Friday, January 30, 2009

Barbara Kay ~ The National Post ~ Brainwashing the kids to spite the ex


Barbara Kay
Published: Friday, January 30, 2009


In what has been called a "stunning and unusual family law decision"released Jan. 16, a Toronto father was awarded sole custody of his three daughters, aged nine to 14. The "persistent and overwhelming"campaign by the mother over the course of more than a decade was recognized as emotional abuse by Ontario Superior Court Justice Faye McWatt, and the children have been sent to a California therapeutic recovery centre for treatment.

The couple, known as A. L. and K. D., have had a volatile relationship since they met 15 years ago. In spite of K. D. falsely alleging that A.L. sexually abused their first child, the couple had two more children between bouts of disaffection. K. D. -- herself dominated by a vindictive mother who had beaten her in childhood-- repeatedly called police after provoking physical confrontations with A. L., and frequently bad-mouthed him in front of the children.

According to the judgment against K. D., she is denied all contact with the girls, even by telephone or text messages She has been ordered not to come closer to them than 300 metres. A. L. has been given the right to confiscate their computers and cellphones. This is necessary, Justice McWatt said, because the mother had so poisoned her children's feelings toward their father that they had lost their capacity for independent judgment in relating to him.

The father's lawyer, Harold Niman, said the decision is a wake-up call to vengeful parents. The message: They cannot punish their former spouses through their children with impunity. "Maybe if they realize the courts will actually step in and do something and there is a risk of not only losing custody, but having no contact with their children, they'll think twice about it," he said in an interview.

In fact, I don't share Mr. Niman's optimism that this represents a sea change in the fortunes of the legions of alienated partners desperately seeking redress for the baseless loss of their children's affection.

My files bulge with parental alienation stories in which this well-documented form of child abuse is ignored by judges. In this case, even just from media accounts, I note the following disturbing facts that suggest this judgment is an exception, rather than the harbinger of a rule:

-In the case of the eldest child, the mother's obsessive demonization of the father was flagged eight years ago by a Toronto mediator and clinical psychologist who testified the mother would alienate the children from their father: Where was "the court" eight years ago?

-The mother has been flouting the court-ordered visitation rights of the father since their separation, to the point of refusing his court-permitted thrice-weekly telephone calls (desperate for contact,he shouted good-night to the children through the doors): Where were the police who should have enforced access?

-The Office of the Children's Lawyer, which alone decides which children itwill assess and/or represent, did not get involved until the process was so far advanced that the damage was already done: Why did it take them so long?

-Even the judge noted that the father's unrelenting determination to see this battle through was unique, and only possible to someone with an unusually high income (A. L. is a vascular surgeon): How are ordinary people without resources supposed to fight on their children's behalf ?

Sadly, what this case tells me is that only Herculean efforts by a well-heeled non-custodial parent can break through the Kafkaesque family law system. But at least it shines some light on Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a term describing the often-irreversible damage done to children brainwashed by an alienating parent into groundless hatred of the other parent.

An alienator can be a mother or a father. But, since high-conflict court battles are almost always resolved with the mother having sole custody-- mothers are better placed to indulge this pathology without binding intervention.

Indeed,in a long-term 2007 study published by developmental psychologist and PAS expert Amy Baker on adult survivors of PAS, the mother was the alienator in 36 of 40 cases. Baker's subjects reported that "their alienating parents behaved like cult leaders ... withdrawing love and affection when the child showed any positive feelings for the targeted parent."

PAS is as real a form of child abuse as any other, and one that witnesses should report. The obvious sign is routine flouting of rightful access to the non-custodial parent -- a clear sign of contempt for the other parent's role in the children's lives.

It is a moral scandal that such visitation rights are virtually never enforced, the violators never punished. Unless custodial parents who deny rightful access start going to jail, this exceptional victory will likely be remembered as a one-off before a return to the default "snooze" mode we are accustomed to in Canadian family courts.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Divorced father seeks equal protection under USA 14th Amendment




More of these kinds of challenges are needed by dads and non-custodial moms to bring home the point there is something wrong with family law. I'm not aware this has been done under the Canadian Charter of Rights andFreedoms. It has merit in my view and I will see if it should be included in my April/09 trial for custody.MJM








Thursday, January 29, 2009


WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Divorced father seeks equal protection
Custody challenge cites discriminatory decisions

Posted: January 28, 2009
10:09 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


WorldNetDaily

A case is developing in a Tennessee divorce dispute that one attorney believes could impact custody decisions nationwide because it callsdown the authority of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause tohelp fathers who are good parents and want to remain involved in their children's lives.
The attorney, Stanley Charles Thorne, told WND the issue in the case at hand will be significant, since there are 3,000 divorce or custody cases in courts across the U.S. daily.

And according to the Children'sJustice.org website,those cases leave nearly 38 percent of the fathers with no access orvisitation rights to their children. In addition, four in 10 mothersreport they interfered with the father's visitation to punish him atleast once, half the mothers see "no value" in the father's continuedcontact with his children and 70 percent of the fathers wanted moretime with their kids.

Thorne told WND he is serving as a consultant in the case of Jeremy Hopkins, a successful lawyer, in his attempts to be treated the same as his daughter's mother, Elisabeth, also a successful lawyer, in their custody of Kate.


Sincethe mother left the family in Tennessee and took Kate to Pennsylvaniaabout two years ago, Jeremy Hopkins has been allowed only sporadic dayswith his daughter.

"All I want for my daughter is for her to have mom and a dad," Jeremy Hopkins told WDEF-TV in Chattanooga recently.


Michael McCormick of the Institute for American Families said the system is setup to pit a mother against a father in a marital dispute, when it should be working to accommodate the needs of a child for both a mother and father.


"The courts are going to pick a winner and a loser and when they do that,the child ultimately loses," he told the station at a recent rally regarding the case.


"If we look at what's happening to our society we can trace the social pathologies just as increased rates of incarceration, early sexual activity for girls, truancy issues related to the family breaking down and the social fabric of our society is breaking down in terms of the family breaking down, we are being weaken as a nation and we need to change that," McCormick added.


He estimates 17 million fathers nationwide do not have fair access to their children, and about 3 million mothers have the same problem.

Thorne,who has 25 years experience as a lawyer, most recently has specialized in constitutional issues in family courts, representing parents and children on various issues.

He said the case now is entering the briefing stage, and the next court hearings are expected sometime in April.
The family's life was disrupted by the mother's decision to leave, Thorne said, but the relationship of the father and daughter was aggravated by a "family court system that cares for neither of them while it keeps them mired in a swamp of never-ending legal hassles just to be together."

The case began about Christmas 2006 when Kate was 1. Then the mother, Elisabeth, moved to Pennsylvania with Kate, and since then Jeremy has been away from his daughter 86 percent of the time – 633 of the previous 733 days.

At least four judges have been involved in the case, "but none of those …ever ordered the parenting plan required by the Tennessee Legislature and the Tennessee Supreme Court," Thorne's statement said.

"Many constitutional issues will be decided by Kate Hopkins' case," he continued. "Perhaps the most important is where the Constitution draws the line to protect the relationship between an innocent child and an innocent parent from government interference."


The dispute came to a head just before Christmas 2008, following the expiration of the most recent visitation order. Jeremy Hopkins, on a scheduled visit with his daughter, decided to have her stay in Tennessee until a court hearing on the required court-ordered visitation plan.

Instead, he was arrested for interfering with a custodial plan, "even though there was no court order in force," and his daughter was returned to Pennsylvania. The warrant later was quashed by a judge, who essentially determined it never should have been issued.

Thorne questioned the legal system ordering a child taken from one parent"when the child is in no danger … and the child has never been abused, neglected, or harmed" and given to another parent absent a court order.

The14th Amendment states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


"The only way to reconcile the parental rights of each fit parent is to divide the time of the child," Thorne suggested.


"This case affects not just the people of Tennessee," he said. "This is huge."


"In this case … this child now aged 3 over the past two years has been rendered fatherless, not because of anything dad did, but because of the way the system tilts," he told WND.


A WND message left with the attorney for the mother did not generate a response.


But Thorne said the cases of the 17 million people across the U.S. who are noncustodial parents also involve more than 18 million children. Not only are the parents denied access to their children, grandparents, uncles and aunts are cut off as well.


Thorne insisted judges should approach custody issues from a different perspective. They are not, he said, dividing property. Instead, they are making rules that impact the equal and sometimes competing parental relationships and rights of two individuals.


"They are not dividing one set of parental rights," he said. "Each parent has their own parental rights and prerogatives as an outgrowth of that relationship with the child."

Numerous organizations are working for the rights of fathers in disputes like the Tennessee case, including FathersCustody.org, LongDistanceParenting.org, Fathers False Charges Helpline, Fathers National Lawyers Referral, WinningCustody.com and FathersRights.org.


The Children'sJustice.org website noted very few children in divorced families are satisfied with the time they have with their fathers and only 11 percent of the mothers value the father's input regarding issues with their kids, well below the 45 percent who value input from teachers and doctors.

The site reported another national study found that more than three-quarters of non-custodial fathers are not able to visit their children as ordered by court decisions.

The issue of the treatment of fathers in custody disputes was the subject of a commentary in WND before the election.

Mike McCormick of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children and Glenn Sacks, who writes on men's and fathers' issues, said the Democrats' 2008 campaign platform targeted fathers for fault.

"The platform's 'Fatherhood' plank puts all blame for father absence squarely on men and promises to 'crack down' on fathers who are behind on their child support. It also promises to ratchet up draconian domestic violence laws that often victimize innocent men and separate them from their children," McCormick and Sacks found.

"It's doubtful that many dads wake up in the morning and say to themselves, 'My child loves me and needs me; my wife/girlfriend loves me and needs me – I'm outta here. ' Research shows that the vast majority of divorces, as well as many break-ups of unmarried couples, are initiated by women, not by men, and that most of these do not involve serious male transgressions," they said.

The result? "The father is generally relegated to visitor status and often can only participate in his children's lives if the mother allows it. Courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding custody and enforce fathers' visitation rights indifferently. In most states, mothers are free to move their children hundreds or thousands of miles away from their fathers, often permanently destroying the fathers' bonds with their children."

To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=87398

Related special offers:
"Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family"
"The War on Fathers: How the 'feminization of America' destroys boys, men – and women"
"Father and Child Reunion"
"Why a Son Needs a Dad: 100 Reasons"

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Mom loses custody for alienating dad ~ Judge Faye McWatt applies justice not just gender biased law

Some progress is being made albeit slowly in the Ontario Family Law legal system. We had the Turnbull decision in 2008 and now the McWatt decision this week. Alienation of a child by a parent is child abuse that will last a life time unless steps are taken to remove the alienator from the children. Many alienators are female, but not all, but no matter the gender it is harmful. The target goes through a grieving process without end and only the target knows how excruciatingly agonizing it is to have his/her children turned on them. I'm a target and I get my trial this coming April. I don't have the resources of the target in this case but I'll do my best to stay in the lives of my children. Hopefully more judges will be able to see this is child abuse affecting the mental health of children for life if not stopped.MJM

Toronto Star

Ruling a 'wake-up call' for parents who use kids to punish ex-partners
Jan 24, 2009 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (18)
Tracey Tyler
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER

In a stunning and unusual family law decision, a Toronto judge has stripped a mother of custody of her three children after the woman spent more than a decade trying to alienate them from their father.

The mother's "consistent and overwhelming" campaign to brainwash the children into thinking their father was a bad person was nothing short of emotional abuse, Justice Faye McWatt of the Superior Court of Justice wrote in her decision.

The three girls, ages 9 to 14, were brought to a downtown courthouse last Friday and turned over to their father, a vascular surgeon identified only as A.L.

Their mother, a chiropodist identified as K.D., was ordered to stay away from the building during the transfer and to have her daughters' clothing and possessions sent to their father's house.

McWatt stipulated that K.D. is to have no access to the children except in conjunction with counselling, including a special intensive therapy program for children affected by "parental alienation syndrome." The mother must bear the costs.

Harold Niman, the father's lawyer, said the decision serves as a wake-up call to parents who, "for bitterness, anger or whatever reason," decide to use their children to punish their former partners.

"Maybe if they realize the courts will actually step in and do something and there is a risk of not only losing custody, but having no contact with their children, they'll think twice about it," Niman said in an interview.

McWatt's judgment was released Jan. 16 and published on legal databases this week. By yesterday, it was a hot topic within the family law bar.

The judge said awarding A.L. sole custody was the children's only hope for having a relationship with their father, given their mother's long-running transgressions.

These include ignoring court orders, shutting the door in A.L.'s face when he came to collect the children and refusing to answer the phone when he called to say goodnight. (He was granted telephone access to say good night on Monday, Wednesday and Friday). At times, she also arranged for police to show up when her daughters had overnight visits with their father.

Eventually, K.D. cut off contact altogether, refusing to allow A.L. to see or speak with his daughters. He was reduced to shouting goodnight to them through the door of their home, often not knowing whether they were there.

"It is remarkable that A.L. has not given in to the respondent's persistence in keeping his children from him over the last fourteen years and simply gone on with his life without the children as, no doubt many other parents in the same situation would have and, indeed, have done," McWatt said.

The mother squandered several chances to change her behaviour and is unable to accept it is in her children's best interests to have a relationship with their father, the judge said.

Nicholas Bala, a Queen's University law professor who specializes in family law, said "badmouthing" or negative attitudes by one parent toward another is quite common among separated couples. But in recent years, the justice system has begun to understand the harmful effects of the worst form of this behaviour.

In most cases, the problem is resolved through counselling, where parents are encouraged to accept they'll both always be in their children's lives, said Bala. "I tell them, `... if you're the survivor, you'll be going to the other's funeral, not because you love that person, but to support your children.'

"Having said that, there are some people – and I think some of them are suffering from personality disorders – who will not respond to therapy and will not respond to directions from judges."

Transferring custody is a last resort, because "it can be quite dramatic and traumatic" – yet sometimes better than the alternative, said Bala.

"We often talk about the best interests of the child, but often it's the least detrimental alternative, really."

Bala said courts are unlikely to take such a drastic step without hearing expert testimony about what's happening in the family. A child may be avoiding a parent for legitimate reasons such as physical or emotional abuse.

McWatt heard testimony from Barbara Fidler, a Toronto mediator and clinical psychologist who predicted eight years ago the three girls were at risk of becoming alienated from their father.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer argued the family dynamics could not continue.

Fidler said research points to long-term damage in people alienated from a parent in childhood.

Children are more susceptible at about age 10 or 11, after their brains have developed to the point where they can hold positive and negative information about a parent.

If what one parent is saying about the other doesn't accord with their own perceptions, they can become confused.

In some cases, the only way out of the emotional conflict is to take one parent's side. The child can even begin inventing his or her own reasons for hating the other parent, the court was told.

Early intervention is best, Niman said."Really, parental alienation is a process. If you can nip it in the bud, that's the best advice I can give to clients.

"Because the longer it goes on, the more difficult it can be to undo."
Comments on this story are moderated
|
Rate/Comment
Submit comment
Thank you, your comment will show up once it is approved.

Add a Comment
Title

Comment (1000 character maximum)

Commenting Guidelines
expandContent
Sort By
Thank goodness

I have gone through and continue to go through what this father has. His (and his children's) victory gives me hope and encourages me to keep up the struggle. The article doesn't say, but I wonder how much this cost him. Lawyers' fees and the cost of expert testimony are a huge barrier to fathers seeking to maintain a paternal relationship through the iron curtain of a hostile and aggressive ex.

Submitted by Mao Li Osa at 9:02 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a Moderator

parental alienation syndrome aka revenge!

Submitted by Proud Scarberian at 8:53 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a moderator

JUSTICE AT LAST!

I can totaly sympathize with the father. I have gone through a very similar situation in Ontario & my ex spouse bad mouthed a great father and because of it I lost contact with one of my children who was brainwashed. Thankfully my other child was too young for that ( she eventually threw the child out at 11) and my childbnow lives with me. Well it looks like finally a Judge did the right thing. If I did the things my ex wife did, I would still be in jail...this is the first step forward for fathers rights and now will have set a precident. CHEERS!!!!!!

Submitted by RustyF at 8:42 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a Moderator

About time!

Hopefully this warning will be taken seriously by all parents with custody of their children. It may be tempting to badmouth and isolate the other parent but it is harmful to the children.For me, the ruling comes 15 years too late. My ex-wife insisted I had "left the family" when, really, I had just left her. One child believed her and still is bitter, one didn't believe her and we have a close and loving relationship. Unfortunately, I didn't have the assets (I was never behind on support payments) to pursue the issue as the father is this story had. Bitter, vindictive custodial parents (male or female) - pay attention!

Submitted by Turners at 8:23 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree 7
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Alert a moderator

court case

how much did this cost? both parents are well-heeled. justice for the rich and d-all for the rest of us.

Submitted by gonzo at 8:20 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree 12
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a Moderator

You have to have money

Unfortunately the average Joe doesn't have the money to take his complaint to court.Another example of the justice system being only for the rich

Submitted by Dewey at 8:04 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree 21
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Alert a moderator

About Time!

This has been going on for years, including my family. Does this mean there is precedence to sue my mother to bear the costs of emotional abuse using the kids as pawns?

Submitted by TechnoRob at 8:03 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree 15
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Alert a Moderator

Hurray for the kids

When my first wife and I divorced in 1984 it was nasty to say the least. Thakfully we had no children as I know that we would have used them as weapons against each other. I could very well have behaved the same as "KD" in this case and so could my ex'. Ultimately it is the children who will pay the price in these cases and quite likely their children as well. I love children and regret never having any, but given what happened in my earlier marriage, it is far better that I have regrets than innocent children being put through hell. I wish "AL" and his daughters all the best.

Submitted by Uncle Peter at 8:03 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree 11
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Alert a moderator

Not the only one

And how many more fathers out there are in the same position but don't have the $$ to go to court! Lots I guarantee, maybe there should be a government subsidy to start and maintain proceedings!

Submitted by knowall at 7:59 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree 12
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Alert a Moderator

Finally,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

the courts should open up more cases,and give more parents the wake up call to be civil, its gone on too long,and to many children have been scarred from this behavior, This women needs life long treatment. the judge deserves a pad on the back.

Submitted by ztazti at 7:44 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree 18
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a moderator

it is about time

that courts level the playing field a little. guys in a family law dispute always start at the end of the line no matter what while the opposite is true of the woman. nothing against woman. just an observation taken place over 30 years watching family law evolve.

Submitted by galaxygroove at 7:28 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree 11
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Alert a Moderator

Its About Time!

I, as a father and parent, am so elated to read this article. I know what my ex has put me through and I'm sure that there are men out there that are just as vile. We need to do more for the kids. It shouldn't be a given that either parent can do a better job just because of their gender. This article proves my point succinctly. The kids should come first!

Submitted by Naramsin at 7:19 AM Saturday, January 24 2009

* Agree 16
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Alert a moderator

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Bill revamps child custody laws in N.D.

By Janell Cole , N.D. Capitol Bureau , The Jamestown Sun
Published Tuesday, January 20, 2009

BISMARCK — Current child custody law in North Dakota “is in desperate need of improvement,” a legislator who helped lead a study told a Senate committee Monday.

Rep. Shirley Meyer, D-Dickinson, headed an interim committee that studied the issue after the 2007 Legislature.

The committee produced Senate Bill 2042, which proposes to take much of the animosity and repeat court appearances out of child custody cases. The study followed the defeat of a 2006 initiated measure that would have mandated shared parenting.

The bill got a hearing Monday in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which took no immediate action.

The bill does four main things:

* Changes terminology in present law that refers to “custodial parent,” “non-custodial parent” and “visitation.” New terms are “primary residential responsibility” and “parenting time.” It also will refer to “decision-making responsibilities” and “parenting schedule.”

* Mandates parents in court with child custody issues — whether a married couple that is divorcing or a couple that never married but share children — must have a specific parenting plan they’ve mutually created and agreed to, or the court will write one for them. Plans must cover how the parents will handle routine or day-to-day decision-ma-king about their children’s lives, how they’ll make major decisions on education, health care and religion, schedule holidays, summers, and transportation for exchanges of the children.

* Allows parents who have disagreements to go to a parenting coordinator to act as a mediator. If the couple can’t agree with the aid of the coordinator, the coordinator can make a binding decision. The idea is that if parents are disagreeing about, for instance, who has the children for Thanksgiving, the parenting coordinator may help them come to an agreement before Thanksgiving, rather than going to court.

“It’s a start,” Meyer said. “And we’re very aware this will not solve everyone’s problems.”

A task force of the State Bar Association of North Dakota wrote the bill. Sen. Tom Fiebiger, D-Fargo, was on the task force and sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sherry Mills Moore of Bismarck, who headed the task force, said the bill doesn’t address child support issues.

A Bismarck woman who was divorced in 1993 testified against the bill, saying she believed it would only mean more legal bills for parents who are already paying attorneys in the divorce or custody cases.

Nancy Carlson predicted the new law would give too much power and too little accountability to the parenting coordinators.

“There are too many what-ifs,” she told the senators. “Who am I supposed to tell if I am unhappy with the coordinator?” Carlson ask-ed.

Moore didn’t rebut Carlson’s testimony during the hearing but said later that Carlson is confusing a mediation pilot project used for divorces in some counties with the parenting coordinator proposal. The use of the coordinator is strictly voluntary, as a way to avoid the much higher costs of hiring a lawyer to go back to court, which would also take longer.

Cole works for Forum Communications Co., which owns The Jamestown Sun

Jolly Stanesby Fathers 4 Justice Activist ~ Thanks

Monday, 19 January 2009

Thanks

Firstly,

I would like to thank everyone for all their support and for all the letters, messages, and donations while I was in prison, following the roof top protest on Harriet Harman’s roof.

I feel honoured at the response by everyone, including the judge who sent me down, I feel the fact they are fighting back in this manner shows we are a thorn in their side and they do not like the fact that we are exposing them for what they really are.

Hundreds of Suffragettes were imprisoned before they affected change; Nelson Mandela spent 30 years behind bars with international support before that corrupt government made changes, Martin Luther King was shot dead.

So the reality is this corrupt government will not take any notice of a few of us writing letters and moaning about the persecution and abuse of our children, and us parents fighting for the rights of our children to be allowed a balanced upbringing by both their parents after separation.

The maximum sentence, for my crime of standing up against the biggest abuse of our human rights since the holocaust, was 3 months prison, with which you serve half, so that would be 6 weeks, surely that is a price anyone can pay if it will make a difference for our children.

I enjoyed a good rest from the continuous bombardment of relentless, useless paperwork of, recommendations, false accusations and unfactual biased, twisted reports that comes with you wanting to be a responsible parent.

It was an experience I am glad I have had, I was treated well, and if you’ve endured the family courts, it was nothing.

If we want change from the disease which is family law. This epidemic of pain and suffering forced on innocent children and ourselves by untamed corruption by our government, in particular by individuals such as Harriet Harman, with her anti-men agenda, and her determination to destroy the family.

If we want what is needed, radical change. Then it requires radical action, determination, effort, UNITY and some form of personal sacrifice.

We are now in a stronger position than ever, with the integrity of the family court, gravy train in tatters, and two good parents clearly recognized as the most positive way forward for our children.

And with a never ending collection of determined, dedicated, reliable, activists and individuals, all now that is needed is a concerted, driven effort to change things.

We all have one aim, now this is the time to set aside personal differences, and keep focused and not to allow any unnecessary stumbling blocks halt our drive to succeed in what is right and just.

Because of infiltration by government informants, and groups with fested interests to leave things as they are. A degree of misinformation and the appearance of a lack of interest of certain proposals, actions and volunteers may seem apparent,

I would like to assure all people that we respect everyone's views and understand the anxieties and frustrations that apparent inaction can cause.

But many things do go on behind the scenes, and we ask for understanding, and patience as things aren’t as easy as they sometimes seem.

We have no funding, and coordinating action, the costs of materials, time, transport and penalty's all come from the volunteers themselves.

All donations are now accountable, and we desperately need financial help to progress things at a quicker speed.

We have many activists, but there are never enough, in particular we need activists willing to endure hardship, ie a few nights out in the elements.

We also want to set up a buddies scheme where individuals, volunteer to support individual activists or a parent going to court,they would be expected to appear at court, be on the end of a phone to offer help support and advice, and generally let it be realised that we work as a team and no activist should be left on there own when they have stood up for all of us.

We also need back up crews in some areas, foot soldiers, willing to do the preparation on the ground, being able to keep calm, take orders and work in a team.

We are updating our lists, and welcome all new volunteers, men and women to our coordinated campaign of non violent direct action.Our children depend on us and we will not let them down.

Let the protest continue.


Jolly Stanesby

Monday, January 12, 2009

Ten Commandments of Co-Parenting

Ten Commandments of Co-Parenting

by Lynn Nelson, Public Education Director, Institute on Race and Poverty, University of Minnesota
published in Minnesota Parent, May 1995

1. Resolve conflicts without putting kids in the middle. This requires being objective about your children’s needs (and not confusing them with your own) and compromising when the situation warrants. Stick with a conflict until it’s resolved; don’t let a problem fester and then punish the other parent passive-aggressively or be difficult in unrelated situations.


2. Treat the other parent with respect. This goes a long way toward easing your relations with your former partner. It also provides a good model for your children; more than we are willing to admit, our children imitate our behavior. Disrespect toward the other parent will be played out by the child. It’s important for a child’s healthy development to have respect for authority figures, including both parents.


3. Observe appropriate boundaries. When it comes to your kids, it’s sometimes difficult to tell yourself what they’re doing with the other parent “is none of my business.” But if an activity won’t harm them physically or psychologically, it probably is none of your business. Recognize it’s okay, maybe even good, for children to learn different ways of doing things. It’s almost certain that the other parent won’t do everything your way.


4. Communicate regularly with the other parent. There’s lots to share. When children are small, the other parent needs to know the basics when parenting responsibilities are being transferred. Has the child eaten? Gone to the bathroom recently? Does he or she need more sleep or a bath? When children are older, both parents need to know about school activities, sports events and trips out of town. It’s good to get into a regular habit of checking in with each other on the days when parenting is shared. A worst-possible scenario is that lack of communication could lead to a child not being picked up after school or day care, or important medical treatment being disrupted.


5. Demonstrate positive conflict resolution. Don’t try to hide conflicts when they arise. Children generally know more about what’s going on than we give them credit for. Use conflict as an opportunity to show kids how to resolve issues in a responsible manner. Paul puts it this way: “Don’t step into the ring without taking time to cool off.”


6. Share with your co-parent what you need from him or her to do a good job of parenting. In our case, a regular schedule is important to Paul. He likes to know he has time he can count on with his son, Frequent schedule changes are disruptions he finds particularly irritating, especially when it involves “telephone tag.” I like to know I can depend on Paul to pick up Nick when he says he will. Everyone has different requirements for support. Be sure to be clear with the other parent about yours, and take time to inquire about his or hers. In our experience, guessing hasn’t been very productive.


7. Don’t allow all of the parenting tasks to fall to one parent. Typically, things that are out of balance don’t work well. Work at sharing parenting chores as equally as possible. Don’t hoard tasks and act like a martyr, and don’t expect the other parent to be in charge of all of the communicating, all of the extra purchases for your child or all of the discipline.


8. Be consistent - to the extent possible - in disciplining, feeding and caring for your child. This makes transitions from one household to another easier, thus minimizing the outbursts from children after visits with the other parent. Respect each other’s parenting approaches, and recognize that while consistency is optimal, differences are okay. Children are able to distinguish that something that’s okay at Dad’s house may not be okay at Morn’s, not because one parent is bad or wrong, but because the two parents are different.


9. Help your children recognize the other parent with appropriate gifts or cards. These express your children’s sentiments and make them feel good about themselves when they’re praised for their thoughtfulness. Take the time to help your children make or pick out holiday and birthday gifts for the other parent. Recognizing Mother’s and Father’s Day are particularly important because other relatives aren’t involved in celebrating these days.


10. Don’t punish your in-laws by keeping your kids from them after a divorce. Your in-laws are probably as disappointed as you and your former partner about the dissolution of your relationship. Grandparents can be a child’s greatest cheerleaders; don’t hurt your children and yourself by cutting off visits with them. In many cases, grandparents also provide back-up child care; this-isn’t something any single parent should give up willingly.


There are many other elements that contribute to successful co-parenting. We recognize that some suggestions won’t work for people who’ve been in abusive relationships or who need time to heal from the hurt of divorce before enthusiastically collaboratng with the other parent.


These “commandments” work for us. We hope you can find at least 10 of your own guiding principles to make life easier for you, your former spouse and your children.


Lynn Ingrid Nelson and Paul Blanco are the committed co-parents of 7-year-old son, Nicholas.


University of Minnesota Children Youth and Family Consortium. Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this document for noncommercial purposes provided that the author and CYFC receive acknowledgment and this notice is included.

Lorne Gunter ~ The National Post ~ Pasqualino Cornelio Redux

My comments on Mr. Gunter's column follow. The case he discusses is one of the more egregious and discriminatory in family law.


Lorne:


..."he's trying to disavow this earlier emotional commitment." Your column is well stated but this conclusion is a fallacious non-logical presumption. It is the one many not familiar with the emotional heartbreak a person suffers at the hands of lying, cheating spouses in family law may come to but it has no merit.


I would argue clearly that the dad loves his children as much as always. I would suggest he has clearly been stabbed in the heart by 1:) his lying cheating wife and 2:) the Gender Feminist rule of law in much of Canada and the U.S.A.


Put yourself in his shoes. He doesn't pay child support to his children. He pays it to his lying cheating ex. That they are divorced is testament to some degree of animosity. To find also he is not their biodad is egregious emotional heartbreak. What would anyone do?


The judge had clear other choices and is typical of the laziness and lack of courage by these administrators of law and the Divorce Industry members. This judge is an obvious Gender feminist sympathizer. Why didn't she award shared and equal custody with no child support by either party? The dad would then have a direct input to their support without having to pay a lying cheating spouse. All the judge has done is maintain the status quo for gender feminist entitlements encouraging other lying cheating females to do the same thing. She is not accountable for these tax free payments. The dad pays the taxes. It is part of the Marxist philosophy that contributes to and encourages family destruction.


We need to have a presumption in law of shared and equal parenting. This will reduce divorce rates, as some of the female entitlements will not be present, reduce the backlog in our courtrooms as a concomitant outcome, help children by keeping both parents in their lives equally, reduce social problems of children that are on the increase because of the current injustices in family law and this is truly in the best interest of children.


Australia has this and they allow dads to sue the lying cheating ex's for paternity fraud. When will Canada and Ontario wake up to the problem? When the law creates recourse for fraud perhaps the fraud will be reduced? Currently there are no consequences for the mother(s) perpetrating the fraud.


It is only in family law that allows someone to gain from their criminal activity. Paternity fraud is still fraud and fraud is a crime in all areas other than the system of law that allows dads to be indentured for life for being male. It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sex, except in family law. As long as you are male anything goes.


The National Post


Lorne Gunter: Family court to men - 'Just shut up and pay'

Posted: January 12, 2009, 1:00 PM by Kelly McParland

Lorne Gunter, Full Comment

There is perhaps no area of law in which logic is so distorted as family law. Men are seen as only two things: deadbeats or moneybags.


Consider the case of Pasqualino Cornelio.


Mr. Cornelio is a Toronto man who was ordered before Christmas to continue paying child support to his ex-wife, even after it was proven the couple's twin girls were fathered by another man with whom the former Mrs. Cornelio had had an extramarital affair while the couple was still together.


Madame Justice Katherine van Rensburg of the Ontario Superior Court ruled that Mrs. Cornelio had wronged her ex-husband by lying about the paternity of the twins she had borne 16 years ago. But, "It is a wrong that does not afford him a legal remedy to recover child support he has already paid, and that does not permit him to stop paying child support."


Justice van Rensburg explained that in 1999 the Supreme Court decided family law cases should be decided in the best interests of the children. "The right to child support is the right of a child, and is independent of a parent's own conduct."


Apparently, even when the "father" isn't really the father his conduct doesn't matter. All that matters is a man has been found who can write cheques so a woman is spared the financial hardship of living with the consequences of her actions or the irritation of trying to find the real father and make him pay.


Conveniently, the former Mrs. Cornelio claims she doesn't remember having an affair because of some medication she was taking at the time.


As with almost all family law cases, the Cornelios' is not entirely cut and dry. Mr. Cornelio did apply for joint custody of the twins in 2002, even though he had had suspicions about their parentage for years. He wanted to be their father then, but now that he wants to be done with his financial obligation to their mother, he's trying to disavow this earlier emotional commitment.


Still, all along he has had little choice about his obligations to the twins — obligations that, initially, at least, were based on a falsehood. And now a court is telling him he has no choice at all, even though the initial lie has been exposed.


Some in agreement with Justice van Rensburg's decision have said Mr. Cornelio should not complain. Biology is not as essential to family formation as it once was. Surrogacy and adoption have led to all sort of non-traditional family arrangements. In 2006, an Ontario lesbian was even permitted to list her partner as the other parent on her child's birth certificate, even though the other women could not possibly have been the other biological parent.


