In Australia - WHY ARE COWS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN?

As in Australia the misplaced chivalry of the Judiciary and the Political class continue to cater to mom without regard to the impact on children at losing their biological father as a parent. In Canada mom gets sole physical custody in over 90% of cases  with dad being sentenced as a 14% visitor if mom doesn't alienate or act as a gatekeeper.MJM

MEDIA RELEASE | June 27th 2011 

WHY ARE COWS MORE IMPORTANT
THAN CHILDREN?

Dads on the Air | www.dadsontheair.net

Local Sydney Time: 10.30am to 12 midday Tuesdays
 Listen live on 2GLF 89.3FM in Sydney
or online via live streaming at www.893fm.com.au/On-Air
or in MP3 format at www.dadsontheair.net
or in MP3 format at www.dadsontheair.net

 
 

On 30th May 2011, the community, media and Government were outraged, when confronted by the cruelty inflicted on Australian cattle in Indonesia, and it brought immediate Government action. Within days a whole industry was closed down and a valuable export trade was stopped in its tracks.

Three days earlier on the 27th May 2011, the Government released the ABS Family Characteristics Survey 2009-10, which indicates that since 1975 almost 24% of Australians have been denied meaningful contact with their biological families, as a result of deep-rooted Family Law policy failure. Yet now one month later, we have still not seen one word in the press and there is not a sign of any community, media or Government outrage.

Instead a deafening silence greets the news of crippling emotional cruelty being inflicted on Australian children and their powerless families. It would appear the health and wellbeing of the nations' cows is much more important than the health and wellbeing of the nation's children and families.  

ABS Family Characteristics 2009-10, compared to 2006-07

                                          Summary of Findings

There were a total 5.0 million children in Australia in 2009-10.
(4.8 million in 2006-07)

1.  NUMBER OF CHILDREN AGED 0 TO 17, WITH PARENTS LIVING ELSEWHERE.
Just over 1 million or 21% = 1,050 000 in (2009-10)
(Just over 1 million or 22% = 1,056 000 in 2006-07)

2.  NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO SPENT HALF OR MORE NIGHTS WITH THEIR NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT = only 3%.  (4% in 2006-07)

3. There were 441,000 non-custodial parents, the vast majority 81% were Fathers.
(82% in 2006-07)

Using the benchmark definition of “meaningful” contact to represent a child spending 20% or more nights per year with their non-custodial parent, it reveals the following disturbing result:

Of the children who had little or no “meaningful” contact, with their non-custodial parent.

* 45% of children never stayed overnight with their non-custodial parent. (47% in 2006-07). This includes 24% who rarely or never saw that parent.	= 472.500
* 19% of children spent less than 10% of nights with that parent. (19% in 2006-07).	= 199.500
* 15% of children spent more than 10% but less than 20% with that parent. (14% in 2006-07).	= 157.500
* Total number of children who had little or no meaningful contact with their biological non-custodial parent.  (844.800 in 2006-07).	= 829.500

This is a slight variation of less than 1.5% over the previous period (2006-07), calling into serious question the effectiveness of Australia’s 36 year old Family Laws and demonstrates the failure of our Family Courts to protect the rights and safety of the nation’s children, and now accumulating into affecting almost 24% of all Australians.

It indicates just 2 out of 10, or 20% of children from separated parents, continue to enjoy ongoing meaningful contact with their non-custodial parent, as per above definition of “meaningful.”

It also means 8 out of 10, or 80% of Australian children from separated parents, are being denied meaningful ongoing contact with their biological non-custodial parent.

As a consequence, there were 352,000 non custodial parents, who had little or no meaningful contact with their biological children living elsewhere. This in turn caused an estimated 1.5 million extended family members to also be denied meaningful contact with their biological families.

All of the above results reveal a crippling, social fallout, from deep-rooted Family Law policy failure, which raises some serious questions. If we consider the above outcome as actually being in ‘The Best Interest of Children’, then perhaps we need to urgently take a very close look at that definition.                    

Media contact: Peter van de Voorde  - Dads on the Air, Australia – June 27, 2011  ©
www.dadsontheair.net  - 04-28648691 – dotafeedback@gmail.com

For more information about Dads on the Air, click here

Barbara Kay: Stop denying fathers their rights

The CPC at their recent convention finally got around to modifying their policy as follows. The lower of the two clauses below has new wording added: "and/or shared parenting, ".

This is a step forward but I get the impression from this and our CEPC President's recent contact with the PMO they don't understand the difference between "shared" and "equal" parenting. Shared could be divided as 90% mom % 10% dad. Joint is a legal fallacy which states mom gets sole physical custody but dad has some legal say. In practice this does not work. Possession is 10/10 of the law.

We will continue our lobbying effort to get a government bill for equal parenting. There are two main opponents. Feminists and Feminist who are lawyers, in addition to the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), who of course have a vested interest in the winner take all status quo as they will lose business. 

Those who think feminists are all about equality haven't read some of their misandric briefs full of mendacity and misleading statistics, some imported from similar feminist briefs in Australia, who do have a watered down shared parenting law. In fact  Tasha Kheiriddin  a colleague of Ms. Kay at the National Post uses some of those same spurious statistics to oppose equal parenting. Google the name of Pamela Cross for the lead Feminist Lawyer who uses ideology not fairness in her role fighting Equal Parenting.

I was a stay-at-home dad for 10 years running, and a damn good one, until my heart was torn out by the gender apartheid used in the social services/justice system that cares not one whit for good fathers having equality in parenting even when they were the parent who raised the children. They also cannot care for the newly fatherless children.

I was watching "The Game of Thrones" on Sunday and one of the players tried to explain the pain they felt. To paraphrase: "It was like someone tore out my heart and then squeezed it before my eyes." It summed up, in a short phrase, what it felt like to lose my children as a legal parent and the squeezing was done over a period of 4 years by the court system and their apparatchiks until a Judge decided I was stronger emotionally than my ex, therefore there was a power imbalance and I was unfit for equal parenting. He did what most chivalrous judges do, and yes it is misplaced chivalry even by conservative judges, in Canada without any reference to what is really best for children. I went from a full time legal dad to a visitor of 3 hours a week and every other weekend, which is the standard sentence for fathers who are guilty of nothing more than being male.

The system will adapt despite the misandry by feminists like Pamela Cross and her legal cohorts and the vested interests of lawyers represented by the CBA.

The Conservative party of Canada  recently modified section 69 of their policy on shared parenting to the wording in the lower version.

RESOLUTION A – 051

EDA – Oshawa; Whitby-Oshawa; Ajax-Pickering; Pickering-Scarborough East; Durham; Northumberland-Quinte West; Haliburton-Kawartha-Brock; Peterborough



Section K – Social Policy (MODIFICATION)

69. Shared Parenting

The Conservative Party believes that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act should grant joint custody, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the child. Both parents and all grandparents should be allowed to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is demonstrated not to be in the best interest of the child.



69. Shared Parenting

The Conservative Party believes that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act should grant joint custody and/or shared parenting, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the child. Both parents and all grandparents should be allowed to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is demonstrated not to be in the best interest of the child.

Barbara Kay  Jun 15, 2011 – 7:30 AM ET | Last Updated: Jun 14, 2011 4:36 PM ET

 

Shania Twain recently published a memoir detailing her anguish at her ex-husband’s affair with her best friend. In the end, Shania found happiness with the friend’s betrayed husband, by her account a straight-arrow guy, a terrific father to his own daughter and a much-admired step-father to her sons.
She writes, “What attracted me to Fred was his selflessness. He was going through the same agony as I was — maybe even worse, because as a father, he would have to battle his soon-to-be ex for the right to see his own daughter. At least that was something I never had to face.”

Reflect on Shania’s words a moment, and perhaps you will be struck, as I was, by this statement’s lack of critical introspection or even indignation.


Why is it that Shania accepts with such fatalism that the custody of her daughter will never be at issue, whereas this selfless man will have to “battle” for access to his child? Because that is the way things still are in family courts in the West, and even celebrities with the clout to arouse public outrage have absorbed the received wisdom that if one parent resists shared parenting for any reason whatsoever — it is usually the mother, and the reasons can be trivial or non-existent — the mother is awarded sole custody. (In reality, nobody is awarded anything through such judgments; on the contrary, one parent and his children have been taken away from each other).

In 1995, 49,000 American men were primary caregivers to their children. In 2010 154,000 men were. Pampers is now using fathers in their diaper ads. Almost 10 years ago, in a sample of 32,000 parents, Health Canada found that working fathers and mothers spend virtually equal time on child care.
So gender convergence is the rule for non-divorced parents, and equal parenting is now the rule for divorces that don’t go to trial. Why is it not the presumptive norm for those that do go to trial, after which mothers get sole custody nine out of 10 times?

It is clear to any disinterested observer who immerses himself in the subject that almost the only opponents to equal parenting are misandric ideologues and those financially invested in the family court system itself, which would see a drastic reduction in revenue from the professional gold mine all-or-nothing custody battles represent.

Reliable surveys tell us that over 70% of Canadians want a presumption of shared or equal parenting in law (in the absence of abuse). But family courts have not caught up with reality. Many judges are still in thrall to stubborn myths: that men demand custody rights to punish their ex-wives or to avoid child support; that they easily disengage from their children; or that awarding men equal rights represents a “patriarchal backlash” (even though few men ask for sole custody, only shared) and children do just as well with one parent as two. Wrong on all counts.

Edward Kruk, associate professor of social work at the University of British Columbia, has been studying the changing role of fathers and the problems of father absence for 30 years. His latest book, Divorced Fathers: Children’s Needs and Parental Responsibilities, illuminates the tragic toll on fathers first removed from their children’s lives by a biased legal system, and then unsupported by a social services network that is almost wholly indifferent to fathers’ rights and feelings.

According to multiple studies, displaced fathers are overwrought at the loss of contact with their children. They are far more likely to become depressed or unemployed. Worse, suicide rates amongst fathers struggling to maintain a parenting relationship with their children are “epidemic.” Divorced fathers are more than twice as likely to kill themselves as married fathers. But since men tend to suffer in silence, the depth of their despair goes unnoticed.

Kruk calls the crisis of father absence — for both fathers and the children they are torn from — “one of the most significant and powerful trends of this generation.” Children now form primary attachments to both parents. Losing their father’s active participation in their lives is enormously consequential. Trustworthy research demonstrates that children deprived of a meaningful father role are at far greater risk of physical, emotional and psychological damage than those actively parented by their fathers. Children fare better with equal parenting even where there is conflict between the parents; it is only child-directed conflict that hurts children.

Kruk’s findings reveal that ironically, precisely because they have taken on equal responsibility for parenting before divorce, men who lose their parenting role now suffer far more grievously than they used to 20 years ago when he wrote his first book, Divorce and Disengagement. He argues for a paradigm shift, away from a rights-based discourse to a framework of “responsibility to needs,” in which both children’s needs and parental and institutional responsibilities to them would be enumerated.

Kruk rather poignantly asks: “Why are parents with no civil or criminal wrongdoing forced to surrender their responsibility to raise their children?” and “Is the removal of a parent from the life of a child, via legal sole custody, itself a form of parental alienation?” Good questions, especially since equal parenting has been part of the Conservative policybook since the party’s rebirth. What’s the delay? Over to you, Mr. Harper.

National Post

Posted in: Full Comment, Social Issues  Tags: Barbara Kay, child custody, court, courts, custody, divorce, Family Law, fathers, fathers rights, Shania Tawin

 http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/15/barbara-kay-stop-denying-fathers-their-rights/

False Allegations in Australian Family Law Disputes

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2011

Submission to Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

by Prof. Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney

Excerpt:

There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes. People have become very cynical about them. A national survey conducted in 2009, with over 12,500 respondents, found that 49% of respondents agreed with the proposition that ‘women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case’, and only 28% disagreed. While it might be expected that men would be inclined to believe this, 42% of women did so as well.

The view that some family violence order applications are unjustified appears to be shared by state magistrates in New South Wales and Queensland. Hickey and Cumines in a survey of 68 NSW magistrates concerning apprehended violence orders (AVOs) found that 90% agreed that some AVOs were sought as a tactic to aid their case in order to deprive a former partner of contact with the children. About a third of those who thought AVOs were used tactically indicated that it did not occur ‘often’, but one in six believed it occurred ‘all the time’. A similar survey of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74% agreed with the proposition that protection orders are used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with their children.

In research that our research team recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, almost all solicitors thought that tactical applications for AVOs occurred, with the majority considering it happened often. In another study based upon interviews with 181 parents who have been involved in family law disputes, we found a strong perception from respondents to family violence orders (both women and men) that their former partners sought a family violence order in order to help win their family law case. This is a quote from one of the women in our study. Her former husband, who we also interviewed, sought an apprehended violence order (AVO) to keep her away from the house after she had left it. She said this:

I thought this is ridiculous. What’s he giving me an AVO for? I haven’t done anything to him. I haven’t hit him, kicked him. We never had any violence in our marriage. Why have I got an AVO? And apparently the AVO was ... you can put an AVO on someone and say that they’re violent, and the only way you can get a child off their mother is because they’re violent. And that’s why I think he gave me the AVO.

The belief that family violence orders are a weapon in the war between parents is fuelled by the fact that judges are required under the Family Law Act to consider such family violence orders in determining the best interests of the child. The proposed clause in this Bill takes the law back to what it was before 2006, without any explanation for why Parliament should reverse its previous decision at least to limit the provision. It really doesn’t matter whether this belief that family violence orders are used tactically is true or not. The fact is that the perception is out there and it is held by state magistrates and family lawyers, as well as the wider community. The retention of this provision in the Family Law Act simply fuels the suspicion that family violence orders are being misused. This is damaging to the credibility of the family violence order system and the courts.

The second reason why the requirement to consider family violence orders ought to be removed is that this serves absolutely no purpose. Yes, the court needs to know about the existence of a current family violence order in order to consider how to frame its own orders (s.60CG), but that is dealt with by requiring people to inform the court of such orders (s.60CF). Why consider them again in deciding what is in the best interests of a child (s.60CC(3))? The court is already required to consider the history of violence. What does it add to require the court also to consider a family violence order? The impression given by the legislation is that these orders are somehow evidence that there has been violence. However, that is a misunderstanding.

Family violence orders have absolutely no evidential value in the vast majority of cases. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, they are consented to without admissions. The hearings in these uncontested cases are very brief indeed. Prof. Rosemary Hunter, in observations in Victoria in 1996–97, found that the median hearing time for each application was only about three minutes. Applications were typically dealt with in a bureaucratic manner, with magistrates being distant and emotionally disengaged. To the extent that applicants were asked to give oral evidence, they were typically asked to confirm the content of their written application, and very little exploration of the grounds for the application took place.

Dr Jane Wangmann, in a recent analysis of court files in NSW, reached finding very similar to Hunter’s. In her observations of AVO matters in 2006–7, she found, like Hunter, that cases were dealt with in three minutes or less. She also noted that the information provided in written complaints was brief and sometimes vague. It is hardly surprising, then, that judges in family law cases draw no inferences from the mere existence of a family violence order. This has been the clear view of family lawyers for the last 15 years. Indeed, in the research we recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, none of the lawyers who responded to the question believed that judicial officers gave AVOs much consideration in determining parenting disputes. Judges, they indicate, want to evaluate the evidence of violence itself, not the fact that another court has made an order about it by consent and without admissions.

Download the full submission in PDF format by Prof. Parkinson:

https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=f6c1e09d-3367-4ed1-b0da-aed26481ea59

Alberta Parental Alienation Organization presents: Up Close and Personal

Up Close and Personal

with

Dr. Richard Warshak, Ph.D

Thurs Feb 24 @7pm 

The Blackfoot Inn, 5940 Blackfoot Trail SE 

($25pp in advance - $30 at the door, 6pm)

Dr. Warshak is an internationally recognized expert on Parental Alienation and author of “Divorce Poison: How to Protect Your Family from Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing”. His work has expanded our understanding on how to prevent and treat Parental Alienation behaviours. Join us for his lecture, followed by a Q&A. Order/Pay online - albertapaao.blogspot.com Sponsored by: Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - Alberta  #228, 10654-82 Ave, Edmonton AB T6E 2A7

Blog: albertapaao.blogspot.com Telephone:  (406) 565-4594 Email:  albertapaao@gmail.com

Banned Condom Commercial but something every man should understand

Men should pay attention to the commercial but especially the long term financial deprivation portion related to child support.  It impacts 10's of thousands of men every year across Canada in one night stands, common law relationships and marriages. You will not get physical custody of your child under any circumstances, unless mom agrees, and you will pay for a very long time emotionally and financially.MJM

The Law Times: Debate fires up over presumption of joint custody

Most of the old, and some nasty arguments still prevail in the debate about presumptive equal parenting. Some take the maternalistic view that only mom can nurture a young child but there is no scientific proof of this. Attachment theory was shown as not valid some time ago. Perhaps one should do a longitudinal study of lone parent dads and Gay men raising small children. Tell Elton John and his partner he has the wrong plumbing to nurture. As a former stay-at-home dad I will stack my nurturing capabilities with any woman on earth.

Others raise the bogus argument of child support claiming dads are just cheap skates. What they fail to register is the illogical and fallacious nature of the argument. A final child support award will be based on the relative incomes of the two parties and  the time they share with the child. A dad making more money will still pay child support in a 50-50 relationship.  In addition, dad will be paying for the support of his child directly, while in his care not through another spouse or a third party, like FRO in Ontario.  In other words when the child is with him he will be purchasing all the requisite items required that mom would buy in the current maternal only lone parent child custody regime. 

This regime, across Canada, gives mom sole physical custody in over 90% of cases.  What if we were dealing with a targeted affirmative action group rather than men? Society would not stand for such blatant discrimination.   Those who argue otherwise are just enabling the transfer of wealth from dad to mom as an excuse for not sharing a child.  This is just another form of child abuse and gate keeping separating  a biological child from the most important male role model in their lives.

The divorce act is gender neutral but judges routinely award sole custody to mom, as described above. Discretion needs to be removed as they have proven they cannot make judgments in keeping with the Act.

Others bring up the fallacious argument of abuse. PMB-C-422 now on the order paper, albeit far down the list, clearly states it is for fit parents.  It also includes great flexibility in the amount of time. A presumption is 50-50 but couples who cannot do this will work out reasonable time frames based on their abilities and work life.  We currently have a situation with mom as custodial parent farming out the child to a non-parent while she works. If not working she is collecting child support and many other public subsidies and is a burden on the State.  The largest consumers of welfare in canada are single moms. 

Shared  parenting allows mom to get training and productive work.   

Intimate Partner Abuse is relatively equal in Canada http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm and some studies show it is initiated by the female, particularly in the 20-30 year age cohort, at a 71% rate in non-reciprocal violence.  Most studies also show mom is most likely to kill or maltreat a child and this is unrelated to the amount of contact.. http://victimfeministcentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/mothers-commit-vast-majority-of.html

Where presumptive shared parenting has been in place it shows divorce rates have dropped and an overall reduction  in the use of court facilities. It certainly has more positive outcomes for children who do not want to give up a loving parent who is consigned to be a visitor.

My first comments, above,  were off the cuff and from memory but these are a more thorough analysis of comments made in the piece against shared parenting.

A rebuttal of assertions by the anti-equal parenting Lawyers

I want to first congratulate Garry Wise on his astute observation on a reduction in cases going to court. Add mediation to the mix plus shared/equal parenting and court resources can be used for real matters that need to be before the court.  Issues like child custody, and divorce itself, are less matters of law and more human, interpersonal relationships full of emotion. There is little logic found in this affective process by the litigants.

