Thursday 12 December 2013
The Bornmann Supremacy: The Shameful Law Society of Upper Canada Disentangles Spideman from His Own Web–Secret Witness Reveals Christy Clark Leaks, First-Hand
Law Society of Upper Canada a complete abuse of power
Tuesday 30 July 2013
Great news for the fathers rights movement, Canada I'm certain will be following suit hopefully sooner than later
The first radical shake-up of family courts in decades is under way in the U.K. Adramatic list of consequences will befall any breach of court orders that flout court-endorsed arrangements for the care of children of separated parents. Children’s Minister Tim Loughton will announce that the Children Act 19879, which states that the child comes first in law courts, will be rewritten.
Henceforth the preferred option for the courts will be “the presumption that a child’s welfare is likely to furthered through safe involvement with both parents.” That is, in the absence of abuse, equal parenting, exactly the template we have been patiently awaiting in Canada, will be the default for splitting couples. Furthermore, mothers who refuse to permit access to the children may lose their passports, their driving licences or even their freedom of movement if they fail to comply.
This is a happy, but somewhat shocking, development for those in the global Fathers Rights community. For years objective observers in all western countries have hammered away at the double standards imposed in family court under the influence of feminist ideology, but it has been water dripping on a stone. The template has remained stubbornly pro-mother and anti-father. When custody disputes cannot be amicably resolved, courts routinely assign sole custody to mothers. Swift and often draconian penalties attend any failure to pay support by men, including jail time, but women who habitually and arbitrarily deny fathers court-ordered time with their children are rarely even threatened with repercussions, let alone punished. Here in Canada, the attitude of family courts was best summed up in 2003 by then Liberal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, who said with regard fathers who were denied parenting status, “Men have no rights, only responsibilities.”
Why the sudden reversal in the U.K.? Well, about one in five children from a broken home in Britain loses touch with the non-custodial parent (almost always the father) within three years and never sees them again. The social costs of fatherlessness can no longer be borne. So the dramatic turnaround represents acknowledgement of a truth that has long been apparent to anyone not blinkered by ideology: the absence of fathers in children’s lives is producing very bad social effects that exhaustive research links with fatherlessness: loss of self-esteem, truancy, delinquency, promiscuity, risk of sexual abuse, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, poor intimacy abilities in later life – and many others.
There was once a time – “Mad Men” time – when mothers stayed home and looked after the kids and fathers went out to work. It made sense that courts should privilege mothers as the children’s main caregiver, while fathers bore the financial burden of their care. But those days are gone forever. Parenting roles today are almost equal in intact homes, and there is no reason why they should not be equal in dissolved unions.
A May 12 article in the Wall Street Journal, “Are Dads the New Moms?” examines the changed role of men in the lives of their children. Men are redefining themselves. They are taking their fatherly responsibilities very seriously, whether they are married or not. As the article notes, “The age of dads as full partners in parenting has arrived.”
Research confirms the prevalence of co-parenting. A recent U.S. Census Bureau report finds 32% of fathers with working lives playing the dominant role in child care. Other research finds that it is not the occasional outings or trips to Disneyland that bond children to their fathers, but “fathers’ steady emotional connection that makes the most substantial difference to their children.”
Canada’s own resident expert on custody and the influence of father absence in children’s lives, UBC Professor of sociology, Edward Kruk, has written extensively on the desperate need for children to maintain bonds with both parents after their separation. His findings show that a child’s needs cannot be met by a single parent, however loving. A child must spend at least 40% of his time with a parent to establish and maintain a beneficial attachment. Substantial time spent with both parents is also the only way to reduce or eliminate the nightmare of parental alienation, which is easily nurtured by a vengeful spouse who has near-fulltime control of children.
In his book Fatherless America, David Blankenhorn calls father absence “the most destructive trend of our generation.” A recent British report, Dad and Me, makes the same claim, suggesting that “father deficit” should be targeted as a pubic health issue.
That’s an excellent suggestion. For we are talking about what makes a society healthy – it all begins with happy, confident children – and what makes it sick – unhappy children with low self-esteem. Some pandemics must await a medical vaccine before they can be stopped. Here is a pandemic for which a proven vaccine is sitting on the shelf: a legal presumption of equal parenting after parents separate. Injection of the vaccine will only hurt for a second, and it will help to cure a diversity of social diseases.
