the National Association of Women and the Law, says, "Entrenching the notion of shared parenting in law is dangerous."

We should only listen to lawyers and others who have a financial interest in removing children from decent loving dads.

I hope readers can discern my sarcasm here. To think kids need only one parent smacks of outright prejudice.

If I could, I would vote for Bill C-422, which calls for equal parenting provisions in cases of family breakdown. And I believe, if children of divorce could, they would vote for equal parenting as well.

Don Mathis, Sherman, Texas

The state of New Hampshire created several committees and commissions to study shared custody, among other issues. There was a Task Force on the Family, A Task Force on Family Law, A Commission on Child Support and Custody Issues, and the United States' first Commission on the Status of Men. All of those groups weighed in heavily on the side of shared custody. As did a 1984 study done by the National Probate Judges College, and a great many respected, objective academics.

The state's Supreme Court convened a "Citizens Commission" to study court issues, and the public input was overwhelming in its disdain for the status quo of sole maternal custody. A variety of studies have clearly shown that when sole maternal custody is the rule, it is to the extreme detriment of children and society. In the words of the Probate Judge's College report, "Shared custody is in the best interests of the child, the parents, the courts, and society in general. So why isn't shared custody the rule, instead of the exception?

Because the courts, states and provinces profit from child support collection. And feminists profit politically from disenfranchising fathers. Furthermore, the domestic violence industry usually weighs in on custody decisions, to further demonize fathers, entitle women, and hype the numbers for their profit. In effect, they are prostituting children for 30 pieces of silver.

Paul Clements, Dads Against Divorce Discrimination, Gaffney, S.C.

My wife and I decided after 11 years of marriage that we would be better off apart. We had a 5-year-old son at the time and thought it would be better for him to grow up with parents who were happy rather than stressed about being together. We felt we were still great friends and because we had no animosity towards each other, we thought it would be best to stay that way and work out our divorce in a way that made us both happy.

We had always worked opposite days so one of us would always be home with our son. We decided custody should be shared with the same arrangement. We split what assets we had and I moved out into a new house nearby. We immediately started shared custody. My son was with me the days my wife was working and vice-versa. He stayed in the same school and although there were lots of questions from my son about why daddy moved to a new house, there was very little disruption to his daily routine. He now had two houses, two bedrooms and two sets of toys and got to be with mommy and daddy every week.

My wife and I decided to apply for a divorce after a year of separation and thought we could do it simply with software, as we did our separation agreement. We quickly found that shared custody is not something that the software could handle so I went to a paralegal to help me sort it out. I soon found out that our legal system does not make it easy for a couple to apply for a simple, uncontested divorce with shared custody.

No lawyers were ever involved as I learned that that route was definitely biased toward confrontation, even when we had none to begin with. I had seen too many messy divorces that seemed to be sucking the life and money out of well meaning parents. However, with help from our paralegal and some wording changes, we were able to fill out an application that satisfied a judge.

It has now been two years since our divorce. Our son is very happy, he gets to see both his parents throughout the week, stay at his same school and see all his friends. My ex and I have both moved since the divorce but have agreed to stay within a short drive of our son's school. We continue to talk throughout each week to stay in communication about any issues and remain good friends.

I now have a fiancée who has a daughter and she too has a shared custody agreement. We have arranged that schedule so we have the kids together at similar times and have created a new family for them both. Our friends and families often remark how good this has all been for our children and how happy everyone is. I very much would like to see the family court system make shared custody a more likely end to divorce so others may enjoy the family lives we now have.

Dr. Tom MacKay, Pickering

Long-term outcomes for children without optimal engagement of fathers are evidenced in our jails. The time and energy and resources consumed in the siloing of who-does-what and who-will-pay for children does not result in children being provided with what they require for optimal development.

More than anything, children need time in a positive relationship, for which they can endure and overcome economic deprivation.

Dads deserve to have the chance to be in community with their kids. The future of our cultural existence depends upon their nurture.

Truncating the necessary psychological development of men from youthful invincibles to mid-life community pillars, in the same time frame as men strive for their ascendancy in life, is crazy making.

One cannot build a future at the same time as the assets required to invest in that future are depleted.

Catherine Soplet, Executive Director, Quality of Life, Mississauga

There isn't any such thing as a good divorce, just a small percentage that aren't ugly. Divorce is usually financially and emotionally distressing to one or both parties.

As far the effect on children, one only has to look at the deterioration of human qualities in the offspring of the high divorce rate generation and single parents.

