Barbara Kay: When a mother is on trial, the father is the accused

The tragic Campione case and the abusive manner in which the system treated the Father. 

 Here is what the hired gun lawyer for the killer mom said about the person who killed her two daughters.

"Her lawyer, Mary Cremer, argued that her client was a loving mother who struggled with mental illness."  Is it any wonder few can believe what lawyers say.

What an oxymoronic statement. It is very common in Family Courts to raise false allegations of abuse. This is taught by unscrupulous lawyers and feminists , particularly those operating in DV Shelters.  Loving moms don't kill their children but those with serious emotional instability do with greater frequency than biological fathers. http://victimfeministcentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/mothers-commit-vast-majority-of.html

We have a woman with some personality disorders. There is a cult of moms who have lost custody who call themselves "protective parents."  My research and observation of them shows them to be a vile and destructive group of individuals who were abusive to their children. This one took the delusion to the extreme by killing her progeny. It is also the most extreme form of Parental Alienation where the parent tries to keep the children from the other through hate.  What it all boils down to is the woman hated her hubby far more than she could ever love her children.

The actions by the courts in requiring Mr. Campione to use Supervised Access to see his children are part of the matriarchal controls present throughout Child Custody and Family Law. As much as he advised those in charge, especially the Barrie based Children's Aid Society, the children were in danger he was ignored. The belief is men are bad - women are benign despite the aggregated evidence to the contrary. Most CAS' are female run and highly biased against dads and highly favourable toward maternal custody.  Some will spend 10's of thousands of dollars, as is Chatham-Kent CAS right now to remove loving dads from their children's lives.

They are not accountable to any one at this time except for their financials.  The Ontario Ombudsman has no jurisdiction and the Minister, Laurel Broten,  ignores complaints.

You can thank feminist mythology for this state of affairs.  They believe and have convinced the Police, Judges, Lawyers politicians and social services that men are coercive abusers and women innocent victims.

If any one has read the details of this case and the actions of this woman you will be truly sickened at the depravity.

False Allegations of abuse against dads means sure fire custody. In contested custody cases local DV shelters and lawyers will offer oblique suggestions to moms, who may not have been abused, to place it in their affidavit to ensure custody and supervised access for dads. For some moms this is one more quotient of revenge.  Perjury is commonplace in Family Court and never prosecuted. The lawyers and DV shelters know the ropes.

In addition, the DV shelter will require the mom to sign a non-disclosure agreement to ensure their advice doesn’t get into the public domain. Studies have shown family law related false allegations of abuse, some requiring protection orders, can be as high as 70%. The killer was following established protocols in the war against dads occurring every day across the country and supported by incompetent social service agencies like the Children’s Aid Society.

Approximately 280 Divorces a weekday across Canada

There is a very large and lucrative divorce industry in Canada. Discounting for weekends and holidays we see about 280 divorces per working day.  Lawyers rake in billions and the social services, mental health segments also profit handsomely especially in contested custody cases.

Moms get physical custody in over 90% of cases. The judge in this case is typical. They receive training from a secretive organization called the National Judicial Institute. This training tells judges men are abusers and women benign. If a woman claims she is abused she is to be believed without any evidentiary standards.  This judge clearly believes this very disturbed killer is believable despite the jury’s verdict. This judge is but one of many spouting the same drivel.

The myth of male only Domestic Violence and he myth of Patriarchal Oppression

The DV industry, the Judge and the CAS in Barrie who support the junk science in the Duluth Wheel of patriarchal oppression of women in Canada, outside of the real oppression by certain religious cults,  can give no explanation for the greater degree of violence in Lesbian relationships as compared to heterosexual.  Lie and Gentlewarrior  surveyed 1,099 lesbians, finding that 52% had been a victim of violence by their female partner, 52% said they had used violence against their female partner, and 30% said they had used violence against a non-violent female partner. Finally,  Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montague and Reyes (1991)  reported, in a survey of 350 lesbians, that rates of verbal, physical and sexual abuse were all significantly higher in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships: 56.8% had been sexually victimized by a female, 45% had experienced physical aggression, and 64.5% experienced physical or emotional aggression. Of this sample of women, 78.2% had been in a prior relationship with a man. Reports of violence by men were all lower than reports of violence in prior relationships with women (sexual victimization, 41.9% (vs. 56.8% with women); physical victimization 32.4% (vs. 45%) and emotional victimization 55.1% (vs. 64.5%). (See Patriarchy And Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy by Donald G. Dutton, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia)

Domestic Violence in Canada Fact vs Fiction

Mrs. Campione based on her mental health profile and the fact she killed two innocents is far more likely to be the abuser not her husband.  The judge, through his comments, showed a clear lack of knowledge on the abuse by partners of both genders, in this country. Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005. An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive Statistics Canada report on family violence. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm

Keep in mind what you see in the paper is what is reported to police. The numbers above from Stats Canada are those based on surveys which are more comprehensive.

