I thought rather than going back to the begining of the when and why's I jumped in as an advocate for childrens rights start with the here and now. I sat on a phone with a nice fellow discussing his case. Average guy that meets all your psychological norms tests, good dad and works everyday. One of the first things I noticed from the first of the conversation that this gentleman was worried after meeting with his laywer. He like alot of men I encounter doing this is he said here is my laywers name and what do you think of him. I always try to not drill a laywer to bad because they say" Only a fool represents themselves". I think that should be changed to only a foolish judge thinks that a man without money can afford to pay the exsorbent cost of a laywer. He then asked that question well I just got served papers for primary residence, as he had looked after the child in that capcity since he and his ex seperated. The laywer that he spoke to forgot to mention things like status quo and parentus to him. So as all people that seem to call, education on the system was always the first place I have to start. Our system here in Canada has been on a downward spiral since around 1968 a year after we became a true country. The no fault divorce act as it has been deemed and the start of the destruction of the family and family value. So here is some of the beginings for people that choose to read this will understand.
We all have relationships some good, some bad and well statiscally 51% plus that result in marriage end in divorce. So if you have 10 close friends that are currently married in the first 5 years of it well they will go through this game of hell. So you ask how is that education, more of a little profescy of where you who read this may be someday. If your female, you stand a pretty good chance to take the fellow your with if you have children to the cleaners. If your male well stats that you can find 87% of custodial parents in this country are female. So looking at that you say well I have joint custody but who possesses the primary residence status. So lets take a look at the first part of a seperation.
So people grow apart, never were more than a chaser and a chasee, and well some just didn't do that main thing take a look at this person and with the quirks you both posess and say in 50 years will I be able to look at you the same way I did after the wedding night. Another key thing people go on ooh its my soul mate, fairy tale romance, well guess what they still are human and so are you. So when the fairy tale ends and reality sits in will you be able to say the same thing. Do you share common interests, do you like to do things together and still have that time for hanging with the guys or hanging with the girls. If your a parent then well that is limited especially when your kids are young. They grab alot of your attention and well are really demanding of your time. So now I painted a negative picture to some, the truth and reality to others. So I could go on what the back ground of relationships are like but when you read this an examine yours, hopefully your not calling me and saying what the hell did I do.
So in the begging of a seperation it usually goes with one person initiating it. Yes sad to say but from anywhere's you read even good ole cosmo, for the ladies, females initate the seperation. So generally from the 133 cases I have worked on over the last 10 years it is one cheated on the other, they were really better off as friends,one had deeper childhood psychologial issues that were never dealt with, and addictions, seem to top off the list as the most prevelant things I came accross. So then we as adults seperate, take a minute if you have a child and look in their eyes if your divorced and say did I hurt you when we broke up. They as children will spit and spudder because of that question. For the love of god if they are little don't do that because they are probally already confused as it is. MOre for the 13 years of age or older.This one is more for the normal people, ones that do not try to beat the hell out of each other or do just right down nasty things to each other. This is for the ones that just found out they should of never been together.
So next is you get your place I'll get mine and we both share time and responsiblty with the child. Common sense most would say. Ok when did emotion and common sense ever enter into the same equation? If your quick you know that answer never. So the person you loved or loved you just looked you in the face and said thats it, thats all ,bye bye. So yes your jumping up for joy, wait, no your not your going through the stages of divorce. Same as death we morn everything death, and so on the same way. We go through stages. The thing with this is well the casulty become the innocent bystanders called your kids.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
New dad gets helping hand - Published Wednesday July 22nd, 2009
FREDERICTON - Shaun Nixon said he'd be out on the street with his four-month-old son Tobias if it hadn't been for the eleventh-hour generosity of a Fredericton firefighter.
Enlarge Photo Stephen MacGillivray PhotoStephen MacGillivray/canadaeast news serviceShaun Nixon holds his son Tobias with Shawnee Main and her son Graeson. haun Nixon said he'd be out on the street with his four-month-old son Tobias if it hadn't been for the eleventh-hour generosity of a Fredericton firefighter.
Nixon and Tobias had been living in the Comfort Inn on Prospect Street since his girlfriend abandoned them about a month ago.
But recently, he ran out of money to pay for his hotel stay and, with no family or friends nearby, he faced a daunting future.
Nixon couldn't turn to the Fredericton Men's Shelter because of Tobias and the Transition House doesn't allow men.
The government-subsidized apartment he'd secured isn't available until Aug. 1.
Nixon and Tobias had nowhere to go.
That's until Shawnee Main, a firefighter and single mom, heard about Nixon's struggles on the evening newscast.
She felt she had to do something, so she paid him a visit with words of encouragement, a pile of baby supplies and a promise to pay his hotel bill until his apartment is ready.
"It really hit me. I am a single mom with a big support system, but I couldn't imagine not knowing where my kid is going to sleep at night," she said. "(Nixon) has no family here in Fredericton that I know of.
"He must've felt pretty overwhelmed," she said. "He's a new parent and he's doing it on his own and that alone is tough. I felt for him."
"(What she did) meant everything to me," Nixon said. "I didn't have any time at all and she really saved my rear.
"Knowing that a total stranger would step up like this and help me out just means the world."
Enlarge Photo Stephen MacGillivray PhotoStephen MacGillivray/canadaeast news serviceShaun Nixon holds his son Tobias with Shawnee Main and her son Graeson. haun Nixon said he'd be out on the street with his four-month-old son Tobias if it hadn't been for the eleventh-hour generosity of a Fredericton firefighter.
Nixon and Tobias had been living in the Comfort Inn on Prospect Street since his girlfriend abandoned them about a month ago.
But recently, he ran out of money to pay for his hotel stay and, with no family or friends nearby, he faced a daunting future.
Nixon couldn't turn to the Fredericton Men's Shelter because of Tobias and the Transition House doesn't allow men.
The government-subsidized apartment he'd secured isn't available until Aug. 1.
Nixon and Tobias had nowhere to go.
That's until Shawnee Main, a firefighter and single mom, heard about Nixon's struggles on the evening newscast.
She felt she had to do something, so she paid him a visit with words of encouragement, a pile of baby supplies and a promise to pay his hotel bill until his apartment is ready.
"It really hit me. I am a single mom with a big support system, but I couldn't imagine not knowing where my kid is going to sleep at night," she said. "(Nixon) has no family here in Fredericton that I know of.
"He must've felt pretty overwhelmed," she said. "He's a new parent and he's doing it on his own and that alone is tough. I felt for him."
"(What she did) meant everything to me," Nixon said. "I didn't have any time at all and she really saved my rear.
"Knowing that a total stranger would step up like this and help me out just means the world."
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
DFCS says it "missed the signs" that led to boy's death
DFCS says it "missed the signs" that led to boy's death
By MEGAN MATTEUCCI and CRAIG SCHNEIDER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The state child welfare director on Monday said his agency “missed the signs” while investigating child abuse against a 6-year-old boy, a special needs student who police say was beaten to death by his mother’s boyfriend.
Enlarge photo FORSYTH COUNTY Eder Acosta, 20, is charged in the death of his girlfriend's 6 year-old son.
Mark Washington, director of the state Division of Family and Children Services, said the agency responded to four prior complaints regarding trouble in Bryan Guzman-Moreno’s Forsyth County home.
“I can see we missed asking the right questions, bringing in the right specialists and making the right decisions at the right time,” Washington said. “I have very strong concerns and questions about what I see.”
Police say the mother’s boyfriend, 20-year-old Eder Acosta of Cumming, beat Bryan to death Thursday.
Acosta, who is not the boy’s natural father, was arrested Saturday for Bryan’s death, Forsyth County Sheriff’s spokesman Capt. Frank Huggins said. He allegedly attacked Bryan early Thursday after taking the boy’s mother, Laura Moreno, to work at 6 a.m. He returned to the mobile home the couple shared and began beating Bryan, Huggins said.
“By 6:30 a.m., the boy was at the hospital in full cardiac arrest,” Huggins said Monday.
State Child Advocate Tom Rawlings said he is also looking into the case. He said Acosta had been accused in January of hitting the boy.
Rawlings said the January accusation was among three complaints to DFCS of child abuse against Bryan. He said there was another complaint involving a fight between two uncles in the home.
Rawlings said that in January, another child of the boy’s mother had said he did not want to be in that house because his mother and her boyfriend fight a lot.
The sibling also said that Acosta had on one occasion hit Bryan hard on the leg with his fist because the boy would not go to the bathroom, Rawlings said.
Rawlings said DFCS worked with the family for some months after that, but it remains unclear whether the agency had an open case on the boy at the time of his death.
The state child advocate is a post appointed by the governor to watch over state child welfare services.
In September 2008, DFCS looked into a complaint regarding a bruise on Bryan’s thigh, and in November of last year, DFCS looked into a report of scratches on the boy’s face, he said.
The agency did not substantiate either of those instances as child abuse, he said.
Washington, the DFCS director, said “hot buttons” and “cues” were missed during the agency’s work on the cases involving Bryan.
Noting that the boy was uncooperative and had difficulty communicating, Washington said the DFCS workers should have brought in specialists who work with children with such conditions.
Washington said he is not sure exactly what was missed.
“It’s very important that we learn what we missed, why we missed it, and how we improve our practice.”
On Thursday, Acosta assaulted the boy and drove him to the emergency room at Northside Hospital-Forsyth, deputies said.
“He told the ER he [the boy] had a medical problem and stopped breathing,” Huggins said.
The boy was later transferred to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta at Egleston, where he was pronounced dead.
An autopsy showed the boy died from blunt force trauma. Coroners found extensive internal injuries to the boy’s head and body, Huggins said. The injuries were not visible when Acosta brought the boy to the emergency room.
Huggins declined to release details about the attack, including if a weapon was used.
Acosta is being held without bond in the Forsyth County jail on charges of murder, cruelty to children and aggravated battery.
The boy, who attended special needs classes, was scheduled to enter first grade next month at Sawnee Elementary School in Cumming, Forsyth County Schools Superintendent Buster Evans said.
Two other children, including a 1-year-old and an 11-year-old, were home at the time of the attack. They were not injured and have since been turned over to DFCS, Huggins said.
Deputies interviewed the boy’s mother, and she’s not expected to be charged, Huggins said. Several other relatives who live with the family were also interviewed.
Huggins declined to say if Acosta has a prior criminal record. However, he said Acosta had never been arrested by the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office, and deputies had never been to the couple’s home prior to the murder.
Staff writer Katie Leslie contributed to this article.
By MEGAN MATTEUCCI and CRAIG SCHNEIDER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The state child welfare director on Monday said his agency “missed the signs” while investigating child abuse against a 6-year-old boy, a special needs student who police say was beaten to death by his mother’s boyfriend.
Enlarge photo FORSYTH COUNTY Eder Acosta, 20, is charged in the death of his girlfriend's 6 year-old son.
Mark Washington, director of the state Division of Family and Children Services, said the agency responded to four prior complaints regarding trouble in Bryan Guzman-Moreno’s Forsyth County home.
“I can see we missed asking the right questions, bringing in the right specialists and making the right decisions at the right time,” Washington said. “I have very strong concerns and questions about what I see.”
Police say the mother’s boyfriend, 20-year-old Eder Acosta of Cumming, beat Bryan to death Thursday.
Acosta, who is not the boy’s natural father, was arrested Saturday for Bryan’s death, Forsyth County Sheriff’s spokesman Capt. Frank Huggins said. He allegedly attacked Bryan early Thursday after taking the boy’s mother, Laura Moreno, to work at 6 a.m. He returned to the mobile home the couple shared and began beating Bryan, Huggins said.
“By 6:30 a.m., the boy was at the hospital in full cardiac arrest,” Huggins said Monday.
State Child Advocate Tom Rawlings said he is also looking into the case. He said Acosta had been accused in January of hitting the boy.
Rawlings said the January accusation was among three complaints to DFCS of child abuse against Bryan. He said there was another complaint involving a fight between two uncles in the home.
Rawlings said that in January, another child of the boy’s mother had said he did not want to be in that house because his mother and her boyfriend fight a lot.
The sibling also said that Acosta had on one occasion hit Bryan hard on the leg with his fist because the boy would not go to the bathroom, Rawlings said.
Rawlings said DFCS worked with the family for some months after that, but it remains unclear whether the agency had an open case on the boy at the time of his death.
The state child advocate is a post appointed by the governor to watch over state child welfare services.
In September 2008, DFCS looked into a complaint regarding a bruise on Bryan’s thigh, and in November of last year, DFCS looked into a report of scratches on the boy’s face, he said.
The agency did not substantiate either of those instances as child abuse, he said.
Washington, the DFCS director, said “hot buttons” and “cues” were missed during the agency’s work on the cases involving Bryan.
Noting that the boy was uncooperative and had difficulty communicating, Washington said the DFCS workers should have brought in specialists who work with children with such conditions.
Washington said he is not sure exactly what was missed.
“It’s very important that we learn what we missed, why we missed it, and how we improve our practice.”
On Thursday, Acosta assaulted the boy and drove him to the emergency room at Northside Hospital-Forsyth, deputies said.
“He told the ER he [the boy] had a medical problem and stopped breathing,” Huggins said.
The boy was later transferred to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta at Egleston, where he was pronounced dead.
An autopsy showed the boy died from blunt force trauma. Coroners found extensive internal injuries to the boy’s head and body, Huggins said. The injuries were not visible when Acosta brought the boy to the emergency room.
Huggins declined to release details about the attack, including if a weapon was used.
Acosta is being held without bond in the Forsyth County jail on charges of murder, cruelty to children and aggravated battery.
The boy, who attended special needs classes, was scheduled to enter first grade next month at Sawnee Elementary School in Cumming, Forsyth County Schools Superintendent Buster Evans said.
Two other children, including a 1-year-old and an 11-year-old, were home at the time of the attack. They were not injured and have since been turned over to DFCS, Huggins said.
Deputies interviewed the boy’s mother, and she’s not expected to be charged, Huggins said. Several other relatives who live with the family were also interviewed.
Huggins declined to say if Acosta has a prior criminal record. However, he said Acosta had never been arrested by the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office, and deputies had never been to the couple’s home prior to the murder.
Staff writer Katie Leslie contributed to this article.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Reality of Equal Shared Parenting Around the World and Canada - by Edward Hoyt, Founder of " New Brunswick Childrens Equal Parenting Association"
To Start this I would like to quote British senior judge Mr. Justice Coleridge, responsible for family courts across South-West England from the Daily Mail.
"Family life is in ‘meltdown’. Family breakdown is a “cancer” behind almost every evil affecting the country. Mr Justice Coleridge blames youth crime, child abuse, drug addiction and binge-drinking on the “meltdown” of relations between parents and children. He warns that the collapse of the family unit is a threat to the nation as bad as terrorism, crime, drugs or global warming.
The speech to family lawyers contains a fierce attack on the “neglect” of successive governments. The 58-year-old judge, who is married with three grown-up children, will say family breakdown is an epidemic affecting all levels of society from the Royal Family down. It is “on a scale, depth and breadth which few of us could have imagined even “a decade ago. It is a never-ending carnival of human misery. A ceaseless river of human distress. “I am not saying every broken family produces dysfunctional children but I am saying that almost every dysfunctional child is the product of a broken family.”
The judge, who is in charge of family courts across South-West England, will say he has a duty to speak out. He will call on the Government to put the family at the top of its agenda, alongside the economy and the war on terror – and make it “rather more important than taking oaths of allegiance”. His speech will say: “Families are the cells which make up the body of society. If the cells are unhealthy and undernourished, or at worse cancerous and growing haphazard and out of control, in the end the body succumbs. “In some of the more heavily populated urban areas, family life is quite frankly in meltdown or completely unrecognisable . . . it is on an epidemic scale. In some areas of the country family life in the old sense no longer exists.”
The judge condemns families with a mother and several absentee fathers. He says: “Single parents often do a fantastic job, but a great many, perhaps through no fault of their own, do not. “A large number of families now consist of children being brought up by mothers who have children by a number of different fathers, none of whom take any part in their lives or support or upbringing. “These are not isolated, oneoff cases. They are part of the stock-in-trade of the family courts.”
Judge Coleridge has spent the past eight years presiding over cases of divorce, children in care and family break-up.”
(Coleridge, Daily Mail, 4 April 2008) "
To introduce this I will give a little background on myself. I have been a parent for nineteen years as a "Single Father" of my son as his natural mother has by her own choice never been involved in his life. I have also been a"Parentally Alienated" father of a near 15 year old daughter. I have been in the " Equal Parenting" movement in Canada for 10 years now and seen first hand the damage that our current system does to children. I beleive by people and politican's alike reading what other countries are doing may bring a little light on how far behind here in Canada we really are when it comes to parenting. I have worked with some of the orginal founding parents of the Shared Parenting movement and the new, as they have appeared over the years. I have witnessed and participated in court cases here in New Brunswick and Canada as an observer and an active participant. In the 10 years that I have been in this; I have witnessed everything from Shared Parenting by choice working to murder cases because of the adverseral systems curently in place. I do not hold a PHD from a university but do hold a degree in the school of life. The last count of peer reviewed studies, magizine articles and books on the subject of Equal Parenting that I have read is 1109.I have written in News Papers and Magizines in Canada on the topic but beleive that more knowledge nees to be out there for the public.This article shows the different legislations shown from different countries and is a framework in which Canada must start to adopt before it is too late.
To begin the different countries I will start with Germany as they were the first to come forward with true changes towards "Shared Parenting".
Germany - 1998
Germany has a post-divorce presumption of joint legal custody was already in effect in family law since 1998, when several years ago the family court judge Jurgen Rudolph a German Regional Family Court justice in the city and district of Cochem.
The German "Federal Ministry of Justice" in Berlin states they still will introduce more postive changes even with the Cochem model "Cochemer Modell" and Cochem Court Practises,"Cochemer Praxis" to create an even more child centric model. This in Germany has recieved country-wide acknolegment as being the best practice for child centered approach to child custody arrangements.
In his courtroom was continuously confronted with more than capable parents fighting each other with the assitance of their lawyers over post-seperation arrangements concerning the residence, care and access over their children and was demanded to decide in favour of one parent. Parents and lawyers from both sides seemed to be only involved in painting their adversarial ‘opponents’ as black and incapable as possible during the divorce proceedings in the family court.
The position he took in this was that he considered post-divorce physical custody arrangements between principally fit and capable parents. This was at that time not to be a standard-decision for the family court and himself as the family judge to make and decide on by default that one parent would have custody the other become non-custodial or as we refer to as a vistor. That lawfully existing care-obligation in Germany for both parents to care for their children the making of physical custody arrangements over their children had by default to be considered primarily as a matter of responsibility for both the divorcing parents themselves to decide on in the first place.
Proceeding this and him witnessing in-fights between parents and their lawyers taking place in adversarial divorce proceedings, the regional family court of Cochem then experimented by changing its family court practises. The new revolutionary family court practice divorcing parents were strongly encouraged by the court to first come up themselves with a mutually and consensually agreed “Parenting Plan” for the residency, care and access to and over their children, as a mandatory precondition before being able to enter and finalise their divorce settlements in the Cochem family court.
As the parents now needed to come up with a mutually agreed parenting plan or parenting arrangement proposal, this mandatory demand of the court both not only resulted in a reinstatement of the equal level playing field and cooperation between the parents looking for divorce (instead of the previous court practises magnifying the differences and conflicts between the parents). But equally important, it also lead to a complete practise overhaul within the professions involved in the divorce proceedings in the family court.
Rather than adding fuel to the fire in an already adverserial situtation, the parents in their conflict, Lawyers, Social Workers, Youth Welfare Workers, began cooperating with each other in order to offer mediation and other support services and help to the divorcing parents who were in need of support in making the parenting plan needed in order to finalise their divorce proceedings. It did take time but the cooperation between professionals evolved from cooperation on the individual case levels created a more structured network cooperation of the involved professions around the "Cochem Family Court."
Spain - 2005
They introduced a new shared parenting law which is regarded as wholly inadequate by Spanish family rights lobbyists. Government officials and professionals on their own initiative are attempting to introduce policies reintegrating alienated children with their alienated parents and there is a vigorous movement for change.
Belgium - September 2006
The Socialist Party implemented presumptive 50/50 joint physical custody legislation reffered to as effective bi-location of the child,after parental separation by the Belgian Federal Government on September 4th,2006. This was approved by the Belgium "House of Commons" and "Senate" and brought into legislation. It introduced an immediate unilateral court-access for either of the divorced or separated parents in requesting for additional reinforcement orders if needed. It also introduced a presumption of dual location or shared residency which by law should be taken into serious consideration and thorough investigation with priority in each individual case by the Belgian family courts and judges on the request of either one of the divorcing parents separately.
In the situation where both separating parents consensually forward shared residency, care and access proposals between the two of them in the divorce and separation proceedings, the law puts the Belgian family courts and judges under the obligation to accept those mutually consented proposals as leading in the court-orders to be subsequently imposed in the divorce and separation proceedings.
In effect with regard to the post-divorce residency, care and access arrangements of either parents involved were then again acknowledged and reinstated at the core of Belgian family law and family court proceedings regarding physical custody, residency and care. By law Belgian family court judges were obligated to explicitly specify in their court-orders, their decisions and provisions with regard to the imposed post-divorce residence and care arrangements in writing if they were to deviate from the presumptive and preferred bi-location or shared parenting arrangement in their court-orders and reasoning behind the altering. These new Belgian laws have put "Shared Parenting" at the forefront of the family courts decision-making regarding the care, access and residency of the children. The legislation while the need and obligation imposed by law on the Belgian Family Courts and judges to extensively specify in writing in their imposed court-orders as to why a shared parenting or bi-location order was not imposed, opens the possibility for appeal of the courts decisions and motivations.
The underestimated new portion of the "Belgian Family Law" reform is the introduction of immediate or priority access to the courts and judges on the request of either one of the parties in conjuction or individually. This can be activated unilaterally and individually as they can proceed without the need of legal represention by a lawyer at the court-session requested, for an additional reinforcement orders of the court."When court-ordered parenting arrangements were not sufficiently complied with by the other parent and when there were complaints about the other parent with regard to abiding by the specific parenting arrangements laid down by the judge in the original case residency, care and access orders."
This laws framework has been around for 3 years and is in its infancy stages to evaluate its effects but first impressions that it will contribute to "The Best Interest of the Children" involved and now will adjust under the care of the non-confrontational but separated parents.
Italy - March 2006
The use of "Joint Legal Custody" and portions of "Joint Physical Custody" are now introduced. .On March 16,2006 this change became effective.
Australia - 2006
The introduction of " Shared Parenting Legislation" and Family Dispute Resolution to help people affected by separation and divorce sort out their dispute as an alternative to going to court. A family dispute resolution practitioner is an independent person who can help people discuss issues, look at options and work out how best to reach agreement in disputes about children and parenting arrangements after family breakdown. There still today through seeing social media's,Facebook,Twitters etc. that there are still along way to go even in Austrilia.
USA and Canada - 2009
In the United States there have been a few states there have been "Shared Parenting" bills but the norm in the USA is still archaic custody arrangements pitting parent against parent and children being the losers.
Introduced this year in Canada; Bill C-422 by Maurice Valacott; MP, a "Shared Parenting Bill", after many pressure groups approached this Member of Parliment. This was to start the process to move towards a more functionable and 21st Century approach to parenting. In Saint John, New Brunswick on July 31,2009 a meeting will be held by " The New Brunswick Children's Equal Parenting Association" in conjuction with " The Canadian Equal Parenting Coalition" to introduce this bill to people and why it is the nessesary move for well adjusted children and Families in Canadian Society. The "Social Movement" towards equal parenting being spearheaded by these groups and others such as " FACT - Fathers are Capable Too" from the 1990's and newcommers such " Not All Dad's are Dead Beats" are challenging the social fabric of Canada. The basis of many studies done from the orginal founders of the "Equal Parenting "movement to today's leaders all see the same outcome "Equal Shared Legal Custody".
All of the studies done from writers such as " Warren Farrell" and professor of social work and family studies at the University of British Columbia " Edward Kruk" state the evolution of two natural born parents create a more adjusted and functionable society. In the meantime here in Canada we are still in the "Infancy Stages" but progressing rapidly into an more forward thinking and having notice taken by the political forefront of Canada. I believe that it is more a common sense principal to be adopted into our Judicary and Legislations. In the long term of these changes will create a stable growth in Population and more of a well adjusted society.
Edward Hoyt
Founder
New Brunswick Children's Equal Parenting Association
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Marginalized fathers capitalize on unofficial Fatherless Day
June 17, 9:09 PM
California protesters for equal parental rights
A special group of California dads will be gathering at the state capital in Sacramento Friday to honor and bring attention to their missing and exploited children. Left behind and marginalized fathers and their supporters will be gathering at state capitals across the country on June 19th, unofficial Fatherless Day, to communicate the necessity of equal parenting rights.Acknowledging that some mothers lose contact with their children by way of the same corruption, equal parenting advocates say this week is for the dads. National representative Donald Tenn said he can't keep up with the calls and emails coming into Fathers 4 Justice, especially now. "This week is one of the hardest for most of the dads I know," said Tenn, whose daughter Madison was abducted to Illinois by her mother Shannon Phillips three years ago.
Madison's daddy Donald Tenn
These men say they've been robbed of their right and duty to be fathers by a corrupt legal system. Claiming the current family court system not only ignores, but rewards deceit, they point to this video of Nancy Schaefer speaking of how corruption in family courts devastates parents and children, including families of divorce. Tenn told the story of a local father who missed his children so much he became overcome with grief. On a website describing his plight, the father had included plans to commit suicide. After being contacted by fathers advocates the man changed his mind and took down the website. "He now has hope," Tenn explained, "it's all I can give him, but at least I can give him that."
Fatherless rally in Sacramento '08
Northern California father Nate posted to the California Fathers 4 Justice forum, "For the past five years I have felt I was alone. No one could understand what I was up against, not even my parents or siblings." "There is unity when you align yourself with like-minded individuals," responded Fathers 4 Justice member Robert Saunders, "I see empowerment as one of the most important things a wronged parent can do to gain and maintain the strength to fight the oppressive, immoral and corrupt anti-family court system. Those interested in family law reform are encouraged to meet Friday at the north steps of the capital at 9:00 am. Participants will lobby with legislators, then return to the north steps at noon to rally until 3:00 pm. Last year's speeches, like Tenn's story of his daughter's abduction drew tears, indignation and applause. (Tenn's speech here)Nate spoke for many marginalized parents who I've spoken with when he wrote, "They can take our freedom, our money, our rights, but they can not take our love for our children."
June 17, 9:09 PM
California protesters for equal parental rights
A special group of California dads will be gathering at the state capital in Sacramento Friday to honor and bring attention to their missing and exploited children. Left behind and marginalized fathers and their supporters will be gathering at state capitals across the country on June 19th, unofficial Fatherless Day, to communicate the necessity of equal parenting rights.Acknowledging that some mothers lose contact with their children by way of the same corruption, equal parenting advocates say this week is for the dads. National representative Donald Tenn said he can't keep up with the calls and emails coming into Fathers 4 Justice, especially now. "This week is one of the hardest for most of the dads I know," said Tenn, whose daughter Madison was abducted to Illinois by her mother Shannon Phillips three years ago.
Madison's daddy Donald Tenn
These men say they've been robbed of their right and duty to be fathers by a corrupt legal system. Claiming the current family court system not only ignores, but rewards deceit, they point to this video of Nancy Schaefer speaking of how corruption in family courts devastates parents and children, including families of divorce. Tenn told the story of a local father who missed his children so much he became overcome with grief. On a website describing his plight, the father had included plans to commit suicide. After being contacted by fathers advocates the man changed his mind and took down the website. "He now has hope," Tenn explained, "it's all I can give him, but at least I can give him that."
Fatherless rally in Sacramento '08
Northern California father Nate posted to the California Fathers 4 Justice forum, "For the past five years I have felt I was alone. No one could understand what I was up against, not even my parents or siblings." "There is unity when you align yourself with like-minded individuals," responded Fathers 4 Justice member Robert Saunders, "I see empowerment as one of the most important things a wronged parent can do to gain and maintain the strength to fight the oppressive, immoral and corrupt anti-family court system. Those interested in family law reform are encouraged to meet Friday at the north steps of the capital at 9:00 am. Participants will lobby with legislators, then return to the north steps at noon to rally until 3:00 pm. Last year's speeches, like Tenn's story of his daughter's abduction drew tears, indignation and applause. (Tenn's speech here)Nate spoke for many marginalized parents who I've spoken with when he wrote, "They can take our freedom, our money, our rights, but they can not take our love for our children."
Friday, June 12, 2009
Bad mom really needed jail time
Bad mom really needed jail time
By MINDELLE JACOBS
Last Updated: 12th June 2009, 2:12am
Email Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Share with:
Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Newsvine Reddit Technorati Feed Me Yahoo Simpy Squidoo Spurl Blogmarks Netvouz Scuttle Sitejot + What are these? Most fathers who've been denied access to their kids by demented ex-wives give up the fight rather than bankrupting themselves in lengthy court battles.
A Toronto surgeon had the money -- and the persistence -- to keep going. He won sole custody of his three daughters because his ex-wife spent more than a decade brainwashing the children to hate him.
She was subsequently fined $35,000 for contempt for ignoring repeated orders to get counselling. And on Tuesday, an Ontario judge imposed an even harsher punishment, ordering her to pay more than $250,000 of her ex-husband's court costs.
The father's expenses were "a litigant's worst nightmare," declared Ontario Superior Court Justice Faye McWatt. "She has acted deceitfully and in bad faith throughout the litigation."
