Get the Details Here: CEPC’s Response to CBA Statement Opposing Bill C-560, Claim #1

CEPC Issued a summary rebuttal to the CBA Statement of Opposition to the popular Equal Parenting Bill C-560. In the summary, there were links to the details.   This post covers CBA Claim #1.

 

CBA Claim #1

“The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) opposes Bill C-560, a private member’s bill, as it would shift the way custody is determined under the Divorce Act to parents’ rights – away from what is in the best interests of children.”

CEPC Response:

Bill C-560 may be found on the website of the House of Parliament  here:

Our search of the English version of Bill C-560 reveals only one use of the word “rights”:

“DEFINITIONS”

“parenting” means the act of assuming the role of a parent to a child, including custody and all of the rights and responsibilities commonly and historically associated with the role of a parent”

To be extra thorough, we also searched for existence of the word “right”.  Again, we found only one use of the word “right” in all of Bill C-560:

“PURPOSE [Of the Act]”

“(b) every child has the right
(i) to know and be cared for by both parents,
(ii) to know his or her relatives and enjoy his or her culture, and
(iii) to spend time and communicate with both parents on a regular basis, and to maintain continuity of relationships with relatives.”

After a complete review of the Bill before Parliament, we conclude that the statement from the CBA misrepresents the letter and intent of Bill C-560.  The only rights which are defined in the bill are new rights of the child to be raised equally by both parents.

Get the Details Here: CEPC’s Response to CBA Statement Opposing Bill C-560, Claim #2

CEPC Issued a summary rebuttal to the CBA Statement of Opposition to the popular Equal Parenting Bill C-560. In the summary, there were links to the details.   This post covers CBA Claim #2.

CBClaim #2

“Parenting is not about adults claiming rights,” says Patricia Hebert of Edmonton, Vice-Chair of the CBA’s National Family Law Section.  “It is about the desire and ability to put children’s interests first.”

CEPC Response:

According to Dr. Edward Kruk, author of “The Equal Parent Presumption:  Social Justice in the Legal Determination of Parenting After Divorce,”  “We live in an age of shared parenting responsibility, yet for a significant number of children of divorce in Canada, shared parenting is denied…in contrast with other jurisdictions, a rights-based discourse continues to dominate the field of parenting after divorce in Canada. The best-interests-of-the-child standard has historically reflected a struggle between mothers’ and fathers’ rights, with children’s needs considered to be commensurate with either position (Mason 1994).

Despite lip service given to the need for “joint custody” orders, discretionary best-interests-of-the-child-based judicial decisions continue to reflect a “sole custody” presumption in the form of “primary residence” orders in contested cases. In recent years, however, with increasing scrutiny of the discretionary best-interests-of-the-child standard, a new ethic has emerged which recognizes the fact that children’s needs and interests are separate from, although related to, the rights of their parents.”

Consistent with Dr. Kruk’s observations, and with the opinion of 80% of Canadians, the CEPC believes that the best parent is both parents for most children.   Bill C-560 is a parental responsibility bill, which moves our Family Courts from a winner-take-all system where parents fight over the “right” to Sole Custody to an Equal Shared Parenting responsibility rebuttable presumption, which balances the power between the parents.  Our reading of Bill C-560 is that it encourages the active and equal involvement of both parents in the raising of the child(ren).  As shown above, Bill C-560 has nothing to say about rights, except where the rights of the child(ren) are concerned.

The CBA claim that the Equal Parenting Bill C-560 elevates parents’ rights over the children’s best interests is false.

Get the Details Here: CEPC’s Response to CBA Statement Opposing Bill C-560, Claim #3

CEPC Issued a summary rebuttal to the CBA Statement of Opposition to the popular Equal Parenting Bill C-560. In the summary, there were links to the details.   This post covers CBA Claim #3.

CBA Claim #3

“The bill is based on the faulty assumption that equal parenting time will work for all families, regardless of abilities, circumstances, needs, history, challenges or attitudes of all those involved.”

 

CEPC Response:

There are several occurrences of the words “equal” or “equally” in the English text of Equal Parenting Bill C-560 here:

 

  • Equal parenting” [several occurrences related to summary descriptions of the Act]
  • Defining a “rebuttable presumption” of equal parenting requiring judges to apply the principle of equal parenting except when the child(ren)’s best interests would be “substantially enhanced by allocating parental responsibility other than equally.”
  • Preamble, para. “(d)  establish that the interests of the child are best served through maximal ongoing parental involvement with the child, and that the rebuttable presumption of equal parenting is the starting point for judicial deliberations.”
  • Making parenting orders:  “(4)(a) apply the presumption that allocating parenting time equally between the spouses is in the best interests of a child of the marriage”
  • Non-application of presumptions:  “(5) The presumptions referred to in subsection(4) are rebutted if it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parenting time or responsibility other than equally.”
  • Reasons for decision:  “(18) If the court makes an order under this section that does not provide for equal parenting time or equal parenting responsibility, the court shall, in its reasons for its decision, explain in detail why such an order was made notwithstanding the principles for parenting orders set out in this section.”

We have reviewed all paragraphs where the words “equal” or “equally” appear in Bill C-560.  None of those paragraphs take away the Judge’s discretion to assess the child’s best interests, and to make an order which allocates parenting time or parental responsibility unequally.   All that is required is that the judge make a finding based on the unique facts of the case that the child(ren)’s best interests would be substantially enhanced by an unequal allocation of time or responsibility, and that the Judge’s reasons describe the finding in detail.

Again, the CEPC concludes that the CBA Statement misrepresents  Bill C-560.

 

Get the Details Here: CEPC’s Response to CBA Statement Opposing Bill C-560, Claim #4

CEPC Issued a summary rebuttal to the CBA Statement of Opposition to the popular Equal Parenting Bill C-560. In the summary, there were links to the details.   This post covers CBA Claim #4.

CBA Claim #4:

“This clearly makes children’s interests a very low priority, which is contradictory to the stated goals of Canadian family laws as well as Canada’s obligations under the Hague Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

CEPC Response:

According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention ) there are 15 different Hague Conventions, one of which, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_on_the_Civil_Aspects_of_International_Child_Abduction ) applies to children of Divorce and separation.  The Convention does not alter any substantive rights, but provides an expeditious method to return a child internationally abducted by a parent from one member country to another.  In other words, the Hague Convention has little to do with Canada’s Divorce Act, other than to help Canada enforce judgments made under the Divorce Act.  Nothing in Bill C-560 contradicts Canada’s obligations under the Hague Convention.

According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child ) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ( http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx ) sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children.  The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.  Nothing in Bill C-560 contradicts Canada’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; in fact, Bill C-560 is explicitly supported by the  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, under the right to have a relationship with both parents.

Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Convention states:  “1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”  Bill C-560 better fulfills Canada’s obligation to share common responsibilities and concerns for the best interests of the child than the current de facto sole custody regime.

Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Convention states:  “States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.”  Bill C-560 enhances Canada’s capabilities to protect the child(ren)’s right not to be separate from his or her parents, except if the separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.”

Article 9, Paragraph 3 of the Convention states:  “States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.”  Bill C-560 better executes Canada’s responsibility to provide  protection of the child(ren)’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents, through provision of a rebuttable presumption of Equal Parenting.

We have reviewed all of the Hague Conventions, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Bill C-560.  We conclude that Bill C-560 is not only consistent with the relevant Articles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but that it provides an even higher standard of protection of the child(ren)’s rights to both parents than is required by the Convention.

The CBA Statement not only confuses the Hague Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but it does not appear to understand Canada’s responsibilities under either agreement. The CBA press release’s misstatements regarding Bill C-560 and Canada’s international obligations are so significant that we can only conclude that they are scare tactics intended to avoid the real issue, which is the overwhelmingly poor job done in Canada today protecting children’s rights.  The CBA’s members bear responsibility for the excess conflict in the court system, as well as the poor outcomes for children resulting from the chaos in the Courts.

Get the Details Here: CEPC’s Response to CBA Statement Opposing Bill C-560, Claim #5

CEPC Issued a summary rebuttal to the CBA Statement of Opposition to the popular Equal Parenting Bill C-560. In the summary, there were links to the details.   This post covers CBA Claim #5.

CBA Claim #5:

“The CBA agrees that shared parenting is a good outcome for many families.  Where equal time and responsibility can be shown to be in the best interests of children, judges can and do make that order under the current law.   The CBA supports legal reform and resources that will help parents effectively share parenting, in whatever ways meet their own children’s needs best.  One size does not fit all.”

CEPC Response

This CBA Claim would be laudable if it were consistent with the facts of Family Law in Canada today. According to Dr. Edward Kruk, in his book:  “The Equal Parenting Presumption:   Social Justice in the Legal Determination of Parenting After Divorce” (2013) (Page 18, Chapter 2), a study by Millar (2009) of litigation outcomes in contested custody cases showed that the mother obtained either sole custody or joint custody with primary residence in 89% of the cases studied. Diminishing the father’s role to merely a “bystander” in 89% of cases contradicts the CBA claim that courts can and do create “many” equal parenting arrangements or that they act in the “best interests” of children.

The CEPC agrees with Dr. Kruk when he wrote in the “The Equal Parent Presumption” that in Canada. as implemented in the Family Courts the last 25 years, “Best-interests-of the child-based decisions reflect a sole custody presumption, with primary residence orders being the norm.”

New Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Equal Parenting Bill

MEDIA RELEASE

A new public opinion poll shows public support for equal shared parenting and a Bill in federal parliament is at 72% across Canada. The poll, by Vision Critical, was Monday March 17th.
Opposition to equal shared parenting remains very low.
Overall support (adding strong support and somewhat support together) was at 72% (strong support was 42% and somewhat support at 30%). Opposition at 10% (strong opposition was at 4%), with those neither supportive or opposed at 18%. The results are considered accurate within 2.5% 19 times out of 20. Common polls ask 1000 Canadians, but this was unusual in asking 1500 Canadians.
The question asked was: “As you may or may not be aware, a bill is being debated in Parliament that would affect rulings about child custody for divorcing parents. This bill would require courts to rule in favour of equal shared parenting except in cases involving proven neglect or abuse. In other words, this bill would make it clearer that in cases where there is no proven neglect or abuse, both parents would have shared custody of the children. So then, aside from cases of abuse or neglect, do you strongly support, somewhat support or oppose federal and provincial legislation to create a presumption of equal parenting in child custody cases?”
Previous polls, Nanos (2009) and SES (2001) have shown close to the same public support for child custody reforms and changes.
Regionally, support ranged from 60% in SK to 79% in AB. 69% female; 75% male. 71% for 18-34-year-olds and same for 35-54, with 74% total support for those 55+. By income, support ranges from 67% for those with less than $50K to 74% for those with $100K+. Party affiliation total support is 61% for those who lean BQ, 71% for Green, 72% for Liberals and NDP and 76% for Conservatives.
Total opposition: from 4% in AB to 28% in SK. 8% male; 12% female. 11% – 18-34-year-olds; 10% for 35-54s; 9% for 55+. 9% for CPC and NDP supporters; 10% for Libs; 11% for Greens and 16% for BQ.
“Politicians should respect overwhelming public support for equal parenting reforms over 15 years and pass this bill’s long overdue measures to fix a broken, inaccessible family law system,” said CEPC president Glenn Cheriton.
The Canadian Equal Parenting Council (CEPC) is a national non-profit parent advocacy federation which is sponsoring Bill C-560, which aims to reform the Divorce Act so that parents have a presumption of equal shared parenting unless proved unfit.
——–
The full poll results, summary table is here. (pdf)

Social science consensus on equal parenting

A fresh review of the literature around children’s attachment to their parents strengthens the case for equal shared parenting in cases of separation and divorce when children are involved.

This consensus report was prepared by Richard A. Warshak, Ph.D., a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. It was analyzed by an international group of 110 top experts in early child development, parent-child relationships, and divorce. These 110 experts have endorsed the final conclusions and recommendations, and the report, “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report,” has been published in the Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

The experts are united in their concern that flawed science is leading to parenting plans and custody decisions that harm children and their parents. “This report should provide strong direction for policy guidelines and decision-making,” says Warshak.

What is so significant about the findings in this new report?

“Just as we encourage shared parenting in two-parent homes,” Warshak said, “the evidence shows that shared parenting should be the norm for children of all ages, including sharing the overnight care for very young children.” In his press release, Warshak notes: “To maximize children’s chances of having long lasting relationships and secure attachments to each parent, Warshak’s consensus report encourages both parents after their separation to maximize the time they spend with their children, including the sharing of overnight parenting time.”

A Private Member’s Bill, C-560, proposes to amend Canada’s Divorce Act to require a rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting, except in cases of proven neglect or abuse. The Bill, introduced by MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) has gone to second reading in Canada’s federal parliament.

“There is already substantial evidence that children should ordinarily be raised by both parents even in cases of separation and divorce,” said Vellacott. “The best interests of the child ordinarily include equal shared parenting. Canadian law needs to catch up with the science, and my bill, C-560, will be an important step in that direction.”