The answer is to get society to take marriage and parenting more seriously. Men and woman should be held accountable for their actions and responsibilities. The party that is responsible for the breakdown of a marriage (physical abuse, substance abuse, gambling, infidelity, living beyond their means and unrealistic expectations in their relationship), should be made to bear the burden financially and the loss of custody of their children.

Maybe only then, will there be any real fairness in divorce and custody. Even better, this might result in the possibility of a more serious commitment to marriage and parenting, resulting in a better society.

Ben Barone, Willowdale

Let's be honest, there is no such thing as a "good" divorce. It is in fact a broken promise by one or two individuals and there can't be anything good about that. What message are you sending out to the thousands or millions of kids affected by divorce? Perhaps a better headline would have been "The Better Divorce."

I was certainly glad to hear that, through communication, the family in the article was able to do what is best for the children to give them a fighting chance at a normal upbringing. There are simply way too many break-ups nowadays and, in most cases, the children are the ones who get hurt the most.

Michael Gorman, Sharon

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/707714

Detroit News ~ Kids need both parents

MichDads Blog

Larry Herren

Category: Custody

Posted by Larry Herren on Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Kids need both parents

I make no apologies for being a shared parenting advocate. As a family therapist, I've understood for years that kids need both parents. But in 2003, the clinical benefits that are achieved for children in shared parenting and the negative outcomes that often result when a parent is under involved became even more meaningful to me when my son was born.

Yet with all the research and understanding, a minute few still try and argue that the need for shared parenting somehow changes in a divorce or never married dynamic. Unfounded rationalizations include "schlepping from one house to the other is burdensome for kids and they'll do better if they have one primary home." Fact is, most family therapists and research concludes that as long as the environment is safe, predictable and consistent, children do fine in multiple environments. However, they do poorly when the frequency of contact with their parent is restricted to a visitor status and the voids then created tend to be acted out in highly destructive ways.

As a valued family clinician once told me early on in my case, a child's need for a healthy attachment and loving relationship with both parents trumps any need for one residence, neighborhood, etc. It takes real time to develop and maintain that sort of relationship. I've seen this truth illustrated in my child's life. He spends equal time between two homes that are 30 miles apart but he's thriving in every way. Not surprising, children, like adults, define relationships by the frequency of contact and quality of time they spend with someone so regardless of a marital status, it requires a quantity of time to authenticate a parental role. If you're being challenged in your legal ability to achieve something to that end, retain an experienced family law attorney who understands what the Michigan Parenting Time Guideline states:

Michigan statutes recognize that when parents separate or divorce, their children's best interests are served by continuation of the parent/child relationship. So strong is this recognition that the law establishes a presumption that it is in the best interests of a children to have strong relationships with both parents. Therefore, parenting time should be of a frequency, duration and type reasonably calculated to promote a strong relationship between the children and parent. The children have a right to parenting time unless the court determines on the record by clear and convincing evidence that parenting time would endanger the children's physical, mental or emotional health [MCL 722.27a].

Calculating parenting time in a frequency, duration and type that promotes strong relationships between children and their parents. Sounds like a novel idea, certainly nothing that requires sophisticated clinical training or legal brilliance, yet this remains the single most controversial aspect of divorce. One reason why is that some parents continue fighting by trying to use children as pawns to control and hurt the other parent.

Make no mistake about it, taking a willing parent out of the mix of parenting will ultimately hurt and scar your children.

• Comment |
• Read All Comments |
• Link |
• Save and Share

Comments

Jump to bottom

Thu. 10/08/09 05:59 PM

KIDS NEED BOTH PARENTS

• See related article

Larry, I totally agree with your statement, "Kids need both parents ! " The stateement can be backed up by numerous studies, Steve Nock, University of Virginia ,2008( Positive Economic effects of both parent namely father involvement), Philip Cowan, University of California,2009 ( reduction of parental stress, relationship quality, and reduction of children's problem behavior), Katherine Mitchell, Louisiana State University,2009 ( involvement improves well being ), and Lawrence Berger, University of Wisconsin-Madison,2008 ( Benefits to children in terms of child support compliance and financial contributions.

It is sad that many parents continue to relitigate cases that have been decided. Judges are empowered to protect children, they have the authority to protect them from parents that induce mental abuse continually by relitigating. At a minimum the moving party should cover all expenses including court costs and attorney fees for all the parties continuing to use the court as a battlefield for their own agenda. It is wise to look seriously at what one is trying to accomplish by relitigating. If one is continuing to fight and file motions, it may be wise to seek the help of a mental health professional for a complete mental health examination of competence to file motions ( One should rule out Mood disorders, Personality disorders, thought disorders and co-morbidities ). In California, when a party continues to relitigate full custody is given to the party that promotes the MOST time with the other parent. Another way of saying the same thing is that the party who files the most motions, interfering with the other parent and their time. By default and the order of the Judge, full custody goes to the parent who has to defend themselves from frivolous motions. In conclusion, a child needs both parents unless one parent is using the child as a weapon to sabotage that other parents relationship. If that is the case, the court should step in and order full custody to the parent that continues to be victimized by frivolous motions and assess court costs, attorney fees and child support obligations to the moving party who continues the fight !

Zachary, St. Clair Shores, MI

• Reply to this comment |
• Read this thread |
• Read posts by Zachary |
• Report abuse

Thu. 10/08/09 04:28 PM

Kids need both parents

• See related article

Your post is an interesting and powerful argument that shared parenting orders should be the rule, rather than the exception. In most custody cases, both parents are willing and able to participate in shared parenting. It's a tragedy that so many parents, dads or moms, spend so much money and time fighting over their roles when their children are in need of both of them equally. It's also sad that the thousands of dollars they're spending on attorneys and court fees is money that could be used for other things like vacations with their kids, or sports and other extra calicular activities and obviously, with the rising costs of education it's money that could be put away for college.

AveryP, Harper Woods, MI

Absolutely! Shared parenting, by definition in the Michigan Parenting Time Guidelines and multitudes of research that conclude what common sense dictates, is presumed to be in the best interest of children yet it remains the exception rather than the rule in a majority of custody and parenting time orders. Trends are slowly, but absolutely, changing but when parents disagree, the system remains unnecessarily expensive and ripe for manipulation and that has to change.

Thanks for your comments,

Larry

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/dadsblog/index.php?blogid=527

Decision Rendered in Major West Virginia Domestic Violence Lawsuit

	Learn More Join Donate

Dear Mike;

Many of our readers have experienced the problem of false allegations of abuse in the context of divorce and custody proceedings. Today in West Virginia a significant decision was released in the case of Men and Women Against Discrimination (MAWAD) versus The Family Protection Services Board of West Virginia. The findings of fact and conclusions of law contained within Judge Stucky's decision declared several rules of the West Virginia Family Protection Services Board null and void, stating the rules directly conflict with the express intent of West Virginia's legislature that domestic violence programs be administered in a gender neutral fashion while further finding the rules had a chilling effect on MAWAD members free speech right.

Read Judge Stucky's entire decision here. Several of the findings and conclusions include:

19. West Virginia Code 48-26-404 mandates the Board to propose rules for programs of intervention for perpetrators of domestic violence...

20. In response to this legislative mandate the Board adopted Rule 191-3-3....

21. The promulgation of this rule forms the basis for the Board's official position that perpetrator intervention programs should actually be and, in fact are, administered as "batterers" intervention programs with the fundamental premise that only men can be batterers and therefore only men are appropriate candidates for participation in perpetrator intervention programs.

22. The Legislature has expressed a clear intention to provide licensure and funding of perpetrator intervention programs that are gender-neutral; the Board, acting on its own, has ignored this intent and created a gender specific program that includes only men and excludes all women.

From the conclusions:

"The legislature has expressed a clear intention to provide for licensure and funding of perpetrator intervention programs that are gender-neutral. The Board, acting on its own, has morphed this intent into a gender specific program that includes only men and excludes all women...This rule conflicts with the clear intent of the legislature and is void."

Let us know what you think of this decision by responding here. We'll post these responses over the next several days.

TAKE ACTION

Domestic violence groups are one of the primary impediments to getting shared parenting enacted. They actively lobby against two parent involvement around the nation. Help educate your legislators about this problem and ask them to investigate DV programs in your state to see if similar situations are occurring. Take a copy of this decision and circulate it to your state and federal legislators. Find your legislators by clicking here. Include a reference to Dr. Stephen Baskerville's report on Family Violence in America. Also send them a link to the resources of RADAR.

You haven't heard from us for awhile, but we're still leading the way in substantive reform and you'll be hearing much more shortly. By the way, did you receive your most recent copy of The Liberator? More on Alec Baldwin and his efforts for the movement soon.

Congratulations again to Men and Women Against Discrimination. We all appreciate you. Here are links to some of their great spots on DV and Shared Parenting.

Billboard, radio spot 1, radio spot 2, radio spot 3, radio spot 4,

Stay tuned, and help us keep the lights on and the efforts for shared parenting ongoing by making a donation.

Sincerely,

Mike McCormick
ACFC Exec. Dir.

Where separation occurs without anxiety

More and more jurisdictions are moving to a more equal system in marital breakdown instead of the winner take all in Canada that awards a single gender over 90% of chidren's physical custody. Australia's system is an improvement but not a complete model. Only 15% of cases result in 50-50 custody. That is certainly better than before and far better than the sorry state of affairs in this country brought about by lawyers and judges. We do have some centres in Canada that could easily become similar to the OZ Family Relationship Centres. One good example is the Calgary Counselling Centre. Belgium's model is one of the best with a presumption of equality from the start.

I too share the dream of Mr. Parkinson. One day perhaps we can set up centres to act as the first line of defense for saving families from the disaster of family law. We have first responders for Fire, Police and Health emergencies. Family breakdown is a crisis of major proportions and money needs to be invested in 1) saving marriages that can be saved 2) If abuse is involved get family counselling instead of the current paradigm of providing $208,000,000.00, in Ontario alone for a single gender. This is not working 3)Treat each member of the family equally but truly look at the best interest of children. Currently that appears to award custody physically to mom and marginalize dads as visitors 4) if abuse, physical and/or emotional cannot be curtailed the non-abusive parent gets custody. 5) Include a follow-up appointment process to let parents and children know they are not forgotten and alone. 6) As they do in Belgium severe penalties for with holding access. That is equivalent to kidnapping there and jail can result for the abductor. You can be ensured it will only happen once, if at all.

Often the canard of male abuser - female benign is brought up as an issue for shared parenting. It is a non-logical argument. Stats Can reports abuse between genders as pretty much equal. It impacts about 8% of women and 7% of men. Lets turn that around. It doesn't impact 92% of women and 93% of men. The logic of not having shared parenting when 92-93% of the population is not affected makes no sense. Lets start acting logically instead of the shrieking we hear from certain quarters. See my earlier posts on dealing with abuse.MJM

RICHARD LAUTENS / TORONTO STAR

Alfred Mamo, a lawyer in London, Ont., says the province’s family court system has gotten worse in the past decade. It’s “making people crazy,” he says.

Where separation occurs without anxiety

October 07, 2009

Susan Pigg

living reporter

It seems that Australia isn't all that different from Canada – except, of course, for the accents and the kangaroos.

About 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce, weddings are on the decline in favour of living common law, and a lot of couples don't know where to turn when their relationship ends.

Well, at least they didn't until 2006.

That's when the Australian government launched one of the most ambitious set of divorce reforms in the world, aimed at putting family first and providing a raft of supports for couples, whether they're just starting out, or struggling to save their marriage, or trying to shield their children from separation flak.

In the past three years, 65 Family Relationship Centres have opened across the land Down Under. The well-marked storefronts, located in high-traffic city centres, are the backbone of some $400 million in family law reforms meant to ease the pressure on overburdened courts, reverse the phenomenon of "disappearing dads," and ensure divorce is as painless as possible for children.

"They're part of a 20-year cultural change – the first port of call for people managing the transition from parenting together to parenting apart," says University of Sydney law professor Patrick Parkinson, who pushed the previous, John Howard government for the new approach over pumping more money into the courts.

The program is meant to be one-on-one, recognizing that the worst moments for separated couples and their kids are the first hours and days after one partner announces they're leaving.

It's also meant to be affordable. Everyone who walks through the door, or calls the toll-free line, is entitled to three free hours of help every two years, whether it be on-site counselling and mediation or off-site specialized services. After that, costs are based on ability to pay.

Walk in the door of a Family Relationship Centre and you are greeted by a "parenting counsellor" rather than a wall of pamphlets. Their job is to get a sense of your personal situation and how it's playing out for your family, and to assess what help you need to start moving ahead.

The centres are meant to act as triage units for ex-partners who may be hobbled by mental health issues and addictions, or children acting out because of prolonged family conflict. "They will not close that file until they are certain that person has got the help they need," says Parkinson.

Mediation is a mandatory first step, a move aimed at making the costly and adversarial court system a "mechanism of last resort."

The last of the centres opened last year, and already Australia has seen an 18 per cent drop in court filings, Parkinson says.

The reforms included legislative changes aimed at making shared parenting the norm (except if there are extenuating circumstances such as violence in the home, mental health issues or addictions) and support payments more equitable.

The idea is to give ex-partners much-needed flexibility, and the peace of mind that comes from knowing they can go back to the centre in a few weeks, or even years, to tweak details or change custody arrangements without the expense of hiring a lawyer and going to court.

The reforms were inspired in part by a 2003 national survey that pointed to a worrisome trend. It found that 36 per cent of 1,000 separated men interviewed hadn't seen their children in the previous year – because of conflict with their ex-spouses, distance, economics or remarriages – although 80 per cent of them wanted to.

As well, MPs were being deluged with calls from constituents upset about divorce issues and their treatment in the family court system.

But, most of all, there were growing fears that family breakdown and conflict was resulting in increased social problems among kids – from drug abuse to gang activity – and more children being taken into foster care, says Parkinson.

Out of those concerns came a national commission, 1,700 submissions and the landmark "Every Picture Tells a Story Report" – not unlike Canada's 1998 report, "For the Sake of the Children."

The only difference? Australia moved on its commission's recommendations, while most of them remain shelved here in Canada.

Family law lawyers such as Alfred Mamo of London, Ont., contend things here have gotten worse over the past decade.

Many of Ontario's family courts are on the brink of breakdown thanks to a perfect storm of problems: a shortage of judges, lengthy court dockets and a woefully inadequate Legal Aid system that is forcing more litigants to represent themselves, with no understanding of complex family law, rules of evidence or even what documents they need.

Judges complain that has added to the chaos by necessitating adjournments that drag out cases and drive up costs.

The result is a two-tier system of justice in Ontario. Couples who can afford it are flocking to costly private mediation and arbitration to avoid getting bogged down in court. Everyone else is mired in a legal system that's so slow and unpredictable, it can take a child's lifetime and the couple's life savings before a judge finally makes a ruling. Many lawyers believe that's actually ratcheting up tension and adding to the number of high-conflict divorces and allegations of parental alienation.

"The lawyers need to own some of this," says Mamo, echoing litigants who blame attorneys for dragging out cases to make more money. Lawyers call it "milking the file."

In defence of his profession, Mamo adds: "To some degree we're in the cancer business. You want to help everybody, but the reality is you can't because human emotions are just so complicated and there are so many variables.

"We could be doing a lot better, though, there's no doubt about that."

Just 2 to 3 per cent of all disputes end up in full-blown trials, but that's largely because litigants go broke first.

In especially overloaded courts in high-growth areas such as Newmarket, Brampton and Barrie, judges are often expected to plow through 25 to 40 cases a day. Litigants complain they can spend hours – and thousands of dollars on a lawyer – waiting for just 15 minutes before a judge and another months-long adjournment.

"The system is making people crazy," says Mamo, who co-authored a study of the courts two years ago.

University of Western Ontario professor Peter Jaffe, who worked with Mamo on that study, describes family courts as "restaurants without kitchens.

"You can ask for anything you want, but in the end all they have is a couple of items, hamburgers and hot dogs," says Jaffe, word academic director of the university's Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women and Children.

Some 17 of the more than 80 family courts in Ontario have on-site mediators, and they have diverted some couples from the courtroom and toward a workable settlement. But the much-lauded Family Law Information Centres – court-based services that were intended to act somewhat like Australia's Family Relationship Centres – are, in most courts, little more than pamphlet booths.

Duty counsel, who are supposed to help ensure litigants are properly prepared for their first court appearance, usually have time for just 20 minutes per client. Volunteer law students pick up some of the slack, but just in major centres like Toronto and London.

"We can't tinker – the system is broken and needs very significant reform," says well-respected family law lawyer Philip Epstein.

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley recognizes the need for reform, and says the government has been pressing Ottawa to help – especially in appointing more judges – since 2004.

He's been meeting with family law experts to see what Ontario can do on its own, and quickly. He's already announced $150 million more in legal aid, most of it for family law, but lawyers complain that's far from enough.

Australia's Parkinson is determined that, over time, the Family Relationship Centres will become more than just after-separation services for couples. His dream is that they help prevent family breakdown.

He takes pride in simple signs of progress – like the four filing cabinets that line one wall of the centre in the seaside industrial city of Wollongong, 1 1/2 hours south of Sydney.

Three of them are packed with the case files of separated couples. The fourth is full of families working hard, with the help of centre staff, to save their marriages.

Read more from this series:

Divorced dads can't catch a break

The good divorce: Equally shared parenting

Kids hit hard in nasty divorces

Grandparents go to court for access to grandchildren

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/articlePrint/706400