Edward Kruk is a wise person and has done extensive research on shared parenting with some emphasis on the positive outcomes for children.  For those interested in reading his full report a PDF is here (101 pages) http://www.fira.ca/cms/documents/181/April7_Kruk.pdf, and the Executive Summary here. (9 pages).   http://www.fira.ca/cms/documents/179/April7_Kruk_Summary.pdf This should be required reading for all Judges, social workers, court associated mental health workers, and Lawyers for starters.

Barabara Landau takes the usual Victim Feminist approach to custody that currently exists and is the sure fire way for mom to get custody. Mom says dad is abusive and substantive proof is not required. False accusations are part and parcel of custody battles today. The current mantra is men are abusive, women are benign and never the twain shall meet. Judges, full of chivalry and misplaced honour decide they will not take any chances and cease dads parental involvement and make him a visitor.  This starts the road to many negative consequences for the children.

The real world data are compelling in stating the true story. Stats Can just released the most recent data on Family Violence http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm and as was the case in preceding surveys it shows near parity in terms of gender participation. "Of the nearly 19 million Canadians who had a current or former spouse in 2009, 6.2% or 1.2 million reported they had been victimized physically or sexually by their partner or spouse during the five years prior to the survey. This proportion was stable from 2004 (6.6%), the last time the victimization survey was conducted, and down from 1999 (7.4%).

A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women."  Keep in mind this is also over a five year period.

In other words 94% of men and 93.6% of women were not affected  by Intimate Partner Violence.  For the tiny minority of those who are affected perhaps the court process is the way to determine the outcome using, not "he said", "she said", but real evidence.

Barbara Landau claims she is a mediator but how can someone mediate with pre-ordained views such as she espouses? Its perplexing and troubling. Mediation by definition is " one that reconciles differences between disputants. I'd say she already has her mind made up and pity the man involved in her sessions

Jane Murray is confused about Equal Parenting. We don't call it joint custody anymore  which is a legal fiction providing mom (in 90% of cases) with physical custody. Possession of the children is 10/10ths of the law except in the very rare cases where the parties can sit down and mom relinquishes control over her ex.  Courts rarely punish mom for withholding custody. Child custody and child support is about control of mom over dad post marriage. Might I suggest she, and others who are confused about the definition read PMB C-422 located on the Parliamentary website here. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3995880&file=4

"

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Divorce Act to replace the concept of “custody orders” with that of “parenting orders”. It instructs judges, when making a parenting order, to apply the principle of equal parenting unless if it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parental responsibility other than equally."

It is much better to debate with informed participants rather than those who are guessing at definitions.

Landau finds it rare for couples to come up with a plan for 50-50 parenting. She also clearly shows her lack of experience and insight. She is thinking inside the current box not of an entirely different approach. Parenting Plans should be compulsory.

She also puts forth other canards such as stage of development and child temperament. If we were to listen to these old and stale arguments then every parent contemplating using day care would need a certificate from a competent authority to declare the child is not anxious or intemperate for those strangers at Day Care centres licensed or not. Most children are very robust at changing locations otherwise we would not have most parents in the work force of both genders.  Parent's who care about their children will, in the end, work out the best arrangements knowing they are working from positions of equality rather than control by mom.

Landau also brings forth another feminist construction about the parenting connection. If we were to believe that I would today have sole physical custody of my children as I was the stay-at-home parent for the first 10 years of their development.  All mom has to do is make false allegations of abuse and take a run to the local women's shelter, even if she was just found out to have committed fraud in the family business. I can attest men and dads are very versatile and most take an active role in parenting. Landau would probably be the first to complain dad makes more money than mom and it might be true because dad works longer hours, at more dangerous work and doesn't have as many paternity leave options with his employer.