If the mother in this case had been jailed the first time she ignored court-ordered access, everyone would have been better off.
The mother would have learned the courts don't take kindly to breaches of court orders, the father would have been able to bond with his children much earlier and court resources could have been used for more worthwhile purposes.
It's a pleasant surprise that the mother was actually punished; better late than never. Still, the father likely faces a huge challenge winning over his kids. Reversing the damage done by a parent who spends years alienating the children from the other spouse is a long-term process.
These girls, now aged 14, 11 and 10, may forever be damaged by their mother's sick, selfish actions -- behaviour McWatt bluntly described as "emotional abuse."
The couple split up in 1999 but K.D., as the mother is known, denied A.L., her ex, virtually any access. At the same time, she was over-protective of the kids to the point of infantilizing them. The oldest child wasn't even toilet-trained at the age of five. The middle girl was still using a bottle at night when she was three.
One psychologist warned as early as 2000 that the children were at "significant risk" of being alienated from the father.
A.L. gave up fighting for access for about six years because his ex warned that if he pressured her, he wouldn't get anything. But it didn't matter what he did. He still didn't get to see his daughters.
He only saw them for two weekends between 2000 and 2006. Then K.D. wouldn't even allow him to speak to them.
For a while, there was still a bond between father and daughters. Early on, one daughter would hug him and warn: "Don't tell mommy I did this."
By 2006, though, the bond seemed broken. The oldest showed no affection, the middle daughter stopped looking at him and the youngest only spoke to him in a monotone.
It's been 11 years since the release of the parliamentary report on child custody and access, with its dozens of recommendations, including the proposal that the terms "custody and access" be replaced with "shared parenting" in the Divorce Act.
A NUTBAR
But that assumes both parents are reasonable. In this case, the mother is clearly a nutbar who used her kids as weapons against her ex. Jail might have taught her a lesson a lot sooner.
A.L. is "exhausted but very, very happy. He has his children," says his lawyer, Harold Niman.
"This kind of case will hopefully send a message to those people who think it's OK to undermine a relationship between the children and the other parent."
MINDY.JACOBS@SUNMEDIA.CA
By MINDELLE JACOBS
Last Updated: 12th June 2009, 2:12am
Email Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Share with:
Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Newsvine Reddit Technorati Feed Me Yahoo Simpy Squidoo Spurl Blogmarks Netvouz Scuttle Sitejot + What are these? Most fathers who've been denied access to their kids by demented ex-wives give up the fight rather than bankrupting themselves in lengthy court battles.
A Toronto surgeon had the money -- and the persistence -- to keep going. He won sole custody of his three daughters because his ex-wife spent more than a decade brainwashing the children to hate him.
She was subsequently fined $35,000 for contempt for ignoring repeated orders to get counselling. And on Tuesday, an Ontario judge imposed an even harsher punishment, ordering her to pay more than $250,000 of her ex-husband's court costs.
The father's expenses were "a litigant's worst nightmare," declared Ontario Superior Court Justice Faye McWatt. "She has acted deceitfully and in bad faith throughout the litigation."
If the mother in this case had been jailed the first time she ignored court-ordered access, everyone would have been better off.
The mother would have learned the courts don't take kindly to breaches of court orders, the father would have been able to bond with his children much earlier and court resources could have been used for more worthwhile purposes.
It's a pleasant surprise that the mother was actually punished; better late than never. Still, the father likely faces a huge challenge winning over his kids. Reversing the damage done by a parent who spends years alienating the children from the other spouse is a long-term process.
These girls, now aged 14, 11 and 10, may forever be damaged by their mother's sick, selfish actions -- behaviour McWatt bluntly described as "emotional abuse."
The couple split up in 1999 but K.D., as the mother is known, denied A.L., her ex, virtually any access. At the same time, she was over-protective of the kids to the point of infantilizing them. The oldest child wasn't even toilet-trained at the age of five. The middle girl was still using a bottle at night when she was three.
One psychologist warned as early as 2000 that the children were at "significant risk" of being alienated from the father.
A.L. gave up fighting for access for about six years because his ex warned that if he pressured her, he wouldn't get anything. But it didn't matter what he did. He still didn't get to see his daughters.
He only saw them for two weekends between 2000 and 2006. Then K.D. wouldn't even allow him to speak to them.
For a while, there was still a bond between father and daughters. Early on, one daughter would hug him and warn: "Don't tell mommy I did this."
By 2006, though, the bond seemed broken. The oldest showed no affection, the middle daughter stopped looking at him and the youngest only spoke to him in a monotone.
It's been 11 years since the release of the parliamentary report on child custody and access, with its dozens of recommendations, including the proposal that the terms "custody and access" be replaced with "shared parenting" in the Divorce Act.
A NUTBAR
But that assumes both parents are reasonable. In this case, the mother is clearly a nutbar who used her kids as weapons against her ex. Jail might have taught her a lesson a lot sooner.
A.L. is "exhausted but very, very happy. He has his children," says his lawyer, Harold Niman.
"This kind of case will hopefully send a message to those people who think it's OK to undermine a relationship between the children and the other parent."
MINDY.JACOBS@SUNMEDIA.CA
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Truth About Deadbeat Dads BY GLADYS POLLACK
For decades, they have been pictured as living the high life -- driving their Porsches, vacationing in exotic places -- while their former wives and their children haunt food banks and live off welfare. Branded as "deadbeat dads," they are viewed as heartless men who have simply walked away from their family responsibilities. The fact is, sure, there are some dads who fall into this category -- men who have fathered children but don't want to honour their obligations to them -- but a closer examination reveals another story.
In general, statistics indicate that between 85 to 91 percent of Canadian children covered either by private or court-ordered child-support agreements actually receive payments, the vast majority receiving regular support payments. And statistics also reveal the close association between the regularity of payment and the frequency of contact between fathers and their children.
Studies also show that many noncustodial fathers who do not pay child support simply can't afford to. Some are unemployed or on sick leave. In fact, one of the best predictors of nonpayment is the unemployment rate. Higher incomes are associated with higher compliance rates, and lower incomes with lower rates. One study suggests that a father's ability to pay, in addition to his willingness to pay, determines the extent to which he fulfills his child-support obligations.
Burdened by unrealistic court- imposed support payments, continuing legal fees, increased taxes due to changes imposed by Bill C-41 and estrangement from their children, some men find themselves caught in a downward spiral of depression and have resorted to the ultimate escape: suicide. With a divorce, funds that were unable to support one household are now expected to support two. Add to this the cost of expensive litigation, the fact that one party may be trying to use money as a means of obtaining concessions such as access or custody, and we have a recipe for disaster -- with children often caught in the maelstrom
What happens after the break-up of the family? Eighty-seven percent of children end up living solely with their mothers after a parental separation (only 7 percent live with their fathers). Only 30 percent of children report visiting their fathers every week. One quarter of children visit their fathers irregularly -- once a month or on holidays. A whopping 15 percent never see their fathers.
And what has Bill C-41 done for fathers? Under the changes to the tax treatment of child support, which came into effect on May 1, 1997, it is no longer taxable in the hands of the receiving parent and no longer deductible in the hands of the paying parent. It is worthy of note that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada rose in Parliament to speak in favour of Bill C-41, he stated that the revenue derived from ending the deduction of child-support payments would yield the federal government more than an additional $1 billion dollars over a five-year period.
Finding solutions that are in the best interests of the children was the aim of the 1998 Senate-Commons Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. Understanding that children of divorce are entitled to a close and continuing relationship with both parents, the committee recommended that the terms "custody" and "access" be stricken from the Divorce Act and a new term, "shared parenting," be incorporated. Both parents would have access to information and records regarding the child's development and social activities, such as school and medical records and other relevant information. The federal government has apparently shelved the committee's recommendations, however, in the interests of further study.
Yes, there are some deadbeats who don't care about their kids. But it's unfair and unproductive to label every father who falls behind in his support payments a "deadbeat."
In general, statistics indicate that between 85 to 91 percent of Canadian children covered either by private or court-ordered child-support agreements actually receive payments, the vast majority receiving regular support payments. And statistics also reveal the close association between the regularity of payment and the frequency of contact between fathers and their children.
Studies also show that many noncustodial fathers who do not pay child support simply can't afford to. Some are unemployed or on sick leave. In fact, one of the best predictors of nonpayment is the unemployment rate. Higher incomes are associated with higher compliance rates, and lower incomes with lower rates. One study suggests that a father's ability to pay, in addition to his willingness to pay, determines the extent to which he fulfills his child-support obligations.
Burdened by unrealistic court- imposed support payments, continuing legal fees, increased taxes due to changes imposed by Bill C-41 and estrangement from their children, some men find themselves caught in a downward spiral of depression and have resorted to the ultimate escape: suicide. With a divorce, funds that were unable to support one household are now expected to support two. Add to this the cost of expensive litigation, the fact that one party may be trying to use money as a means of obtaining concessions such as access or custody, and we have a recipe for disaster -- with children often caught in the maelstrom
What happens after the break-up of the family? Eighty-seven percent of children end up living solely with their mothers after a parental separation (only 7 percent live with their fathers). Only 30 percent of children report visiting their fathers every week. One quarter of children visit their fathers irregularly -- once a month or on holidays. A whopping 15 percent never see their fathers.
And what has Bill C-41 done for fathers? Under the changes to the tax treatment of child support, which came into effect on May 1, 1997, it is no longer taxable in the hands of the receiving parent and no longer deductible in the hands of the paying parent. It is worthy of note that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada rose in Parliament to speak in favour of Bill C-41, he stated that the revenue derived from ending the deduction of child-support payments would yield the federal government more than an additional $1 billion dollars over a five-year period.
Finding solutions that are in the best interests of the children was the aim of the 1998 Senate-Commons Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. Understanding that children of divorce are entitled to a close and continuing relationship with both parents, the committee recommended that the terms "custody" and "access" be stricken from the Divorce Act and a new term, "shared parenting," be incorporated. Both parents would have access to information and records regarding the child's development and social activities, such as school and medical records and other relevant information. The federal government has apparently shelved the committee's recommendations, however, in the interests of further study.
Yes, there are some deadbeats who don't care about their kids. But it's unfair and unproductive to label every father who falls behind in his support payments a "deadbeat."
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Fatherless America: America No Longer Viable
Fatherless America: America No Longer Viable
THE NEW ADVOCATES FOR MARRIAGE
Maggie Gallagher
Copyright 2004
This Father's Day, some 24 million American children will sleep in fatherless homes. So this Sunday, if you were lucky enough to know the love of a father, thank him. Oh, and if your kids wake up Sunday morning in the home of a loving father, thank your husband.
The marriage crisis that is producing fatherless homes is becoming so intense that anyone who cares about children or communities can't ignore it. Hear, for example, the extraordinary remarks by Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., at a recent Brookings Institution conference on marriage and the black church. Calling attention to the low rates of marriage among African Americans, Norton warned:
"My friends, we are seeing a sea change in African-American life. It cannot continue or we will not continue as a viable people. I just want to put it as starkly as I can. We've got to get the attention of our community and our country. It is impossible to overestimate what has happened to our community in only a single generation or two and what might then happen in my son's generation if it continues at this pace."
She said it. I didn't. When the marriage idea becomes weak enough, the very idea of perpetuating ourselves as a people is called into question.
The problem, according to Norton, is a catastrophic lack of marriageable men. Men with jobs. Faithful men. Family men. The problem is how do we produce such men?
Policy analysts will and should weigh proposals about how to boost the earning power of poor husbands and fathers. But in his new book, "Soft Patriarchs, New Men" (University of Chicago Press), Brad Wilcox, a rising star in the sociology of religion, lays out a different part of the answer. Religion makes men better husbands and fathers.
He finds that "churchgoing family men -- especially conservative Protestant family men -- are more progressive than their peers: They spend more time with their children; they are more likely to hug and praise their children; their wives report higher levels of satisfaction with the appreciation, affection and understanding they receive from their husbands, and they spend more time socializing with their wives." They also have the lowest rates of domestic violence toward their wives than any other group.
Why? One reason is that, in its fight with modernity, conservative Protestantism has invested the roles of husband and father with unusual moral and religious importance: Men are supposed to model for their children the love of God, for their wives, the love of Jesus Christ. Men who recognize a critical "masculine" role in family life are probably freer to enter into stereotypically "feminine" realms, such as emotionally expressive family life. If you want to turn men into good family men, you have to tell them that men matter to women and children.
As Arlie Hochschild pointed out in "The Second Shift": "When couples struggle, it is seldom over who does what. Far more often, it is over the giving and receiving of gratitude." The struggle for marriage in the contemporary context is the struggle to cultivate gratitude between men and women.
Wilcox's data suggest the black church may have a unique role to play in creating and transmitting a marriage culture to the next generation, and that part of this task is sustaining an image of manliness that supports rather than undercuts women's desires and children's needs.
"There is no marriage movement yet," Eleanor Holmes Norton said, speaking of the black church. "But we've got to make a movement.... Somebody has to speak up for marriage. ... We must do it in the name of the black family, but we must do it, first and foremost, for our own children." For all our children.
(Readers may reach Maggie Gallagher at MaggieBox2004@yahoo.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2004 MAGGIE GALLAGHER
THE NEW ADVOCATES FOR MARRIAGE
Maggie Gallagher
Copyright 2004
This Father's Day, some 24 million American children will sleep in fatherless homes. So this Sunday, if you were lucky enough to know the love of a father, thank him. Oh, and if your kids wake up Sunday morning in the home of a loving father, thank your husband.
The marriage crisis that is producing fatherless homes is becoming so intense that anyone who cares about children or communities can't ignore it. Hear, for example, the extraordinary remarks by Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., at a recent Brookings Institution conference on marriage and the black church. Calling attention to the low rates of marriage among African Americans, Norton warned:
"My friends, we are seeing a sea change in African-American life. It cannot continue or we will not continue as a viable people. I just want to put it as starkly as I can. We've got to get the attention of our community and our country. It is impossible to overestimate what has happened to our community in only a single generation or two and what might then happen in my son's generation if it continues at this pace."
She said it. I didn't. When the marriage idea becomes weak enough, the very idea of perpetuating ourselves as a people is called into question.
The problem, according to Norton, is a catastrophic lack of marriageable men. Men with jobs. Faithful men. Family men. The problem is how do we produce such men?
Policy analysts will and should weigh proposals about how to boost the earning power of poor husbands and fathers. But in his new book, "Soft Patriarchs, New Men" (University of Chicago Press), Brad Wilcox, a rising star in the sociology of religion, lays out a different part of the answer. Religion makes men better husbands and fathers.
He finds that "churchgoing family men -- especially conservative Protestant family men -- are more progressive than their peers: They spend more time with their children; they are more likely to hug and praise their children; their wives report higher levels of satisfaction with the appreciation, affection and understanding they receive from their husbands, and they spend more time socializing with their wives." They also have the lowest rates of domestic violence toward their wives than any other group.
