In the UK - Shared Parenting Orders Bill gets First Reading

On Tuesday 13 July 2010 the following Bill was announced. It is very close to the bottom of the page of Hansard.MJM

Bill Presented

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100713/debtext/100713-0001.htm

Shared Parenting Orders Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57 )

Mr Brian Binley, supported by Dr Thérèse Coffey, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Peter Bone, Mark Reckless, Caroline Dinenage, Mark Pritchard, Harriett Baldwin and Mr David Nuttall, presented a Bill 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.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June 2011, and to be printed (Bill 56).

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

1. Purpose of the Bill

(1) The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that, wherever possible, children benefit from the full involvement of both parents in their upbringing.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to conflict with or undermine in any way the paramountcy of the welfare of the child, as established under section 1 of the Children Act.

2. Shared parenting orders

(1) Section 8 of the Children Act is amended as follows.

(2) In section 8(1), after the words “In this Act—”, the following words are inserted:-

“ “a shared parenting order” means an order settling that both parents have a full involvement in the upbringing of a child, particularly in respect of major long-term issues, and requiring that the child must spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents;”.

(3) After section 8(2) the following subsection is inserted:-

“(2A) When making a section 8 order, and subject to the considerations set out in sections 1(3) and 8A, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for both of the child’s parents to have a full involvement in the upbringing of the child.”

(4) Before section 9(1) the following subsections are inserted:-

“(A1) Where a shared parenting order is in force in relation to a child, the court may not make another section 8 order in relation to that child.

(B1) A shared parenting order may only be made in relation to a child where no other section 8 order is in force in relation to that child, or where those orders are discharged before the shared parenting order comes into force.”

(5) The Schedule makes consequential amendments to the Children Act relating to shared parenting orders and hereby has effect.

3. Welfare of the child: definition

(1) The Children Act is amended as follows:

(2) After section 8 the following section is inserted:

“8A Shared parenting orders: additional factors relating to the best interests of the child

(1) In considering what is in the best interests of the child under section 8(2A), the court shall have regard to the fact that the child’s welfare is enhanced by:-

(a) ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives;

(b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or domestic violence;

(c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

(d) ensuring that both parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

(2) The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is demonstrated that it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):-

(a) children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together;

(b) children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (including grandparents as well as other relatives);

(c) parents should jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children;

(d) each parent should be involved in the child’s daily routine and occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and

(e) parents should agree about the future parenting of their children.

4. Shared parenting: time spent with both parents

(1) After section 11 of the Children Act the following section is inserted.

“11AA (1) When making a shared parenting order, the court must apply a presumption that the child should spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents.

(2) When applying the presumption under subsection (1) the court must consider:

(a) the factors set out in section 1(3); and

(b) whether it would be reasonably practicable for the child to spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents.

(3) In determining, for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend a substantial and significant time with each of his parents, the court must have regard to:

(a) how far apart the parents live from each other;

(b) the parents’ current and future capacity to ensure that the child spends a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents; and

(c) such other matters as the court considers relevant.

(4) Where the court, in making a shared parenting order, decides not to provide for the child to spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents, it must:

(a) provide for the child to spend as much time as is practicable with both parents, given the considerations set out in subsection (2); and

(b) have regard to the desirability of the child spending at least 25 per cent of his time, in any one calendar year, with each of his parents.

5. Major long-term issues

(1) The Children Act is amended as follows.

(2) After section 105(1), there is inserted:-

“(1A) In this Act, “major long-term issues” means issues about the care, welfare and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes issues of that nature about:

(a) the child’s education (both current and future);

(b) the child’s religious and cultural upbringing;

(c) the child’s health; and

(d) changes to the child’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.

A decision by a parent of a child to form a relationship with a new partner is not, of itself, a major long-term issue, within the meaning of this section, in relation to the child.”

6. Interpretation

In this Act—

“Children Act” means the Children Act 1989 (c. 41);

“major long-term issues” has the meaning given in section 5; and

“shared parenting” is interpreted in accordance with section 2(2).

7. Expenses

There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament–

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of this Act by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.

8. Extent, short title and commencement

(1) This Act may be cited as the Shared Parenting Act 2010.

(2) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) This Act extends to England and Wales only.

Schedule

1. The Children Act is amended as follows.

2. In section 9(5)(a), after the words “making a” the words “shared parenting,” are inserted.

3. In section 10:

In subsection (4)(b), after the words “favour a” the words “shared parenting or” are inserted.

In subsection (5), after the words “apply for a” the words “shared parenting” are inserted.

In subsection (5)(c)(i), after the words “where a” the words “shared parenting or”

4. In section 11(5):

after the word “Where” the words “a shared parenting order has been made with respect to a child, or”

after the words “the residence” the words “shared parenting or” are inserted.

5. In section 13:

In subsection (1), after the words “Where a” the words “shared parenting or”.

In subsection (2), at the end insert the words “, or, where a shared parenting order has been made, by one of the parents”.

In subsection (3), after the words “making a” the words “shared parenting or

Canadian Greens endorse Equal Parenting in their Policy Platform

HOUSE OF COMMONS

CANADA

 

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

 

Vellacott commends Green Party

for passing Equal Parenting motion

 

 

For Immediate Release                                                               August 26, 2010

 

OTTAWA – Saskatoon-Wanuskewin MP Maurice Vellacott commends the Green Party for adding a commitment to equal shared parenting as a party policy. Last year, the Conservative MP introduce Bill C-422, which would amend the Divorce Act to require judges to order equal shared parenting for divorcing parents unless it is not in the best interests of the child to do so.

 

Over the weekend, the Green Party passed a policy motion declaring that “the Green Party of Canada will make the necessary changes to the Canada Divorce Act so that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act will mandate a default of equal parenting – defined as equal time and responsibility unless there is consent from both parents, or there are specific criminal convictions related to the children that preclude equal parenting.

 

“My work for equal shared parenting has always been a non-partisan effort,” said Vellacott. “Equal parenting groups in Canada are also talking to Members of Parliament from all parties,” he added.

 

“A survey I conducted shows a large majority of Canadians supports equal parenting, regardless of what political party the respondents support,” Vellacott said.

 

“Congratulations to the Green Party for voting to add equal parenting to their party policies.”

 

– 30 –

 

For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or 297-2249

Andrew Thompson's 6th Birthday Celebration in Australia

This is an email note from Ken Thompson with respect to his search for his abducted son Andrew.  He is currently bicycling across Europe in his quest to find his only child abducted and alienated by his wife.MJM

An invitation is attached to attend a celebration to mark Andrew's 6th

birthday on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. The event will take

place this Thursday 19th August 2010 at 12:30 pm.

 

This event has been organised by people in Australia who are maintaining

Andrew's profile in his own country while I'm continuing my search for

him in Europe. It is also part of my campaign to raise awareness to

other kids who have been abducted from Australia.

 

People who attend will be asked to release a balloon with Andrew's

picture on it. The balloons will be released in front of a 10 metre long

banner that will be displayed at a very prominent location at the Opera

House.

 

This event has been approved by Sydney Opera House media.

 

Kind Regards

Ken (about 50 km from the Germany/Poland border).

www.findandrew.com

Running for ‘family justice’

Runner David Nash passed through Sudbury recently as part his 'Cross Canada Run for the Children,' a nearly 7,300 km trek in support of Canadian family law reform and the adoption of Bill C422. Supplied photo

Aug 09, 2010

By Max Leighton

Somewhere on a highway outside of North Bay a man runs alone, pushing a child’s stroller containing the few possessions he has the strength to bring with him.

His name is David Nash, a former professional boxer, turned family justice crusader. He is entering the final leg of his “Cross Canada Run for the Children,” a nearly 7,300 km trek from Victoria B.C. to Cape Spear, Nfld., in support of Canadian family law reform and the adoption of Bill C422, a proposition to amend the divorce act.

His run, which began at the Terry Fox memorial in Victoria B.C. on June 1, brought him through Sudbury last week.

For Nash, family justice is an issue close to home. He recently settled a four-year legal dispute with his ex-wife over the custody of their son, and since then has spent much of his time campaigning for Canadian family law reform.

“Most Canadians don’t know how bad the system is until they go through it,” he said.

“When it comes to tax time, this government likes to remind us that we are first class citizens, but when we want our parental rights recognized, we are third class all the way.”

He believes his views are shared by many other Canadians. Setting out with little money and no sponsorship, Nash has often had to rely on the generosity of complete strangers, many of whom have shared his experiences with family law.

“People have been incredibly supportive of me,” he said.

“They provide vehicles to help me carry my gear, often they give me food or a place to stay. These are people who have had their lives completely turned on end by our justice system and they want the word out.”

The journey has not been easy, even with this support. A former light heavyweight and Eastern Canadian champion, he admits that this run has been among his greatest physical challenges. Nash currently runs about 64 km, or one and a half “marathons” per day, having already passed through some of this country’s most challenging terrain.

“My knees are taking a beating,” he said. “In training, I had developed some arthritic pain and it is starting to get worse as the days go on.”

Despite the difficulty, he said he remains hopeful that his message will be heard. “This run has given me a platform to speak from,” he said. “But my real work will continue after all this is done.”

This month he is being interviewed for an upcoming documentary on equal parenting called “Big Bad Dad” and he plans to write a book about the experiences of parents and children in the Canadian family justice system sometime in the near future.

But nearing the home stretch, he has simpler ambitions in mind. Recently remarried, Nash said he is looking forward to reuniting with a wife and children he has not seen in more than two months.

“This is the longest I have ever been away from them,” he said. “The first thing I am going to do when I get home is give my kids a big hug, then I think I am going to sit down and have a home cooked meal with my family.”

To keep up with David Nash as he completes his cross Canada journey visit www.crosscanadarun4thechildren.com.

http://www.northernlife.ca/news/sports/2010/08/dave-nash100810.aspx

Phyllis Schlafly: The Awesome Power of Family Courts

The month of June when we observe Father's Day is a good time to review some of the injustices committed against fathers by family courts. Family courts routinely deprive divorced fathers not only of their own children, but even many constitutional rights.

For example, do you think judges should have the power to decide to which religion your children must belong and which churches they may be prohibited from attending? In December 2009 a Chicago judge did exactly that.

Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan issued a restraining order to prohibit Joseph Reyes from taking his three-year-old daughter to any non-Jewish religious activities because his ex-wife argued that would contribute to "the emotional detriment of the child." Mrs. Rebecca Reyes wants to raise her daughter in the Jewish religion, and the judge sided with the mother. Joseph Reyes' divorce attorney, Joel Brodsky, when he saw the judge's restraining order, said, "I almost fell off my chair. I thought maybe we were in Afghanistan and this was the Taliban."

Mr. Reyes took his daughter to church anyway and let the Chicago media know about it. Soon he was back in court to be prosecuted for contempt in violating the family court order. The good news is that Reyes, fortunately, drew another Cook County judge, Renee Goldfarb, who ruled on April 13, 2010 that Reyes can take his daughter to "church services during his visitation time if he so chooses." Judge Goldfarb said her decision to let Reyes take his daughter to church was based on "the best interest of the child," but then criticized Reyes for going public with his case.

This case is a good illustration of the dictatorial power of the family courts. Both judges purported to decide what church a child can attend based on the judge's personal opinion about what is "the best interest of the child." The choice of a church should be none of the government's business, even if the parents are divorced, and "best interest" should be decided by parents, not judges.

Not only did the family court try to take away a father's parental rights and his freedom of religion rights, but also his First Amendment free-speech rights. The second judge severely criticized Reyes for telling the media about his case. But publicity was the reason the family court backtracked from sending Reyes to jail for violating the restraining order. It's important to shine the light of publicity on the outrageous denial of parental rights by the family courts.

In another divorce case last year, a family court in New Hampshire (where the state motto is "Live Free or Die") ordered ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski to quit being homeschooled by her mother and instead to attend fifth grade in the local public school. Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the court-appointed expert's view that Amanda "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that Amanda "would be best served by exposure to multiple points of view."

Where did family court judges get the power to decide what church and what school the children of divorced parents must attend? Family court judges have amassed this extraordinary power by co-opting and changing the definition of a time-honored concept: "the best interest of the child."

This rule originally came from English common law as compiled by William Blackstone in 1765, and meant that parents are presumed to act in their own children's best interest. For centuries, English and American courts honored parents' rights by recognizing the legal presumption that the best interest of a child is whatever a fit parent says it is, and should not be second-guessed by a judge.

However, when U.S. state legislatures revised their family-law statutes in the 1970s, the "best interest of the child" became disconnected from parents' decisions. Family courts assumed the discretion to decide the best interest of children of divorced and unmarried parents, and enforce their opinions by using their power to send fathers to jail and to tell them how they must spend their money.

The notion that persons other than parents should decide what is in a child's best interest is illustrated by the slogan "it takes a village to raise a child." Those who use that slogan understand "village" to mean government officials and employees of the courts, the public schools, and the departments of children and family services.
The "best interest" rule is totally subjective; it's a matter of individual opinion. Parents make thousands of decisions about their children, and should have the right to make their decisions even if they contravene so-called experts. Whether the decision is big (such as where to go to church or school), or small (such as playing baseball or soccer), there is no objective way to say which is "best."

Since judges are supposed to base their decisions on evidence presented in open court, and there is no objective basis for deciding thousands of questions involved in raising a child, judges often call on the testimony of expert witnesses. A big industry has grown up of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, custody evaluators, and counselors who are eager to collect fees for giving their opinions. Having opinions produced by persons with academic degrees is a way to make subjective and arbitrary judgments appear objective. With the volume of cases coming through family courts, judges can evade responsibility for controversial decisions by rubber-stamping opinions of these court-appointed experts.

Sometimes these rulings are against women, but most decisions are against men, especially fathers. It's time to call a halt to the practice of letting family court judges make decisions that are rightfully the prerogative of parents.


Putting Men in Debtors' Prisons
 
Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely called "child support," which was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?
Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States even before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?

Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly), can't afford a lawyer, serving in our Armed Forces overseas, or never owed the money in the first place?

Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who is the father of her child, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father? Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy? These are among the injustices that the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men.


Most of these family court injustices are caused by the Bradley Amendment, named for its sponsor former Democratic Senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley. That 1986 federal law prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation, and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay. Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as Bernard Goldberg wrote in his book Bias, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, denigrating men, especially fathers, and using the epithet "deadbeat dads."

But one egregious case did make news in 2009. Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years earlier, plus a second one in 2009, proved that he is not the father. His ex-girlfriend had lied and claimed he was. The August 21, 2001 court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father, but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.
Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in "child support." Even after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits.


But he didn't pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Judge Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt of court and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he was released from jail and relieved from future assessments, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government demanded that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he paid off the $16,398 debt the government claimed he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father). He paid the debt down to $10,000 but was jailed for six months in 2006 for falling behind on payments during a period of unemployment. When he became unemployed and homeless in 2008, he was jailed again.
Altogether, Hatley paid so-called "child support" for 13 years and spent 13 months in jail because of a woman's lie, the Bradley Amendment, the ruthless "child support" bureaucracy, and the bias of the family court against fathers.

In 2009, the court relieved Hatley of any future child support payments (probably because of press publicity about this case) but did not restore his driver's license. This system is morally and constitutionally wrong and the Bradley Amendment is particularly evil, yet all authorities say the court orders were lawful.

Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Washington, police Officer Ray Spencer spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened.
 
The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone, for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the interrogator to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the interrogator after he gave her ice cream.

There were many other violations of due process in Spencer's trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse, and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men.


Depriving Men of Constitutional Rights
 
Family courts routinely deprive men of their fundamental right to parent their own children, by charging them with a wide variety of trivial offenses. Family courts generally uphold feminists' demands to kick a man out of his own home, and take control of their children and his money, based on a woman's unsubstantiated allegations. The principal tactics in this racket are domestic violence accusations and court-issued restraining orders.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994 as a payoff to the radical feminists for helping to elect Bill Clinton President in 1992. Personal sponsorship of this law was taken over by then-Senator Joe Biden.

VAWA shows the hypocrisy of noisy feminist demands that we kowtow to their ideology of gender neutrality, to their claim that there is no difference between male and female, and to their opposition to stereotyping and gender profiling. There is nothing sex neutral about VAWA. It is based on the proposition that there are, indeed, innate gender differences: men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims. VAWA is not designed to eliminate or punish violence, but to punish only alleged violence against women. Most of the shelters financed by VAWA do not accept men as victims.


VAWA has been known from the getgo as "feminist pork" because it puts $1 Billion a year of U.S. taxpayers' money into the hands of the radical feminists. They have set up shop in domestic violence shelters where they promote divorce, marriage breakup, hatred of men, and false accusations, while rejecting marriage counseling, reconciliation, drug-abuse treatment, and evidence of mutual-partner abuse. There is no investigation or accountability for the taxpayers' money spent in these shelters.


VAWA makes taxpayers' money available to the feminists to lobby state legislators to pass feminist laws, to train law enforcement personnel and judges in using the laws, and to fund enforcement.
VAWA provides the woman with free legal counsel to pursue her allegations, but not the man to defend himself. He is on his own to find and pay a lawyer — or struggle without one.


Feminists have changed state laws in order to get family courts to operate on a loosey-goosey definition of family violence. It doesn't have to be violent. It can simply be what a man says or how he looks at a woman. It can even be what a woman thinks he might do or say. Definitions of violence include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing "annoyance" or "emotional distress," claiming to be "fearful," or just not doing what your partner wants.

Feminists have persuaded most states to adopt mandatory arrest laws. That means, when the police arrive at a disturbance and lack good information on who is to blame, they are nevertheless legally bound to arrest somebody. Three guesses who is usually arrested.

Feminists have lobbied most states into passing no-drop prosecution laws. Those laws make the prosecutor legally bound to go forward with prosecution even if the woman recants her charges or wants to drop them. Studies show that women do recant or ask to drop the charges in 60% of criminal allegations, but the law requires prosecution against the man to proceed regardless. Along with the loss of other constitutional rights, the man thus loses his right to confront and cross-examine his accuser.

VAWA has a built-in incentive for the woman to make false charges of domestic violence because she knows she will never be prosecuted for perjury. Charging domestic violence practically guarantees she will get custody of the children and sever forever the father's relationship with his children even though the alleged violence had nothing whatever to do with any abuse of the children. Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even though no evidence of abuse was ever presented.

'Gamesmanship' of Restraining Orders
 
Family court judges issue restraining orders virtually for the asking, without any evidence of actual domestic violence or even threat of violence. The Illinois Bar Journal (June 2005) explained how women use court-issued restraining orders as a tool for the mother to get sole child custody and to bar the father from visitation. In big type, the Journal proclaimed: "Orders of protection are designed to prevent domestic violence, but they can also become part of the gamesmanship of divorce."


The "game" is that mothers can assert falsehoods or trivial complaints against the father, in order to get a restraining order based on the presumption that men are naturally abusers of women. Restraining orders are in reality a tactical legal maneuver familiar to all family court attorneys as a way to obtain an order of contempt and unfairly increase the leverage of one side (typically the woman) in bargaining with the other (typically the man).

The Fourth Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to be "secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects." But each year, restraining orders are issued against at least two million men without proof or even evidence, forcing innocent men out of their homes. In 33 states, fathers can be thrown in jail for even a technical violation of a restraining order, such as sending a child a birthday card or telephoning a child on an unapproved day.

Family courts have avoided facing up to whether the restraining orders issued against fathers are constitutional. Accused criminals enjoy a long list of constitutional rights, but feminists have persuaded judges to issue orders that restrain actions of non-criminal husbands and fathers, and punish them based on flimsy, unproved accusations. Most states do not require proof by a clear and convincing standard of evidence. Even though these restraining orders are issued without the due process required for criminal prosecutions, they carry the threat of a prison sentence for anyone who violates them.

The New Jersey Law Journal reported that an instructor taught judges to be merciless to husbands and fathers, saying, "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him 'See ya' around.'" People have a better chance to prove their innocence in traffic court than when subjected to a restraining order.

Too often, the restraining order serves no legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute. Once a restraining order is issued, it becomes nearly impossible for a father to regain custody or even get to see his own children. That is the result even though the alleged domestic violence (which doesn't have to be physical or proven) did not involve the children at all.

Probably two million restraining orders are issued each year in domestic relationships. These restraining orders almost certainly increase violence and harm, because studies show that the safest place for adults and children is in a home with two parents, rather than one that is broken by a restraining order. In 1999 there were 58,200 abductions of children by non-family members, a crime typically the direct result of inadequate adult supervision. When an adult is ordered out of a home based on some allegation of domestic violence, the children in that home are no longer supervised, and victimization by crime (and accidents) necessarily increases.

There is no evidence that the millions of restraining orders issued annually each year increase the overall safety of the applicants or their children, and most likely the opposite is true.

It is false to claim that because domestic violence often occurs behind closed doors, it is somehow difficult to prove. In fact, real domestic violence is easier to prove than most crimes. Medical record and forensic evidence is clear and convincing for real domestic violence, and the time and place of the crime are easy to determine, and a restraining order may be appropriate.

What is difficult is to disprove false allegations of non-serious domestic violence, so a higher standard of proof is essential to sift fact from fiction.

It seems elementary that husband and fathers who are accused of crimes by their wives or girl friends should have the same constitutional rights accorded to any criminal, but they do not in family courts. They are routinely denied equal treatment under law, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to confront accusers, and a court-appointed lawyer when they can't afford to hire an attorney.
It's time to restore basic constitutional rights to husbands and fathers and repudiate the feminist agenda that treats men as guilty unless proven innocent.

VAWA will be coming up for reauthorization soon, and it must be reformed. Reforming the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is today's basic civil rights issue. Domestic violence must be redefined to mean violence. State laws must be changed to repeal mandatory arrest laws and no-drop prosecution laws. We must eliminate the incentives for false accusations of domestic violence, which include using restraining orders as the "gamesmanship" for divorce, child custody, money, or ownership of the family home.


Persons accused of domestic violence, man or woman, are entitled to have fundamental constitutional rights, including due process and presumption of innocence until proven guilty by clear and convincing evidence in court.

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2010/june10/psrjune10.html

Dave Nash – Cross Canada Run for the Children close to Sault Ste. Marie

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario,  July 29, 2010 - For immediate release —

David Nash's Cross Canada Run for Children is  arriving in Sault Ste. Marie, on Friday, July 30, 2010 after leaving from Victoria, BC on June 1, 2010.  Mr. Nash was trying to set a world record for crossing the country by running and walking to draw attention to the lack of fairness to children in Family Law and to support a federal Private Members Bill C-422 which will amend the Divorce Act to a presumption of Shared/Equal  Parenting, for fit parents, upon separation and divorce.

Mr. Nash asks a fundamental question on his Web Site and facebook page.

"For a Country that prides itself on being a Nation of Peace Keepers, why does Canada have a so-called "Justice" System that asks Families, during one of the most difficult times in their lives, to go to war with one another over their children?

 I am running and walking across Canada to make YOU, the Canadian Citizen aware that our Canadian Government, both Federally & Provincially, as well as our Nation's so-called "Family" Justice System, is FAILING Canadian Children and their Families miserably. The current system that we have in place, and have had in place since 1985, is bankrupting Canadian Families, emotionally, as well as financially, and it needs to be stopped. The system is also unnecessarily wasting billions of YOUR hard earned Tax Dollars. Some estimates have been given as high as 10 to 12 Billion Dollars annually.

Furthermore, I am attempting to break this World Record to raise awareness about the Canadian Governments' UNWILLINGNESS and OUTRIGHT REFUSAL to reform the system For The Sake Of Our Children. The Canadian Government has been given many opportunities, over the past 20 years, to reform this broken, failing system, and demonstrate that they do care about the best interests of Canadian Children, yet they have rejected each and every opportunity that has been presented to them, and have continually demonstrated their contempt for the Children of Divorce in Canada, as well as their lack of respect for struggling Canadian Families who are in need of help.

Moreover, I am attempting to break the World Record for the Fastest Crossing of Canada on Foot to help get your support as a Canadian Citizen, for an Equal Shared Parenting Private Members Bill, Bill C-422, that was introduced before Parliament on June 16th, 2009, by MP, Maurice Vellacott of Saskatoon.

Bill C-422 would reform the Divorce Act, and help put Children's best interests forward by making Equal Shared Parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children.

I ask you; don't the Children of Divorce deserve the right to have an Equal Relationship with both their Mother and their Father???"

Dave will be available for media interviews upon arrival and he can be returned to the Soo at agreed upon times while still running on his journey throughout the weekend and possibly Monday morning.

-30-

For further information and media articles written:
Dave Nash  (519) 760-5154

http://www.crosscanadarun4thechildren.com/media.htm

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=100000546376196&ref=sgm


As there is no iPhone Coverage enroute from Wawa a local contact is Mike Murphy