Buccci believes in equality post divorce only if there was equality before the marriage ended.  Even if this was adhered to more men would have 50-50 or 60-40 or 70-30 custody than now exists.  I don't think she has thought through the premise.  What she is saying is if Dad had to work so many hours to support the family he is unfit for equal parenting post marriage even though he had it during the marriage.  In other words his parenting was not of a substantial type to warrant a continuation of his involvement later. She is clearly stating dad is to be penalized for working hard to support the family and pay an unequal amount of child support as he may not have been available for the kids as much as mom.  Modern research extinguishes this argument but it persists.  

Let me put Bucci's assertions another way.  If there is unequal parenting, by her definition,  during the marriage and one parent is, therefore, punished post divorce by not having 50-50 with the children will she also agree that the parent who worked the hardest monetarily to support the family, and sacrificed to not be with the children as often as a result,  gets to keep  the money earned for themselves rather than as support.  After all unequal should be fair to both parties - shouldn't it?  Can we see the holes in her argument yet? The reader can no doubt think of many analogies.

Keep in mind PMB C-422 starts with a 50-50 presumption but parents can work out what is best for their particular situation. it does not pre-suppose a one size fits all mould. it may turn out to be 80-20, 70-30, or 60-40 but it is important to note the best interest of children is to have both fit parents in their lives on an ongoing basis. It ought not be a tug of war, winner take all approach which harms the kids.

"Lawyer Kristen Bucci of Zochodne Bucci in Thunder Bay, Ont., isn’t in favour of true joint custody, which she defines as joint decision-making. In her experience, it works only in rare cases. “At the point of separation, there is a lot of animosity. You need two people to talk calmly, rationally, and in the best interests of the child, and that rarely happens in real life.”

Kristen Bucci needs to read Edward Kruk's paper referenced above. For her to make a statement such as she has belies real world experiences with Equal Parenting. This method of dispute resolution reduces friction before and after the divorce.MJM

 



Proposal would fundamentally change approaches to post-separation parenting 

  By Judy Van Rhijn | Publication Date: Monday, 07 February 2011



A fundamental change to the very basis on which post-separation parenting is viewed is being urged by some members of the legal and mental-health professions while others fiercely oppose the idea.

‘Generally, there is a parent and an assistant parent. How does a judge make those two positions coincide?’ says Kristen Bucci.

In fact, the introduction of a presumption of continued joint custody after separation is a measure that provokes strong opinions on both sides of the argument. Garry Wise of Wise Law Office in Toronto says that bringing in a presumption of joint custody would be an “across-the-board” approach to family law reform that would reduce the number of cases coming before the courts.

“This would be the biggest solution of all. What we do not have is a legally sanctioned culture of joint parenting at the federal level under the Divorce Act or the provincial level. We have an anachronism of a custody/access-based system that evolved one or more generation ago when one parent was at home and one parent was working.

Almost all families now do the parenting together, and we have an arbitrary, artificial concept of best interests of the children that is so pliable and subjective that you can read it every which way.”
With a presumption in place, Wise says the first message couples would get from courts and legal practitioners is the expectation of shared parenting.

“The discussion would begin differently. It would set the stage for more cases to settle in a way the parties themselves feel is appropriate and equitable. With that culture combined with mandatory mediation where the parties narrow the issues and resolve more issues that affect the ability of the parties to parent, we’d be well on the way to forging a new culture after separation.”

Wise compares the idea to the introduction of the child-support guidelines. “It was unfair to certain parties and fair to others but it established a new status quo and took almost all the cases off the table. I’d propose something equally radical.”

The issue was given an airing in a lively debate at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Ontario conference in October. Edward Kruk, an associate professor with the school of social work and family studies at the University of British Columbia, presented the case for a rebuttable presumption of equal or shared parenting responsibilities, with the opposite view being given by lawyer Martha McCarthy.

Kruk has become one of the most vocal supporters of a presumption and favours a transition from shared parenting in a two-parent household to shared parenting in two different households. Kruk believes the “winner-take-all” adversarial approach through sole custody isn’t working for either children or parents and that change is urgently needed.

His numerous papers emphasize the negative effects on children with absent fathers and the positive impacts on children of shared custody arrangements compared to sole custody situations. He also notes there’s decreasing parental conflict in joint custody families as compared to an increase of such problems over time in sole custody families.

In his presentation, he varied his basic proposal for a presumption by coupling it with a rebuttable presumption against shared custody in cases of family violence and abuse, as proposed by the National Association of Women and the Law.

His published opinions say this would apply in proven cases involving a criminal conviction in a matter directly affecting the parenting of the children or a finding of a child in need of protection by a child welfare authority. Kruk proposes that the much more stringent standard of child in need of protection be applied before removing a parent’s legal custody rather than the test that looks to the best interests of the child.

Wise is in favour of putting the onus to prove that a presumption is inappropriate on the spouse who doesn’t agree. “If legislation said the starting point is joint custody, and the onus is on the parties to provide evidence that a different arrangement is in the best interests of the children, it would be difficult for a parent to ever satisfy that,” he says.

This is precisely what worries Toronto lawyer and mediator Barbara Landau, who was present at the debate and strongly disagrees with the proposal. “Where there is an onus, it is often on the victimized party to disprove it,” she says. “It makes for a potentially much more adversarial situation. If a parent thinks a situation is inappropriate for a shared arrangement, they have to go to court and argue against it.”

Landau believes there’s a lack of understanding of the difference between joint legal custody, where parties agree to consult with each other on significant decisions, and joint physical custody, which involves having the children 50 per cent of the time.

This is echoed by other practitioners. Jane Murray of Burke-Robertson LLP in Ottawa is concerned about the various interpretations of joint custody.

“There would have to be a clear definition of exactly what you’re presuming or there would be a lot of litigation around the definition,” she says, noting she believes a presumption is unnecessary. “There is already a direction in the Divorce Act that one of the factors be maximizing the child’s time with each parent.”

Lawyer Kristen Bucci of Zochodne Bucci in Thunder Bay, Ont., isn’t in favour of true joint custody, which she defines as joint decision-making. In her experience, it works only in rare cases. “At the point of separation, there is a lot of animosity. You need two people to talk calmly, rationally, and in the best interests of the child, and that rarely happens in real life.”

With respect to shared physical custody, Landau finds it’s rare that people come up with a plan for 50-per-cent sharing of physical custody. “You need geographic proximity because the children attend school and have friends in the neighbourhood.

You need co-ordination and you need availability. People must have jobs that allow them to be available to have the children that much. I see people who have to be at work from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Their plan is to leave the children with a caregiver when the other parent is at home.”

Landau adds: “You also have to consider the stage of development and temperament of the child. Do the children take to change easily or do they suffer anxiety over the smallest changes? There is a need for stability, security, and a reasonable routine.”

Landau also stresses the need to look at the parenting connection before the separation. “Some parents who are asking for 50 per cent have never looked after the child on their own except for maybe 20 minutes while someone went to the 7-Eleven. You need to build up the child’s comfort and confidence.”

Landau also stresses that the level of communication between the parents needs to be respectful so the children aren’t travelling back and forth between war zones.
Bucci, meanwhile, believes parents need to prove they were equally involved in parenting prior to separation. “One partner says, ‘Yes, I was absolutely equally involved.’

The other partner says, ‘Absolutely not. I did the majority of the decision-making.’ Generally, there is a parent and an assistant parent. How does a judge make those two positions coincide?”
Bucci, in fact, finds a lot of litigants get very hung up on a particular label. “So many parents want joint custody but are not really prepared to put in the work.”

Landau places the blame for this situation squarely at the feet of the child-support guidelines. “The question of equal time is contaminated by the supposed 40-per-cent rule of child support. Virtually every man wants 40 per cent of the time in the mistaken belief that they won’t have to pay child support.

I call it the faint-hope clause. If you took away the 40-per-cent rule, there would be a lot less fights over the percentage of time.”

Landau believes most cases start with a presumption that it’s in the child’s best interests to have a full relationship with both parents in any case. “A judge has an overriding responsibility to deal with each case in an individualized way, and that doesn’t preclude joint physical or joint legal custody.”


http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201102078228/Headline-News/Debate-fires-up-over-presumption-of-joint-custody