Why? One reason is that, in its fight with modernity, conservative Protestantism has invested the roles of husband and father with unusual moral and religious importance: Men are supposed to model for their children the love of God, for their wives, the love of Jesus Christ. Men who recognize a critical "masculine" role in family life are probably freer to enter into stereotypically "feminine" realms, such as emotionally expressive family life. If you want to turn men into good family men, you have to tell them that men matter to women and children.
As Arlie Hochschild pointed out in "The Second Shift": "When couples struggle, it is seldom over who does what. Far more often, it is over the giving and receiving of gratitude." The struggle for marriage in the contemporary context is the struggle to cultivate gratitude between men and women.
Wilcox's data suggest the black church may have a unique role to play in creating and transmitting a marriage culture to the next generation, and that part of this task is sustaining an image of manliness that supports rather than undercuts women's desires and children's needs.
"There is no marriage movement yet," Eleanor Holmes Norton said, speaking of the black church. "But we've got to make a movement.... Somebody has to speak up for marriage. ... We must do it in the name of the black family, but we must do it, first and foremost, for our own children." For all our children.
(Readers may reach Maggie Gallagher at MaggieBox2004@yahoo.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2004 MAGGIE GALLAGHER
Friday, May 29, 2009
Fatimah Ali: 'Deadbeat Dads' an insult to reality
By Fatimah Ali
Philadelphia Daily News
Tuesday, May. 26, 2009
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/television/20090526_Fatimah_Ali___Deadbeat_Dads__an_insult_to_reality.html
JUST WHEN I thought TV couldn't sink any lower with some of its toxic programming, yet another new reality show is poised to hit the lineup - "Deadbeat Dads" on Lifetime.
The show targets fathers who refuse to pay child support, and features businessman Jim Durham's collection agency, called National Child Support.
My first "primal thought" was darn, they got here 15 years too late to help me. But my more spiritually evolved side knows better, and I realize those evil thoughts are just wrong. Durham and the Lifetime producers who created the show are the ones who should be flogged - for using the woes of single mothers and their children to boost ratings.
Unfortunately, my evil twin rears her ugly head from time to time, and recaps the unpleasant memories of what it was like not getting child support from my ex-husband. When I was a single mother, he accrued more than $150,000 in unpaid court-ordered child support, which kept me in a tizzy for years.
He made enough money, yet he neglected his obligations because he was angry at me, not because he didn't love our kids.
Despite the fact that I worked two jobs, my children and I were always struggling without his contribution. But I was a wimp and never petitioned the courts to issue an arrest warrant for his blatant disregard of our children's needs. His sudden demise made the judge's order moot. It can be almost impossible to collect back support from a dead man with a tangled-up life.
While he was still alive, the reasons I didn't want him imprisoned were simple, as well as selfish. I didn't want to have to take our children to visit him in jail because I knew it would be traumatic. But mostly I realized that having him arrested would prevent him from working and put yet another stigma on our already challenged life.
Two decades later, I still feel just as strongly that throwing deadbeat parents in jail is a stupid idea. And it definitely shouldn't be televised. This only causes. more problems in a child's life. The residual effects that deadbeat parents have on kids are way deeper than the unpaid money and leave deep psychological scars.
While researching the effects absentee fathers have on their offspring, I came across a publication called "The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man, the Annual Public Costs of Father Absence." Written by professors Stephen Nock and Christopher Einolf, of the University of Virginia and St. Paul University, respectively, their research shows that fatherless households cost U.S. taxpayers $98.9 billion a year. But this is just the tip of the iceberg of the many problems that female-headed households face.
Their findings also show that children of single parents are more likely to do poorly in school and drop out of college and are at greater risk of being incarcerated or on drugs than children who have both parents in the home.
Just a year ago, President Obama caught flak for telling black fathers to take more responsibility for their children during a speech at a Chicago church. With Father's Day just around the corner, I anticipate that his message this year will have a much wider reach than just for African-Americans.
The issue of absentee fathers isn't just a black problem, it's now an American one. And it touches nearly every community and crosses all racial and socio-economic barriers. I also think many women must share some of the blame for deciding that we can go it alone. Ladies, we've screwed up royally and our children are suffering because of it.
Feminists will probably jump all over me, but here's the real deal.
Many of us joined the women's movement decades ago without looking ahead to see what repercussions our actions would have on both our families and the economy. Now, most of us have to work, which leaves our husbands and children angry because no one is at home tending the hearth.
Our choice to be independent of men financially and of the family structure creates a wide range of problems in our children. And many men feel displaced and angry now because women are competing with them at work.
Far too many women are willing to go it alone and risk poverty and instability for shallow reasons of "self-empowerment" rather than trying to work out their marital challenges. Families need both parents in the household - not just economically but also spiritually and morally.
The whole idea of a "Deadbeat Dads" show is ludicrous. The creators are using the program to exploit what is really a much larger social problem - America's broken families. *
Fatimah Ali is a journalist, media consultant and an associate member of the Daily News editorial board.
Philadelphia Daily News
Tuesday, May. 26, 2009
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/television/20090526_Fatimah_Ali___Deadbeat_Dads__an_insult_to_reality.html
JUST WHEN I thought TV couldn't sink any lower with some of its toxic programming, yet another new reality show is poised to hit the lineup - "Deadbeat Dads" on Lifetime.
The show targets fathers who refuse to pay child support, and features businessman Jim Durham's collection agency, called National Child Support.
My first "primal thought" was darn, they got here 15 years too late to help me. But my more spiritually evolved side knows better, and I realize those evil thoughts are just wrong. Durham and the Lifetime producers who created the show are the ones who should be flogged - for using the woes of single mothers and their children to boost ratings.
Unfortunately, my evil twin rears her ugly head from time to time, and recaps the unpleasant memories of what it was like not getting child support from my ex-husband. When I was a single mother, he accrued more than $150,000 in unpaid court-ordered child support, which kept me in a tizzy for years.
He made enough money, yet he neglected his obligations because he was angry at me, not because he didn't love our kids.
Despite the fact that I worked two jobs, my children and I were always struggling without his contribution. But I was a wimp and never petitioned the courts to issue an arrest warrant for his blatant disregard of our children's needs. His sudden demise made the judge's order moot. It can be almost impossible to collect back support from a dead man with a tangled-up life.
While he was still alive, the reasons I didn't want him imprisoned were simple, as well as selfish. I didn't want to have to take our children to visit him in jail because I knew it would be traumatic. But mostly I realized that having him arrested would prevent him from working and put yet another stigma on our already challenged life.
Two decades later, I still feel just as strongly that throwing deadbeat parents in jail is a stupid idea. And it definitely shouldn't be televised. This only causes. more problems in a child's life. The residual effects that deadbeat parents have on kids are way deeper than the unpaid money and leave deep psychological scars.
While researching the effects absentee fathers have on their offspring, I came across a publication called "The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man, the Annual Public Costs of Father Absence." Written by professors Stephen Nock and Christopher Einolf, of the University of Virginia and St. Paul University, respectively, their research shows that fatherless households cost U.S. taxpayers $98.9 billion a year. But this is just the tip of the iceberg of the many problems that female-headed households face.
Their findings also show that children of single parents are more likely to do poorly in school and drop out of college and are at greater risk of being incarcerated or on drugs than children who have both parents in the home.
Just a year ago, President Obama caught flak for telling black fathers to take more responsibility for their children during a speech at a Chicago church. With Father's Day just around the corner, I anticipate that his message this year will have a much wider reach than just for African-Americans.
The issue of absentee fathers isn't just a black problem, it's now an American one. And it touches nearly every community and crosses all racial and socio-economic barriers. I also think many women must share some of the blame for deciding that we can go it alone. Ladies, we've screwed up royally and our children are suffering because of it.
Feminists will probably jump all over me, but here's the real deal.
Many of us joined the women's movement decades ago without looking ahead to see what repercussions our actions would have on both our families and the economy. Now, most of us have to work, which leaves our husbands and children angry because no one is at home tending the hearth.
Our choice to be independent of men financially and of the family structure creates a wide range of problems in our children. And many men feel displaced and angry now because women are competing with them at work.
Far too many women are willing to go it alone and risk poverty and instability for shallow reasons of "self-empowerment" rather than trying to work out their marital challenges. Families need both parents in the household - not just economically but also spiritually and morally.
The whole idea of a "Deadbeat Dads" show is ludicrous. The creators are using the program to exploit what is really a much larger social problem - America's broken families. *
Fatimah Ali is a journalist, media consultant and an associate member of the Daily News editorial board.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Being Dad
A long time about 10 years ago to be exact, there was no advocating for children's rights to have both parents in their lives for me, no meeting with politician's I was just was Dad. Playing catch with my son with buddies of mine in front of my house or singing poorly with my daughter to butterfly kisses. Today in someways I am still a very lucky Dad. My son even though some day's I wonder if common sense will enter into his knowledge base will ever happen or will he succeed in life still love him as much as the day he entered the world. I guess that is what it is to be a parent. Then we turn to my second child the little girl that I would sing off key to butterfly kisses with or go to the dollar store and because at the time she loved moon and stars took 3 days to put glow in the dark stars and moons on her ceiling so she would sleep better at night. That is how I got into this deep dark hole called " Equal Parenting". You would think at first glance it makes perfect sense and why wouldn't it be the first thing over sole custody's and parental alienation. The thing is in over two years I have seen her once. The first thing I would hear from people is well you have "joint custody" and are a good father then why is this happening. The reason is a very simple one and came from my own little girls mouth" If I go against them then I will lose them and daddy your strong and can handle it, I can't go back to them fighting with you". Then see the tears falling down her face as she said that to me and I trying to be tough and fight back my own tears. I looked at her this person which in my mind was not the almost 14 year old she had become looked at her and said " I am always here for you boo bear any time day or night". I had to once again sit there and go alright why would someone at one point in my life was loved could do such an evil thing. To take a child's mind and make them so scared of losing them if they had a relationship with their other parent. Then I remember the times in previous years I had gone back to court and a Justice say " you have time with your child" and for a week or two to pass and then the court order broken and once again wait six to seven months to get back in so I could once again repair a lost relationship with my daughter. I still today even while writing this shake my head and wonder how someone could stoop so low as to destroy a parent and child relationship or legally even have that ability. To always be that outsider to your child's life almost sneaking behind the scenes to see how well she is doing in school or be that stranger in the background watching them receive an award. I bet as people read this can relate in someway as a friend or relative of someone they have heard this happen too. If a child dies you have that ability to mourn that loss even as hard as it is to say goodbye to that person you loved so deeply. In today's regiment of Divorce and Custody they force you to either do that to someone that is alive and well as a non-custodial parent male or female. This weekend gone by, the little organization I founded 10 years ago because of my own situation, had the ability to sit down with the Mayor and Jane Brekenridge from the department of Social Development in quite an engaging discussion along with the members of the organization. The topic came up from the Mayor what about grandparents even of those that are still married that one decides that the other's family should be alienated. I could see in the eye's of the gentleman that came with him eye's that this was hitting home. It shows me one direct certainty that we live in a very immature society where family is last on people's minds and people's own vindictive agenda's can be brought forward with no form of punishment for the devious actions. The people that make our polices and Judiciary of our province and country hopefully take that minute out to read this and feel the pain they are causing men,women and children by not addressing this issue. The great thing is here in New Brunswick they are finally taking the initiative in the governmental levels. Hopefully the judiciary in our province are listening also to the polls that 80% of our country want to see "Equal Parenting" happen. The only suggestion I can give to the young men and women this father's day is that; the good parents in the up coming society make sure the person you pick to share your life with and become a parent with is a very sound and stable person. That you can trust them with more than your disposable items that can be replaced at a local store; your children, as the present laws and legislations that are in place will not protect them or you from being the next call we get asking advice on what just happened.
Steps to better bonding with dad
It's mostly about attention, time
By Jim Gibson, Times Colonist
May25, 2009
Bonding comes easier to moms than dads. After all, moms have a nine-month head start at connecting with their child.
While most fathers over time develop solid relationships with their kids, there are ways to strengthen the connection, according to social worker John Dietrich with the Professionals in Crisis program at Houston's Menninger Clinic.
Many dads are so into their careers that they are just not present even when spending time with their kids, he said. "Kids pick up on that at an early age. They know when you are not listening or when you are distracted."
Dietrich offers the following to strengthen the bond between fathers and their children:
1. Schedule time with the kids. "If something does come up, let it wait. Make your kids the priority."
2. Get rid of the distractions. "Turn off [wireless] gadgets and turn your attention to your kids."
3. Focus on the moment. "If you find your mind wandering while spending time with the kids, steer your attention back to the moment at hand."
4. Validate your child's needs. Things that seem unimportant to a parent could have great importance in the mind of a child.
5. Show your emotions. Touch is important. "While words can be powerful, combining 'I love you' with a hug can make a huge impact."
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
By Jim Gibson, Times Colonist
May25, 2009
Bonding comes easier to moms than dads. After all, moms have a nine-month head start at connecting with their child.
While most fathers over time develop solid relationships with their kids, there are ways to strengthen the connection, according to social worker John Dietrich with the Professionals in Crisis program at Houston's Menninger Clinic.
Many dads are so into their careers that they are just not present even when spending time with their kids, he said. "Kids pick up on that at an early age. They know when you are not listening or when you are distracted."
Dietrich offers the following to strengthen the bond between fathers and their children:
1. Schedule time with the kids. "If something does come up, let it wait. Make your kids the priority."
2. Get rid of the distractions. "Turn off [wireless] gadgets and turn your attention to your kids."
3. Focus on the moment. "If you find your mind wandering while spending time with the kids, steer your attention back to the moment at hand."
4. Validate your child's needs. Things that seem unimportant to a parent could have great importance in the mind of a child.
5. Show your emotions. Touch is important. "While words can be powerful, combining 'I love you' with a hug can make a huge impact."
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
Juggling work and family tough for dads too
By Solarina Ho, Reuters
May 25, 2009
With Father's Day fast approaching, many dads admit they are struggling with how to juggle long days at the office and quality time with their family.
A fifth of the 248 Canadian fathers questioned in a recent survey said time away from home because of work is their biggest concern because they may miss important family events.
"I think it's tough for all working parents... Trying to juggle is a difficult task," said Patrick Sullivan, president of job site Workopolis.com, which conducted the poll.
With Father's Day fast approaching, many dads admit they are struggling with how to juggle long days at the office and quality time with their family.
Fifteen percent were concerned about finding time for chores, while 11 percent worried about being unable to turn off work at home.
Sixteen percent of fathers in families with an income of over $100,000 said they had difficulty letting go of work at the end of the day. Many fathers also said they felt it was difficult getting parental leave or time off.
Despite the struggles, 40 percent of working dads still claim the family-work balance is manageable, a sharp contrast to the five percent of women who could say the same in a 2007 survey of mothers.
Fathers in Quebec claimed to be the most in control, with more than half of those surveyed citing no challenges. Only three percent said time away from family was an issue. Western dads seemed more in tune with mothers, with nearly a quarter agreeing that finding time for chores was the biggest issue.
About a third of dads took their own fathers' counsel about careers to heart and are happy with the outcome, while another 18 percent chose not to listen.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
May 25, 2009
With Father's Day fast approaching, many dads admit they are struggling with how to juggle long days at the office and quality time with their family.
A fifth of the 248 Canadian fathers questioned in a recent survey said time away from home because of work is their biggest concern because they may miss important family events.
"I think it's tough for all working parents... Trying to juggle is a difficult task," said Patrick Sullivan, president of job site Workopolis.com, which conducted the poll.
With Father's Day fast approaching, many dads admit they are struggling with how to juggle long days at the office and quality time with their family.
Fifteen percent were concerned about finding time for chores, while 11 percent worried about being unable to turn off work at home.
Sixteen percent of fathers in families with an income of over $100,000 said they had difficulty letting go of work at the end of the day. Many fathers also said they felt it was difficult getting parental leave or time off.
Despite the struggles, 40 percent of working dads still claim the family-work balance is manageable, a sharp contrast to the five percent of women who could say the same in a 2007 survey of mothers.
Fathers in Quebec claimed to be the most in control, with more than half of those surveyed citing no challenges. Only three percent said time away from family was an issue. Western dads seemed more in tune with mothers, with nearly a quarter agreeing that finding time for chores was the biggest issue.
About a third of dads took their own fathers' counsel about careers to heart and are happy with the outcome, while another 18 percent chose not to listen.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Formula from Hell
A divorced dad uncovers a deliberate policy to drive separated parents further apart
by Candis McLean
TORONTO geologist Alar Soever was going through a divorce early in 1996 when he first encountered the Federal Child Support Guidelines which recommend amounts non-custodial parents should pay for child support. "My lawyer couldn't tell me how the figures were arrived at," he recalls, "so I contacted the federal Department of Justice which said that the document to explain the formula would be published in the fall of 1996. That made sense, since Parliament was going to debate the guidelines that winter." Mr. Soever then telephoned every two months, but the guidelines were never "ready." The controversial guidelines were passed by Parliament in February 1997 and came into effect two months later. The research report (CSR-1997-1E) which explained the formula was not released until 14 months after Parliament's decision.
Mr. Soever is a methodical man, and was intrigued by a number of issues, including how regulations affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of divorcing parents could have passed without any public documentation as to how the guideline amounts were calculated. To find out, he undertook four years of investigations. On April 5 he released his findings to an Ottawa forum, Toward Shared Parenting, co-sponsored by the Family Forum of Ottawa and the National Alliance Advocating for the Needs of Children and Parents. His 31-page document was titled "The Federal Child Support Guidelines: A Breakdown of Democratic Process and the Canadian Legal system." According to B.C. resident Ross Bailey who attended the meeting, "Alar's paper has the whole non-custodial and grandparenting community across the country buzzing because they knew something was wrong with the guideline formula, but needed someone to tell them how it was wrong."
That community may buzz even louder with the news that last week, among materials obtained by Liberal MP Roger Gallaway through the Freedom of Information Act, Mr. Soever finally found an explanation of the guidelines which had been prepared in the fall of 1996. He believes the explanation was repressed because it gives examples of the financial consequences of the guidelines, "transparently indicating how unfair the formula is" (see story below). One of those to whom he revealed the document compared the situation to the "tainted-blood scandal," in which the government's suppression of information caused irreparable damage: "By not telling the judiciary what the formulas really meant, they caused serious harm which has included driving people into bankruptcy and even suicide."
As a geologist, Mr. Soever examines mineral reserves to separate the truth from self-serving hype, checking assumptions, formulas and calculations. "When I examined the guidelines," he says, "I realized it was like the Bre-X scandal, complete with flawed assumptions and skewed calculations. It was driven by psychology, with everyone thinking it was child support so it must be good, but it's actually promoting custody battles and hurting children. The bottom line? No one appeared to have done the due diligence on the underlying formula." He ended with a stunning question: "How is it that in a democracy we can have guidelines which contravene the Divorce Act, are based on a largely unknown, admittedly deficient formula, and are derived from undisclosed policy decisions that promote the loss of substantial contact with one parent?"
What Mr. Soever learned is that the guidelines as implemented contain not only child support but spousal support (which contravenes the Divorce Act), and overestimate expenditures on children for the custodial parent while underestimating them for non-custodial parents. That conclusion is also reached by University of Calgary sociology PhD student Paul Millar (www.canadianfamilyresearch.org), in research to be published in the June edition of the peer-reviewed academic journal, the Canadian Journal of Law and Society.
The formula used to generate the guidelines, Mr. Soever learned, makes two key assumption in all cases, whether valid or not:
1. The paying parent is always assumed to have the expenses of a single adult (i.e., no parenting expenses); and
2. The incomes of the paying and receiving parent are assumed to be equivalent.
In those cases where these assumptions match reality, the model does meet its objectives: equal standards of living and a sharing of expenses between the two parents. In practice, however, the amount of time that the non-custodial parent has custody of the child can range up to 40% (when over 40%, the guidelines do not apply). Among parents with average incomes, if the paying parent spends no time with the children and thus has no expenses, his standard of living tends to be 16% higher than the receiver's. If, however, the paying parent is an involved one, he or she has expenses--often almost as high as the other parent's. Yet the guidelines deny recognition of this. In fact, Mr. Soever has determined, if the parents have average incomes, once custody exceeds 5% (roughly one night every two weeks), the noncustodial parent and the children when they are with him are penalized with a lower standard of living than in their other home. Once custody approaches 40%, the standard of living in that home is almost 30% lower than in the other home, and barely above the poverty line.
In other words, concludes Mr. Soever, the more time children spend with their divorced non-custodial father, the poorer he gets and the more difficult and impoverished their time together. "The guidelines," he says, "offer clear and powerful financial disincentives to joint parenting by penalizing those payor parents with substantial custody. Most perversely, parents who abandon their children are actually rewarded with a higher standard of living than the children they abandoned."
A further by-product of the guidelines, the researcher says, is that they encourage custody battles as parents strive for the magical 40% threshold, and the benefit to the custodial parent is lost. Mr. Soever knows of one case where a wife was prepared to allow her ex-husband joint custody and about 38% residence time with the children, but not the 50% he desired. This led to protracted mediation and negotiations. The father suspected the guidelines' magical 40% threshold was the root of the problem. To test his theory, the father asked if the children might occasionally have lunch at home with him on Fridays. "Obviously, a hot lunch at home with a parent was preferable to brown-bagging it in a crowded cafeteria," he says. "This, however, would have put him over the magical 40%. It was not really a surprise when the mother's lawyer responded, 'My client is absolutely not agreeable to your suggestion with respect to the children having lunches.' The mother was prepared to fight a costly custody battle just to retain the 40% threshold. Could there be any more blatant example of the insidious nature of these guidelines?"
Ottawa economist Ross Finnie, now an adjunct professor with the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University in Kingston, was one of the developers of the guidelines, but has since published critical articles in the Ottawa Citizen: "A dubious 'victory' for divorced families" and "Federal proposal may worsen custody, payment programs," as well as a paper, "Good Idea, Bad Execution: The Government's Child Support Package" (caledon@caledoninst.org).
Mr. Finnie believes the underlying guidelines are fair, but objects to the custodial parent receiving all the tax credits. His major criticism, however, is the same as Mr. Soever's. The 40% threshold with no allowance for expenses, he says, "came out of the air with no real explanation. It came from within the Justice Department. Some people were top-notch, working with technically difficult concepts such as 'What does a child cost?' and just wanting to do the right thing, but that was not uniformly the case. I suspect someone said, 'How can we ratchet up these awards a little bit?' Let's just say," he smiles enigmatically, "it ended messily between myself and the Justice Department."
The secret document
THIS says it all!" exulted Toronto geologist Alar Soever at last month's discovery of a 31-page document obtained under a Freedom of Information request. "It is a detailed financial analysis of the Federal Child Support Guidelines showing how impoverished the paying parent would be and the inherent inequities in the model."
Titled "Detailing the Components of the Canadian Child Support Formula, 1997 Edition," labelled draft #6 and dated November 15, 1996, what makes it so different from the guidelines which, pared down to nine pages, were eventually made public, is its level of detail, as well as an appendix of case examples. "This is the comprehensive explanation of the guidelines that Parliament and the Canadian public deserved at the time they were debating and passing this legislation in the fall of 1996," declares Mr. Soever (dadalar@aol.com).
Spokesmen for the Justice Department, however, deny that the document was suppressed, saying it was merely delayed while being fine-tuned for the public. "We struggled mightily with the level of technicality and decided to cut it down to make it short and succinct. If we gave examples, it was too long," attests senior researcher Jim Sturrock, one of the developers of the guidelines. Senior council Lise Lafreniere Henrie adds that MPs had briefing notes while making their decision on the guidelines, but they were not public documents. "It was advice to the ministers, so it was confidential...However, we published a set of tables and in January 1995 we published an overview illustrated in a more simplistic way, so information was out there."
In the newly discovered draft, a theoretical case is given in which both parents live in Newfoundland, the two children live full-time with the custodial parent and each parent earns $25,000. Utilizing the formula, the document then indicates that the "after-tax, after [child-support] award" income for the custodial parent is $27,369, while the non-custodial parent's income is slashed to almost one-half that, at $14,489. Of the total expenditures on children, $4,435 is paid by the non-custodial parent, while only $2,825 is paid by the custodial parent. "This is without even considering any direct expenditures made by the non-custodial parent during his or her time with the children," points out Mr. Soever.
When the non-custodial parent earns $1,000 more (i.e., $26,000), while the income of the custodial parent remains unchanged at $25,000, the child-support award increases by $170 per year. The actual income of both parents rise: the custodial parent's to $27,539, the non-custodial parent's to $14,983, but while the non-custodial parent now pays $170 more of the children's expenses than before (at $4,605), the custodial parent actually pays $100 less than before. Of the $170 increase in child support, only $70 goes to "direct expenditures on the children," while $100 is directed to the "personal (for parent) disposable income."
So why is an apparent "spousal support" built into the child support in the new formula? Justice officials say it is simply mislabelled and should have been called "household income." Mr. Soever says, "The fact that the larger proportion of the child-support award is going to the receiving parent is perhaps inevitable, but very few people grasp the concept, and that's because it was never made clear when it was passed that the formula was a simple household standard-of-living equalization formula. Even two years after the guidelines were passed, the Supreme Court of Canada still didn't seem to grasp it," he says, pointing to the April 27, 1999, judgment in Francis v. Baker:
"However, even though the guidelines have their own stated objectives, they have not displaced the Divorce Act, which clearly dictates that maintenance of the children, rather than household equalization or spousal support, is the objective of child-support payments." According to Mr. Soever, "Either the justices didn't know the very basis of the guidelines was a household-equalization formula, or they have ruled that the manner in which the guidelines are constructed contravenes the Divorce Act."
Contends Mr. Soever, "In these case examples, the standard of living of the paying parent is already much lower than that of the receiver, despite using the guidelines' assumption that the household of the paying parent has only a single person and no direct expenditures on the children. In reality, one must remember that the children might be living with the paying parent up to 40% of the time and in that case, his or her direct expenditures on the children would only be marginally less than those of the receiving parent. Clearly being left with a disposable income half that of the receiving parent, the paying parent would not be in a position to provide a comparable standard of living for the children while they are with him.
"This November 1996 draft report with its case examples exposes the deficiencies in the child-support formula. Had it been published in the fall of 1996, as promised earlier, I do not believe the guidelines would have made it through Parliament in their present form. This, I believe, explains why the formula was not published in the fall of 1996.
"In all subsequent drafts, the detailed financial analysis and all the examples which exposed the true financial hardship inflicted by the Guidelines were deleted, so unless you do the detailed analysis yourself--which takes some time and knowledge--you cannot appreciate how it affects families and children. It took the Justice Department 18 months to remove the examples and financial analysis and edit this 31-page draft document down to nine pages which say far less about the nature of the Guidelines than the original. The fact that it has now been revealed that there was a comprehensive draft ready in November 1996 raises serious questions as to why the release of this document was delayed in an open and democratic society."
by Candis McLean
TORONTO geologist Alar Soever was going through a divorce early in 1996 when he first encountered the Federal Child Support Guidelines which recommend amounts non-custodial parents should pay for child support. "My lawyer couldn't tell me how the figures were arrived at," he recalls, "so I contacted the federal Department of Justice which said that the document to explain the formula would be published in the fall of 1996. That made sense, since Parliament was going to debate the guidelines that winter." Mr. Soever then telephoned every two months, but the guidelines were never "ready." The controversial guidelines were passed by Parliament in February 1997 and came into effect two months later. The research report (CSR-1997-1E) which explained the formula was not released until 14 months after Parliament's decision.
Mr. Soever is a methodical man, and was intrigued by a number of issues, including how regulations affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of divorcing parents could have passed without any public documentation as to how the guideline amounts were calculated. To find out, he undertook four years of investigations. On April 5 he released his findings to an Ottawa forum, Toward Shared Parenting, co-sponsored by the Family Forum of Ottawa and the National Alliance Advocating for the Needs of Children and Parents. His 31-page document was titled "The Federal Child Support Guidelines: A Breakdown of Democratic Process and the Canadian Legal system." According to B.C. resident Ross Bailey who attended the meeting, "Alar's paper has the whole non-custodial and grandparenting community across the country buzzing because they knew something was wrong with the guideline formula, but needed someone to tell them how it was wrong."
That community may buzz even louder with the news that last week, among materials obtained by Liberal MP Roger Gallaway through the Freedom of Information Act, Mr. Soever finally found an explanation of the guidelines which had been prepared in the fall of 1996. He believes the explanation was repressed because it gives examples of the financial consequences of the guidelines, "transparently indicating how unfair the formula is" (see story below). One of those to whom he revealed the document compared the situation to the "tainted-blood scandal," in which the government's suppression of information caused irreparable damage: "By not telling the judiciary what the formulas really meant, they caused serious harm which has included driving people into bankruptcy and even suicide."
As a geologist, Mr. Soever examines mineral reserves to separate the truth from self-serving hype, checking assumptions, formulas and calculations. "When I examined the guidelines," he says, "I realized it was like the Bre-X scandal, complete with flawed assumptions and skewed calculations. It was driven by psychology, with everyone thinking it was child support so it must be good, but it's actually promoting custody battles and hurting children. The bottom line? No one appeared to have done the due diligence on the underlying formula." He ended with a stunning question: "How is it that in a democracy we can have guidelines which contravene the Divorce Act, are based on a largely unknown, admittedly deficient formula, and are derived from undisclosed policy decisions that promote the loss of substantial contact with one parent?"
What Mr. Soever learned is that the guidelines as implemented contain not only child support but spousal support (which contravenes the Divorce Act), and overestimate expenditures on children for the custodial parent while underestimating them for non-custodial parents. That conclusion is also reached by University of Calgary sociology PhD student Paul Millar (www.canadianfamilyresearch.org), in research to be published in the June edition of the peer-reviewed academic journal, the Canadian Journal of Law and Society.
The formula used to generate the guidelines, Mr. Soever learned, makes two key assumption in all cases, whether valid or not:
1. The paying parent is always assumed to have the expenses of a single adult (i.e., no parenting expenses); and
2. The incomes of the paying and receiving parent are assumed to be equivalent.
In those cases where these assumptions match reality, the model does meet its objectives: equal standards of living and a sharing of expenses between the two parents. In practice, however, the amount of time that the non-custodial parent has custody of the child can range up to 40% (when over 40%, the guidelines do not apply). Among parents with average incomes, if the paying parent spends no time with the children and thus has no expenses, his standard of living tends to be 16% higher than the receiver's. If, however, the paying parent is an involved one, he or she has expenses--often almost as high as the other parent's. Yet the guidelines deny recognition of this. In fact, Mr. Soever has determined, if the parents have average incomes, once custody exceeds 5% (roughly one night every two weeks), the noncustodial parent and the children when they are with him are penalized with a lower standard of living than in their other home. Once custody approaches 40%, the standard of living in that home is almost 30% lower than in the other home, and barely above the poverty line.
In other words, concludes Mr. Soever, the more time children spend with their divorced non-custodial father, the poorer he gets and the more difficult and impoverished their time together. "The guidelines," he says, "offer clear and powerful financial disincentives to joint parenting by penalizing those payor parents with substantial custody. Most perversely, parents who abandon their children are actually rewarded with a higher standard of living than the children they abandoned."
A further by-product of the guidelines, the researcher says, is that they encourage custody battles as parents strive for the magical 40% threshold, and the benefit to the custodial parent is lost. Mr. Soever knows of one case where a wife was prepared to allow her ex-husband joint custody and about 38% residence time with the children, but not the 50% he desired. This led to protracted mediation and negotiations. The father suspected the guidelines' magical 40% threshold was the root of the problem. To test his theory, the father asked if the children might occasionally have lunch at home with him on Fridays. "Obviously, a hot lunch at home with a parent was preferable to brown-bagging it in a crowded cafeteria," he says. "This, however, would have put him over the magical 40%. It was not really a surprise when the mother's lawyer responded, 'My client is absolutely not agreeable to your suggestion with respect to the children having lunches.' The mother was prepared to fight a costly custody battle just to retain the 40% threshold. Could there be any more blatant example of the insidious nature of these guidelines?"
Ottawa economist Ross Finnie, now an adjunct professor with the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University in Kingston, was one of the developers of the guidelines, but has since published critical articles in the Ottawa Citizen: "A dubious 'victory' for divorced families" and "Federal proposal may worsen custody, payment programs," as well as a paper, "Good Idea, Bad Execution: The Government's Child Support Package" (caledon@caledoninst.org).
Mr. Finnie believes the underlying guidelines are fair, but objects to the custodial parent receiving all the tax credits. His major criticism, however, is the same as Mr. Soever's. The 40% threshold with no allowance for expenses, he says, "came out of the air with no real explanation. It came from within the Justice Department. Some people were top-notch, working with technically difficult concepts such as 'What does a child cost?' and just wanting to do the right thing, but that was not uniformly the case. I suspect someone said, 'How can we ratchet up these awards a little bit?' Let's just say," he smiles enigmatically, "it ended messily between myself and the Justice Department."
The secret document
THIS says it all!" exulted Toronto geologist Alar Soever at last month's discovery of a 31-page document obtained under a Freedom of Information request. "It is a detailed financial analysis of the Federal Child Support Guidelines showing how impoverished the paying parent would be and the inherent inequities in the model."
Titled "Detailing the Components of the Canadian Child Support Formula, 1997 Edition," labelled draft #6 and dated November 15, 1996, what makes it so different from the guidelines which, pared down to nine pages, were eventually made public, is its level of detail, as well as an appendix of case examples. "This is the comprehensive explanation of the guidelines that Parliament and the Canadian public deserved at the time they were debating and passing this legislation in the fall of 1996," declares Mr. Soever (dadalar@aol.com).
Spokesmen for the Justice Department, however, deny that the document was suppressed, saying it was merely delayed while being fine-tuned for the public. "We struggled mightily with the level of technicality and decided to cut it down to make it short and succinct. If we gave examples, it was too long," attests senior researcher Jim Sturrock, one of the developers of the guidelines. Senior council Lise Lafreniere Henrie adds that MPs had briefing notes while making their decision on the guidelines, but they were not public documents. "It was advice to the ministers, so it was confidential...However, we published a set of tables and in January 1995 we published an overview illustrated in a more simplistic way, so information was out there."
In the newly discovered draft, a theoretical case is given in which both parents live in Newfoundland, the two children live full-time with the custodial parent and each parent earns $25,000. Utilizing the formula, the document then indicates that the "after-tax, after [child-support] award" income for the custodial parent is $27,369, while the non-custodial parent's income is slashed to almost one-half that, at $14,489. Of the total expenditures on children, $4,435 is paid by the non-custodial parent, while only $2,825 is paid by the custodial parent. "This is without even considering any direct expenditures made by the non-custodial parent during his or her time with the children," points out Mr. Soever.
When the non-custodial parent earns $1,000 more (i.e., $26,000), while the income of the custodial parent remains unchanged at $25,000, the child-support award increases by $170 per year. The actual income of both parents rise: the custodial parent's to $27,539, the non-custodial parent's to $14,983, but while the non-custodial parent now pays $170 more of the children's expenses than before (at $4,605), the custodial parent actually pays $100 less than before. Of the $170 increase in child support, only $70 goes to "direct expenditures on the children," while $100 is directed to the "personal (for parent) disposable income."
So why is an apparent "spousal support" built into the child support in the new formula? Justice officials say it is simply mislabelled and should have been called "household income." Mr. Soever says, "The fact that the larger proportion of the child-support award is going to the receiving parent is perhaps inevitable, but very few people grasp the concept, and that's because it was never made clear when it was passed that the formula was a simple household standard-of-living equalization formula. Even two years after the guidelines were passed, the Supreme Court of Canada still didn't seem to grasp it," he says, pointing to the April 27, 1999, judgment in Francis v. Baker:
"However, even though the guidelines have their own stated objectives, they have not displaced the Divorce Act, which clearly dictates that maintenance of the children, rather than household equalization or spousal support, is the objective of child-support payments." According to Mr. Soever, "Either the justices didn't know the very basis of the guidelines was a household-equalization formula, or they have ruled that the manner in which the guidelines are constructed contravenes the Divorce Act."
Contends Mr. Soever, "In these case examples, the standard of living of the paying parent is already much lower than that of the receiver, despite using the guidelines' assumption that the household of the paying parent has only a single person and no direct expenditures on the children. In reality, one must remember that the children might be living with the paying parent up to 40% of the time and in that case, his or her direct expenditures on the children would only be marginally less than those of the receiving parent. Clearly being left with a disposable income half that of the receiving parent, the paying parent would not be in a position to provide a comparable standard of living for the children while they are with him.
"This November 1996 draft report with its case examples exposes the deficiencies in the child-support formula. Had it been published in the fall of 1996, as promised earlier, I do not believe the guidelines would have made it through Parliament in their present form. This, I believe, explains why the formula was not published in the fall of 1996.
"In all subsequent drafts, the detailed financial analysis and all the examples which exposed the true financial hardship inflicted by the Guidelines were deleted, so unless you do the detailed analysis yourself--which takes some time and knowledge--you cannot appreciate how it affects families and children. It took the Justice Department 18 months to remove the examples and financial analysis and edit this 31-page draft document down to nine pages which say far less about the nature of the Guidelines than the original. The fact that it has now been revealed that there was a comprehensive draft ready in November 1996 raises serious questions as to why the release of this document was delayed in an open and democratic society."
The Truth about male Spousal Abuse-- A cross sectional review in New Brunswick
Introduction:
In 2004 I was asked by fellow Canadian Advocates of Equal Parenting to do a study on violence perpetrated against males. I did a cross sectional study of all of all organizations that state that they promote non- violent resolutions to family violence in the Province of New Brunswick. This was done via email and phone interviews with internet listed organizations in New Brunswick via a google, meta-crawler and telephone directory search. The questioning was done for phone interviews on the same format and all questions were exact same questioning done with each organization. The questionnaire was done with basic questioning of " Do you offer services for men that have suffered through violence?? If so which services do you provide?" This turned out to be the most dramatic responses from gesturing that "no" we do not offer to threats towards myself. As we know through media and governmental agencies there is over 16 Million dollars given to promote non violent resolutions. The startling fact is it given only to groups in New Brunswick that are female orientated or just for women. In the reference section of this report all direct email responses will be included.
Abstract:
Violence is a 50/50 joint venture perpetrated by males and females was once told to me by a leader of the Windsor's family forum during a meeting in Ottawa; Ontario. The gentleman stated that I would not believe the whole truth but once I discovered by speaking to people throughout the world took it on to find out the truth even if it is as startling as the results will show. The Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms in Subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in effect since April 1985, provides that:
(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
This decision was supposed to be an unequivocal decision for human rights for people to be recognized as a human beings under the law. That we as Canadian Citizens should not be discriminated based on sex (gender). The ends that governmental dollars spent to promote non-violent resolution to family violence should be spent equally or proportionately via stats-can reporting if the charter to be held true to its word.
"By one estimate, a man in America is battered every 37.8 seconds. Nationally, about 1.5 million women are victims of domestic violence each year compared to about 835,000 men, according to a 1998 National Violence Against Women Act survey."(1)
"Bear with me as I tell you a true-life example: Last year an Ottawa, Canada, woman got furious at her husband and dialed 911. The police were there in a flash, he was carted out to jail and issued a restraining order. Being penniless, he ended up sleeping in the furnace room of a highrise." (2)
In stats Canada 2004 the highest reporting rate of spousal violence were aged 25 to 34 females and common assault being the highest reported. The highest rate in males being 35 to 44. Female spousal victims more likely to see charges laid by police.
"There are as many violent women as men, but there's a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United States -- millions of dollars. It isn't a politically good idea to threaten the huge budgets for women's refuges by saying that some of the women who go into them aren't total victims."
-- Erin Pizzey, quoted in David Thomas, Men: Not Guilty.(3)
Her London hotel was picketed by 300 screaming, banner-waving protesters. "I went downstairs and said to one of the policemen,' Why don't you just get rid of them?' And he said "Because we're scared of them." "(4)
This statement by author Erin Pizzey made a very strangling remark of our sociological view point of perpetrated violence in Canada. If the norms of society are challenged then the authors are suppressors or worse re victimizing feminist driven perception of Family violence.
If this is our Canadian perception then the trend will continue especially if there are no places for males to take shelter from these forms of abuse. This report is direct from the fingers of the operators of such shelters and programs. If in New Brunswick the Provincial government does not do any thing to protect victims of violence then why are they allowed to abuse the charter of rights and freedom and only show one side of the story. In the review section all copies of emails are being listed directly from responses received with no alterations.
The generalized statements of " This double standard also contributes to the under-reporting of domestic violence against men. Both men and women are much less likely to think of it as a crime for a woman to hit a man than the other way around." "Men know that there is little support they will receive if they tell others their girlfriends or wives abused them, and are more likely to be ridiculed than taken seriously. Men are expected to take abuse "like a man" and not complain. There are many social messages, which tell us that it is OK for a woman to hit a man. On television, women slapping men in the face or kicking them in the groin is often portrayed as a justifiable act, sometimes even as humour. Rather than thinking that a woman hitting a man is violence, we are led to think, "He must have done something rude to her to deserve being hit." "The physical abuse of children by mothers is yet another example where women have a physical advantage over their victims, and is a rarely acknowledged aspect of domestic violence. " This also leads to the question of is there a male partner in the household that would like to seek refuge against the abuse perpetrated against the child involved in the relationship.
Review:
Do you offer services for men that have suffered through violence?? If so which services do you provide?
Hi Ed,
The RespectED program is focused on prevention of abuse, bullying, and harassment. We provide education to various groups in the community about these issues ( children, youth, parents, adults working with youth etc). Maybe you could give me a call and we could discuss what you were looking for and we could see if there is a fit or I could refer you to other agencies?
I am in the office today and all next week, hope to hear from you soon,
Stacy
Stacy Coy
Community Development Co-ordinator
Atlantic Zone
Canadian Red Cross
(506)674-6218
stacy.coy@redcross.ca
www.redcross.ca (5)
Hi Ed,
Good luck in your information search.
http://app.infoaa.7700.gnb.ca/gnb/pub/DetailOrgEng1.asp?OrgID1=179&DeptID1=88
Anthony Knight
Executive Director / Directeur général
New Brunswick Public Libraries Foundation
Fondation des bibliothèques publiques du Noueau-Brunswick
250, rue King Street, Place 2000, Fredericton, New Brunswick / Nouveau-Brunswick E3B 9M9 Canada
1-800-453-3442 (506) 453-3442 (Phone / Téléphone) (506) 444-4064 (Fax / Télécopieur)
www.librariesfoundation.ca
www.fondationdesbibliotheques.ca(6)
Dear Ed, In response to your questions... we do presentations in the community on family violence, if there is a man in the audience who requires assistance because of his situation we would do whatever we could to help him access services i.e. phone numbers and contacts, also we would give out these numbers if someone calls our emergency line. We do have a number here for a program in Bathurst that we give out...The number is 546-3305 contact name Richard Gallant famille@nbnet.nb.ca also the Mens Network has a variety of names and contacts Terrence Trites in Moncton is in charge of this Committee. We feel family violence is unacceptable in any kind of situation however our services are targeted towards women and their children. You can also call Chimo and they can give you a name of someone in your area...1-800-667-5005. Hope this helps...let me know if you need anything else.
Patty Michaud Director Miramichi Emergency Centre for Women.----- Original Message ----- (7)
Good afternoon Mr. Hoyt,
I am sending you part of the reply to your question since the person that would have more information specifically on adult victims of family violence is presently out until next Tuesday, August 31st. After I speak with her, I will have her get back to you with additional information.
As you are probably aware the Department of Family and Community Services (FCS) offers various services and programs. Depending on the individual case of victims of family violence and their financial situation they could potentially be able to access social assistance and subsidized housing. When applying for subsidized housing if the adult in question states that they are a victim of family violence, they will be identified has having at higher need for subsidized housing and therefore score higher on the need assessment.
For more information on our services you can check our website at the following address: http://www.gnb.ca/0017/index-e.asp.
If this is an emergency situation, the person in question should be calling their local FCS office.
We will be getting back to you next week with more information and thanks for you question.(8)
Barbara Lemieux
Program Consultant/Conseillère
Community and Individual Development/Développement communautaire et individuel
Family and Community Services/Services familiaux et communautaires
Hello Ed,
We do not exclude men from accessing our service, which is to provide support and information to people who are concerned about conflict or violence in a family, marital, dating relationships. I have talked to some men since our service began in 1996, but only a few. In some situations I have built a relationship with them and have seen them regularly for a period of time. Others I have referred to service providers in the community that would be able to meet their particular needs.
Thank you for your interest in our service.
Gwyn Davies
Coordinator, Family Violence Prevention, Eastern PEI(9)
Mr. Hoyt: In response to your question about our services, I have attached below a listing our services, programs and current projects. Our 24 hour crisis line is open to any victim or survivor of sexual violence. Our objective through that line is to provide crisis intervention response and then help connect the caller to appropriate services in the community (i.e. professional counselling options, medical treatment, etc.)
As with many non-profit organizations, especially ours which does not receive program or operational funding from any level of government, we are limited in the programming we are able to offer. With that being said, we are committed to work with every individual who contacts our line to help them determine their needs and link them to those best able to assist them.
If I can provide further information to you or your group, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Lorraine Whalley
Director(10)
Fredericton Sexual Assault Crisis Centre
The Fredericton Sexual Assault Crisis Centre (FSACC) is a grassroots, not for profit community organization whose primary goal is reflected in a commitment to work towards the eradication of sexual violence against women and children. We strive to meet this objective through two broad activities- I) public education and awareness activities; ii) the provision of direct services to those affected by sexual assault.
Established in 1975, FSACC is currently the only rape/sexual assault crisis centre in New Brunswick. Funded by donations, fund-raising activities and program funding from the United Way/ Centraide (Central NB), FSACC does not receive core, operational or program funding from provincial or federal governments.
Successful Programs:
Dating Violence Program
Delivered in New Brunswick high schools classrooms, this program addresses violence in relationships.
Volunteer Crisis Intervention Program
An intensive 40 hour program delivered to women who will respond to the Sexual Assault Crisis Line and provide crisis intervention to survivors of sexual assault and childhood sexual assault.
Sexual Assault Counselling Program
Individual counselling &support groups for female survivors of sexual assault/rape and child sexual abuse.
Self-Protection Program
Groups of women and girl are trained in the awareness of sexual violence, self-esteem, sexual communication, assertiveness and self-defence techniques.
Aware & Supportive Communities
A community-initiated and community-directed program that assists communities in identifying and addressing their sexual assault service needs.
Public Education Program
Members of the centre’s collective attend speaking engagement and workshops to increase awareness about sexual violence.
Community Resources
The Empowerment Project: A train the trainer tool kit for delivering self-protection and assertiveness workshops to women and girls. The Empowerment Project (available in both French and English)is a powerful, flexible, activity-based, and diverse tool kit that trains facilitators to support women and girls as they learn about sexual assault, that they are worth the effort to defend, tools to set and assert their own boundaries, and how to become activists working to end violence against women.
A Community Handbook Increasing Awareness about Sexual Violence and Support for Survivors through Community-Directed Action is a resource based on the work of Aware & Supportive Communities. Available in French and English, this resource is intended to help with community action efforts following a model that has been demonstrated to work in New Brunswick communities. This guide contains:
· a model of an aware and supportive community - indicators
· tips for building a community action group
· tools for assessing a community; creating action plans and evaluating efforts
(In development stage – not yet available....)
Preventing Sexual Aggression in Males: Developing a Train- the -Trainer Tool Kit: This project is aimed at addressing risk factors that may place individuals, specifically males, at risk of becoming involved in sexual assault as aggressors. The development of this flexible and diverse tool kit will provide communities with a diverse and flexible resource to direct crime prevention efforts at males at risk of committing sexual assault.
FREDERICTON SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRE, INC. P.O. BOX 174 FREDERICTON, N.B. E3B 4Y9
CRISIS LINE 454-0437 BUSINESS LINE 454-0460 FAX LINE 457-2780 E-mail: fsacc@nbnet.nb.ca
Perhaps you could let me know why you need us to elaborate on this. It's fairly straightforward.
Simone Leibovitch
Provincial Director
Making Waves/Vague par vague
Phone: (506) 474-1666
I'm not sure that our program is one that need concern you. Our programs are geared to guys and girls.............with equal representation throughout...............from participants to facilitators.
Simone Leibovitch
Provincial Director
Making Waves/Vague par vague
Phone: (506) 474-1666 (11)
----- Original Message -----
Hello,
Thank you for inquiring about our services. We provide information to the general public as a whole, however, we offer our services only to women. For more information you can visit our web page at http://www.thans.ca/casa.html
Suzanne White
Executive Director
Hi Ed,
We have offered our services to men who have experienced violence. For spousal abuse, we offer one-on-one counselling/support and if necessary a temporary place to stay, usually for a few days. We have no long term shelter for them. We also offer our services to men who abuse, this is also one-on-one counselling. And if we cannot assist them, we will refer them to other programs. Jean
Isabelle MacLean [macleaij@gov.ns.ca] (12)
unfortunately, we do not offer services to men...only to women....
Family Services Moncton have several programs for men....you might want to check to see what services they have to offer
you can reach them at famserv@nbnet.nb.ca
Hope this was of help.
gabiecrossroads@nb.aibn.com (13)
Conclusion:
The only respondents that had anything even remotely had anything geared around males of violence was in Nova Scotia and that was not even close to more than a referral agency. The phone interviews were a lot worse and very insulting to anyone of intelligence. I was called a few distasteful names which I will not include in this report but the worse was responses received by police departments in New Brunswick. The worse statement received was a call placed to the dispatch center in Saint John New Brunswick on a work place harassment and uttering of death threats complaint. The female dispatcher when incident was reported of stalking, harassment and death threats response was " what were you doing sleeping with her?" This may be a good reasoning why males might choose not to report violence. The secondary is reason is there is no where for them to turn. Family and Community Services does offer programs for males but for males that are violent nothing for ones that suffer through spousal violence. Section 15 of the charter is to guarantee that we as Canadians male and female are not to be discriminated against on the base of sex. If the charter is to be tested to be true then why are the responses being received biased and non compliant to the charter of Rights and freedoms.
References:
(1) 1998 National Violence Against Women Act survey
(2)January 13, 2003; Eeva Sodhi; A former head of serials cataloging at the University of Ottawa, she lives with her husband in a tiny Ontario village. Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
(3) -- Erin Pizzey, quoted in David Thomas, Men: Not Guilty.
(4) same article _ -- Erin Pizzey, quoted in David Thomas, Men: Not Guilty.
(5)
Stacy Coy
Community Development Co-ordinator
Atlantic Zone
Canadian Red Cross
(6) Stacy Coy Community Development Co-ordinator
Atlantic Zone
Canadian Red Cross
(7) Patty Michaud Director Miramichi Emergency Centre for Women.
(8) Barbara Lemieux
Program Consultant/Conseillère
Community and Individual Development/Développement communautaire et individuel
Family and Community Services/Services familiaux et communautaires
(9) Gwyn Davies
Coordinator, Family Violence Prevention, Eastern PEI
(10) Lorraine Whalley
Director
(11) Simone Leibovitch
Provincial Director
Making Waves/Vague par vague
Phone: (506) 474-1666
(12) Isabelle MacLean [macleaij@gov.ns.ca]
(13) gabiecrossroads@nb.aibn.com
The Truth about male Spousal Abuse- A cross sectional review in New Brunswick; Canada - June 2005 - Edward Hoyt
In 2004 I was asked by fellow Canadian Advocates of Equal Parenting to do a study on violence perpetrated against males. I did a cross sectional study of all of all organizations that state that they promote non- violent resolutions to family violence in the Province of New Brunswick. This was done via email and phone interviews with internet listed organizations in New Brunswick via a google, meta-crawler and telephone directory search. The questioning was done for phone interviews on the same format and all questions were exact same questioning done with each organization. The questionnaire was done with basic questioning of " Do you offer services for men that have suffered through violence?? If so which services do you provide?" This turned out to be the most dramatic responses from gesturing that "no" we do not offer to threats towards myself. As we know through media and governmental agencies there is over 16 Million dollars given to promote non violent resolutions. The startling fact is it given only to groups in New Brunswick that are female orientated or just for women. In the reference section of this report all direct email responses will be included.
Abstract:
Violence is a 50/50 joint venture perpetrated by males and females was once told to me by a leader of the Windsor's family forum during a meeting in Ottawa; Ontario. The gentleman stated that I would not believe the whole truth but once I discovered by speaking to people throughout the world took it on to find out the truth even if it is as startling as the results will show. The Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms in Subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in effect since April 1985, provides that:
(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
This decision was supposed to be an unequivocal decision for human rights for people to be recognized as a human beings under the law. That we as Canadian Citizens should not be discriminated based on sex (gender). The ends that governmental dollars spent to promote non-violent resolution to family violence should be spent equally or proportionately via stats-can reporting if the charter to be held true to its word.
"By one estimate, a man in America is battered every 37.8 seconds. Nationally, about 1.5 million women are victims of domestic violence each year compared to about 835,000 men, according to a 1998 National Violence Against Women Act survey."(1)
"Bear with me as I tell you a true-life example: Last year an Ottawa, Canada, woman got furious at her husband and dialed 911. The police were there in a flash, he was carted out to jail and issued a restraining order. Being penniless, he ended up sleeping in the furnace room of a highrise." (2)
In stats Canada 2004 the highest reporting rate of spousal violence were aged 25 to 34 females and common assault being the highest reported. The highest rate in males being 35 to 44. Female spousal victims more likely to see charges laid by police.
"There are as many violent women as men, but there's a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United States -- millions of dollars. It isn't a politically good idea to threaten the huge budgets for women's refuges by saying that some of the women who go into them aren't total victims."
-- Erin Pizzey, quoted in David Thomas, Men: Not Guilty.(3)
Her London hotel was picketed by 300 screaming, banner-waving protesters. "I went downstairs and said to one of the policemen,' Why don't you just get rid of them?' And he said "Because we're scared of them." "(4)
This statement by author Erin Pizzey made a very strangling remark of our sociological view point of perpetrated violence in Canada. If the norms of society are challenged then the authors are suppressors or worse re victimizing feminist driven perception of Family violence.
If this is our Canadian perception then the trend will continue especially if there are no places for males to take shelter from these forms of abuse. This report is direct from the fingers of the operators of such shelters and programs. If in New Brunswick the Provincial government does not do any thing to protect victims of violence then why are they allowed to abuse the charter of rights and freedom and only show one side of the story. In the review section all copies of emails are being listed directly from responses received with no alterations.
The generalized statements of " This double standard also contributes to the under-reporting of domestic violence against men. Both men and women are much less likely to think of it as a crime for a woman to hit a man than the other way around." "Men know that there is little support they will receive if they tell others their girlfriends or wives abused them, and are more likely to be ridiculed than taken seriously. Men are expected to take abuse "like a man" and not complain. There are many social messages, which tell us that it is OK for a woman to hit a man. On television, women slapping men in the face or kicking them in the groin is often portrayed as a justifiable act, sometimes even as humour. Rather than thinking that a woman hitting a man is violence, we are led to think, "He must have done something rude to her to deserve being hit." "The physical abuse of children by mothers is yet another example where women have a physical advantage over their victims, and is a rarely acknowledged aspect of domestic violence. " This also leads to the question of is there a male partner in the household that would like to seek refuge against the abuse perpetrated against the child involved in the relationship.
Review:
Do you offer services for men that have suffered through violence?? If so which services do you provide?
Hi Ed,
The RespectED program is focused on prevention of abuse, bullying, and harassment. We provide education to various groups in the community about these issues ( children, youth, parents, adults working with youth etc). Maybe you could give me a call and we could discuss what you were looking for and we could see if there is a fit or I could refer you to other agencies?
I am in the office today and all next week, hope to hear from you soon,
Stacy
Stacy Coy
Community Development Co-ordinator
Atlantic Zone
Canadian Red Cross
(506)674-6218
stacy.coy@redcross.ca
www.redcross.ca (5)
Hi Ed,
Good luck in your information search.
http://app.infoaa.7700.gnb.ca/gnb/pub/DetailOrgEng1.asp?OrgID1=179&DeptID1=88
Anthony Knight
Executive Director / Directeur général
New Brunswick Public Libraries Foundation
Fondation des bibliothèques publiques du Noueau-Brunswick
250, rue King Street, Place 2000, Fredericton, New Brunswick / Nouveau-Brunswick E3B 9M9 Canada
1-800-453-3442 (506) 453-3442 (Phone / Téléphone) (506) 444-4064 (Fax / Télécopieur)
www.librariesfoundation.ca
www.fondationdesbibliotheques.ca(6)
Dear Ed, In response to your questions... we do presentations in the community on family violence, if there is a man in the audience who requires assistance because of his situation we would do whatever we could to help him access services i.e. phone numbers and contacts, also we would give out these numbers if someone calls our emergency line. We do have a number here for a program in Bathurst that we give out...The number is 546-3305 contact name Richard Gallant famille@nbnet.nb.ca also the Mens Network has a variety of names and contacts Terrence Trites in Moncton is in charge of this Committee. We feel family violence is unacceptable in any kind of situation however our services are targeted towards women and their children. You can also call Chimo and they can give you a name of someone in your area...1-800-667-5005. Hope this helps...let me know if you need anything else.
Patty Michaud Director Miramichi Emergency Centre for Women.----- Original Message ----- (7)
Good afternoon Mr. Hoyt,
I am sending you part of the reply to your question since the person that would have more information specifically on adult victims of family violence is presently out until next Tuesday, August 31st. After I speak with her, I will have her get back to you with additional information.
As you are probably aware the Department of Family and Community Services (FCS) offers various services and programs. Depending on the individual case of victims of family violence and their financial situation they could potentially be able to access social assistance and subsidized housing. When applying for subsidized housing if the adult in question states that they are a victim of family violence, they will be identified has having at higher need for subsidized housing and therefore score higher on the need assessment.
For more information on our services you can check our website at the following address: http://www.gnb.ca/0017/index-e.asp.
If this is an emergency situation, the person in question should be calling their local FCS office.
We will be getting back to you next week with more information and thanks for you question.(8)
Barbara Lemieux
Program Consultant/Conseillère
Community and Individual Development/Développement communautaire et individuel
Family and Community Services/Services familiaux et communautaires
Hello Ed,
We do not exclude men from accessing our service, which is to provide support and information to people who are concerned about conflict or violence in a family, marital, dating relationships. I have talked to some men since our service began in 1996, but only a few. In some situations I have built a relationship with them and have seen them regularly for a period of time. Others I have referred to service providers in the community that would be able to meet their particular needs.
Thank you for your interest in our service.
Gwyn Davies
Coordinator, Family Violence Prevention, Eastern PEI(9)
Mr. Hoyt: In response to your question about our services, I have attached below a listing our services, programs and current projects. Our 24 hour crisis line is open to any victim or survivor of sexual violence. Our objective through that line is to provide crisis intervention response and then help connect the caller to appropriate services in the community (i.e. professional counselling options, medical treatment, etc.)
