I have to speak on shared parenting and how it is handled by the courts. This one case gives a lot of insight into the workings of the justice system at least in my home province My case law research (and I've done a considerable amount over the last 15 years) shows me that whenever there is a ch... access page ...

I have to speak on shared parenting and how it is handled by the courts. This one case gives a lot of insight into the workings of the justice system at least in my home province My case law research (and I've done a considerable amount over the last 15 years) shows me that whenever there is a chance for a shared custody situation or a mention of joint custody, the lawyers will fight tooth and nail so that it doesnt happen. The judges will also look for any angle to prevent it.

They may speak as if they want it and give up to a half hour of garble on "behavior " of parents and then... rule sole custody or something like that with the father paying. Ive seen existing shared custody arrangements broken up in the courts only recently because the mother would have eneded up paying child support had it continued. When there are comments on the behavior of parents it goes this way. If its the father misbehaving he is reprimnaded as an individual.

If its the mother, the judge tries to show it as a mutual issue with both parties to blame. There is no money in shared parenting. Period. Just as there is no money in world peace. There is no money in children being raised properly and respectful. To get to my point, the judges and the legal system are only too happy to take our money and break up our bond with our children. But when it affects one of their own, well thats a different story. Il cite a recent case between two lawyers who separated and went into the same Family court they make their living. They couldnt get along. Fought constantly and never agreed on parenting.


The lack of cooperation alone is used almost all the time for judges and lawyers to get out of the shared parenting. In this case, with two of their own, they wont do it. Shared Parenting with no child support is the decision.

Source:
canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22elaine+gi

Comments to Barbara's column in the National Post.Lawyers put money above the true best interests of the child But many have ignored persuasive evidence showing that the single most important “interest” of children is to continue to love and to be loved by both their parents." access page ...

Comments to Barbara's column in the National Post.Lawyers put money above the true best interests of the child But many have ignored persuasive evidence showing that the single most important “interest” of children is to continue to love and to be loved by both their parents."

This concept, as logical as it appears to most reasonable people, seems to be lost on the supporters of adversarial family law which includes the Lawyers, with some exceptions such as Mr. Ludmer and his colleagues in L4SP, and more importantly Judges. The latter are largely incompetent in dealing with complex interpersonal relationships, which is what divorce is all about, and have to rely on other people, some of whom have a vested interest in the status quo as it drives clients to their doors.

As a long time observer of family law (AKA FLAW) my research and personal observations show Judges are the perpetrators of some of the most negative consequences that can befall children, using the sole custody to mom model. Despite the fact they have access to all the social science most ignore it and use feministic rational such as social context to make decisions, overwhelmingly favouring one gender to the everlasting regret of children, who are forced by the government to "divorce" their father who is given a parentectomy, and vanquished to visitor status.

The main opponents to equal parenting are Lawyers. Do you ever wonder why? If you thought revenue streams you would be correct. Lawyers put money above the true best interests of the child which is to have both fit and loving parents in their lives on an ongoing basis so that bonds remain intact and dad, as their main protector, is not forced to walk away.

The other main group of opponents are ideological feminists and their bobble head manginas, some of whom are politicians. One such group call themselves LEAF, and are hard core feminist lawyers who with regularity, will bring up the old buster bunking bomb of Domestic Violence. Sometimes when really desperate they will bring out the nuclear bomb of sexual violence by men. They are false assertions unsupported in any literature in most western countries, but it prevails and scares politicians.

Here is the most recent social survey on family violence in Canada showing both genders, in small proportions of the population, are both perpetrators and victims almost equally.

Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2009.

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.

The Daily summary:

statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm

Source:
nationalpost.com/2014/03/19/barbara-kay-after-a-divorce-equal-parenting

comment on the potential semantic loophole in substantially enhanced in C-560 merits consideration in light of historical evidence that the current maximum contact provisions in the Divorce Act have been trivialized by the courts. However, it must be read within the entire context of the Bill.access page ...

comment on the potential semantic loophole in substantially enhanced in C-560 merits consideration in light of historical evidence that the current maximum contact provisions in the Divorce Act have been trivialized by the courts. However, it must be read within the entire context of the Bill.

Bill C-560 starts from the premise that the “best interests of the child”(BIOC)as an undefined term constitutes the fundamental flaw in the Divorce Act providing a legislative loophole for unfettered judicial discretion. It bears noting the same fatal flaw is common to all family law legislation in the anglosphere even extending to the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. The resulting similarity in legal outcomes is therefore not some statistical fluke.

More than any other anglosphere legislation to date, C-560 targets this major flaw by contextually  defining BIOC in terms of shared parenting and vice-versa. The Bill adopts the presumptive starting point of equal parental responsibility and equal parental access to the child found in intact homes and requires the closest match barring demonstrably overriding considerations under the court’s inherent  parens patriae jurisdiction. It does not guarantee 50:50, nor was that the intent, as parens patriae  always applies.

Bill C-560 ( previously C-422 in the last parliament) was planned as a major down payment on family law reform and, while it covers several areas beyond equal shared parenting, it is not comprehensive in its coverage of family law matters- nor was it designed to do so. There are certainly other issues to be addressed. The best example of that is Domestic Violence, another undefined term in family law. This topic that will most certainly come up in Committee Stage and public consultations should the Bill pass Second Reading. This will be the area where we need to be prepared to provide input on behalf of Canadian families.

I, too, encourage members to read C-560 <http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6375891&File=24> , but for different reasons. With the Bill released from Committee on Feb 11th to be placed on the Order paper for Second Reading (in March), this represents the high water mark of family law reform since the “For the Sake of the Children” report on Shared Parenting in 1998. This Bill represents the consensual view of the Canadian FRM (Family Rights Movement) under the auspices of the CEPC big-tent council, direct sponsorship by Maurice Vellacott MP together with tangible secondary support by Liberal and Green Party MPs as well as moral support from individual NDP MPs. This is democracy in action and should be celebrated.

We are now entering a crucial stage of securing all-party support for Second Reading. Unless parties release their members for a free vote, the key Go/No-Go decision regarding support for C-560 will likely be made by PMO and party executives in the next several weeks. This is a time to close ranks and support our organizational lobbying initiatives in support of C-560.

United in Purpose & Spirit,

George Piskor

RE: Titus's post regarding C-560 - I would like to start by saying c-560 is essentially c-422 a bill that she herself introduced with Vellacott in 2009.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed by her actions so close to second reading and we haven't been friends since 2012 so I read it when it was po... access page ...

RE: Titus's post regarding C-560 - I would like to start by saying c-560 is essentially c-422 a bill that she herself introduced with Vellacott in 2009.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed by her actions so close to second reading and we haven't been friends since 2012 so I read it when it was posted on CEPC's membership list... so please don't message me asking why she is doing this now; message her directly.

Please see George Piskor's post below and I urge you all to continue supporting Bill C-560; For the Sake of the Children!


1. The fundamental legal reality is that judges retain an overriding discretion under “parens patriae” doctrine to overrule ANY legislative wording relating to the child. In other words, barring constitutional amendment, it is constitutionally impossible to eliminate judicial discretion in child related issues as many would like based on demonstrable grounds...and this has been the case since at least 1603. 

The challenge is therefore to strike the right balance. If any legislation is deemed too stringent, judges will automatically invoke “parens patriae” (or, worse yet, rule the legislation as being invalid); if the legislation is too lax, then we’ll have the current situation of unbridled discretion. Somewhere in between is the Goldilocks zone of “just right” given that some degree of judicial discretion is a reality. 

As many of us know, C-560 (previously C-422) already incorporates the best-effort Goldilocks zone as defined by CEPC and member organizations from the FRM (Family Rights Movement) using an agreed transparent democratic voting process. As in any consensual process, C-560 is not “perfect” (or even acceptable to some), but as the old adage goes: “Perfect is the enemy of good”. 

In short, let’s remember that C-560 represents the majority FRM view, and that the points being raised now were first hashed out in CEPC Committee with delegates from participating member organizations; secondly by the CEPC Board; thirdly by Maurice Vellacott, the sponsoring MP; and lastly by Parliamentary Legislative Drafters whose mandate is to weed out openly unconstitutional provisions as one might expect.

2. However, there’s a more fundamental point at stake here. This is truly an inopportune time for discussions on legislative fine tuning as we head into the Second Reading vote next month. Here’s why:

a. Procedurally- and by that I mean according to parliamentary procedures- the train has left the station on changes. Any changes to C-560 at this point would require the Bill to be totally withdrawn! After amendments were made, the whole legislative cycle would start from square 1. This means turning the clock back to 2009 on the legislative calendar and losing the past 3 ½ years of work. This, of course, is tantamount to killing any legislative prospects for reform in this parliament. 

b. United Front. Prior history in every country has shown that the smallest crack of disunity will be exploited by opponents. This is a time for the community to rally around the legislation and supporting MPs in a show of unity- all the more so as C-560 is a Private Member’s Bill and does not carry the full weight of a Government Bill (unless the Government explicitly chooses to adopt C-560 as its own Bill which is something that CEPC and other organizations will be promoting)! 

c. Implications for the Future. Why would any sane MPs want to work with the FRM community in the future if the political rug is perceived to be pulled out from under their feet , be it thru well-intentioned ignorance or perceived vacillating support?

3. The time for discussion of suggested improvements, or expressions of support or rejection as the case may be, is not now but after C-560 hopefully passes Second Reading and advances to Committee Stage in Parliament. At that time, every individual and organization will be free to make their views known in writing as part of public consultations and/or orally before the House Justice Committee. C-560 will then be revised in Committee and, if the revisions are deemed consistent with the original intent of the Bill, continue on to final Third Reading.

My simple plea here is: a) at a minimum, don’t rock the boat until it docks, and preferably, b) celebrate and support the journey initiated by the FRM majority to a hopefully successful conclusion.

United in Purpose & Spirit,

George Piskor

First International Shared Parenting Organization Establi...

There has been posting to public lists and Facebook of a variety of differing wordings suggested for C-560. I suggest that public discussions of differing wording simply provides ammunition to the other side and reduces our recruitment of riding ambassadors to lobby MPs for support for our reform... access page ...

There has been posting to public lists and Facebook of a variety of differing wordings suggested for C-560. I suggest that public discussions of differing wording simply provides ammunition to the other side and reduces our recruitment of riding ambassadors to lobby MPs for support for our reform bill.

CEPC understands these concerns regarding the wording of C-560. I have invited some of those who have presented the clearest alternate wordings to phone me to discuss. There may be opportunities to make amendments during the process, but I want to ensure that the movement does not propose differing, conflicting wording that simply reduces the chances that any reasonable bill will pass.

Most of my efforts are going to our existing list of riding ambassadors and lobbying for support for MP Vellacott and voting support from MPs. It has been my experience that public lists discussions on wording are divisive and politically set us back rather than advance the cause.

There have been numerous and repeated offers for organizations and individuals to join with CEPC as advocates and there have been numerous discussions at the CEPC Board level (and with individuals) on a non-public basis.

Let us remember that the public, adversarial forums of family court make problems worse and that we are seeking a non-adversarial, conflict resolution alternative that is respectful and incentivizes people to solve their own problems. In my opinion, we should model this alternative in our conflict resolution within the movement.

Glenn in Ottawa