Saturday 13 July 2013
Parental alienation is child abuse
Parental Alienation is Emotional Child Abuse! | ||
Mothers are generally quite nurturing, and the easiest way to melt their heart is through a child. Even the most jaded of mothers will smile when a child does something cute. A mother’s instinct is to care for, love, and protect children– even a child they don’t even know. However, there is a type of mother who is capable of displaying actual contempt and hatred towards a child (even one they claim they love). All children act out at times, some worse than others, but a normal mother is able to separate the behavior of the child from the child’s core. So a rambunctious, difficult 8-year-old boy, for example, is viewed by most mothers as being a typical boy, but his core is never, ever attacked. Nor is he maligned, denigrated, or otherwise put down. But mothers with a cold core conflate the annoying, frustrating, and perplexing actions of a child with the child’s worthiness as a human being. And mothers who are with a man who has a child from another woman will often take out any jealousy or contempt they have for that woman onto the child. Rather than viewing the child as an extension of the new man she’s with, it’s a constant reminder of the woman he was with before her. This is extremely common, but rarely talked about. An emotionally healthy mother will go out of her way to make children– all children– feel accepted in her world. She’ll even sometimes neglect her own kids’ needs to meet the needs of the new child of the family. If this is not happening, and she plays favorites with her children over her man’s from a previous relationship or marriage, that’s a serious problem. These mothers have rotten cores, and the damage they can do to a man’s children is not something to take lightly. To reject a child is to abuse a child. Mothers who are capable of having contempt for children on any level are also capable of other forms of abuse. In order to hold hard feelings towards a child, a mother is missing part of her conscience. And if that moral compass is impaired, they are capable of doing anything. Bottom line: this is the type of mother who can look at a child in pain and feel………….. nothing. So why do some mothers have this cruel resentment towards our little ones? It’s simple. It’s a outward display of a mother’s own insecurities, which are based on the child’s birth mother (her man’s ex-wife or ex-girlfriend), and the relationship he had with her. And the easiest target for her to take out her hostility is his child. The thing that’s so sick about this is that a man didn’t even need to have had a good relationship with the ex. It’s the fact that he had one at all! Don’t underestimate how powerful of a driver jealousy can be in a mother’s life. While most mothers can put aside their unhealthy, negative thoughts and deal appropriately and lovingly with their man’s children, there’s a good amount of mothers out there who can’t. Top actions of an Alienating Parent
|
Monday 1 July 2013
Canadian Children deserve better than growing up learning to assume that men are violent abusers
Canadian Politicians need to start thinking about what they can do for Canada and not what Canada can do for them.
Canadian Children deserve better than growing up learning to assume that men are violent abusers and a danger to children, the extreme feminist agenda, a doctrine that controls most family court judges, police and that group called child protection workers.
There is no promotion of marriage, only a promotion of marriage destruction, a promotion of the removal of fathers that is destroying Canada with a resulting negative birth rate.
There needs to be a radical reform of family law, child protection law, and a brighter light on equality rights for men and children.
Children don't have legal rights to a mother and a father. Children have no legal right to know WHO their mother and father are.
The only solution, is for DNA testing at birth with parental confirmation by DNA testing. Every man in Canada should be able to have his DNA checked to see if he has become an unwitting father.
Canadian Justice is a sick joke that has more in common with that of 1939 Germany than a real rule of law.
The first start is a total reform of Family Law in Canada based on equality rights, an assumption of equal parenting, and tough penalties for false allegations that feminists encourage.
Then there is the area's of education and social work where men have been made outcasts. In many of those areas, the only men you find are those who are follow the promotion of hatred of men dictated by feminist doctrine.
You fight fire not by blowing the smoke away, but by fire prevention in the first place. In Canadian society children and men have next to no legal rights which requires recognition and radical change.
Across Canada, men have a reverse onus applied to them, an assumption that everything is wrong with them or anything they say because it conflicts with the dogma spouted forth by feminists that indoctrinates the judiciary, police and the most evil of all, the Child Protection Workers of Ontario who have next to no oversight.
Canadian men have similar rights to that of jews being placed in cattle carts on a non stop journey to the concentration camp.
Women are increasingly well educated as to the lack of men's legal rights and know that if he calls 911 because she assaults him, he will be arrested automatically, and a year later, if he is lucky, be found not guilty. In the intervening year, his children have a better probability of being alienated from him.
Men now are afraid of being fathers, they are afraid of women who hold all the power and can have one little finger dial 911 to unleash a war of police, family court, child protection, criminal prosecution, all to ensure his total destruction in the name of feminist doctrine that has more in common with that by the 3'rd Reich than to that mythical charter of rights and freedoms that the Supreme court seem to think needs to apply its gender lens.
Friday 28 June 2013
Judge resorts to ridicule to defuse the rage. We need more judges like this
Faced with warring ex-spouses besieging one another with threats and verbal abuse and dragging their children into it too, Ontario Superior Judge Joseph Quinn resorted to the only tool he had left - a highly unusual verbal roasting.
"Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud," Judge Quinn began a recent judgment that has gone viral in the family-law community. "Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment. The source of difficulties is hatred: a hardened, harmful, high-octane hatred."
Judge Quinn's 31-page decision boils over with the frustrations of a family-law judge who is called upon time and again to referee bouts between couples who were once in love. He even takes a shot at family law itself, saying that spousal support is "the roulette of family law - blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional."
And he anticipates criticism of his tone: "The parties repeatedly have shown they are immune to reason. Consequently, in my decision, I have tried ridicule as a last resort."
In a novel twist, Judge Quinn granted the wife, Catherine, sole custody of the feuding couple's 13-year-old daughter. However, he ordered Larry to pay Catherine just a dollar a month in spousal support.
Judge Quinn expressed disgust with the way Catherine has induced her daughter to detest her father. "The harm is irreparable," he said. "Generally, it is unwise to place an immature 13-year-old in charge of her life. Here, however, Catherine and [her current partner]have engineered an alienation that is so complete as to leave the court with no feasible option."
Toronto lawyer Phil Epstein, an expert in family law, describes Judge Quinn as a respected jurist who was justified in ridiculing the couple. "I'm sure there will be some who criticize Justice Quinn for this," he said. "But others will say that sometimes you have to step back and laugh at the foibles of mankind."
Family law judges spent their time dealing with inflamed litigants whose stories are "highly conflicting and replete with inappropriate behaviour and misconduct," Mr. Epstein said. "They use the courtroom as a forum for all the wrongs that have been done to them in their marriage. It is not surprising that some judges try to find a better way to help resolve their problems."
Alternating caustic gibes with amusing observations, Judge Quinn portrayed Catherine - a 36-year-old school caretaker - and Larry, a labourer, as vile, foul-mouthed creatures who had burned through an enormous amount of police and court time waging their futile blitzkrieg.
He said that they cannot attend their son's ball hockey games without erupting into loud conflict, and that Catherine once tried to run over Larry with a van. "This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart," Judge Quinn remarked dryly.
On three occasions, a niece of Catherine's who is engaged to a Hells Angels biker called Larry to warn him that he would be shot dead, Judge Quinn said. "On Oct. 18, 2007, a nautical theme was added," he remarked. "According to Larry, 'Catherine's sister-in-law yelled out her window that I was going to be floating in the canal dead.'"
Judge Quinn said that Larry, 38, possesses "a near-empty parenting tool box," and was fond of venting his anger by sending Catherine insulting text messages and giving her 'the finger' as he drove by her home. "A finger is worth a thousand words and therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words," Judge Quinn added.
Catherine gave her children "advanced animosity-tutoring," and repeatedly denied Larry access to them, Judge Quinn said. He said that on one occasion, Larry and his daughter were thrown out of a McDonald's restaurant because she was yelling that he was 'a deadbeat.'
"This is language she would have learned from Catherine," Judge Quinn noted. "They are the result of persistent, behind-the-scenes brainwashing by Catherine."
He said that Catherine also warned the children several times that if they attempted to telephone their father, they would go to jail. She also once text messaged her daughter while she was on an access visit with Larry to ask: "Is dickhead there?"
Judge Quinn said that he foolishly called a four-month hiatus during the trial in the hope that Larry and Catherine could benefit from mediation. "It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench.