Dave Nash ~ A father's odyssey for child custody

 

 

Kenora Ontario 

Posted 5 hours ago

For most of us, Monday's are a struggle. This is especially true in July, when the weather gets nice.

Now imagine the journey of Dave Nash, who started off on foot from Kenora yesterday morning, hoping to put another 60 to 70 km under his belt. While he admits he's not Terry Fox, and he'll be walking some of those miles, it's still quite a feat (pun intended).

"People have had their families devastated by the Family Justice System," he said, during a short break before heading out.

The Guelph, Ont., resident started from Victoria and he's headed east.

"The reason I'm doing this is so that no other child has to go through this," he added.

Nash acknowledged his own son was caught in the middle of the custody battle between his parents, and it was during some important formative years, which was hard on everyone involved.

In his experience, the vast majority of parents seeking access are men, but there are also women who have approached him with similar stories.

"There's a gender bias," he said, before listing some of the terrible stories he's heard on his cross-country trek. For this reason, he said he's been met with great support along the way.

Since he hasn't got anybody accompanying him, strangers have offered him lodgings and provisions. He said his run has struck a chord with people from B.C. through the Prairies.

Originally, he'd hoped to break a record for the long-distance run, but he's had to revise his plans.

"I wanted to be able to run all of it, but my knees are killing me," he admitted, before hitting the road again.

Copyright © 2010 Kenora Daily Miner and News

http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2676677

Divorced parents sharing custody of kids

Here is an article that is truly in the best interest of children.  As the courts in Canada will not change we need legislation forcing them to do so. Bill C-422 achieves this goal.MJM

 

 By SAM SHAWVER, Special to The News and Sentinel
 

Photo by Sam Shawver
Divorced parents Matt Hively, left, and Jorun Picciano share custody of their children, Jacob, 15, Michaela, 13, and Jacynda, 12. At center is the Piccianos’ dog, Max.

MARIETTA - An estimated 15 to 20 percent of divorced moms and dads share the parenting of their children in the U.S., according to statistics from the Washington, D.C.-based American Coalition for Fathers & Children, a nonprofit organization that supports shared parenting.

But shared or joint custody of children after divorce is becoming more popular as courts realize the importance of both birth parents to children's lives.

That's just common sense, according to Matt Hively of Marietta and his former wife, Jorun Picciano of Williamstown, who have shared custody of their three children, Jacob, Michaela and Jacynda for the last 10 years.

"The first thing you have to decide is what's best for the kids," Matt said. "If more people would focus on their kids and not try to play them against one parent or the other, things can work out."
Jorun agreed.

"Just because Matt and I couldn't live together doesn't mean we can't be friends and be there for our kids," she said.

Jacob, 15, Michaela, 13, and 12-year-old Jacynda share two homes with their parents, but are equally at ease with mom or dad.

"We each have our own homes, but have set them up so the kids can show up at either house without having to pack anything," Matt said.

One thing that makes their situation unique is that both Matt and Jorun have remarried and all four spouses are close friends that have a hand in caring for each other's children.

"Matt's more like a brother-in-law to me, and we are good friends," said Jorun's husband, Nick Picciano.

"And having another guy's perspective in the family is really helpful sometimes," Matt said.

Matt's wife, Diana, completes the team.

"If anything would happen to Matt, Diana would still be there for the kids," Jorun said.

In addition to Matt and Jorun's three biological children, Matt and Diana have a daughter, Megan, 9, and Nick has a 12-year-old daughter, Lucia, from his previous marriage.

"All five see each other as siblings," Jorun said.

Matt, a Marietta firefighter, and Jorun, a paramedic with Medcorp of Marietta, work staggered schedules of 24 hours on and 48 off, which means one or the other is always home for the kids.

"People are going to read this and think, 'are they insane?'" Nick said, adding that most people would have a hard time believing divorced parents like Jorun and Matt could provide a stable environment for their children.

"But they've put their differences behind because they realized it takes both parents for this to work, and the kids are the glue that holds it all together," Nick said.

Matt and Jorun are quick to acknowledge that it wasn't always easy, and takes some work to maintain the family environment with two households.

"It probably took at least six to eight months for us to work out all the logistics at first," Jorun said.
"There was a lot of trial and error at the beginning," Matt said. "It's a process and you really have to work at it.

"But I didn't want to be a 'weekend' dad. You hear about kids who end up in jail or in trouble because they didn't have their dad around, and I didn't want our kids to grow up that way," he added.

"You also have to consider that, no matter what, you're always going to be these children's parents, even after they're grown," Jorun said.

She said they worked hard to make the transition as seamless as possible for the children after the divorce.

"We know we're fortunate to have this situation," Jorun said. "At the end of a ball game, Jacob doesn't have to be concerned about which parent he should go to - we all sit in the bleachers together and have a good time."

And the kids have learned there are some benefits to having two homes.

"We get to have Christmas twice," Jacynda said.

http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/532138.html?nav=5061

B.C. to revolutionize Family Relations Act, revise legal definition of 'parent'

Is this just a change in terminology or is it real change. The latter would involve having both parents remain in the lives of children and getting to the real stats on DV which are pretty much equal between genders with the female partner initiating it at a greater rate. The fact Tracy Porteous, executive director of the Ending Violence Association, likes it is worrisome as their main goal in life is to exclude dads from the lives of their children and paint a broad brush of all men as evil. 

That being the case then nothing will be changed by these proposals. The fact no dads groups are being quoted in this article, only women and lawyers is telling. Lawyers are in it for the money, not the best interest of children, and have a vested interest in ensuring they are continually involved. That means continued adversarial relationships as that is their job -the best deal for their client – not the children.MJM 

 

Attorney-General Mike de Jong, Photograph by: Steve Bosch, Vancouver Sun

By Jonathan Fowlie, Vancouver Sun July 19, 2010 Comments (19)

VICTORIA — The B.C. government plans revolutionary changes to family law to better reflect the realities of modern society.

Its proposals to update the 30-year-old Family Relations Act include revising the legal definition of a parent, changing property-division rules, making children’s interests the “only” consideration in parenting disputes, and even replacing the terms “custody” and “access” with “guardianship” and “parenting time.”

Another key aspect of the proposals is to change the adversarial aspect of separations, making it easier for couples to use out-of-court options to resolve issues such as child custody and division of assets.
“This is groundbreaking, absolutely groundbreaking,” said Vancouver lawyer Georgialee Lang, adding many lawyers have wanted to see these types of changes for years.

“I think they’ve done a very comprehensive job.”

In releasing more than 170 pages of recommended changes that will be open for public reaction and comment until October, Attorney-General Mike de Jong underscored how much families have changed in recent years.

“Increasing numbers of children are living with single parents or step-parents, the traditional family structure has changed, divorce and separation are far more common than they once were and we have a far better understanding today than perhaps we once did about the challenges associated with family violence and the impact that conflict has on children,” he said.

“We have family law built around a very adversarial model and we think there is a better way — when a family changes or when a relationship comes apart — there is a better way to resolve some of those issues then rushing off to court,” said de Jong.

“We will always need the court, but we do not need a system that is primarily an adversarial system.”---- Under the proposed new law, couples seeking a court proceeding must first demonstrate they have considered resolving their issues using other means. The law will also make the rules around negotiated agreements more predictable and easier to understand.

Reaction to the recommendations was immediately positive.

Tracy Porteous, executive director of the Ending Violence Association, said the government “is taking a big step today to increase the safety of women and children with respect to enforcement of protection orders and looking at the best interest of the child.”

She particularly liked the proposal to make the best interests of a child the “only” consideration in parenting disputes, and extending the definition of those interests to include factors such as the history of the child’s care, family violence and consideration of related civil or criminal proceedings.

New Democratic Party critic for the attorney-general Leonard Krog said he supported the proposed changes, and agreed the best place for family law cases is outside the court.

But he said he is concerned the B.C. Liberal government will not provide enough resources to support people going through mediation or other out-of-court settlements.

“Given [the government’s] record on broken promises, will they provide the kind of financing that is needed to support this system? Will there be accessible and affordable mediation services?” he asked.

“It’s all well and good to talk about trying to keep people out of the courtroom, well fine, where are you going to put them and how much is it going to cost them?”---- De Jong invited the public to review the detailed recommendations and to submit comments before Oct. 8. He said once the consultation is finished, government will finish drafting a bill that can be introduced into the legislature.

Coming after four years of consultation, the proposed changes reach into a variety of areas of family law.
The proposals would extend the rules of property division to couples who have been living together as common-law partners for more than two years, as well as to any common-law couples who have a child together.---- That change would be significant, as the property division aspect of the existing Family Relations Act generally does not apply to unmarried spouses.

The proposed new law also changes the way property is divided in the event of a separation, which the government says will create more certainty.

Under the new scheme, a couple would split property owned by one or both spouses at the time of separation, but with some exceptions. Those exceptions include items such as gifts and inheritances to one spouse; pre- and post-relationship property, and settlements or damage awards from tort claims involving just one spouse.


Under the existing law, property eligible for division is defined as that “ordinarily used for a family purpose,” a definition many have said is too vague.
 
The new proposals also seek to add legal clarity to situations where more than two people may be involved in the conception and birth of a child, such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization.
The new law would state that a birth mother would be the child’s legal mother and could only give up her parental status through either adoption or surrogacy.

In an assisted conception that is not a surrogacy, the law would presume the birth mother’s partner — either opposite sex or same sex — to be the child’s other parent.---- Third-party donors of eggs, sperm or embryo would not be considered a legal parent, though they would be allowed to apply for such a designation and the new law would allow for more than two legal parents to be named.

The proposed new law would also replace terms like “custody” and “access” with “guardianship” and “parenting time,” a move many say will lead to a less adversarial process.

The law would also make child access as much a responsibility as a right by allowing a court to intervene and take action if a parent “fails to exercise the parenting time or contact without notice to the applicable guardian.”


Those wanting to view the proposed changes, or make comments to the government, can do so here: www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation
jfowlie@vancouversun.com
Read the entire report here

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/revolutionize%20Family%20Relations%20revise%20legal%20definition%20parent/3296290/story.html#ixzz0uEjJe4dW

Suit: Woman offered 14-year-old sex, drugs on flight

Looks like the airlines who won't let a male sit beside an unaccompanied child on flights, because they believe all men are perverts, should consider either dropping their sexist policies or do likewise for females based on the following story. BA was recently successfully sued by a man who was rightly quite offended by their request to move from sitting beside his pregnant wife, who could not sit in the middle seat, because there was a child in the seat beside him.  Sexism is wrong and the policy needs to be terminated or applied equally to both genders.MJM

 

July 13, 2010 7:26 AM | 7 Comments | UPDATED STORY

 

A Chicago area father claims in a lawsuit that Southwest Airlines failed to protect his teenage son from an older female passenger who made sexual advances and offered him illegal drugs during a flight two years ago.

The incident occurred on a July 2008 flight from Chicago's Midway Airport to Orlando, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in Cook County Circuit Court.

The boy, who was 14 at the time, asked flight attendants to switch his seat multiple times but "was emphatically told no," the lawsuit said.

"This was a little boy who was flying alone who was really, you know, in the care and custody of that airline," the family's attorney, Jeffrey Deutschman, said in a telephone interview. "They failed to protect him. They allowed an individual to get intoxicated on that flight. That person was harassing my client sexually as well as trying to give him drugs. He was a very scared little boy."

A spokesman for Southwest Airlines declined comment on the lawsuit.

The boy, who was flying to Florida to visit relatives, was so frightened by the experience that he refused to return home by himself, so his father flew down to accompany him home, according to Deutschman.

The family is asking for more than $50,000 for the "personal injury" that the boy sustained while on the flight.

--Cynthia Dizikes

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/suit-woman-offered-14-year-old-sex-and-drugs-on-flight.html?obref=obnetwork

In the UK ~ Shared Parenting Bill presented in the House of Commons

14 July 2010

A Private Members Bill on shared parenting was tabled yesterday in the House of Commons by Brian Binley, Conservative MP for Northampton South.

The legislation would provide for the making of Shared Parenting Orders following separation or divorce and to create a legal presumption that such Orders enhance the welfare of the child unless certain exceptions apply. It would also provide appropriate safeguards for cases where shared parenting is not the best solution.

Critics argue that the current the law too often has a divisive impact on families, treating one parent as the sole carer and the other as the sole financial provider. 

Shared parenting legislation is increasingly common elsewhere in the world. Australia, France, Denmark, Belgium and a number of US states are examples.

Mr Binley said: "Shared Parenting legislation is vitally important for all involved, especially the children. Very often court orders are made without the knowledge of the importance of a father's involvement and my bill will make sure that neither parent is shut out from the child's life when sadly a relationship breaks down. I don't need to underline the importance of both parents in a child's life.

"A significant proportion of the social problems in today's society are a result of when a child doesn't have the love and support of both parents where safe. I hope that this bill will go some way to help this, which will only be good for society." 

The Bill will be debated in the House of Commons next summer.

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/shared-parenting-bill-presented-in-the-house-of-commons

also:

Brian Binley MP for Northampton South has tabled a Private Member’s Bill which calls for the making of shared parenting orders to enhance the welfare of a child.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the making of shared parenting orders and to create a legal presumption that such orders enhance the welfare of the child unless certain exceptions apply and for connected purposes.

Brian said: “Shared parenting legislation is vitally important for all involved, especially the children.” 

“Very often Court Orders are made without the knowledge of the importance of a father’s involvement and my bill will make sure that neither parent is shut out from a child’s life when sadly a relationship breaks down.”

“I don’t need to underline the importance of both parents in a child’s life. A significant proportion of the social problems in today’s society are a result of when a child doesn’t have the love and support of both parents.”

“I hope the Bill will go some way to help this which can only be good for society.”

The Bill is supported by 10 other MP’s and includes: Dr Therese Coffey, Douglas Carswell, Phillip Hollobone, Christopher Chope, Peter Bone, Mark Reckless, Caroline Dineage, Mark Pritchard, Harriett Baldwin and David Nuttall.


http://cornerstonegroup.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/news-flash-brian-binley-mp-tables-shared-parenting-orders-bill/

Barbara Kay: The multicultural approach to justice

My observations on the sentence for a Muslim woman who strangled her child.

Justice Sal LoVecchio is typical of Canadian judges who, through feminist training, think of themselves as the new white knights out to save and empower females from the brutish males of the world. This translates to 90% sole physical custody to moms and statistically relevant, much lighter sentencing for females as compared to men for the exact same crime. The Latimer case is very apropos to compare.

Given the woman is a Muslim, is this the judicially, politically correct way to cover up an honour killing? A 300 pound Muslim felt threatened by a 14 year old girl and strangled her with a viciousness to suck the life out of her own child. Children suffer far greater negative consequences in the custody of single moms. In this case, and as is shown by USA government stats one of those outcomes is killing of a child by the mom in far greater numbers than by the biological father. The child had many strikes against her including being a Muslim, with an apparent controlling mother, who was single, and living in a modern secular country like Canada. The judge and apologists for this woman do no favours to children in similar circumstances. How do we let these kinds of people into the country?

This needs to be appealed and a sentence imposed equivalent to Robert Latimer. He also had no right to kill his child, despite what he thought was compassion, and this woman gets a free ride by a very naive and obsequious judge.MJM

Barbara Kay  July 16, 2010 – 8:47 am

 

In 2007 Aset Magomadova, at the end of her tether in dealing with a troubled and by her account troublesome 14-year old daughter, strangled the girl to death with a scarf.

Let it be noted, before going any further into this story, that to kill a healthy human being by strangulation, you have to cut off their air supply for 2.5 to 3 minutes. They lose consciousness and go limp long before they are at risk of dying. So you really can’t argue that you have strangled someone in self-defence or by accident or in a moment’s confusion or loss of control. If a person dies after you have had your way with a scarf around her neck, you can be sure the intention behind the attack was not benign.

And now to the sentencing of Aset Magomadova. Calgary Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio convicted the mother of manslaughter, acquitting her on the original charge of second-degree murder, and pronounced a sentence of…probation. No jail time. Dead daughter. Mother killed her. No jail time.




In his 25-page decision, the judge said that “Showing mercy does not mean we disapprove of the act. It simply means sometimes a particular situation may demand a slightly different solution.” (my emphasis)

Apparently Magomadova’s lawyer really got to the judge with an account of the defendant’s “catastrophic” background in war-torn Chechnya, where her husband was killed in conflict while she was pregnant with a son who later was born with Muscular Dystrophy.

I would venture to say that many killers have a “particular situation.” Robert Latimer springs to mind. Robert Latimer was a white Canadian male of European extraction, so perhaps his “particular situation,” that of watching his profoundly disabled daughter Tracy, a victim of Cerebral Palsy, suffer the agonies of the damned for years in spite of every possible medical intervention available (which amounted to, in Latimer’s words, “mutilation and torture”), could not quite compete with the sad tale of a Muslim widow from Chechnya with an irritating daughter and a son with Muscular Dystrophy.

Latimer was convicted of second degree murder, but the judge in his second trial opted for leniency on the grounds that he acted from “compassion,” ordering a light sentence of one year in jail and one under house arrest. Not good enough for the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which insisted on the full weight of the law being applied, namely a life sentence. Latimer pleaded to the Supreme Court of Canada that he had had no choice but to end her suffering. Nope, the Supreme Court said, Latimer had other options and a ten-year sentence was not “excessive.”

Well, the Magomadova case is going to the Court of Appeal. Let us keep a careful eye on their appraisal of Judge LoVecchio’s multicultural approach to justice. And if it should go to the Supreme Court, even more so.

This LoVecchio judgment was simply outrageous. In an earlier musing, the judge opined that Aset Magomadova was not a danger to society. Well,  she was a danger to an individual who was helpless to escape her rage – her very own daughter. And what message does his “sentence” of probation send to other parents from other countries, war-torn or not, who believe that they have the power of life and death over their children?

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/16/babara-kay-the-multicultural-approach-to-justice/#ixzz0trbWeRxF