Unfortunately in Canada, and indeed most English speaking western democracies, this judge’s biases are widely held. This one just made it all too blatant in his remarks. As stated earlier 90% of physical custody in Canada goes to mom based on similar rhetoric, not fact, this judge espouses. Its no accident 75% of women initiate divorce because the evidence is clear they will win custody of the children, they will be guaranteed tax free income in a child support award of over $700.00 a month for two children if dad grosses close to $50,000.00 a year, no matter if mom makes far more than the newly removed father. That $8,400.00 being tax free is equivalent to  over $10,000.00 if taxable.  They may get alimony if they can create a sad enough story, including false allegations of violence, and they will get 50% of all assets accumulated during the marriage.

If 90% of something went to a single party – say jobs to white anglophones in the public service we would be shouting from the rooftops. It appears to be OK in Family Law to discriminate in a sexist manner against dads.  Think about it and then wonder why many TV commercials show dads as bumbling idiots. We men accept it – well at least most do – but if we were to give an opinion on why so many bilingual francophones from Quebec dominate public service positions we have strong opinions,  White males – actually in Family Law – all males are not in the back seat of the bus – they are kicked off.

Stong is an ex Liberal politician in the Superior Court of Justice. This Judge, therefore, does Family Law cases. No dad stands a chance in his court. He has to go.

This is but one of many Family Law cases where identity and gender politics play a role causing the worst of negative outcomes for children.  Justice Stong evidenced his gender biased views in his remarks in effect blaming the dad - a victim - and excusing the vicious and evil mom.  Stong is an ex-Liberal member of the Ontario legislature.   A further tragedy is he handles Family Law Cases and no dad stands a chance for custody in his court. He should be removed but that will not happen. No federal judge has ever been removed for bias or incompetence. Children become the recipients of many negative outcomes with the sole custody model in Canada. Ninety percent of physical custody goes to mom in a sexist and biased legal system.  Children would be far better of in a shared/equal parenting environment as proposed in Bill  C-422. Get behind the bill and help prevent further tragedies. The kids will have both fit parents in their lives and be better protected.

I am always very surprised when I see statements like “How can a mother kill her children”. I have concluded these folks just don’t know the facts.  These facts are clearly tabulated by some government agencies every year. In the USA for a very long time the evidence is moms are the most likely killers and abusers of their children. It ought to be no different in Canada except Stats. Can. does not break the figures down like the USA and Australia. In those countries they separate out the male parties as Biological Father and other.  If you want the truth about moms being the most common killers and abusers go here for the data. The links in the tabulated evidence over many years will take you to the original source data. http://victimfeministcentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/mothers-commit-vast-majority-of.html  The first graph shows the situation for Western Australia in 2006-07 where there were 21 child homicides. Mom killed 11,  her new partner or boyfriend killed 5 and the biological father 5.  So mom and her new partner killed 16 of the 21. A child is far less protected when the biological father is removed and this occurs hundreds of times a working day across Canada. Mom gets sole physical custody in 90% of cases. Dad, if lucky, gets 15% visitation but the new boyfriend sees the children 24/7.

November 17, 2010 – 10:31 am

 

REUTERS/J.P. Moczuls

A relative comforts Leo Campione (L) as Campione leaves a funeral service for his two daughters Serena, 3, and Sophia, 1, outside St. Peter's Catholic Church in Woodbridge, a Toronto suburb, October 10, 2006. The girls were believed to be murdered by his estranged wife Elaine in Barrie, Ontario, on October 4.

He just couldn’t leave well enough alone. Judge Alfred Stong, I mean, who presided over the Elaine Campione murder trial. Two days ago the jury brought in a decision of first-degree murder and a 25-year sentence against Elaine Campione, who freely confessed to drowning her two little girls in a bathtub, and who freely stated in a videotape that her motivation was hatred for, and revenge against her husband Leo.

The trial was over, But Judge Stong added comments after the verdict announcement suggesting that if had the power to overturn the jury’s verdict, he would. He said, “It is more than disconcerting to think that if Campione had not been so abused, so used and discarded as a person, her two daughters could still be alive…” Judge Stong was determined that even if it is Campione that gets locked up, Canadians would know that the real villain, morally speaking, is Leo Campione, the father of the dead girls (even though his alleged abusiveness was entirely based on his wife’s allegations and never proved), and it is actually the “discarded” Elaine Campione who is the victim.

Judge Stong felt such personal animus against the grieving father that he wanted to deny Mr. Campione and his parents their opportunity to read a victim-impact statement, standard practice even with mandatory- sentencing cases. He only relented under strong pressure from the prosecutor, who reminded the judge that the murdered girls had been “an extremely important part of [Mr. Campione's] life.”

The judge’s attitude is shameful. But what can you expect from someone who has been trained – literally, judges take structured learning programs steeped in feminist myths and misandric conspiracy theories – that women are never abusive or violent unless they have been driven to it by an abusive male. Judge Stong just could not get it into his head – he alluded to the “unimaginable facts of this case” – that a woman could kill her children without a motivation involving a controlling male that somehow drove her to the act.

Why did it not occur to the judge to blame the CAS? The CAS was well aware of Elaine Campione’s quixotic and alarming history. They knew that Campione had exhibited many signs of psychosis, that she had been hospitalized in psychiatric wards, believed people were out to kill her and kidnap her children, and exhibiting such bizarre and/or negligent behaviours toward her girls that mother-substitutes, including her own mother, had to be constantly parachuted into her household if it was to function at all.

Yet the CAS decided the mother was the “safe parent.” Mr. Campione fought like a tiger and indebted himself trying to wrest control of the children from a woman he knew to be unstable and a potential risk to them, but nobody listened to him. Why? Because everyone licenced to deal with family issues on behalf of the state – social service agencies, police, lawyers and judges – are trained in the same mythology about women as Judge Stong was. They are all singing from the same hymn book: trust the woman, suspect the man, even when the evidence screams not to.

Let a man raise his hand once to a woman (or not, but simply be accused of doing so), and he will be whisked out of his children’s lives for a year at least. You can be sure that if the father of these children had exhibited one-hundredth of the myriad clues to Elaine Campione’s potential risk to her children’s safety, the CAS would have eaten him for breakfast.

The “system” didn’t fail Elaine Campione. The system failed those two little girls by enabling a woman’s psychosis at the expense of her children. There is nothing “unimaginable” in this case at all. It has all happened before.

Everyone involved in this fiasco should be locked up in a room and forced to review the case of Zachary Turner, the thirteen-month old baby who was drugged and drowned in Newfoundland in 2003 by his psychotic mother, Shirley, while she was out on bail for the third time on charges of murdering Zachary’s father. And after that forced to review the case of Toronto baby Jordan Heikamp, who in 2001 was starved to death by his mother under the blind eyes of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (no jail time) and Toronto baby Sara Cao, abused to death in 2001 by her mother Elizabeth. Christie Blatchford, who covered that case, said the mother (again no jail time) “was treated by the system, and in the main by the media, as a pitiful [woman], worthy of sympathy.”

Sound familiar? Plus ça change. When fathers kill, they are not assigned any motivation but their own evil impulses. When mothers kill, everyone in the system kicks into denial mode, and assumes the fault has to lie elsewhere – anywhere, as long as the woman doesn’t have to take responsibility for her actions, and can be offered sympathy. When fathers show disturbing tendencies, the system acts, or tries to. When mothers show disturbing behaviour, the system protects the victimizer.

Little Sophia and Serena Campione did not have to die. They were allowed to die because of a belief system that denies the truth of human nature. Both men and women are capable of aggression.

Statistically in Canada, mothers abuse their children more than fathers. When will our society really consider the “best interests” of the child rather than throwing them under the bus of a superannuated and pernicious ideology?

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/17/barbara-kay-when-a-mother-is-on-trial-the-father-is-the-accused/#ixzz15ZrmvkkX

Debtor's prison for dads

Welcome to the Gulag of the oxymoronic name of the Family Responsibility Office operated by a Liberal, feminist Lawyer by the name of Madeleine Meilleur. This woman is as much responsible for the death of men like Mr. Donovan as are her apparatchiks.  The FRO operates like the former East German secret police called the Stasi and are responsible for a great many suicides of dads. They are, as are the politicians supporting this persecution of many loving fathers who cannot afford to pay, disgraceful exhibits of human kind.

Barbara Kay, National Post · Tuesday, Nov. 16, 2010

Last week Ontario announced it will begin impounding cars of fathers who fall behind in their child support payments. What, are mere licence suspensions not driving enough men to despair?


On Aug. 31 Paul Donovan, age 50, a reliable long-haul trucker, lay down beside train tracks near his home in London, Ont., and rolled himself into the path of an oncoming train. Most people would call it a suicide.

Not his common-law partner, Brenda Higgins. Ms. Higgins holds Ontario's Family Responsibility Office (FRO) liable for his death, and will launch a lawsuit to that effect.

Paul's ex-wife works, owns a home and drives a new car. Neither she nor their children -- today adults of 18 and 21 -- are, or ever were, impoverished. Paul had been paying regular child support since 1996. But during the trucking industry's recent hard times, Paul was temporarily unemployed, and missed two support payments.

Although he was soon back at work, Paul's commercial licence was suspended by the FRO. They refused to reinstate it without payment of $1,500 Paul hadn't yet earned. Their irrational licence suspension ensured he couldn't earn it. Ms. Higgins' scant income is only sufficient to support her three children. According to Ms. Higgins in a telephone interview, several pleas to negotiate the amount and schedule of payments with the FRO by Paul, his MPP and an ombudsman were rebuffed.

Bills mounted, but Paul's livelihood remained blocked. He couldn't afford a lawyer, and when he acted for himself a judge told him she couldn't help him. The FRO took him to court, petitioning for $10,000 or 188 days in jail. Appalled, Paul confided to Ms. Higgins he would rather die than serve such a sentence. Famous last words.

Every province has similar support-payment enforcement agencies. The FRO's Kafkaesque persecution of delinquent fathers is not unique to Ontario. These collection agencies are unaccountable, quasi-penal bodies. They hold powers to invade privacy without a warrant, and to impose criminal-level penalties for non-payment. But unlike defendants in criminal courts, FRO victims don't have the protections of due process.

I gained a fuller understanding of these inherently unjust agencies from a 2010 study in the Canadian Journal of Law and Society: "Punishing our way out of poverty: The Prosecution of Child-Support Debt in Alberta, Canada" by Nipissing University academic Paul Millar.

The privatization of child-support enforcement in the 1980s was conceived of as a means of reducing welfare handouts from the state. The initiative sprang not from politicians, but from legal academics who erroneously linked divorce to the impoverishment of women and children. The setting of guidelines was, according to Mr. Millar, "a judicially fostered social policy aimed at reducing poverty."

Imprisonment for debt is sometimes grouped with torture and slavery in human rights discourse, and was abolished here under the 1869 Debtor's Act as "not consistent with the morals of the day." Debtor's prison was only reinstated at the urging of radical feminist legal activists in the 1980s for one group: fathers behind on support payments.

In what Mr. Millar calls "inverted justice," Canada is one of a tiny handful of Western countries that jails men for an essentially civil offence without the procedural protections accorded real criminals, such as: the right to remain silent, the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the right to an impartial arbiter and the right to legal representation.

Reliable data demonstrates unequivocally that this regressive form of taxation disproportionately affects blacks, aboriginals and the poor, since the highest rates are reserved for those with the lowest income (under $20,000 a year). Moreover, so-called "deadbeat dads" can't declare bankruptcy. "Deadbeat dads" is, by the way, a terrible slur on the majority of dads who want to pay, but can't; women who deny fathers legal access to children are never jailed or called "deadbeat mums."

While out looking for Paul on the afternoon of Aug. 31, Ms. Higgins arrived at the scene of his suicide, not 50 metres from their home. Seeing the police cars and ambulance, she "knew" without asking. The trauma threw her into a suicidal depression resulting in a six-week hospital stay.


Tally: A healthy, responsible, productive man is dead, a partner devastated. Two middle-class children have lost a loved father, three children an engaged stepfather. At the time of his death Paul Donovan owed a measly $4,000 in child support.

Ms. Higgins can hear the trains go by as she struggles to sleep. Is there a winner in this story? If so, who?

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Debtor+prison+dads/3839949/story.html#ixzz15YtvgNJU

The hidden pain: domestic abuse targeted toward men

By Yvonne Dick, For The Calgary Herald November 15, 2010

Real men don't hit women, but sometimes women hit them.

Jason Chivers (whose name has been changed to protect his family) is a middle-aged Calgary teacher of average build. At home, his wife would engage in sporadic episodes of violence that Chivers won't talk about even now that he's left the marriage. At the time, despite the violence, he says he didn't want to leave because of his kids.

Research into the area of domestic abuse targeted at men indicates that men fear going to jail on false charges, the loss of their children, and having to pay for both the family house plus an apartment on just their income.


Yet when Chivers and his wife sought help, the counsellor's first advice was to just get a divorce.

"I spent a lot of time in the office, living there . . . for weeks at a time," says Chivers. "Eventually I got the divorce, but not until I had tried everything else first. . . . The whole system is a disaster for men."

Although it's not often talked about, abuse against men happens in households across the city, in numbers and types nearly the same as women: according to StatsCanada, in 2005, seven per cent of women and six per cent of men experienced abuse. The difference is, men don't tell.

Maybe that's not surprising when you consider that men often try to be the strong, silent types, raised to respect women, to rescue them from danger. Chivers notes they don't how to handle it when the woman is the danger.

Experts say that abuse can happen to anyone.

Like Roy Martin (whose name has also been changed), a local tradesman who admits he lost all control over his life. At the end, he says, he had withdrawn so far into himself that he didn't have a friend left. After one incident, with the red bruise marks still on his face, Martin and his wife went for help.

In the first session, Martin recalls, "the counsellor said to me, 'What'd you do to make her so angry she had to hit you?' "

According to an Alberta government booklet on preventing male abuse, the abuse can take many forms -- including pushing, blocking doors, threats, financial control, insults, lies intended to confuse, blaming, isolating, monitoring phone and e-mail communication, making fun of a person's body, forcing or pressuring him into sexual activities he doesn't want, and many others.

"Abuse is power and control . . . for the person perpetrating it," says Cheryl Krneychuk-Waddy, of the

Calgary Counselling Centre, adding that for the abused men, "there is a lot of shame, it's a question of their masculinity . . . victims and abusers come in every shape, colour, size, gender, age."

She says the couple may want help -- both for the abused and abuser. Counselling can be a lifeline.

"Usually if a man calls in, they'll be able to talk with a counsellor the next business day," says Krneychuk-Waddy, who holds a master's degree in social work.

Safety and confidentiality are always top priority. But in a crisis, men don't know where to turn. There are 43 women's shelters in the province. But if men are under 55 years of age or have kids, they can choose from just two shelters.

Laura Bakken is with the Community Crisis Society (Strathmore). "For men with children, there are really very few places they can go. If they are dealing with family violence, then it really helps to be in a place that has some understanding, and some focus on that, as opposed to going to a homeless shelter."

The Strathmore society offers one room, which can be used either for a man and his children, or for several single men.

Calgary has a four-bed, privately funded Men's Alternative Safe House Society. It provides a homelike setting in which men can come in from work, relax and be among men who know what they're going through.

Krneychuk-Waddy says that you can help the man in your life who tells you he's being abused -- or whom you suspect is being abused. For a start, don't confront his abuser, no matter how tempting it might be to do so. Do, however, talk to the man involved.

"Offer them a safe place . . . ask them what they need. Validate what they're saying," she says.

Bakken agrees. "Believe him, don't judge him, don't tell him what to do -- let him know you are there to support him no matter what decision he makes."

Both Chivers and Martin left their abusive relationships. Life went on for them, and they began to heal. A chance at a whole new life, where abuse is not allowed.

Martin has a final piece of advice for men who are being abused. "Start thinking about your own needs -- what do you need to make you happy?" Chances are that those needs include safety, security, respect and a feeling that you're loved. And that's well deserved.

Yvonne Dick is a central Alberta writer:
newsyvonnedick@gmail.com
- - -
Resources:
- - Community Crisis Society (Strathmore): 403-934-6634.
- - Kerby Rotary House Shelter (55+): 403-705-3250; kerbycentre.com.
- - MAS H:403-242-4077; familyofmen.com.
- - Counselling: 403-651-8075; calgarycounselling.com.
- - Men's Educational Support Association: 403-228-6366; mesacanada.com.
- - Men's Crisis Line: 403-266-4357.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Real/3828659/story.html#ixzz15Nhti2rA

The cult of single motherhood and their deadbeat status

Letters to the Editor,  November 11, 2010

According to Statistics Canada, over one-third of all children living in poverty in Canada live with a lone mother who earns zero income. At least half live with a lone mother who earns not enough income to support herself, let alone a child.

So why isn’t the government interested in rounding up all these “deadbeat moms” with the same vigour that it pursues “deadbeat dads”? It can’t be because they are all young, uneducated mothers of infants, who are incapable of working. In fact, the average age of lone mothers is 38. Moreover, lone mothers have higher educational levels than lone fathers. Yet lone fathers find a way to earn twice as much income as lone mothers, which is why child poverty is rare among lone fathers.

If our courts and our politicians truly cared about the best interests of children, they would make laws that (a) give custody to working dads much more often than at present; and (b) tell single moms to get a job or lose their kids. Is that too harsh? Then why are loving fathers routinely subjected to this inhumane treatment — dozens of times every day in Canada?
Grant A. Brown, Edmonton.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/11/todays-letters-jack-olivia-living-large-at-our-expense/#ixzz14zR9mRWV

I offered some comments on Mr. Brown's letter on the letters page as follows:

Mr. Brown's letter with respect to the bizarre new law in Ontario confiscating a father’s vehicle is instrumental in showing how our country, and this Province in particular, is turning into a gynocracy. We have multiple laws targeting men as unfit to be a custodial parent after divorce (but we seem to be OK before this happens), even though the Divorce act is Gender Neutral (it clearly states maximum contact for both parents is important).

Judges make up the rules as they go along awarding over 90% of sole physical custody to moms. Why? Judges receive training from a secretive organization called the National Judicial Institute. Within this training they are told men have power, women are victims and it is their job to ensure moms get the entitlements at the expense of men - and sadly - at the expense of the children. Dads seldom get more than a visitation schedule of 15%. Yet, mom's boyfriend gets to see them 24/7 setting in motion many negative outcomes for children that last a lifetime. These range from abuse to being killed as mom and her new partner are far more likely to bring harm to the child than dad.