All of which is true, but entirely besides the point. In each of those other non-traditional arrangements, all the partners had a choice to accept family obligations, or not.


Mr. Cornelio is being press-ganged by a judge into funding his arrangement. Imagine the hew and cry if he had fathered children out of wedlock and the courts were now forcing his ex-wife to pay support to the mother of those children.


Harold Niman, an expert in family law at the Toronto law firm Niman Zemans Gelgoot, told the National Post on Friday, "Should [Mrs. Cornelio] be accountable? Not in the sense of losing child support, because child support is for the benefit of the children."


The fact that support is a desirable benefit for children does not entitle them to receive it from just any man. Their mother has an obligation to seek it, first and foremost, from the man with whom she conceived them. They, together, were the ones who brought the girls into the world, and they, together, are the ones obligated to underwrite their stay here.


Mr. Cornelio has discharged his humanitarian obligations to the girls and his former spouse by paying for the twins' upbringing, even though he was not their real father, while he and his ex were together — and for 10 years since.


I would argue that on a personal level Mr. Cornelio still needs to provide the twins emotional and financial support for as long as he desires a familial connection with them.


But personal obligations are voluntary. They should not be enforceable at law. And in Mr. Cornelio's case, he should be free to stop maintaining another man's children whenever he chooses, even if that makes him a heel.

National Post

lgunter@shaw.ca


National Post

31 Comments


by Tossed Salad

Jan 12 2009

1:28 PM



Bravo. It is a miracle that the MSM has allowed this editorial to be posted. The word is just starting to spread about the blatant misandry perpetrated by society including gender pandering judges both male and female. The femminist movement of the nineteenth century (suffragettes) grew to the growing liberation of the sixties. What has started as a trickle is going to grow into a tidal wave in the years to come. Those of you who have belittled, scorned, and in this case extorted are going to be made to pay for your crimes.

by nicky1

Jan 12 2009

1:42 PM



There is an American TV show-The Maury Show- where they quite frequently help "abandoned" women find out who fathered their children, through free DNA testings. Once they prove who the real father is, he usually rises to the challenge of becoming involved in his children's lives, financially and often emotionally, too.

by sendergreen

Jan 12 2009

1:46 PM



The Family Courts assertion that they operate in the best interests of children is dishonest. Their first loyalty is to the adult woman involved. What the Court is really afraid of is the studies that suggest that 20 to 30 percent of children are not biologically fathered by the husband, main partner, father of record however you want to put it. The mount of fathership fraud is staggering. And, the Courts want to help the woman avoid the work and embarrassment involved in chasing down biodad candidates when a easy target is available. PS I'm a dad with full custody not a bitter payor.

by Fred_001

Jan 12 2009

2:05 PM



And what of the man who did father the children? Does he even know he has children? Or has she lied to him by omission also, keeping secret from the children's true father that he has babies on this earth? Under today's family law, women can do anything with complete impunity.

by canadian infidel

Jan 12 2009

2:08 PM



In Ontario, men are the equivalent of a "Cash for Life" lottery ticket. If a women can find a guy to get her pregnant (regardless of whether he wants to be a parent) she gets the equivalent of cash for life.


If however, she decides to terminate her pregnancy, the father has no choice or rights what so ever.

by rossbcan

Jan 12 2009

2:16 PM



"The right to child support is the right of a child, and is independent of a parent's own conduct."


Been there done that. It is a sick game of organized child abuse and pass the parasite by our very corrupt legal system and their co-conspirators, the psychiatric "profession". They claim it is "necessary" due to flawed human nature.


The law (instrument of collective social accountability) says:


The only consideration is children's best interests.


Parental behaviour is irrelevant "unless it negatively affects the children" Judges ignore the part in quotes.


In the matter of custody, the parent with the best ABILITY to care for children trumps.


Child support shall be based on the REAL costs of raising children. The law maximizes conflict (and legal fees) by making divorce a survival threatening prospect for both spouses. The "winner" is on easy street, the "loser" is a slave. It is "neccessary" that we be treated unequally (in terms of rights and responsibility) by law.


I have fought these criminals to a stalemate and secured my children's survival by:


Quitting my career as an engineer, drying up my income (the root cause of the conflict) which convinced my ex to compromise joint custody (her interest in children was proportional to child support, zero support equals zero interest). Her poor, irresponsible parental behavior convinced our children to live full time with me. They no longer wish to see their mother and have not for many years. Both children are now happy, successful, university educated and doing fine.


This entire area of law is part of a "divide and conquer" strategy of rule. The children with the "custodial" parent are socialized to the entitlement philosophy of life and the "support payer" (most responsible parent) is marginalized and the importance of the "work ethic" and personal responsibility is removed from children's lives. The legal profession is nurturing future conflict and legal fees by creating irresponsible, entitled children who can only cause future social problems.


In this matter, our idiotic "social engineers" made the fatal mistake of going head to head with a real engineer. Judicial rulings say my ex "won", and I am a deadbeat, but they are just meaningless squiggles on paper, devoid of any reality or basis in fact or law.


I have fought these tyrants to a stalemate and, for years, have been unsuccessfully attempting to provoke them to deal with what they falsely claim is my scofflaw, criminal behavior so I can deal the final, killing blow to their ability to remain criminals in this matter. Thus far, they have not bitten.


So, those of you who are experiencing this insane, illegally contrived, artificially created trap may want to learn how to fight effectively. If you are fainthearted, forget it, just roll over, accept economic slavery and the fact that you will not be able to participate in teaching your children the values necessary for them to survive in our society.


www.divorcefraud.org/.../21


Post: I accept any and all liability for my behavior and all consequences. If you delete this post, I will assume that you do not want to be involved in this matter and will respect this choice.

by noelt

Jan 12 2009

2:17 PM



The courts have been biased for so long it is the norm. Father's are to be treated like criminals and women should get everything they ask for so they don't depend on the welfare system and the rest of the handouts in place.


The entire family court system needs to be reworked but don't expect that any time soon. The greedy lawyers will need ton's of paperwork and billable hours to even come up with an action plan on how to do it.


If you dig a little deeper Lorn, it will be easy to uncover the unjustices done to father's on a regular basis.

by Treb001

Jan 12 2009

2:21 PM



The real problem is bias judges-most notably female judges. Thats what you get when you have appointed judges not accountable to anyone. Change the system to elected judges and perhalps our justice system would not be so morally corrupted.

by jimshort19

Jan 12 2009

2:27 PM



L.G., "Still, all along he has had little choice about his obligations to the twins — obligations that, initially, at least, were based on a falsehood."


This is a little twisted and you know it. The obligations once had a love basis first and foremost.


This case is inarguably materially twisted in favour of the children. The parent who has custody will derive material benefit also when support payments are large enough. In this case, as happens to be most common custody arrangement, it is the man who pays. But you didn't mention the material aspect of this case. How much money is being paid? Is this woman really getting the free ride that you'd have us believe?

by Fred_001

Jan 12 2009

2:28 PM



Further on the thought of the true father: the children's interests.


If a dad paying child support fails to provide the cash that's in the childrens' best interests, he's held accountable for all missed past payments. He can have his wages garnished up to 50% of his pay, his driver's license suspended, I believe even his passport revoked, until he makes good on all missed past support.


So what of the children's best interests vis-à-vis contact with their father? Their real father. This mother, by keeping their true parentage a secret from them, has actively denied these children a decade of knowledge of their real father. Surely knowing one's true father is in the childrens' best interests? What draconian measures will be taken against the mother for this most egregious denial of the children's rights?


None. Nada. Nothing will be done about it. (a) because women can do anything they please; (b) because that father-child link is absolutely unimportant to the family law system. Oh, they pay lip service to it, but only when it suits the moms and it creates a responsibility to pay.

by Human Rights Commissar

Jan 12 2009

2:33 PM



Your completely missing the point.


Governments and Public Institutions in Canada have for over a generation now encouraged young people to "not" get married and if possible, "not" produce healthy, well adjusted off spring.


Our governments and family courts talk a good "Ministry of Truth" kind of game when it comes to Canada's future well being, but in reality, these institutions are at the core of our long term destruction as a prosperous and generous society.


All countries eventually fail. We are no exception. "Who By Their Own Hand..."


This case and so many others, ranging from trumped up "sexual harassment" lawsuits to blatant "Employment Equity" hiring quotas, have convinced millions of young Canadians that the worst possible thing they can do with their lives is contribute to the well being of society.


Why work hard at school when 50% of the economy is run by the Public Service and you are specifically banned from applying for their jobs because of your too white skin, or, if you happen to be an "of colour" male (how insulting is that government label!), your too deep English voice?


Why volunteer at Sunday school when you risk a false accusation of pedophilia? Why give up a seat on a bus for a pregnant woman when you risk consternation for being a "male chauvinist pig"?


Why not just act more like an S.O.B.


That's the only role left for modern young Canadian men, and I strongly encourage them to take it every time I talk to them.


Don't do what my generation, raised in the 1970s and 1980s, has done. Don't go gently into this darkened Star Chamber future. Strip off the chains of responsibility.


Don't marry that girl who seems so nice, (she won't be after 20 years of government propaganda telling her you are evil incarnate).


Don't try to help people, don't try to stop the purse snatcher, don't volunteer at the soup kitchen, and most of all, don't even think about having kids, unless you plan to knock up some married woman.


Whatever you do, don't volunteer to fight and die for this country. No one wants you here anyway. Instead, have the courage to live free of all this country, whose institutional core hates you anyway.

by QUARK1912

Jan 12 2009

2:40 PM



All you "fathers" out there, listen up. As any doctor practicing family medicine will tell you that just from testing blood types one in five children have been sired by a man other than the husband of their mother. Wider use of DNA testing will likely show a much higher percentage so get the test and a good divorce lawyer to do the rest before it is too late.

by Childhood's End

Jan 12 2009

2:41 PM



Kudos for the great column. I heard about this tragic decision on the radio last week. Didnt expect to see it criticized any further.


The feminists and constructivists of nowadays' establishment are slowly destroying society and are just too stupid to realize what they are doing on a long term trend. What this kind of decision tells men is dont get involved in a family. Find another way to enjoy life, or face the risk of working your entire life for other people than yourself (this is the definition of a slave).

by Mambo Bananapatch

Jan 12 2009

2:46 PM



This is a horrible case, but I think the right decision was made.


Either the "father" was going to be screwed, or the children. There's no decision the judge could have made that would have been fair to both parties.


She decided, correctly IMHO, that the rights of the children trumped those of the "father". (I don't mean those as sneer quotes, by the way.)


I can't imagine what those poor kids are feeling right now. An embittered father/not father and a lying sleazebag for a mother. Gee, thanks, mom.


I hope fervently that the disgusting woman who is to blame for all this gets really gross, violent, chronic hemorrhoids.

by Stew88

Jan 12 2009

2:49 PM



Ontario family law has been predicated o Odium Paternus -- Hatred of fathers. It is truly disgusting, and has the unbridled support of sociopaths and psychopaths who use these laws to extort, coerce and steal funds from fathers and good natured people. They hide behind statements like "in the best interests of the child" all the while devaluing fathers in the eyes of children. Ontario law, and its practitioner are vile and unholy beasts steeped in cruelty to children. I find Ontario the most troubling and soulfully degrading provinces in Canada as the family law and social network is truly debased arrogant and hateful of fathers but pretends to act in the best interests of children. I don't even like to drive through Ontario knowing how sick it is.

by General de Goal

Jan 12 2009

3:23 PM



The twins' mother doesn't remember conceiving them because she was under medication. Medication? Does beer qualify? Gender equality? Not in this century.

by Tossed Salad

Jan 12 2009

3:28 PM



Stew88:


You can thank Rae's Socialists for that and the also misandric Ontario version of affirmative action implemented during that hate groups tender.

by alancoman

Jan 12 2009

3:38 PM



This is exactly how the population of the country will shrink into oblivion. Do you really think that men are that stupid? What feminists don't understand is that men cooperate and share information. This information is already considered by males. Better be a player for life then settle down with some woman that might take away all you make.


I don't think women are evil; I think they reach to external stimuli and incentives. How many people would look the other way if they found a 1 million dollar suitcase and knew that the owner would not be able to identify the taker? Very few if any.


I think the laws in Canada are disappointing. Bastiat was right. People learned not to care about the law because the law is crooked. Coming from other country, I tell you, I don't see a bright future for this country. Parasites and government workers live well at the expense of others. Those who provide are cash cows and the rest just takes advantage and don't suffer (actually usually benefit) the consequences of stupid decisions. From this perspective I wonder how stupid men must be for voting for stupid parties that want to redistribute wealth (lils, dippers). These socialists will destroy this country.


I also want to congratulate rossbcan, good work. I always thought that women want the custody because they can use the money on themselves. From this perspective, the children are some kind of object of blackmail.


We live in a disgusting country. Our money as taxpayers is used against us. Shame!

by Denis P

Jan 12 2009

3:48 PM



The Canadian Case Law on this issue is even more disturbing. A step-father can be on the hook for child support for children that he knows are not his after just a few years of cohabitation.


Imagine thinking that you are doing such a good think by helping out a charity, only to realize that the charity is taking you to court because they became dependant on your regular payments.

by Boggie50

Jan 12 2009

3:48 PM



Do our Judges really think these cases through carefully or do they always believe side with the woman's side of the argument's for convenience. "Child support is for the benefit of the children." Is it really, or is it to make the woman's life easier. The supporting ex-husband has no say as to how that money is ever used. I know from personal experience that all the money never goes to the children. The Mother uses those funds as if it was Spousal Support to fund her personal needs.


In this case, if I was the supporting father I probably would be very upset that children were not mine but I don't believe that any decent man would not stop loving those children, and would do what is right for them. However, my question is this how do we get the legal system to recognize that the support does not always go to the children in many cases. Why can this not be changed so the that the parent providing the Child support has a say and can control where those spending's go. How can this be controlled?

by rossbcan

Jan 12 2009

3:49 PM



This is not gender discrimination. When the roles are reversed, prosperous female, deadbeat male, it is the male who has the custodial bias advantage.


The points are:


Pass the parasite, relieve burden from social entitlements.


Rule against the prosperous, to maximize conflict and legal fees until all parties except lawyers impoverished. If you financially recover, the law says your ex (trigger her envy) can legally re-open matters every six months. So, if you try to work, contribute to civilization, it is pointless. You will be "equalized" and contribute to some lawyer toasting your demise with the finest wines.


Once parties impoverished, legal profession and courts have ZERO further interest in matter.


Another thing males should be aware of: If your ex is on legal aid, it is an eligibility requirement that she allege you are abusive. No allegations, no legal aid.


If any shred of honesty remains in the system, Stats Canada could easily confirm this.

by Psyco_Bob

Jan 12 2009

3:52 PM



Given that only a pathologically stupid man would get married under the current laws, it's probably a good thing that so many children are secretly bastards. Otherwise only morons would be breeding, which can't be good for the human race.


It's amazing how everything government touches turns putrid and dies.

by AKTor

Jan 12 2009

3:52 PM



"Imagine the hew and cry if he had fathered children out of wedlock and the courts were now forcing his ex-wife to pay support to the mother of those children."


Two points:


First, your hypothetical scenario is off-kilter. The correct parallel situation would be if a man fathered children out of wedlock and the courts were now forcing his ex-wife to pay support to HIM (and not the unknown biological mother(s)) for those children.


Second, if the ex-wife had been playing the de facto role of 'mother' – financial, emotion, etc. – to these hypothetical children for the past 16 years, I would suspect that there'd be little public hew and cry (least of all from you, Lorne).

by dougEEE

Jan 12 2009

3:56 PM



This is a very sad example of why we have a legal system not a justice system in Canada. I've had two encounters with our legal systems and it left me thoroughly disgusted.


Men are treated like second class citizens as a legacy of years of Socialist political correctness - don't expect that to change anytime soon.

by LynnH

Jan 12 2009

4:03 PM



The courts need to be fair. Once the kids turn 18, the ex-husband should be allowed to sue his ex-wife for fraud. Then she should be required to pay him the equivalent of what he paid in child support. I'm betting her memory improves once she experiences negative financial consequences.

by Sassylassie

Jan 12 2009

4:05 PM



Human Rights Commis, thanks for the chuckle. Were you being sarcastic or just bitter, bitter is okay by the way.


I've seen this self same scenerio played out numerous times when I was a Military Wife, the ole bait and switch is what it's called. In one case the male had to pay child support for a child he knew he didn't sire and she lived with her biological father who got the child support.


I feel for men, the leftarded socialists' tinkers use you for experiments and today we see the results of their twisted logic being given the power to destroy everything decent. Hundreds of thousands of children will grow up not knowing who their father's are because their mothers only had them to get cradle to grave welfare. The message- men are desposable. Women in the work force parade around half naked but if a guy looks sideways at them it's harassment. Message bow before your feminists master and cower. How do you change an entire system built on flawed logic, you can't.


Good luck, god bless lads.

by weird world

Jan 12 2009

4:14 PM



So for 16 years this man thought these girls were his and supposedly loved them and now that he know he is not the father, he no longer loves or want to support them and takes out his anger at the mother on the girls. Great Father he would have made, the girls should be thankful he wasn't their real father. These poor girls were short changed on both counts.

by Fred Z

Jan 12 2009

4:38 PM



I am unable to accept that 'the best interests of the children' include living off the proceeds of fraud. Better they should live on welfare.


We have this strange theory today that the only interests worth looking at are material interests. Truth, justice, fairness, honesty: immaterial, not to be considered when looking at the best interests of anyone, much less children.

by MikeMurphy

Jan 12 2009

4:42 PM



Lorne:


..."he's trying to disavow this earlier emotional commitment." Your column is well stated but this conclusion is a fallacious non-logical presumption. It is the one many not familiar with the emotional heartbreak a person suffers at the hands of lying, cheating spouses in family law may come to but it has no merit.


I would argue clearly that the dad loves his children as much as always. I would suggest he has clearly been stabbed in the heart by 1:) his lying cheating wife and 2:) the Gender Feminist rule of law in much of Canada and the U.S.A.


Put yourself in his shoes. He doesn't pay child support to his children. He pays it to his lying cheating ex. That they are divorced is testament to some degree of animosity. To find also he is not their biodad is egregious emotional heartbreak. What would anyone do?


The judge had clear other choices and is typical of the laziness and lack of courage by these administrators of law and the Divorce Industry members. This judge is an obvious Gender feminist sympathizer. Why didn't she award shared and equal custody with no child support by either party? The dad would then have a direct input to their support without having to pay a lying cheating spouse. All the judge has done is maintain the status quo for gender feminist entitlements encouraging other lying cheating females to do the same thing. She is not accountable for these tax free payments. The dad pays the taxes. It is part of the Marxist philosophy that contributes to and encourages family destruction.


We need to have a presumption in law of shared and equal parenting. This will reduce divorce rates, as some of the female entitlements will not be present, reduce the backlog in our courtrooms as a concomitant outcome, help children by keeping both parents in their lives equally, reduce social problems of children that are on the increase because of the current injustices in family law and this is truly in the best interest of children.


Australia has this and they allow dads to sue the lying cheating ex's for paternity fraud. When will Canada and Ontario wake up to the problem? When the law creates recourse for fraud perhaps the fraud will be reduced? Currently there are no consequences for the mother(s) perpetrating the fraud.


It is only in family law that allows someone to gain from their criminal activity. Paternity fraud is still fraud and fraud is a crime in all areas other than the system of law that allows dads to be indentured for life for being male. It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sex, except in family law. As long as you are male anything goes.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/12/lorne-gunter-family-court-to-men-just-shut-up-and-pay.aspx?

The work of Fathers 4 Justice and the Pain of Fathers ~ Activism in the UK

Equal and Shared Parenting ~ The Movie