Legal Aid Eligibility in Ontario

Note to File: Ruminations on Family Law (FLAW)

June 1, 2009


The ex apparently ran out of legal aid funding and so at a Trial Management meeting the scheduled trial to commence the week of April 20/09 was postponed until tentatively the last two weeks of August 09. This was premised on the ex somehow being able to tap back in to legal aid funding.


The peculiar thing was as soon as she went off legal aid she bought a brand new Toyota Matrix and clearly indicated to the judge would not be able to self-represent herself at trial. This is true as she cannot think things through logically and reasonably when under pressure due to mental health issues. That was aptly displayed with her convoluted answers to questions Judge McMillan raised during the trial management. She made it perfectly clear she would not resolve to take the house as a financial settlement or do shared parenting as she was in her own words, "wanting her entitlements." Yes she said those exact words!


If you are new to the divorce arena, and it is indeed an arena, pitting parent against parent with children as the winner take all prize, then entitlements is what causes most women to initiate a divorce. In Canada females are initiators in 75% of cases and for good reason. In 90% of cases they achieve physical custody of the children, irrespective of time spent as the caregiver. Don't believe what the judges tell you as they have one mantra and that is a form of gender apartheid. They play it safe and award custody to the female and all the entitlements to go with it. I digress a tad from the matter at hand due to an irritating illness currently absorbing my body in pain and discomfort causing me to want to rant a little.


How does someone use up legal aid (about $12,500.00) and then buy a new vehicle and then purport to reapply. I have no money, no cash flow, and in great debt but I was told I don't qualify. Is there one rule for females and one for men? We shall see because if she somehow miraculously re-qualifies for legal aid I will raise a stink from here to Queen's Park where our law makers sit on their hands ruminating over family law (FLAW)



M. J. Murphy

Dissident Fathers Rights Advocate (with annoying upper respiratory infection making me "testy" today.)

From OZ ~ Dads on the Air ~ FATHERHOOD AND POLITICS

| www.dadsontheair.net

Local Sydney Time: 10.30am to 12 midday Tuesday June 2 2009
USA Eastern time: 8.30pm to 10pm Monday June 1, 2009
USA Pacific time: 5.30pm to 7pm Monday June 1, 2009
UK GMT time: 12.30am to 2am Monday night (Tuesday morning) June 2, 2009

Listen live on 2GLF 89.3FM in Sydney
or online via live streaming at www.893fm.com.au/On-Air
or in MP3 format at www.dadsontheair.net
or subscribe to our Podcast here

With special guest:

• Ray Barry.

Ray Barry is the Religious Affairs Co-Ordinator with Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) and Party Leader for the Equal Parenting Alliance (EPA) in the UK. This is a must-listen interview, succinctly summing up the state of Family Law in the UK and the challenges that lie ahead.

Ray joined F4J shortly after it was formed. At present he co-ordinates all campaigns and correspondence relating to Religious Affairs and has a 2:2 Degree in Theology after spending just over a year at priest training college. He has also worked on press liaison for the group and was involved in the initial planning for the York Minster and Buckingham Palace protests. As well as planning, he has taken an active role in protests, including climbing on to the roof of his local church, and holding a Family Law Lotto poster in front of TV cameras during the National Lottery draw.

The civil rights group Fathers 4 Justice was founded in December 2002 by Matt O'Connor after he experienced first hand the injustices of the secret family courts as he struggled to see his two boys Daniel and Alexander after a traumatic divorce. Started as a vehicle for social change, F4J quickly became the high-wire act of protest groups, whether powder-bombing the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, scaling the balcony at Buckingham Palace in a Batman Costume, invading the Pulpit at York Minster during a General Synod Service or taking the National Lottery Draw live off air on BBC1 in front of ten million viewers.

But behind the headlines and dramatic protests is a new creed for family law enshrined in their documents "Family Justice On Trial - Opening The Door On Closed Courts" and "Blueprint for Family Law in the 21st Century." These pioneering, ideas-led documents set out radical and visionary frameworks for a fair, just, open and equitable system of family law.

