Canada – Justice Minister Nicholson Pans Vellacott Bill on Equal Parenting

For the original Article click this LINK with thanks to NO Apologies BLOG

GO – http://noapologies.ca/?p=3459&cpage=1#comment-10057

Comments and Credits below

 

Justice Minister Nicholson Pans Vellacott Bill on Equal Parenting

Responding to Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott’s Private Member’s Bill (introduced in June) calling for equal parenting provisions in cases of family breakdown, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson backtracked on pro-family policy, telling members of the Canadian Bar Association this week status-quo family law arrangements still trump the rights of a father to an equal parenting role following divorce. Bill C-422 would direct courts in regard to divorce to make equal shared parenting the presumptive arrangement in the best interests of the child except in proven cases of abuse or neglect. The legal association, meeting in Ireland this week, opposes Vellacott’s bill, defending a family law court system that often denies two-parent arrangements, especially at the expense of the father. What is ironic about the Canadian Bar Association’s position is that the legal association favours motherhood in divorce courts across the country and yet litigiously denies women have a special role in the home when it comes to child care concerns and gender role orientation in the workplace.

comments (8) | Leave a Reply

  1. Karol Karolak says:
    August 18, 2009

Just the fact that Canadian Bar Association holds their annual meeting in Dublin, Ireland, outside of the prying eyes of Canadian public, shows that it is in fact a criminal organisation.
Mafia always depended heavily on crooked lawyers and corrupt judges who would make sure that mafia members could operate with impunity. They poured so much money into and infiltrated it to such extend that eventually whole legal system in Canada become one big mafia. Once criminals took over it did not take them long to figure out the way how to turn whole legal system in Canada into one big criminal enterprise.

Law abiding citizens are the easiest prey not only for the common thugs but also for the criminals disguised as lawyers and judges and all family assets are the loot that is just waiting to be stolen, carted off and sold for quick profit
Like all other burglars thieves disguised as lawyers and family judges need a way to break into family residences and they need reasons to explain their presence at somebody else’s residence when they are being questioned what are they doing carting away somebody else’s possessions.
The master keys that are most commonly used to break into law abiding citizens’ homes are Divorce Act and Children and Family Services Act.
The alleged reason that these burglars attend at somebody else’s residences is “the best interest of the children” that happen to live in the house.
Who is there to defend that property when burglars disguised as lawyers show up at family residence to steal all family assets? The obvious answer is; the Man of the house, so the first task that burglars disguised as lawyers have to attend to is paint the defender of the family home as a violent man, and abuser of his wife and his children and get him out of the house in the name of “the best interest of the children” that happen to live in the house..

One tactic used to flush a man out of his family home is to convince his wife to move out of the home with her children to women’s shelter in the name of “the best interest of the children” that happen to live in the house..

Once that is done a crooked judge issues court order to remove the father out of his family home, crooked judge gives sole custody of children to the mother and gives her sole possession of family residence, all in the name of “the best interest of the children”

Father is crushed with restraining order, and order of spousal support and child support so large that it makes is impossible for him to survive. Eventually he drops his commitment to defend his family and his children and tries to defend himself from attacks of burglars and thieves disguised as lawyers and judges. He goes underground, engages in underground economy, drug trafficking and other ways to make quick money to pay his ever escalating legal bills. Eventually he has no other choice and he flees jurisdiction and all of is done in the name of “the best interest of the children” that live in the house he once used to own.

One the doors to family residence are broken down and the Man of the house is removed and crushed Children’s Aid Society moves in and starts to hammer mother with accusations of child abuse and child neglect and drains now single parent family off the rest of family assets, and all of it is done in the name of “the best interest of the children” that live in that house.

Children are taken into CAS custody and mother who tries to get them back is put thru the hoops; psychological assessments, training etc. and all of it is done in the name of “the best interest of the children” that used live in that house.

Now, comes the time when children traffickers move in and permanently steal kids from the mother and sell them in adoption deals, that is also done in the name of “the best interest of the children” that used to live in that house.

Teenage girls that cannot be sold in adoption deals are put in CAS run group homes where they are sexualised at an early age and they are fed with fertility drugs. They get pregnant and deliver more kids that they are too young to care for so these kids are stolen from them and also sold on adoption market, and all of it is done in the name of “the best interest of the children” born of the children that used to live in that house.

We have almost 50000 hungry lawyers in Ontario alone. Legal mafia makes billions of dollars annually off “the best interest of the children” scam so who is Rob Nicholson Ontario lawyer turned politician to tell all these people that they should fold their fleecing operation??

  1. Wayne says:
    August 18, 2009

Karol,
Here’s the only way to escape the corrupt legal system and protect your family and assets: 1) draw up a marriage covenant which both parties forfeit their rights to the Divorce Act’s provisions. 2) Acquire lawyer’s who specialize in defense against the CAS. You have to beat the system.

  1. Site Editor says:
    August 18, 2009

Maurice Vellacott responded to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson today:

Vellacott applauds Justice Minister Rob Nicholson’s affirmation of the best interests of children in cases of family breakdown

OTTAWA – MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) applauded Justice Minister Rob Nicholson for his affirmation of the best interests of children at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, being held this week in Dublin, Ireland.

Minister Nicholson was responding to a question about Vellacott?s Private Member?s Bill (C-422), which would amend the Divorce Act to implement equal shared parenting. According to news reports, the Minister said: “I believe, and I think most people who have been involved in family law or studied this, that the best interests of the child are always paramount … and should be.”

“This is exactly the spirit behind my Private Member?s Bill, C-422,” said Vellacott. “I am very encouraged by the Minister?s comments.”

Bill C-422 would bring Canadian legislation in line with what the best research says about the best interests of children. With limited exceptions, children generally demonstrate superior outcomes when both parents – mom AND dad – are actively involved in their children’s lives, even if the parents divorce or separate. That is why Bill C-422 would direct courts to make equal shared parenting the presumptive arrangement in the best interests of the child, except in proven cases of abuse or neglect.

One of the most recent published studies in this field is by Prof. Edward Kruk, M.S.W., Ph.D. (edward.kruk@ubc.ca; 604-822-2383), of the University of British Columbia. In the Executive Summary to his report he notes: “Research is clear that children fare best in post-separation relationships in which they maintain meaningful routine parental relationships with both of their parents beyond the constraints of a “visiting” or “access” relationship, in which they are shielded from destructive parental conflict, and in which they are protected, to the highest degree possible, from a marked decline in their standard of living. Contrary to current practice and dominant socio-legal discourse in Canada, when parents disagree over the living arrangements of their children after separation, new evidence suggests that [the best] conditions [for children] are best achieved by means of a legal shared parental responsibility presumption, defined as children spending at least 40per cent of their time with each parent, rebuttable only when a child is in need of protection from a parent.”

Bill C-422 would provide greater clarity to the law by finally defining “best interests of the child” in Canada?s Divorce Act. In her analysis of Bill C-422, Pamela Cross of the National Association of “Women and the Law, also emphasized the importance of providing legislative substance to this language. “The absence of any spelled-out criteria in applying the best interests of the child test” poses “significant challenges and barriers,” she wrote, “to women with children.”

Bill C-422 is a non-partisan effort, reflecting the spirit of comments made by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, who has said: “These groups demanded that the „custody and access? regime created by the Divorce Act of 1985 be replaced with a „shared parent? regime in which both parents are given equal rights to bring up their children. These are sensible and overdue suggestions, and the fact they are being made shows that men and women are struggling to correct the rights revolution, so that equality works for everyone.”

“Furthermore,” noted Vellacott, “Canadians overwhelmingly support equal shared parenting according to polls and all political parties agreed 10 years ago in the “For the Sake of the Children” report that Shared Parenting was the way to go. Additionally, all indications point to growing non-partisan consensus in this parliament that it?s time to address commitments made by all parties a decade ago.”

“A recent poll I commissioned,” added Vellacott, “conducted by Nanos Research, shows that 78% of Canadians support equal shared parenting, with a high of 86% support in the province of Quebec. Slightly more women than men support equal shared parenting. Among supporters of major political parties, about 78% of Conservatives support equal shared parenting; 75.8% of the NDP; 80.6% of Liberals supported equal shared parenting; and 83% of Bloc supporters endorsed equal shared parenting.”

Bill C-422 reflects extensive input from the Canadian extended divorce community, whose members well understand the realities of family law through trial by fire. In many ways, it is they who are the experts. Members of Parliament should accord them the long overdue status as primary stakeholders in this complex issue.

Working with the Canadian Equal Parenting Council, a coalition of 40 organizations, Vellacott has developed legislation that not only defines decision criteria for the best interest of the child, but also faces up to the contentious issues of child abuse and inter-partner violence. It represents a solid down payment for long overdue reform in family law.

  1. Rob Cheshire says:
    August 18, 2009

I am encouraged by this legislation and the non-partisan reception it is receiving. Please review it and call your local M.P. and ask them to back this Bill C-422 when the fall session resumes. Decades of removing one parent from the lives of children have had devastating affects upon society, and caused the victimization of children within divorce.

Marriage convents, much like pre-nups, are not worth the paper they written on. The federal government in its hast to free up court time and divorce disputes, settled for no-fault settlements, no matter what the causal factors.

A marriage in my mind is a legally binding contract; signed, witnessed and the expectations of faithfulness, clearly outlined at least twice. Therefore, any deviation from that contract should have ramifications, forfeiture, accountability etc.. in violation of such. But, in Canada and many other countries this is not the case. I do believe this is why many couples are avoiding marriage after seeing the mess either parents or others go through in the process of a divorce.

  1. Karol Karolak says:
    August 18, 2009

Wayne,
1. Marriage contract is not worth the paper it is written on, not in Ontario Family Court.
2. Why would anybody be so stupid as to invite a burglar into his own house?? Lawyers that specialise in defending families against CAS are the same people who spy on these families and pass on incriminating information to CAS social workers in order to fuel legal wars. This is how they steal your assets on needless litigation.
Nobody can win against CAS in Family Court by definition. Children trafficking is a big business in Ontario and Family Court judges are big part of it they are the ones who rubberstamp all adoption (children trafficking) deals that are made by CAS workers.

  1. Site Editor says:
    August 18, 2009

Christian Heritage Party responds to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson’s implication that active fatherhood may not be in the best interests of children:

Christian Heritage Party – Communiqué Vol 16, No 31 Aug 18, 2009
Are Fathers Relevant?
By guest writer Vicki Gunn

Should the state grant fathers any role, and if so how much of a role, in raising their children? This question has to be front and centre in our thoughts as Canada looks at a man’s role in parenting children.

The Vancouver Sun reports that Justice Minster Rob Nicholson said, “The interests of children must take priority over a father’s right to an equal parenting role after divorce.” This statement was made amid the cheers of a crowd of Canadian Bar Association lawyers, in Dublin according to Canwest News, perhaps hinting that Nicholson is watering down his support for MP Vellacott’s Bill. Will this be yet another Conservative MP’s private member’s bill which gets killed by his own party?

This family issue became important after Mr. Vellacott introduced a private member’s bill which would instruct judges to “apply the principle of equal shared parenting unless it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parental responsibility other than equally.”

It is an established fact that the outcome for children is better when both parents are involved in their child’s upbringing. So what does the state have to gain in deciding the maternal role is the most important role, to the exclusion of the father should a marriage breakup?

Let’s look at the history of increasing government usurpation of the family unit. The government decided that marriage vows “as long as you both shall live” really didn’t mean “as long as you both shall live”. They introduced no fault divorce, implying that it was a “victimless divorce”. Then, when the realisation hit that children were victims, the government again entered into the family relationship to decide how to decrease the devastating impact of their policy on children.

However, now the implication of Mr. Nicholson’s comment is that a father is irrelevant and negatively affects the wellbeing of the child. Thus the state should intervene again in the family and remove the father from his role as dad.

What’s next in the continuing government saga? Perhaps the next decision will be that a mother is irrelevant and the state should take over her role also. Or, did that already happen with pressure to place children in government funded and controlled daycare while the mother works?

It’s time the tide of government usurpation of the parental roles turned. CHP Canada supports both dad and mum in the raising of a child. Together, parents create a child and together they have a responsibility to place the wellbeing of the child first. A government cannot do, as a bureaucracy, what a parent will do for love.

CHP Canada would enact the necessary legislation to secure the future of Canada’s children; to protect a child’s right to a secure childhood; and to protect a child’s right to be raised by both parents.

Don’t short change our children! CHP Canada has better solutions for the Canadian family; better solutions for Canadian children.

Join your voice with ours and give security to the next generation.

  1. Site Editor says:
    August 18, 2009

CEPC issued the following statement on Nicholson’s reported comments:

August 18, 2009
CEPC Demands Clarification from Justice Minister Regarding Comments at CBA Conference

The Canadian Equal Parenting Council (CEPC) today called on Justice Minister Nicholson by letter to clarify comments on proposed equal parenting legislation made at the Canadian Bar Association meeting held in Dublin, Ireland.
“While we endorse the Minister’s position that the best interests of the child are paramount, we are concerned with the inference reported in the press that the rights of fathers should be secondary to mothers in custody issues” stated Ms. Kristin Titus, co-president of CEPC.
Whereas the coverage in the Vancouver Sun stated the government has not taken a formal stance, the National Post reported [the Minister] “doesn’t support a backbench Conservative MP’s private member’s bill that would shift family law in Canada to give fathers more rights in custody disputes”.
“It is common knowledge for all Canadians that Canada has a two-tier family law system” stated Titus.” As the term equal parenting indicates, the legislation is not intended to advantage either parent, but rather define that the child has a fundamental right to the same continuity of relationship with both parents and relatives following divorce as during marriage” and further added “After all, parents divorce each other, and not the child”.
Co-President George Piskor noted that Maurice Vellacott’s proposed legislation reflects recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access and confronts concerns of Domestic Violence highlighted in the Liberal Party Pink Book put together by the Liberal Women’s caucus.” We suspect that Minister Nicholson’s statements at the CBA may have been taken out of context as Maurice Vellacott’s legislation reflects the views of the Conservative Policy Declaration on Shared Parenting” stated Piskor.
Titus echoed the likely mischaracterization of the Minister’s statements explaining that he had agreed in May to contact Justice Critics regarding a non-partisan approach to this legislation after both the NDP and Justice Critics confirmed they were open to an all-party approach on this issue.
“We would like to think that the inflammatory rhetoric by a member at the CBA conference is an isolated outburst and that the CBA under its new president will play a constructive role” stated Piskor. “We note that the Quebec Bar Association and the National Association of Women and the Law have made submissions to Mr. Vellacott”, and added “we saw Conservative and Liberal MPs standing together in bi-partisan approach when the Bill was introduced, and this type of co-operative engagement needs to apply to all Stakeholders if we are really serious about the best interest of the child”

  1. Jim Bailey – JimBWarrior says:
    August 19, 2009

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Greetings from New Zealand – Thanks to all for your insights – I wish you well in your drive toward **Preferential Equal Shared Parenting** – The World has you in focus at the moment – Do well any part of success makes it easier World-Wide.

Up on;

Equal Parenting @ Ration Shed BLOG

Onward – Jim

Advertisements

3 Responses to Canada – Justice Minister Nicholson Pans Vellacott Bill on Equal Parenting

  1. susan says:

    What is “best for the children” is to have BOTH parents in their lives 50% of the time. Study after study shows this.

    Big government does NOT want you to know the truth. Why?

    Because with so many single parents out there, many of whom do not work or only work part-time, the government would be on the hook for more soical programs, stimulus money for single parents, welfare etc. The way to keep down gov’t spending on “single parent families” is to take as much money from the working parent (ususally the dad) and give it to the parent who has the kids (usually the mom). It is not “for the children” as they would like you to believe, it is actually “for the economy”.

    They KNOW fathers deserve the same rights mothers do, but they want YOU to think 50/50 parenting is bad for kids, so that THEY don’t have to spend more money.

    But shouldn’t we be doing what is RIGHT for the kids, NOT for the government. It is a shame so many people beleive their lies, it is the children that are losing out because of it.

  2. Misty says:

    Personally I think that the parents should decide what is best for their kids if they can come to agreement. The courts should have a say when it is impossible for them work things out on their own.

  3. Daisy says:

    @Karol – “Just the fact that Canadian Bar Association holds their annual meeting in Dublin, Ireland, outside of the prying eyes of Canadian public, shows that it is in fact a criminal organisation.”

    Seriously, Karol, I’ve been following you for a while, and you’re increasingly becoming more wacko. I mean this in the nicest way, but you need to seek psychiatric help.

    What does holding a meeting in Dublin have to do with being a criminal organization?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: