Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Involvement after Separation and Divorce:

The Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance and

The Social Science and

Humanities Research Council of Canada

present…

Dr. Edward Kruk,

University of British Columbia,

School of Social Work

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Involvement after

Separation and Divorce:

A Workshop for Parents and Professionals

1. What do we know about separated and divorced fathers?
2. How do we ensure responsible father involvement?
3. Shared parenting after separation and divorce: How do we make it work in the best interests of children?

This presentation will examine the barriers to fatherhood involvement with children after parental separation, and ways of overcoming those barriers, including a new approach to child custody and access after divorce.

Kamloops

Thursday October 22nd, 2009
7:00-9:00PM
Tournament Capital Centre
910 McGill- Road Room C
Kamloops, BC

Vernon

Friday October 23rd, 2009
7:00-9:00PM
The People Place
101-3402 27 Avenue
Vernon, BC

Nanaimo

Wednesday October 28th, 2009
7:00-9:00PM
Beban Park Recreational Centre
500 Bowen Road, Room #19
Nanaimo, BC

Victoria

Thursday October 29th, 2009
7:00-9:00PM
Fairfield Community Place- Garry Oak Room
1330 Fairfield Rd
Victoria, BC

Vancouver

Wednesday November 4th 2009,
7:00—9:00 pm
Council Chambers, City of Coquitlam
3000 Guildford Way
Coquitlam, B.C.

Toronto

Saturday November 21st, 2009
2:00PM-4:00PM
North York Central Library- Auditorium
5120 Yonge Street,
North York, Ontario

The Canadian Christian Heritage Party declares open season on men

The following is the CHP's rationalization for their declaration of open season on males in Canada.

Tue, 27 Oct 2009

Dear

Thank you for your question regarding our platform statement:

The CHP will maintain the registration of handguns but would restore the right of Canadians, especially women, to own .32 and .25 calibre weapons of barrel lengths shorter than 4.1 inches. Small handguns in the hands of women would do much to end the fear they currently experience because of violent ex-partners.

The intent of "especially women" was not to suggest that domestic violence is primarily perpetrated by men against women. As you correctly point out, statistics show that men and women are about equal in abuse. However, they also show that more serious injury and death are generally men assaulting women.

I've quoted below from a Macleans article from July 2006 entitled "Breakup Blast".

Domestic violence goes across all relationships. But serious injury and death -- it's men stalking and killing women," says Peter Jaffe, a professor at the University of Western Ontario and academic director of the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children in London.

The smaller calibre guns are lighter weight and easier for women to carry in a purse. That was the point behind specifying women.

I hope this clears up that our intent was not to fear monger or bash men, rather it was to assure that women would also be able to defend themselves by having the ability to carry a light weapon.

Vicki Gunn
Executive Director
CHP Canada

This is my response to their policy. What they don't get is that 999,993 men out of every million male voters to not kill their spouses and the vast majority of Canadians do not get affected by DV. In families where it does occur it is pretty much equal and the women very likely initiates more than the man. Why you ask? Simply because she knows she can because the vast majority of men are socialized to not retaliate.

Mike Murphy
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:24 PM
To: electjim@rogers.com
Cc: Jeremy Swanson

Subject: Election pandering to women, to own .32 and .25 calibre weapons

It was brought to my attention you are pandering to the feminist minority to enable all women, at the exclusion of men, to carry handguns with the sole purpose of killing men perceived by the woman to be a predator. It sounds like a licence for open season on males.

I have been advised you are aware Intimate Partner Violence In Canada is about equal. The most recent figures from a 2004 Social Survey by Statistics Canada "Family Violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005" shows 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. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm

Men are seriously injured in about 1/3 of these cases. You must, therefore, make note of this and provide for these men as well other wise it is blatant sexism you are promoting. In a country that has roughly 16.1 million females you are going to promote all of the adults of that gender who would like to, can carry hidden handguns because a tiny minority suffer physical abuse. The 653,000 who reported abuse of all kinds, is 7% of the then population and that is - I repeat - all forms of abuse. Physical abuse causing injury is a tiny proportion of even the 7%.

In terms of spousal homicides in relation to the population of the country it is minuscule. On the basis of per million couples this is how it works out. 999,997 women do not kill their male spouses and 999,993 men do not kill their female spouses. I think we will see the male deaths increase under your proposal and in an effort to protect themselves we may see more illegal handguns in the possession of men.

Contrary to Jaffe's narrow perspective women are more likely than men to stalk, attack and psychologically abuse their partners, according to a University of Florida study that finds college women have a new view of the dating scene. In a separate survey of 1,490 UF students, one quarter (25 percent) said they had been stalked during the past year and 7 percent reported engaging in stalking, of whom a majority (58 percent) were female.

Here are a few more studies you might want to consult.

Virtually all empirical survey data shows women initiate domestic violence at least as often as men in heterosexual relationships and that men suffer one-third of physical injuries from domestic violence. Over 200 of these studies (and growing), using various methodologies, are summarized by Professor Martin Fiebert at

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Harvard Medical School and the American Psychiatric Association both recently announced a major national study in the U.S. that found half of heterosexual domestic violence is reciprocal and that: "Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women."

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.a...

The study also found: "As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time)."

A recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women are as violent and as controlling as men in dating relationships worldwide.

http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n

You quote Professor Jaffe and he is one of the feminist researchers who is famous for using very one sided data in his studies. He usually uses and reports only on subjects from transition shelters but never reports on how violent the women in the shelters have been toward their male partners. You will see from the above research you will be definitely putting a premium on females and putting a discount on being male.

Did you know lesbian partners have a higher DV rate than heterosexual partners? Under your agenda both of them can have hand guns.

I will be advising male colleagues across Canada about your intentions and will ask all men to work diligently against your anti-male and ultimately anti-family agenda unless you reconsider it.

It is a highly divisive and polarizing proposal.

Mike Murphy
Sault Ste. Marie ON P6A 6J8
Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting

---

In Ireland ~ Children are the losers when parents go to court to battle

Its comforting to see someone familiar with Irish Family Law, which treats dads in a manner similar to Canada (talk about world pandemics) make a suggestion about compulsory courses on shared parenting and I would also add counselling prior to litigation. It is one of many reforms required in Famil Law in many countries to firstly try and save marriages and secondly to get agreement before hiring a greedy Lawyer who tend to raise the stakes and the resulting adversity. They are "hired guns" not mediators and want to obtain the best deal for their clients and their egos. Dr. Jayne Major has a comprehensive reform package elsewhere in this blog.MJM

Author and psychotherapist John Sharry: he has never seen court action useful in creating shared parenting.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

SHEILA WAYMAN

THE ADVERSARIAL legal system is no use at all in reaching the best solution for children when their parents separate, according to psycho- therapist and author John Sharry.

Judges, caught between two angry parents, think they can become little heroes and sort it out for the children, he says, “but the heroic thing to do would be to try to get the parents to sort it out”.

He believes the courts should make a course on shared parenting mandatory for parents before hearing disputes over custody and access. That would help to impress on parents the need for co-operation for the sake of the children.

Shared parenting, through which children have access to quality contact and care from both parents, has been proven to be the best outcome in most family break-ups, he argues.

The rate of marriage breakdown is on the rise in the Republic, with 6,222 separations and divorces in 2008, an increase of 15.6 per cent from 2001. Parental separation is second only to the death of a parent in the amount of stress it causes children.

“The single biggest factor in whether children will do well is the level of hostility between their parents,” says Sharry, co-author of a new edition of When Parents Separate: Helping Your Children Cope, published by Veritas. “If that is reduced and the parents can co-operate in the best interests of their children, then all the damage is mitigated.”

Working in the Mater Child and Adolescent Mental Health service in Dublin, Sharry says the fallout from parental separation is a significant issue in children’s mental health.

“At the end they usually only have one active parent, who is compromised. Everyone is in a worse situation.”

It does not have to be like that, he stresses, but shared parenting is challenging. He advises parents that going to court only increases the difficulties.

“When you fight your ex-partner over the children, everybody loses. A lot of money is spent and you can aggravate the difficulties for you and your children.”

He has worked with families who have made huge progress in drawing up a mediated agreement. “But when they go to solicitors, their differences are aggravated, their tensions are aggravated and then they all have a go in court.”

He has never seen court action useful in creating shared parenting. “If you impose a judgment, it is always second best to an agreement.”

He acknowledges that if there are power differences, for example where one parent is not letting the other see a child at all, the court can help to rebalance that, but it should then tell the parents to sort the arrangements. He also welcomes the increase in the use of collaborative law outside the court system to help parents reach agreement.

It is often not feasible for two former partners to live separately but nearby, particularly in the current economic climate. If they have to remain under the one roof, some do find ways to make it work for the children.

Sharry worked with one family where the father had moved into a separate part of the house. “It wasn’t great, but I think their children preferred that. The problem is if the partners want new partners, which they tend to do.”

There is an onus on parents to stay close after a break-up, Sharry explains. “Your desire might be to go to a new country and get away from the past. But if you are bringing children with you, you are really depriving them. Children are for life – it means you have a commitment to the place you have them,” he adds. “There are no easy outs.”

A new edition of When Parents Separate: Helping Your Children Cope , written by John Sharry and Eugene Donohoe, is published by Veritas, €8.

A talk of the same title will be given by John Sharry next Tuesday, November 3rd, in Donnycarney Community Centre, Dublin, 8pm-9.30pm, admission €20. To book, or for more information, see www.solutiontalk.ie or tel: 086-7340114.

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/1027/1224257487235.html

The Feminists and Political Panderers are at it again ~ Stronger Protection For Women And Children

More pandering by the left to the feminists. It does not matter that DV is pretty much equal between genders, that the most dangerous place for a child is in the care of a single mom, that in some studies it shows females initiating DV in 70% of the cases, in more recent studies it shows females will suffer fewer injuries if they do not initiate the abuse, and there are no DV shelters for men even though they are seriously injured in a third of cases. The legislation is blatantly and prejudicially aimed at men but read further below over its origins. Restraining orders only work for honest people. If someone truly wants to harm their partner no piece of paper will stop them. Its like a padlock that will only keep honest people out. How many criminals will it keep out?

The genesis of the legislation was the death of Katelyn Sampson, a small innocent girl at the hands of a drug addicted female hooker, who was her guardian approved by Bentley's court system, and her Mother who gave her over to the addict was also hooked on drugs. They were recipients of the largess of Ontario taxpayers.

This kind of legislation is designed to pander to the DV Industry and the ideologues who work in academia, the Status Of Women offices and the AG's department.MJM


October 26, 2009 1:45 PM

McGuinty Government Reforms Family Justice For Ontarians

Restraining orders in Ontario have been strengthened to improve the security of those suffering from domestic violence, most of whom are women and children.

A breach of a restraining order made under the new provisions will now be prosecuted as a criminal offence. This increases the protections available to victims of domestic violence. For example, if a person is charged with breaching a restraining order and is likely to re-offend if released, a judge or justice of the peace can now detain this person until the trial.

This part of Ontario's family law reform legislation came into force on October 15, 2009. The legislation also expanded protections to allow partners who live together in a relationship for less than three years to apply for restraining orders.

QUICK FACTS

• A new evidentiary test sets out considerations for judges when granting restraining orders.
• The judiciary now has clear authority to order specific terms in restraining orders, to better protect victims of domestic violence and their children.

http://www.news.ontario.ca/mag/en/2009/10/stronger-protection-for-women-and-children.html

"These changes will mean victims of domestic violence will have increased protections in what is often their time of greatest need. More Ontarians will now have access to restraining orders, helping them to keep themselves and their children safe from harm."

– Chris Bentley
Attorney General

---

"Ontario's new family law reforms will offer more protection to women who are being abused and provide better opportunities for them to build brighter futures for themselves and their children. This is an important step in moving forward on our government's agenda to help women and children live free from fear of domestic violence."

– Laurel Broten
Minister Responsible for Women's Issues

LEARN MORE

• Read the legislation.
• Find out more about additional support for vulnerable Ontarians who come before family courts, through a new investment of $150 million over four years in Legal Aid Ontario.
• Learn how to make an application for a restraining order, by reading the ministry's new self-help guide.

CONTACTS

• Brendan Crawley
  Communications Branch
  (416) 326-2210
  

• Erin Moroz
  Minister's Office
  (416) 326-1785
  

Ministry of the Attorney General
ontario.ca/attorneygeneral

THE BEST Put Down LINE EVER? Major General Peter Cosgrove is an 'Australian treasure!'

This story is priceless and aroused a strong urge within me to have a verbal duel with a feminist. On a Monday morning no less. Unfortunately it is a hoax but a damn good one. http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.aspMJM


General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently.

Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you've got to love this!

This is one of the bes,t comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio cast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over.

Caroline Overington in OZ out does herself ~ Replace shared care with Canada model

My letter to the editor of the Paper:

from	Mike Murphy
sender time		Sent at 17:43 (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 18:02. ✆
to		letters@theaustralian.com.au
cc		online@theaustralian.com.au
date		25 October 2009 17:43
subject		Caroline Overington "Replace shared care with Canada model"

My Dear Editor:

Re: Caroline Overington "Replace shared care with Canada model", October 29, 2009 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26259132-17044,00.html

I have followed Ms. Overington's feminist rants over the years and always wondered why there was no counter balancing to these views which are often factually incorrect. There is no exception with this article. I also find it interesting she gets her facts wrong from the Australian women's movement frequently but now dares venture to the top of the world and quotes from feminist lawyers reports which are famous for their lack of veracity and use of mendacity.

There is no difference in feminist discourse it appears no matter its national source. The information used is to promote feminist privilege and maternalist superiority often through the use of cherry picked statistics or pure fiction.

In Canada judges order maternal custody in over 90% of cases. They offer breadcrumbs to dads through the use of a legal fiction called joint custody but physical custody goes to mom who rules. Possession is not just 9/10ths of the law it is the whole of the law. Is this the model Australia aspires to by going backwards. Why doesn't Overington discus the Danish, Dutch, Belgian or French model? Perhaps even the German Cochem example? All are representative of shared parenting in practice and working for children and parents alike.

A few observations on her lack of sources and citation. "THE Rudd government has been urged to replace shared parenting laws with a model similar to that of Canada..." Urged by whom?

"The Australian understands that the Canadian model has been put to Attorney-General Robert McClelland..." Put to the AG by whom - a feminist lawyer group with less than 50 members in a country of 31 million? She quotes not just herself as "understanding" but your newspaper.

"Unlike the Australian family law regime, Canada does not require a court to presume that the best interests of the child are met by shared parenting" ..."It is unlikely that a breastfeeding baby would be placed in a shared care arrangement, as happens in Australia under the shared parenting law;" There is no shared parenting law in Canada, as yet, but bill C-422 is on the Parliamentary order table. If no shared parenting then the court presumes the status quo of maternal care which was the status quo in Australia prior to 2006.

Overington is using the non-existence of a shared parenting regime in Canada to propose Australia, in effect, go back to the status quo. Interesting circular logic. We call that a Non sequitur in most English speaking countries and indeed others.

"Canadian states and territories spell out some of the tests for the "best interests" principle." Overington needs to do more research on the socio-political and geographic nature of Canada. We have no states but we do have 3 territories on top of the world, one of which lays claim to the North Pole housing a magical figure called Santa Claus. Some of Overington's statements and conclusions are just as magical perhaps even mythological.

The Canadian Divorce Act, and most Provincially related Family legislation, is gender neutral but yet judges still award maternal custody in a 9-1 ratio to moms. I would suggest our judges need direction, as did yours, in balancing the gender difference. Our research by experts like Professor Edward Kruk, at the University Of British Columbia (the latter a Province) shows parents need a minimal 40% contact rate to maintain a parental bond. He also describes numerous negative social outcomes for children in sole care homes.

Can I recommend you hire a male reporter to help balance your reporting and opinion columns by feminists. It might make those like Overington actually do real research.

Mike Murphy

Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting

Caroline Overington | October 26, 2009

Article from: The Australian

THE Rudd government has been urged to replace shared parenting laws with a model similar to that of Canada, where shared parenting after divorce is not necessarily considered in the best interests of the child.

The Australian understands that the Canadian model has been put to Attorney-General Robert McClelland as an option to consider as he wrestles with changes to the reforms introduced by the Howard government in 2006.

Canada places the interests of the child ahead of the right of either parent to insist upon a shared-care arrangement.

Unlike the Australian family law regime, Canada does not require a court to presume that the best interests of the child are met by shared parenting.

It encourages the courts to take into account the benefit to children of having a relationship with both parents after divorce, but also takes into account the roles played by each party before separation, and the consequences to children of too much disruption in their lives.

It is unlikely that a breastfeeding baby would be placed in a shared care arrangement, as happens in Australia under the shared parenting law; nor is it likely that children would be ordered into an arrangement that sees them woken from naps to visit their other parent, as also happens here. It is understood that the Canadian model has been put to Mr McClelland in the form of submissions from women lawyers, and from women's groups opposed to the shared parenting laws.

It is also understood that the main group representing divorced and separated men, the Shared Parenting Council, has put up no alternative to the current regime.

The group missed the deadline for submissions to the review of the law being chaired by retired family court judge Richard Chisholm. Rather than proceed without a paper from the fathers group, Professor Chisholm has offered to take a late submission.

Child custody in Canada is governed by the Divorce Act, which says that courts shall "take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage".

That formulation is supported by case law, which also puts the interests of the child first.

Canadian states and territories spell out some of the tests for the "best interests" principle.

Some say any disruption of the child's life must be taken into account before shared care is considered.

Men's groups have tried to bring shared parenting to Canada, most recently in August, but so far they have failed.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26259132-17044,00.html