F4J campaigns not just in the name of the father, but in the name of all parents, grandparents and children seeking equality in family law. The achievements of F4J to date are best described by the Times Newspaper who in January 2006 wrote:

"F4J caught the spirit of the times: they reflected the zeitgeist, and they changed it... for all the flaws within F4J, the issue of fatherhood has a currency that would have been unimaginable three years ago... when historians look back on British Society at the start of the third millennium, they will accord a small but important chapter to the men in tights."

In just a few years F4J has not only effected "climate change", but it has also succeeded in discrediting the secret courts and undermining public confidence in them. The result has been to force the government to advance proposals to open up the secret family courts to greater scrutiny and propose tougher enforcement of contact orders.

The Equal Parenting Alliance is a relatively new UK political party, formed in February 2006 which aims to promote a system of family justice in the UK that puts the needs and interests of children first. It can hardly have escaped anyone’s attention over the last few years that there is a great deal of disquiet about the operation of the family justice system in the UK. Indeed, the EPA shares the view that there is an awful lot to complain about.

The EPA thinks the family justice system should respect the right of children to normal parenting by their two parents above the rights or wishes of either of their parents alone. The current system does not do this. To give the most obvious illustration of this, it allows one parent to easily eliminate the other parent from a child's life, if they wish. The EPA believes this is fundamentally wrong and bad for children. The EPA will lobby until family law is changed to operate fairly and for the benefit of children.

For more information about Dads on the Air, click here

Despite wealth, health and opportunity, men still more content says study by US National Bureau of Economic Research

Comments left on the Times site:

I'm not quite certain how women can ever be happy. The dominant flavour of feminism is "Victim Feminism," By its very nature it subscribes to the notion all women are victims of the patriarchy and, therefore, can never be equal.

This article even skirts around some of the mythologies associated with Victim Feminism such as the wage gap. This gap exists because of choices women make not the patriarchy. Check the recent studies of female Doctors in Canada who, would you believe make less than their male counterparts.

Mike Murphy, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada

From The Sunday Times

May 31, 2009

Women less happy after 40 years of feminism

Richard Woods

On the long and winding road to having it all, Helen Parker is making good progress. At 27 she’s forging a career as an executive with a transport company in London, she has a steady boyfriend, and together they are buying a flat. One day the prospect of starting a family will beckon.

By many standards, she’s thriving. So is she happy?

“Um, I’m reasonably happy,” she said. “And I’m optimistic about the future. But there will always be sacrifices.

“There’s plenty more opportunities for women than there used to be — but then again, that means you are always questioning whether the moves you have made are correct, or whether you should have done something else.”

Like many women, her sense of wellbeing and life satisfaction do not match up with advances in social circumstances and material comforts. After 40 years of fighting for equality, it seems that women are no happier. In fact, women in many countries have been growing steadily unhappier compared with men, according to a study published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the United States.
In The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania, begin by noting the gains.

“By many measures the progress of women over recent decades has been extraordinary: the gender wage gap has partly closed; educational attainment has risen and is now surpassing that of men; women have gained an unprecedented level of control over fertility; (and) technological change in the form of new domestic appliances has freed women from domestic drudgery,” they wrote.

Yet Stevenson and Wolfers have found that in America women’s happiness, far from rising, has fallen “both absolutely and relatively to that of men”. Where women in the 1970s reported themselves to be significantly happier than men, now for the first time they are reporting levels of happiness lower than men.
In Europe, people’s sense of happiness has risen slightly, but less so for women than men. In 12 European countries, including Britain, the happiness of women has fallen relative to that of men.

The authors readily admit that measuring happiness is necessarily a subjective task, but the overall trend from the data, compiled from social surveys conducted over many years, is clear and compelling.

The work builds on earlier research by Andrew Oswald, professor of economics at Warwick University, who has a particular interest in the study of happiness. He said: “What Betsey and Justin have done, which is a valuable addition, is to show that the trend is found rather widely. For most of the post-war era, happiness surveys showed women noticeably happier than men. That difference has now eroded to zero.”

The big question is: why?

When measures of women’s happiness started to dip, some sociologists reached for a simple solution known as the “second shift”. Women’s opportunities in paid employment had increased, but their domestic load had not correspondingly reduced. The belief was that they were going out to work then doing a “second shift” at home — no wonder they weren’t ecstatic.

Sorry, that won’t wash, say Stevenson and Wolfers. Surveys of how individuals spend their time show that for both men and women total work hours (combining paid or domestic) have declined since 1965.

Yes, women’s hours of “market work” have increased, but that has been offset by “large declines in their non-market work”. At the same time “men are now working fewer hours in the market and more hours in home production”.

On a purely statistical basis, women can’t argue their burden has got worse or is now drastically unequal.

However, more subtle influences should be considered, argues Dame Joan Bakewell, the broadcaster, because women’s emotional responses to the change in circumstances are different from those of men.

“Women do stub their toes on the work-life balance much more than men,” she said. “Even if they have solved it (in practical terms), they worry about it.

“So they are probably going to say, ‘Well, I’m not as happy as I could be because I’m carrying this burden of worry’.”

Others suggest that the pay gap between men and women, even if it has narrowed, is still a grievance.

Karen Pine, professor of developmental psychology at Hertfordshire University and author of Sheconomics, said: “When I have talked to women about their emotional relationship with money, for many there was still a feeling that they didn’t deserve more.

“Women have been socialised to be people-pleasers. They don’t want to appear greedy or grabbing. When they have to adopt an assertive attitude to money — asking for what they are worth — many of them experience a conflict.”

Studies do show that money is an important factor in happiness: the well-off are happier than the very poor.

However, that effect tails off once basic needs are met. The phenomenon is reflected in a recent study by Pine of 700 women and their attitudes to shopping and spending money.

“Years ago women didn’t have independent incomes, and now many of them are financially independent,” she said. “What I found was that 79% — an alarming statistic — told me they would go on a spending spree in order to cheer themselves up.

“Many women are using shopping and spending as a way of regulating emotions.”

Spending, however, doesn’t buy happiness. “Many of them described a buzz at the time, but it was short-lived,” said Pine. “Then they experienced buyer’s remorse and came down to earth with a bump.”

Stevenson and Wolfers also point out that over the past two decades many men, as well as women, have experienced financial concerns. “The real wages (after inflation) of many men fell during much of this period,” they said. Yet it is women whose happiness has notably changed.

If money is not the key, what about families? Divorce rates and cohabitation have soared over the time in which women’s happiness has fallen. However, if they are important factors, say researchers, more unhappiness should be found among single mothers and the separated.

Stevenson and Wolfers concluded the relative decline in women’s happiness “is irrespective of the age, marital, labour market or fertility status of the group analysed”.

There is, of course, the possibility that women are simply being more direct about their happiness than they used to be. As the authors note: “Women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses.”

However, the international scale of the trend seems to militate against this.

Though nobody has isolated a convincing reason for the decline in women’s happiness, there is a consensus of sorts. As Oswald put it: “The lead theory is that women’s lives have become more complicated in many dimensions, unlike men who have to balance a smaller number of balls.

“It is probably still true that men do fewer things well.”
Pine agreed: “One can always point to increasing pressures on women. We are now trying to have careers and families and look good for longer. It may be that in trying to have it all we are feeling that we may have set ourselves an impossible goal.”

Complexity is stressful — and women’s supposed skills at multi-tasking are no remedy.However, critics of feminism take a more sceptical view. Complexity is not the problem, they say: it’s more to do with women discovering that “equality” with male life is not all it was cracked up to be.

To the writer Neil Lyndon, author of No More Sex War, it is a vindication of his view that feminists have long been blind to the stresses of male life. “(Feminists) are so determined to insist that women are in a position of inequality and disadvantage, they cannot see that to repair the disadvantages of women you also have to address the inequalities of men,” he said.

“Men who are in work and have young children want to spend more time with their families. Feminists cannot see that. The ideology itself requires you to say that women are in a position of disadvantage, that it’s a society run by men for the benefit of men, and that there can’t be disadvantages for men.”

Women have got themselves into an impossible position, Lyndon suggests, and it won’t be remedied until there is proper equality and until no parent — man or woman — is expected, as many men are, “to go to work at 7am and get back at 9pm”.

Amid all this hypothesising and argument, what should a pragmatist do? Siobhan Freegard, founder of the website Netmums, discovered her own measure of how women’s happiness has declined. A survey of her site users indicated that levels of the “baby blues” experienced by new mothers have risen sharply since 30 years ago. So she set about asking experts to formulate a programme to help.

“In our research one key problem that emerged was that we all move around a lot now,” said Freegard.

“About 60% of women no longer live near their extended family and the same proportion of women haven’t replaced that family support with a new social network. The whole breakdown of community is a factor.

“So we set people tasks. Be part of networks. Join groups. Speak to an old lady. Talk to your shopkeeper. Phone someone you haven’t had a good chat with for ages and so on.”

The happiness of participants was tested before and after the programme — and at the end they were on average 16% happier.

Might such ordinary, everyday connections be more important to happiness than impossible dreams to have it all? Freegard suspects that might be the case.

“We pushed so hard for equal rights, for having the right to work, for having equal status, we pushed hard to have choice,” she said. “But what we hear back from many mums is: I have no choice, I have to work, I don’t love my career, my childminder is taking half my salary and I’d rather bring up my children myself but I can’t afford to.

“I’m not saying women shouldn’t work. If you enjoy your job and it’s a fulfilling career, that is a positive choice. But if it’s not . . . it's almost in some ways that we got it all, then found that actually it wasn’t quite what we wanted.”

Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.

In OZ ~ A more level playing field ~ Agony of children at divorce has clout

Its interesting how, in this case, active alienation and obstruction by the ex's family ganging up on the other partner worked against the former wife. The judges in OZ seem to be getting it right. Little girl in adult body can't run home to momma and has to stay close to the husband so both can have a meaningful relationship. Gosh maybe she will have to try and get a job too. Here's a definite recruit for Anonymummies the victim feminists from hell. Everybody should start taking marriage and the consequences of breakdown more seriously. If only this was treated seriously here in Canada.MJM<

Caroline Overington | May 30, 2009

Article from: The Australian

THE Family Court has at last recognised the "agony" children suffer during divorce by forcing their warring parents to live close to each other, says a campaigner for the reform introduced by the Howard government.

Michael Green QC, a family law expert who campaigned for the shared parenting amendment enacted in 2006, said yesterday recent decisions proved that the right of a child to have a meaningful relationship with both parents after separation was being taken seriously by the court.

The Australian reported yesterday on the case of Rosa and Rosa, in which a couple moved with their four-year-old daughter to a remote town in northwest Queensland, so the husband could take up a job as a mining engineer.

The marriage broke up six months later. The wife wanted to move back to Sydney, where their daughter was born and had lived four of her five years. She was lonely in the mining town, and living in a caravan, unable to afford anything better.

But the Family Court, and the full bench on appeal, said she could not take her child to Sydney because the reform required judges to presume the best interests of the child were served by having a relationship with both parents.

"I know there are many women associated with the more radical feminist groups who like to underplay the damage done by separation, on children of any age," Mr Green said.

"But in fact the loss, the agony, the child experiences when it loses regular contact with a parent is significant."

Retired Family Court judge Tim Carmody said "it used to be that the mother's right to move with her children was generally seen as compatible with what was in a child's best interests.

"That's no longer necessarily so. The best interests of the child is now seen as being served by having a meaningful relationship with both parents. But what kind of relationship? And at what cost?"

Mr Carmody's decision to leave the Family Court coincided with the reform, and he believes his concern about the ways it would work is now justified, "especially in this situation, where you have a parent condemned to live somewhere they've never really lived, for who knows how long".

Kathryn McMillan SC, a Brisbane family law expert who will speak on the subject at a forum next month, said "relocation cases are always difficult, because it tends to be all or nothing.

"Somebody wants to move, and that means that somebody else is going to lose time with their children.

"One of the questions the judge will sometimes ask is, if I don't allow you to move, will you go without the child?

"Most parents will say, no, of course I won't move without the child.

"And in a sense that means they are damned if they do and damned if they don't, because if they won't move without the child, the judge can make orders that there should be shared parenting, which means they get stuck."

Jacky Campbell of Forte Family Lawyers in Brisbane said the "shared parenting laws are being imposed on people who are not co-operating at all, and the outcome is often poor".

In Rosa and Rosa, the wife's parents, sister and other family members had nothing good to say about her husband, and that played against her because the court thought they wouldn't encourage her to keep the child in contact with her father.

In New Zealand and Elsewhere ~ Divorce hurting boys' education; experts

Sat, 30 May 2009

News: National

The educational achievements of New Zealand boys may be falling victim to the soaring divorce rate, according to experts.

The connection has been made as a new report confirms that boys are lagging behind girls at secondary school, with the gap greater in New Zealand than any other developed country.

The findings come in a report by the 30-member Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which compared achievement by 15-year-old boys and girls in 40 countries.

"There are significant gender differences in educational outcomes, and these appear as students grow older," the report said.

Last year's National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results, released this month, showed girls outperforming boys by wider margins as pupils got older.

St Bede's College rector Justin Boyle pointed to boys' education suffering when parents divorced.

"Invariably, we find if mum and dad have split they (boys) have not had the male role model in their lives to encourage them in a holistic way about how they get educated."

Divorce statistics released this month showed about one-third of New Zealanders who married in 1983 had divorced before their 25th wedding anniversary.

Education consultant Joseph Driessen said children who came from broken homes were typically 25 per cent behind other children in achievement.

"Boys are affected by divorce very deeply because 85 per cent of custody goes to the mother and guys just disappear. That needs to change," he told The Press.

"We need to have a family split-up philosophy where we realise that sons need their fathers. All custody and access should be 50-50." Mr Boyle said boys' schools could help form well-rounded men. "We are in a good position in a boys' school to look at particularly boys' issues and address them head-on," he said.

The OECD report said single-sex schools in New Zealand were more effective for girls than for boys.

A Ministry of Education report released yesterday showed boys outnumbered girls by more than two to one in needing specialist literacy teacher help.

Hands-on dads handle stress better

I was a stay-at-home dad for 10 years raising two of my daughters from infancy, while also supporting a family business by working from home. Your work day can be spread out to cover all of the day while also participating in all school activities including volunteer driving, skating, swimming and gymnastics. The one thing that is fundamental is the day revolves around the children not the business. By having flexibility the business work could be accomplished after the children were in bed at school or the mom came home from work - when mom was around. Despite being one of the best dads a child could have who was devoted 24/7 to them each and every day when mom decides to alienate them for whatever twisted reasons and then takes a run to the DV shelter all bets are off. The machinery of victim feminism kicks in and gender politics takes over. Our court system needs changing to shared and equal parenting/residency for the sake of the children. I proved to myself and hundreds of others that a man socialized to be the breadwinner can readily adapt to that of a nurturing, supportive and loving care giver. I've said it before and I would challenge scientists to follow-up but I believe a man would likely see a drop in testosterone and an increase in female related hormones - but not to the point of losing masculinity! :>) MJM

RECESSION

TheStar.com | Recession | Hands-on dads handle stress better

SHUTTERSTOCK IMAGES
Caregiving can be empowering for fathers who have lost their jobs,
says Daddy Shift author Jeremy Adam Smith.

Valuing home duties and child care helps men cope with job loss

May 29, 2009 04:30 AM

Comments on this story (2)

Andrea Gordon
Family issues reporter

Job loss is traumatic. So is financial anxiety. But hands-on fathers who can juggle bath-time, playground jaunts and laundry duty are better equipped to deal with those than earlier generations of men, says the author of a new book on fatherhood.

In Daddy Shift, to be released next month, Jeremy Adam Smith explores how fathers' growing participation in childrearing and domestic duties is transforming modern families.

He says when dads are willing to embrace that, it helps parents and kids cope with the stress of a layoff or reduced work hours – especially at a time when men are harder hit by job losses than women.

"Something good has happened the last few decades and men now have the capacity to take care of their kids when women are in a position to be the breadwinners," Smith, 39, said in a phone interview from his San Francisco home. "If they can focus on that, it will help them to survive unemployment and it will help their families."

Smith's book, which reviews the history, economics and science of male caregiving, comes amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Statistics Canada reported earlier this year that two-thirds of those laid off in Canada were men. At the same time, more men have been taking parental leave following the birth of children and opting for fewer hours at work and more time with the kids.

Smith notes that in previous generations a male breadwinner who lost his job would likely withdraw from the family, his identity and self-worth shaken. "It would destroy him, he would actually spend less time around the house, less time with the children," says Smith.

While work is still at the core of most fathers' identity, more men are recognizing the importance and rewards of caring for kids.

"Today if the mother has the capacity (to earn) and the father is thrown into the role of being home, they are more likely to take that responsibility. They won't do it the way mothers do, but they'll do it."

Smith, a magazine editor and writer, became a stay-at-home dad for a year when his son Liko was age 1. He knows what it's like to do dishes with a fussy toddler in the backpack, crave adult company and never have a minute to himself.

He became a dad without a clue how to bathe or change a diaper. He became a primary caregiver while his wife was working full-time just because it was the best arrangement for the family at the time.

"At first I saw only the negative aspects: no regular work, no free time, no adult companionship, no respect ... this was not a role I embraced self-consciously," he writes in Daddy Shift.

But he soon marvelled at the bond he developed with his son and the sense of confidence and competence he gained as a parent. It changed him profoundly. And he thinks more men need to hear from fathers like him.

"My experience as a stay-at-home dad was a growing sense of power as a parent and as a man," he says. Guilt and blame are often used to motivate men to step up with childcare and chores, but Smith says the power angle is a better pitch.

"I think that's how you have to sell it to guys," he laughs. His book signals a shift in the discourse about fatherhood: one that encourages father involvement for the sake of men and their children – not just to help out mothers.

Liko, now 4, is in preschool and Smith and his wife, like a small but growing number of families, have alternated roles over the years. Daddy Shift is not about pitting one family's choices against another. It is more of a call-to-arms for this generation of fathers to be flexible and open-minded about their evolving roles.

Smith stresses that fathers aren't the only ones changing. Mothers have to be willing to let go of the reins and respect that fact that men look after kids differently, he says. In other words, don't judge fathers through the maternal lens.

Studies show men tend to be more comfortable with risk-taking by their offspring and less inclined to introduce toys or mediate a child's independent play.

Daddy Shift was written as a result of Smith's experiences and the dialogue with other parents on his blog Daddy Dialectic. Smith also cites leading Canadian research on fatherhood, including work by Ottawa professor Andrea Doucet and Kerry Daly of Guelph University, who runs the Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance.

Smith says while there's no ideal formula for dividing and sharing parental roles, the key for the 21st century family is having the flexibility to cope with an unstable economy and an information age that has changed the rules of the working world.

"We haven't achieved economic equality between men and women but the equation has changed and men are changing in response. The question is are we going to embrace that?"

Comments on this story are moderated

|

Rate/Comment

Submit comment

Thank you, your comment will show up once it is approved.

Add a Comment

Title

Comment (1000 character maximum)

Commenting Guidelines

Sort By Newest Oldest Most Agreed

This should be kept quiet! This totally goes against everything that feminism has been trying to do for the past 40 years and that is to try and prove that men/fathers are redundant and unnecessary!!!! All we ever hear about is how single-mothers rule and the new "Daddy" in the house is Socialist Government. Submitted by Alpha-Man at 8:24 PM Friday, May 29 2009 Agree 2 | Disagree | Alert a Moderator

Fathers are Important Too This is a fantastic article. Older generations of Fathers with traditional gender role considered their ability to be breadwinner and protector as the measure of their self-worth. Modern fathers are moving away from traditional gender roles and are increasingly becoming more involved parents. As a more involved parent, a Father has a greater variety of contributions for establishing their own self- worth and building self-esteem. It is only common sense that providing care for ones children, knowing that you are needed and valuable, could make-up for the loss of ones identity as breadwinner and protector. Divorced Canadian Fathers are particularly faced with a number of very real barriers such as vindictive Mothers and the indifference of Family Law Courts. I congratulate Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance for recognizing the importance of fully involved and nurturing fathers in the lives of children and working towards a better future for our children. Submitted by Denis Pakkala at 12:12 PM Friday, May 29 2009 Agree 2