As Warshak’s press release states: “Warshak, referencing accepted research of the past 45 years, objects to the idea that children under four, and some say under six, need to spend nearly all their time with only one parent and cannot handle being apart from that parent even if they receive loving and attentive care from the other parent. Prohibitions or warnings against infants and toddlers spending overnight time in their father’s care are inconsistent with our current understanding of child development, says Warshak. Babies and toddlers need parents who respond consistently, affectionately, and sensitively to their needs.”

For a complete copy of the report, “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report,” download here, or directly from “Psychology, Public Policy, and Law” a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Now that Bill C-560, “Equal parenting” has been accepted for second reading, it is a critical time for all supporters to contact their MPs and ask, politely for your MP to vote in favour of this important new reform legislation. For supporting material and arguments, please sign up at http://canadianepc.org/membership/advocate-signup/

Equal parenting bill in Parliament

Canadian Parents’ Organization supports Bill to reform Divorce Act

Canadian Equal Parenting Council (CEPC) applauds M.P. Maurice Vellacott who on Dec 6th 2013 introduced into the House of Commons Bill C-560 – a bill that would mandate a rebuttable presumption in favour of equal shared parenting.

The Bill substantially strengthens direction to the courts under the authority of Parliament, that equal shared parenting, not sole custody, is to be the standard and the outcome in the vast majority of cases.

In 1968, Parliament promised parents “no fault” divorce but delivered unaffordable, adversarial conflicts which were highly profitable to the legal profession. In the 1986 reforms, Parliament promised a preference for the “friendly parent” but again failed to change outcomes for parents and children. In 1998, Parliament promised 48 shared parenting reforms but has failed to implement any of them. The April 2013 report on family law ordered by Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin calls for a radical overhaul and identifies the problems that CEPC and parents have pointed out for decades.

CEPC calls on Parliament to face their responsibility and fix this problem. “Current family law process exploits parents when they are vulnerable by threatening loss of their children”, says CEPC president Glenn Cheriton. “The vast majority of Canadians believe that the current system is sexist and dysfunctional. They want change so that children benefit from both parents and that family assets are preserved.”

Social science and outcomes from other jurisdictions which have implemented forms of equal parenting show reduced conflict and cost savings for parents as well as improved outcomes for children.

Canadian Equal Parenting Council calls on all parliamentarians to support and strengthen Bill C-560 so that no child loses either parent without clear evidence and proof of unfitness.

Link to the bill C-560

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6375891

Response to the CBA Access to Justice Summit and papers

In April 2013, the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) held a conference in Saskatoon to discuss “Access to Justice” and subsequently issued four reports: a summary, a metrics paper, a “community voice” paper, and a longer report.
I asked for and received these reports by email, as they were supposed to be on the website of the CBA, but they have been claiming problems with their site. Thus, I put the reports on the CEPC site here:

Access to Justice


There are points made in these reports that parents and family law reform advocates can approve of: a general recognition of major problems in family law system, a need for substantive reforms, and some useful documentation of the legal professions previous attempts at reforms (and acceptance of their failures).
There is some superficial politically correct weirdness, such as defining “law” as a life skill –many would suggest that adversarial, greedy, winner take all legal training is exactly the opposite skill to the collaborative, conflict resolution, sharing thinking needed to successfully manage a family. Beyond that level lie the real problems: money, who the CBA defines as “stakeholders” and ignoring the role of the legal profession in family law failure, inaccessibility, bias, the richly deserved hostility and contempt that the public has for family law and the profession, etc.
The “Community Voice” paper is a report on CBA consultations. But the CBA only consulted with single mothers regarding family law (and the disabled, etc regarding other civil legal matters.) CBA is evidently stuck in the mental prison of gender apartheid, at least regarding family law. To the CBA, law seems to be a weapon to be used for advancing those they like, women and mothers, or if they can’t do that, exploiting, marginalizing and scapegoating those they don’t like: men and fathers. Family law does not work for women either, but this seems a convenient story for the CBA and their 37,000 lawyers to cover the billions of dollars in income that they get from families. Arguing about who fares the worst from a failing system is disingenuous; unless the incentives are changed, negative outcomes remain the same.
Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell was the key speaker at the conference, and spoke about his report on family law, created with the unfortunately named “National Action Committee”. This was the short name for NACSOW, which for decades was the major government funded ideological campaign against men, fathers, boys and equal parenting, and which violently tried to storm Parliament. Someone should have pointed out this apparent breach of perceived impartiality.
CBA is right that there is insufficient information about the outcomes and experiences of people who must go through the justice system, particularly civil law. But the controls and decisions on data gathering are dominated by legal professionals, employees of the courts and departments of justice. Judges are free to rewrite court transcripts, make judgments of effective sole custody but call them “joint custody” and other manipulations by legal professionals suggest that as long as control rests with those who earn their livings from the current system, little or no objective measurement or data gathering is likely. With no really useful “hard data” as the report describes it, serious change is unlikely. Innovation will not happen in vested interests in the status quo dominate.
Of course, the CBA calls for more legal aid funding. Legal aid funding for family court is declining, except for special government funding for women only which promotes sole custody, and thus conflict. There is no recognition by the CBA report that funding both sides equally in family, even of the perhaps 5% of those who do go to trial is far beyond anything envisioned by any government. Providing legal aid to all family law cases and access to courts might involve more finances than all levels of government currently spend on all social programs.
The CBA is right that justice is inaccessible and unequal. I assume that is what is meant by “equal justice initiative”, although they don’t quite define it. The CBA wants a further 17 years (until 2030) to make changes, although their changes are unrealistic, impractical and self-serving. Since the Law Union study of family law in 1975 the problems have been identified by the legal profession repeatedly, wise and emphatic words repeated, but the experience by parents and children remains the same. The legal profession has failed repeatedly, and repeatedly admitted failure. With a few exceptions, they have opposed working alternatives from other jurisdictions and refused to collaborate with reform-seeking organizations, allying with gender extremist and opportunistic ideologues with similar vested interests. Thus the challenge for reformers becomes how to save the legal profession from itself, at least regarding family law. To the extent that the family courts and legal profession create and exploit problems, incentivize and take advantage of conflict and monopolize and block reform processes, then they are the problem. This CBA report does not face a question posed by equal parenting reformers, “If there is no basic legal question in most divorces, at least as far as children are concerned then why should the legal profession be allowed any input, control or authority?”
The entire equal access to justice problem needs to be broken down into specific, practical initiatives based on best practices which work in other jurisdictions. In family law, the CBA and government departments of justice need to collaborate with parents to provide incentives to move from adversarial court systems to conflict resolution, non adversarial alternatives. The system needs to work for families with conflicts, not just rent-seeking legal professionals. Outcomes should be measured for parents and children, not just governments and the courts.

Supreme Court report calls for reform

Accountability, Judicial discretion and equal parenting, a response to the Thomas Cromwell Supreme Court report on Family Law

By Glenn Cheriton

Those parents who go through Canada`s family court system are generally very dissatisfied. A common complaint is that the system is “corrupt”, by which parents mean they feel it is arbitrary, unfair and that they seem to have lost their children for no apparent reason. This raises some of the following questions:

In family court do judges give clear reasoned bases for their decisions that the people themselves can understand?

Are judges in family courts required to detail the evidence and reasons for judgment? Who requires this, and is this effective?

Other than appeals, what mechanisms are there for holding judges accountable if they decide on the basis of bias, sexism or anti-father prejudice?

Our surveys show that a large majority (70-80%) of the Canadian public believe that family courts are unfair and biased against fathers, and need to be reformed. The perception of family law courts and lawyers is generally accepted as the most negative of all branches of the law.  If we need to maintain public confidence in the legal system, how can the system be reformed so that there is not a “reasonable suspicion of bias”.

Judges (including Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler and Supreme Court judge Beverley McLaughlin) have stated that civil courts (family courts) are beyond the means of average Canadians and recognized the wide scale dissatisfactions with the process and outcomes. Such reforms have been proposes and “implemented” sporadically over 40+ years, yet have resulted in no real changes from the standpoint of children and parents.

Section 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees “equal protection and benefit of the law to male and female persons” (notwithstanding all other sections of the charter) but courts essentially disregard the Charter in family law cases. How can this be justified in a society claiming to be “free and democratic”?

Government funding for women’s services, legal education, and child tax benefits are generally denied to men and fathers. This gives women a huge advantage in family courts. How can family courts provide due process and natural justice in the shadow of government preferentialist biased services and funding?

Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin: “Judges are accountable. They are accountable to the Canadian public…” Parent advocates respectfully disagree.

Judicial Independence, “that the judge must not be an ally or supporter of one of the contending parties”. 13 P. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (Toronto: Thomson, Carswell, 1997), Looseleaf at 7-8

Yet, here is Supreme Court Justice McLaughlin on announcing the Thomas Cromwell report on civil law, “Cuts to family legal aid have a disproportionate effect on women and children…” suggesting that she, or the study is already biased in favour of women, which is the accusation against the family court system and judges most often claimed by fathers.

Again, from the Cromwell report on civil law, “Family law disputes affect more Canadians than any other single area of law.” This is true. It is also true that there is more dissatisfaction here than any other area of law. This area produces more family poverty, more suicides, more social dysfunction, more bitterness and disillusion by far than any other. This is the area of the law where every single one of the 48 recommendations of the Joint Senate-Commons Committee on child Custody and Access in 1998 have been blocked by the legal profession. Thus, while there is almost universal agreement that the current system needs a “radical overhaul”, not a single significant change has occurred at the federal or provincial levels.

When two parents separate, what legal questions are being determined by the need to go to court to decide whether the child should continue to have a relationship with the other parent, and why is the child almost never represented or heard from, if the child has an interest in the outcome? How can courts claim to act in the “best interests of the child” if this is undefined, and the child is almost always never represented nor heard from?

In the “normal” or average divorce, the child’s relationship with one of their parents is often pretty effectively and permanently severed, with neither the child nor the affected parent desiring it. Often this is done by the courts with no more explanation than, “best interests of the child” which many parents feel is more a cover-up than actual explanation. About 90% of the time the father loses custody, while the court says it “awards” custody to the mother.  Many cases are decided, “in the shadow of the law” which in practice means that one parent runs out of money, or is told that he (and it is overwhelmingly the father) does not have a chance at custody. The way this looks to fathers is often that they have been bullied out of their children in order to maximize profits for the legal profession.

Beverly McLaughlin: “The challenge is to develop mechanisms of accountability that do not undermine judicial independence.” The solution that Australia found, after several attempts at making joint custody the default outcome, and having this undermined by the legal profession, was to largely remove the legal profession and judges from the process, with parent co-ordinators and parenting time agreements made by the parents themselves.  Canada may need to follow a similar path of moving divorce processes out of family law and into a system which excludes the legal profession.

Here is the comment from the president of the Canadian Equal Parenting Council (CEPC) on parental rights:

CEPC has been promoting the idea of a balance of rights and responsibilities for parents since 2004. Our position is in direct contradiction to former federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon who stated in 2003 that “in regards to their children, parents have no rights, only responsibilities.” In spite of CEPC appeals to subsequent ministers of justice, what appears to be a policy of extermination of historically recognized rights by the federal government has not been withdrawn or changed. No other group in recent history has had their rights so publicly denied, abrogated and removed as parents.

It is CEPC position that such denial of rights violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada’s commitments in various UN Conventions and the Bill of Rights.

If you have only responsibilities, but no rights, then you are a slave. To compare, written into the divorce act is the provision that judges and lawyers cannot be held responsible for their decisions in the family court system, i.e. they have rights to make decisions regarding the children of parents, but no responsibility for the outcomes. If you have rights but no responsibilities, then you are a tyrant.

The family law system is, as Eric Tarkington points out, a feudal system, with judges acting like feudal lords, able to take your children away at any time, for virtually any reason.
If parental rights are human rights, then the family courts are depriving parents of rights without due process of law. Equal parenting reforms are like a “Magna Carta” to restrain the feudalists from violating basic human rights of parents.

Taking a person’s child is such a terrible punishment that due process must include all of the protections we grant to alleged criminals, that is, the presumption of innocence (which would be equalled by a presumption of parental fitness), the right to confront accusers, the right to counsel (and if a parent cannot afford counsel, government must provide competent counsel), and fair and consistent rules of evidence and procedure.

That is why the CEPC is seeking reform of law and procedure so that no parent loses a child without due process, and a presumption that both parents remain as equals in the child’s life unless proven unfit to a clear and consistent standard.

The power differential is so large and unfair between parents and the profiteering legal profession, their co-conspirators, state actors & their agents – judges that only a strong and high standard for parental rights can stand against the abuse of power by the family law industry.

The human rights argument for parental equality is only one among many, perhaps not the most important one, but it is one that tells us much about the draconian power that family courts and state bureaucracies want to maintain over our families.

We call upon all parents and their supporters to spread the message that “parent rights are human rights”. Write to your political representatives and tell them. Write to the media and tell them. Call in to radio shows.

Blog it. Tweet it. Put in on your facebook page.

“Parent rights are human rights.”

fr_CAFrançais du Canada