Family Court Judges are, by far, the most negative and insidious social engineers in Canada. They deplore 50-50 shared custody for reasons already mentioned yet they then send the largest group of people into poverty by awarding sole physical custody to mom. Single mothers are then revered, but yet, they are the single largest group of deadbeats in Canada. They live off dad with alimony and child support, the latter of which is tax free but taxable to dad. This income does not show up on any statements, including from the CRA, as it is tax free. They collect welfare, live in subsidized housing and receive bonuses in the form of child tax credits. There are lots of incentives to work on yet they whine and complain about how hard done by they are. It is as though the system is set up to encourage single motherhood and cater to the whining.

Judges are responsible for billions upon billions of tax dollars to be input into the cult of single motherhood while, at the same time, denigrating the children’s biological fathers.

Want to save tax dollars, decrease poverty, and reduce divorce. Pass 50-50 equal shared parenting legislation and free up mom to get some further training and a job while allowing children to bask in the glow of two loving parents looking after their needs not the current acrimonious and adversarial system lawyers love. They make billions from it. Eighty percent of Canadians across all political stripes support Bill C-422 for equal shared parenting. The Canadian Bar Association and Feminist Lawyers like Pamela Cross and Tasha Kheiriddin don’t. Who is right? I’d vote for the 80% of Canadians.

The Minister's in the incompetent Liberal Government enacting these draconian laws are Madeleine Meilleur, a feminist Liberal lawyer, in charge of the Mom Stazi Police collection agency called FRO, who will enforce these laws. Laurel Broten is the Minister responsible for Status of Women and is also a Feminist Liberal lawyer and has at least $208,000,000 at her disposal for women's issues, none for men. Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Transportation has this on her books now as the person responsible for the safety on our highways. She is a pro-feminist sycophant along with her male colleagues in the cabinet who see this new law as useful in their war against fathers.  It certainly is a highway safety issue to seize a father's car, which he likely needs to try and keep a job.  All of the money taken from the father as a result of these rules will not go to his children. it will help employ more public servants.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/11/todays-letters-jack-olivia-living-large-at-our-expense/#ixzz14zVIXiL4

An Ode to Family Court Judges

Barbara Kay: Courts get a new way to discriminate against fathers

Madeleine  Meilleur, a feminist liberal lawyer, (what a combination) is the Minister responsible for FRO. This is the oxy-moronically named Family Responsibility Office (Mom's Stazi Police) designed to be the official misandric arm of the Ontario Provincial Government currently ruled by the most incompetent Liberal government in Canadian history.  In previous correspondence with her colleague Laurel Broten another feminist Liberal lawyer, to allow men access to DV assistance and counselling on an equal basis to females she used some cherry picked and bogus stats, supplied by her professional feminist staff in her Status of Women portfolio to deny my request. Keep in mind she is both Ontario's Official Feminist in Chief but is allied with Meilleur in the DV Industry the chief cause of radical feminists.

The feminists in charge of these gulags relish in the power they get over men on an official basis. Most men pay their child support. The smaller number of non-custodial moms are by far less likely to pay but you can bet it would be front page news if one of them were thrown into jail for non-payment. The MSM would be demanding changes because then the chivalrous and protective editors would finally see the stupidity of these laws. The vast majority of those who cannot pay are unemployed or underemployed after being laid off. Those who have cars or trucks often live in them under the circumstances as mom gets to stay in the family home in many cases, while collecting welfare, child benefits, and from hubby. Who’s the real dead beat here?

We have devolved to the 18th century including debtors prisons thanks to feminists like Broten and those kindly male sycophantic politicians who think they are being white knights. They are, in a manner, self loathing by thinking fathers are unimportant, when that in fact is scientifically, a malicious misandric myth. The gulag called FRO is the manifestation of misandry perpetuated by the political and judicial class. Mom’s get 90% of sole physical custody, ownership and control of the children to do with what she may, including denying access with impunity.

The Political class’ response is to create further impediments to dad earning a living through loss of license, jail, posting his picture for the world to see on a website, humiliating his children, and now impounding his vehicle. What morons we have in the Government and FRO. What do you get when a moron makes the rules for other morons? Chaos and the further denigration of men.


Some research notes with respect to child support:

“Studies show that the overwhelming majority of steadily employed divorced fathers pay their child support. While there are a few well‑heeled divorced dads who stiff their children, most non‑paying dads are either poor, unemployed, disabled, or incarcerated. According to a US Government Accounting Office report, two‑thirds of those fathers who do not pay their child support fail to do so because they are financially unable to do so.” 

Source: Judi Bartfield and Daniel R. Meyer: "Are There Really Deadbeat Dads? The Relationship Between Ability to Pay, Enforcement, and Compliance in Nonmarital Child Support Cases," Social Service Review 68, 1994, pp. 219‑235.

Source: "Deadbeat Dad Image A Myth, Study Finds,"  New York Times,  May 5, 1999.  See: http://sharedparent.freeyellow.com/ddiamsf.pdf.  Look for "Divorced moms reported."

Source: Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, pp. 206‑207.

Source: Kathleen Parker, "Deadbeat dads more myth than reality," The Orlando Sentinel, Jan 24 1999. See: http://www.dadi.org/kpdbeat2.htm. Look for "Census Bureau."

“Fathers have a much better record of paying court-ordered child support than mothers do.” When children were living with dad and support was ordered moms paid an average of 33% owed; dads paid an average of 62% owed. 13% of dads overpaid but not a single mom. Keep in mind the moms salary exceeded dads otherwise support would not likely be ordered.

Conclusion: When dads have the children, moms are far less likely to be ordered to pay support, are ordered to pay less, are less likely to pay it, and never overpay.

Source: John Siegmund, “Preliminary Analysis of the Database of the DC Office of Paternity and Child Support Enforcement” compiled for the Children's Rights Council, November 9, 1999.

Father and Child Reunion, Warren Farrell, PhD, page 179

Compiled by Glenn Sacks and located at http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1000 and Mike Murphy. MJM

Barbara Kay: Courts get a new way to discriminate against fathers

Barbara Kay  November 9, 2010 – 10:40 am

 

GREG WOOD/AFP/Getty Images

Wait a minute ... a man with a stroller? You mean men are parents too? But why should men have access to their children? This is weird.

“They throw guys in jail for non-support all the time, and when they do, the guys serve the whole 30, 60 or 90-day sentence (the term keeps lengthening), even though cocaine dealers routinely get out of jail after serving half their time.”

Ontario’s Family Responsibility Office, which is responsible for ensuring that custodial parents don’t get stiffed for child support payments by the non-custodial parent, has a lot of power.

Starting Dec. 1, someone (read “father”) in arrears on their support payments can have their car impounded. That’s about the stupidest punishment for non-payment one can imagine, since most people need their cars in order to work. As Lloyd Gorling, a father’s rights activist put it, “How are you going to make support payments if you can’t get to work? If you can’t make support payments, does the government really think you’re going to be taking a taxi every day to work?”

If you’re going for irrational responses to non-payment, why not just throw the guy in jail –– but oh wait, they already do that. They throw guys in jail for non-support all the time, and when they do, the guys serve the whole 30, 60 or 90-day sentence (the term keeps lengthening), even though cocaine dealers routinely get out of jail after serving half their time.

In 2004 an FRO staff member didn’t bother waiting for a court date to review the financial status of an out-of-work truck driver. He just suspended his license because – hey, because he could, you see. But the guy couldn’t pay, because he had no job, you FRO idiot. He had no money to pay with, you FRO moron. He was looking for work, and the FRO decided that the best way to deal with a non-paying parent was to make it impossible to find a job so he could pay the support. Nice going, FRO. His suicide note lamented that he didn’t see any way out of his situation and had lost hope. And did anyone pay for that? Of course not.

The FRO is accountable to no one.

Let’s look at the bigger picture, though. What is the guy paying child support for? Yeah yeah, to support his children. But that means they are, you know, sort of his children, right? Not necessarily. The custodial parent, almost always the ex-wife, although supposed to grant agreed-upon access rights to the children’s father, can arbitrarily decide she doesn’t want to allow access, and for any old reason — oh sorry, little Jimmy has a play date, oh sorry little Emma has too much homework, oh sorry, I just don’t want to — can deny the father access. And does she pay for that? No. Oh, she might get a scolding from the judge, but there is no downside for her. No custodial mom has ever spent a night in jail or had her licence suspended for refusing her children’s father legal access to them. If they have, enlighten me. I have never heard of such an outcome.

You want to impose draconian punishments for non-support? Fine. But be rational about them. The arbitrary car-licence suspension is simply stupid. It punishes the children. But reluctance to punish children is the rationale for not jailing mothers who refuse access to fathers. Judges continually say they can’t put the mother in jail, because how would it look for the kids to see their mothers punished? One might ask the same question about their dads, no? Or does nobody care how it is for children to know their dads are in jail because they couldn’t give their mothers money? Rhetorical question. Of course nobody cares how a father’s suffering impacts on children, because only mothers’ suffering has the attention of family courts, police and the FRO.

If I were paying money for child support – and by the way, no custodial parent is obliged to say how she spends the money she gets for the children; she could be using it for spa days and nobody at the FRO would care – I wouldn’t be much encouraged to carry on with it if I never got to see my kids. It would occur to me that the state considers money more important to children than fathering. If the state feels that way, maybe society does too. Kind of an incentive-suppressant for fathers.

This story is about a lot more than car licences or what the appropriate punishment should be for failure to pay child support. Double standards abound in the custody industry. The FRO is a very scary agency characterized by way too much power, and far too little intelligence.

National Post

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/09/barbara-kay-courts-get-a-new-way-to-discriminate-against-fathers/#ixzz14oC463HU

Clark University: New study: Men suffering ‘intimate terrorism’ by women partners

Clark University

 

Thursday, August 12, 2010

The first findings of the largest study to date focusing on male victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence were recently released, showing the existence of severe, controlling abusive behavior by women toward their male partners, on a level that many would describe as “intimate terrorism.”

Study results will be published as “Intimate terrorism by women towards men: Does it exist?” (Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research) and “A closer look at men who sustain intimate terrorism by women” (Partner Abuse).

 


Clark University research assistant professor of psychology Denise A. Hines is the lead author/researcher on the Men's Experiences with Partner Aggression Project, a study at Clark University funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. The co-investigator is Emily M. Douglas, of Bridgewater State College’s Department of Social Work.

The research team analyzed data collected from 302 men who sustained physical violence from a female partner within the past year and sought help. The overarching goal of this study is to better understand the experiences of men who are in relationships with women who use violence.

“Extensive research has shown that men are at risk for sustaining partner violence in their relationships, yet few studies have investigated their experiences, and there are few resources available to such men,” Hines notes. “This is an under-recognized problem in the United States, and by conducting this research project, we hope to provide much needed information on these men, their relationships, and their needs.”
Fact sheets about the research and final drafts of the articles can be found online at http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/results.htm.

The studies show that the 302 men in the research sample, on average, sustained physical violence and controlling behaviors on a weekly basis, and that over three-quarters had been injured in the previous year, on average about every other month, with 1/3 of them sustaining a severe injury (i.e., something that would need medical attention) in the past year.

“With every analysis that we do of these data, what is very apparent is how much these men resemble the women who participate in studies of battered women who go to shelters,” Hines says. “The level of violence these men sustain, their reactions to the violence, their reasons for staying, their protectiveness of their children, and their mental health, all very much mirror what we’ve seen in studies of battered women over the past 30 years.”

Contrary to popular stereotypes of male victims, the men in the sample were the size of an average man and were bigger than their female partners, and about one third of them were employed in stereotypical masculine or high-status occupations, such as a soldier, doctor, lawyer, or business owner. When their female partners are violent, their most common response is to try to get away or escape from her.

Why don’t the men leave? The most common reasons are because of love and commitment to the marriage and because of the children. The men do not want to leave the children with a violent woman, and they are often afraid that they would lose custody of their children in a family court system that tends to favor mothers in custody disputes. Many men also discuss the financial repercussions of leaving – about half indicate that they do not have the money or resources to leave, with others discussing their fear of losing all, if not at least half, of everything they have worked for and saved in their lives.

Hines: “What should also be noted is the profound effect that this violence probably has on the children involved. We know that at least 70 percent, if not more, of the children who were involved in these relationships either saw or heard the violence. From prior research, we know that child witnesses of domestic violence against women can suffer severe psychological consequences. There is no reason to expect that child witnesses of domestic violence against men won’t suffer the same consequences.”

Implications: Given the serious level of the domestic violence that these men sustain, it is necessary to educate practitioners, researchers and the public about men sustaining domestic violence, their experiences, and their barriers to leaving, which can include both their emotional ties and commitments, and a lack of resources. All of the men in this study indicated that they had sought help of some form, and because of the very serious nature of their victimization, it is important to educate and train front-line domestic violence workers about the existence of male victims, the seriousness of their domestic violence experiences, and their needs.

“It is important for all who work in the field of domestic violence to realize and acknowledge that both men and women can perpetrate even the most severe forms of partner violence and both men and women can be victimized by severe forms of partner violence,” Hines says. “Serious violence and controlling behaviors demand our attention, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or victim.”

Hines and Douglas are currently working on publishing more analyses of the data from the men in this study, in addition to developing follow-up studies on the mental and physical health consequences to these men and their children, and on male victims’ experiences in both the family court and criminal justice systems. Hines also directs the Family Impact Seminars at Clark and is co-Director of the Clark Anti-Violence Education (CAVE) Program.

Since its founding in 1887, Clark University in Worcester, Mass., has a history of challenging convention. As an innovative liberal arts college and research university, Clark’s world-class faculty lead a community of creative thinkers and passionate doers and offer a range of expertise, particularly in the areas of psychology, geography, urban education, Holocaust and genocide studies, environmental studies, and international development and social change. Clark’s students, faculty and alumni embody the Clark motto: Challenge convention. Change our world. www.clarku.edu

http://news.clarku.edu/news/2010/08/12/new-study-men-suffering-%E2%80%98intimate-terrorism%E2%80%99-by-women-partners/

An archive of News & Media Relations posts can be found at https://news.clarku.edu/news.