As with many non-profit organizations, especially ours which does not receive program or operational funding from any level of government, we are limited in the programming we are able to offer. With that being said, we are committed to work with every individual who contacts our line to help them determine their needs and link them to those best able to assist them.
If I can provide further information to you or your group, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Lorraine Whalley
Director(10)
Fredericton Sexual Assault Crisis Centre
The Fredericton Sexual Assault Crisis Centre (FSACC) is a grassroots, not for profit community organization whose primary goal is reflected in a commitment to work towards the eradication of sexual violence against women and children. We strive to meet this objective through two broad activities- I) public education and awareness activities; ii) the provision of direct services to those affected by sexual assault.
Established in 1975, FSACC is currently the only rape/sexual assault crisis centre in New Brunswick. Funded by donations, fund-raising activities and program funding from the United Way/ Centraide (Central NB), FSACC does not receive core, operational or program funding from provincial or federal governments.
Successful Programs:
Dating Violence Program
Delivered in New Brunswick high schools classrooms, this program addresses violence in relationships.
Volunteer Crisis Intervention Program
An intensive 40 hour program delivered to women who will respond to the Sexual Assault Crisis Line and provide crisis intervention to survivors of sexual assault and childhood sexual assault.
Sexual Assault Counselling Program
Individual counselling &support groups for female survivors of sexual assault/rape and child sexual abuse.
Self-Protection Program
Groups of women and girl are trained in the awareness of sexual violence, self-esteem, sexual communication, assertiveness and self-defence techniques.
Aware & Supportive Communities
A community-initiated and community-directed program that assists communities in identifying and addressing their sexual assault service needs.
Public Education Program
Members of the centre’s collective attend speaking engagement and workshops to increase awareness about sexual violence.
Community Resources
The Empowerment Project: A train the trainer tool kit for delivering self-protection and assertiveness workshops to women and girls. The Empowerment Project (available in both French and English)is a powerful, flexible, activity-based, and diverse tool kit that trains facilitators to support women and girls as they learn about sexual assault, that they are worth the effort to defend, tools to set and assert their own boundaries, and how to become activists working to end violence against women.
A Community Handbook Increasing Awareness about Sexual Violence and Support for Survivors through Community-Directed Action is a resource based on the work of Aware & Supportive Communities. Available in French and English, this resource is intended to help with community action efforts following a model that has been demonstrated to work in New Brunswick communities. This guide contains:
· a model of an aware and supportive community - indicators
· tips for building a community action group
· tools for assessing a community; creating action plans and evaluating efforts
(In development stage – not yet available....)
Preventing Sexual Aggression in Males: Developing a Train- the -Trainer Tool Kit: This project is aimed at addressing risk factors that may place individuals, specifically males, at risk of becoming involved in sexual assault as aggressors. The development of this flexible and diverse tool kit will provide communities with a diverse and flexible resource to direct crime prevention efforts at males at risk of committing sexual assault.
FREDERICTON SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRE, INC. P.O. BOX 174 FREDERICTON, N.B. E3B 4Y9
CRISIS LINE 454-0437 BUSINESS LINE 454-0460 FAX LINE 457-2780 E-mail: fsacc@nbnet.nb.ca
Perhaps you could let me know why you need us to elaborate on this. It's fairly straightforward.
Simone Leibovitch
Provincial Director
Making Waves/Vague par vague
Phone: (506) 474-1666
I'm not sure that our program is one that need concern you. Our programs are geared to guys and girls.............with equal representation throughout...............from participants to facilitators.
Simone Leibovitch
Provincial Director
Making Waves/Vague par vague
Phone: (506) 474-1666 (11)
----- Original Message -----
Hello,
Thank you for inquiring about our services. We provide information to the general public as a whole, however, we offer our services only to women. For more information you can visit our web page at http://www.thans.ca/casa.html
Suzanne White
Executive Director
Hi Ed,
We have offered our services to men who have experienced violence. For spousal abuse, we offer one-on-one counselling/support and if necessary a temporary place to stay, usually for a few days. We have no long term shelter for them. We also offer our services to men who abuse, this is also one-on-one counselling. And if we cannot assist them, we will refer them to other programs. Jean
Isabelle MacLean [macleaij@gov.ns.ca] (12)
unfortunately, we do not offer services to men...only to women....
Family Services Moncton have several programs for men....you might want to check to see what services they have to offer
you can reach them at famserv@nbnet.nb.ca
Hope this was of help.
gabiecrossroads@nb.aibn.com (13)
Conclusion:
The only respondents that had anything even remotely had anything geared around males of violence was in Nova Scotia and that was not even close to more than a referral agency. The phone interviews were a lot worse and very insulting to anyone of intelligence. I was called a few distasteful names which I will not include in this report but the worse was responses received by police departments in New Brunswick. The worse statement received was a call placed to the dispatch center in Saint John New Brunswick on a work place harassment and uttering of death threats complaint. The female dispatcher when incident was reported of stalking, harassment and death threats response was " what were you doing sleeping with her?" This may be a good reasoning why males might choose not to report violence. The secondary is reason is there is no where for them to turn. Family and Community Services does offer programs for males but for males that are violent nothing for ones that suffer through spousal violence. Section 15 of the charter is to guarantee that we as Canadians male and female are not to be discriminated against on the base of sex. If the charter is to be tested to be true then why are the responses being received biased and non compliant to the charter of Rights and freedoms.
References:
(1) 1998 National Violence Against Women Act survey
(2)January 13, 2003; Eeva Sodhi; A former head of serials cataloging at the University of Ottawa, she lives with her husband in a tiny Ontario village. Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
(3) -- Erin Pizzey, quoted in David Thomas, Men: Not Guilty.
(4) same article _ -- Erin Pizzey, quoted in David Thomas, Men: Not Guilty.
(5)
Stacy Coy
Community Development Co-ordinator
Atlantic Zone
Canadian Red Cross
(6) Stacy Coy Community Development Co-ordinator
Atlantic Zone
Canadian Red Cross
(7) Patty Michaud Director Miramichi Emergency Centre for Women.
(8) Barbara Lemieux
Program Consultant/Conseillère
Community and Individual Development/Développement communautaire et individuel
Family and Community Services/Services familiaux et communautaires
(9) Gwyn Davies
Coordinator, Family Violence Prevention, Eastern PEI
(10) Lorraine Whalley
Director
(11) Simone Leibovitch
Provincial Director
Making Waves/Vague par vague
Phone: (506) 474-1666
(12) Isabelle MacLean [macleaij@gov.ns.ca]
(13) gabiecrossroads@nb.aibn.com
The Truth about male Spousal Abuse- A cross sectional review in New Brunswick; Canada - June 2005 - Edward Hoyt
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Parental Alienation Syndrome
Parental Alienation Syndrome:
How to Detect It and What to Do About It
by J. Michael Bone and Michael R. Walsh
Although parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a familiar term, there is still a great deal of confusion and unclarity about its nature, dimensions, and, therefore, its detection.(1) Its presence, however, is unmistakable. In a longitudinal study of 700 "high conflict" divorce cases followed over 12 years, it was concluded that elements of PAS are present in the vast majority of the samples.(2) Diagnosis of PAS is reserved for mental health professionals who come to the court in the form of expert witnesses. Diagnostic hallmarks usually are couched in clinical terms that remain vague and open to interpretation and, therefore. susceptible to argument pro and con by opposing experts. The phenomenon of one parent turning the child against the other parent is not a complicated concept, but historically it has been difficult to identify clearly. Consequently, cases involving PAS are heavily litigated, filled with accusations and counter accusations, and thus leave the court with an endless search for details that eventually evaporate into nothing other than rank hearsay. It is our experience that the PAS phenomenon leaves a trail that can be identified more effectively by removing the accusation hysteria, and looking ahead in another positive direction.
For the purpose of this article the authors are assuming a fair degree of familiarity with parental alienation syndrome on the part of the reader.(3) There are many good writings on PAS which the reader may wish to consult now or in the future for general information. Our focus here is much more narrow. Specifically, the goal is twofold. First we will describe four very specific criteria that can be used to identify potential PAS. In most instances, these criteria can be identified through the facts of the case, but also can be revealed by deposition or court testimony. Secondly, we wish to introduce the concept of "attempted" PAS; that is when the criteria of PAS are present, but the child is not successfully alienated from the absent parent. This phenomenon is still quite harmful and the fact of children not being alienated should not be viewed as neutral by the court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The criteria described below are fairly easy to identify separate and apart from the court file. When there is uncertainty about any of them, these criteria can be used to guide the attorney in the deposing of witnesses as well as in their examination in court.
Criteria I: Access and Contact Blocking
Criteria I involves the active blocking of access or contact between the child and the absent parent. The rationale used to justify it may well take many different forms. One of the most common is that of protection. It may be argued that the absent parent's parental judgment is inferior and, therefore, the child is much worse off from the visit. In extreme cases, this will take the form of allegations of child abuse, quite often sexual abuse. This will be addressed in more detail in Criteria II, but suffice it to say that often this is heard as a reason for visitation to be suspended or even terminated. On a more subtle and common level, an argument heard for the blocking of visitation is that seeing the absent parent is "unsettling" to the child, and that they need time "to adjust." The message here is that the absent parent is treated less like a key family member and more like an annoying acquaintance that the child must see at times. Over time, this pattern can have a seriously erosive effect on the child's relationship with the absent parent. An even more subtle expression of this is that the visitation is "inconvenient," thereby relegating it to the status of an errand or chore. Again the result is the erosion of the relationship between the child and the absent or "target" parent. One phenomenon often seen in this context is that any deviation from the schedule is used as a reason to cancel visitation entirely.
The common thread to all of these tactics is that one parent is superior and the other is not and, therefore, should be peripheral to the child's life. The alienating parent in these circumstances is acting inappropriately as a gatekeeper for the child to see the absent parent. When this occurs for periods of substantial time, the child is given the unspoken but clear message that one parent is senior to the other. Younger children are more vulnerable to this message and tend to take it uncritically; however, one can always detect elements of it echoed even into the teenage years. The important concept here is that each parent is given the responsibility to promote a positive relationship with the other parent. When this principle is violated in the context of blocking access on a consistent basis, one can assume that Criteria I has been, unmistakably identified.
Criteria II: Unfounded Abuse Allegations
The second criteria is related to false or unfounded accusations of abuse against the absent parent. The most strident expression of this is the false accusation of sexual abuse.(4) It has been well studied that the incident of false allegations of sexual abuse account for over half of those reported, when the parents are divorcing or are in conflict over some post dissolution issue.(5) This is especially the situation with small children who are more vulnerable to the manipulations implied by such false allegations. When the record shows that even one report of such abuse is ruled as unfounded, the interviewer is well advised to look for other expressions of false accusations.
Other examples of this might be found in allegations of physical abuse that investigators later rule as being unfounded. Interestingly our experience has been that there are fewer false allegations of physical abuse than of other forms of abuse, presumably because physical abuse leaves visible evidence. It is, of course, much easier to falsely accuse someone of something that leaves no physical sign and has no third party witnesses.
A much more common expression of this pattern would be that of what would be termed emotional abuse. When false allegations of emotional abuse are leveled, one often finds that what is present is actually differing parental judgment that is being framed as "abusive" by the absent parent. For example, one parent may let a child stay up later at night than the other parent would, and this scheduling might be termed as being "abusive" or "detrimental" to the child. Or one parent might introduce a new "significant other" to the child before the other parent believes that they should and this might also be called "abusive" to the child. Alternatively one parent might enroll a child in an activity with which the other parent disagrees and this activity is, in actuality, a difference of parental opinion that is now described as being abusive in nature. These examples, as trivial as they seem individually, may be suggestive of a theme of treating parental difference in inappropriately subjective judgmental terms. If this theme is present, all manner of things can be described in ways that convey the message of abuse, either directly or indirectly. When this phenomenon occurs in literally thousands of different ways and times, each of which seems insignificant on its own, the emotional atmosphere that it creates carries a clearly alienating effect on the child.
Obviously, this type of acrimony is very common in dissolution actions but such conflict should not necessarily be mistaken or be taken as illustrative of the PAS syndrome; however, the criteria is clearly present and identifiable when the parent is eager to hurl abuse allegations, rather than being cautious, careful. and even reluctant to do so. This latter stance is more in keeping with the parent's responsibility to encourage and affirmatively support a relationship with the other parent. The responsible parent will only allege abuse after he or she has tried and failed to rationalize why the issue at hand is not abusive. Simply put, the responsible parent will give the other parent the benefit of the doubt when such allegations arise. He or she will, if anything, err on the side of denial, whereas the alienating parent will not miss an opportunity to accuse the other parent. When this theme is present in a clear and consistent way, this criteria for PAS is met.
Criteria III: Deterioration in Relationship Since Separation
The third of the criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is probably the least described or identified, but critically is one of the most important. It has to do with the existence of a positive relationship between the minor children and the now absent or nonresidential parent, prior to the marital separation; and a substantial deterioration, of it since then. Such a recognized decline does not occur on its own. It is, therefore, one of the most important indicators of the presence of alienation as well. as a full measure of its relative "success." By way of example, if a father had a good and involved relationship with the children prior to the separation, and a very distant one since, then one can only assume without explicit proof to the contrary that something caused it to change. If this father is clearly trying to maintain a positive relationship with the children through observance of visitation and other activities and the children do not want to see him or have him involved in their lives, then one can only speculate that an alienation process may have been in operation. Children do not naturally lose interest in and become distant from their nonresidential parent simply by virtue of the absence of that parent. Also, healthy and established parental relationships do not erode naturally of their own accord. They must be attacked. Therefore, any dramatic change in this area is virtually always an indicator of an alienation process that has had some success in the past.
Most notably, if a careful evaluation of the pre-separation parental relationship is not made, its omission creates an impression that the troubled or even alienated status that exists since is more or lees an accurate summary of what existed previously. Note that nothing could be further from the truth! An alienated or even partially or intermittently alienated relationship with the nonresidential parent and the children after the separation is more accurately a distortion of the real parental relationship in question. Its follow-through is often overlooked in the hysterical atmosphere that is often present in these cases. A careful practitioner well knows that a close examination is warranted and that it must be conducted with the utmost detail and scrutiny.
If this piece of the puzzle is left out, the consequences can be quite devastating for the survival of this relationship. Also, without this component, the court can be easily swayed into premature closure or fooled into thinking that the turmoil of the separation environment is representative of the true parent-child relationship. Once this ruling is made by the court, it is an exacting challenge to correct its perception.
In a separate but related issue, a word should be said about the use of experts. First, it must be understood that all mental health professionals are not aware of nor know how to treat the PAS phenomenon. In fact, when a mental health professional unfamiliar with PAS is called upon to make a recommendation about custody, access, or related issues, he or she potentially can do more harm than good. For example, if the psychologist fails to investigate the pre-separation relationship of the nonresidential parent and the children, he or she may very easily mistake the current acrimony in that relationship to be representative of it, and recommend that the children should have less visitation with that parent, obviously supporting the undiagnosed PAS that is still in progress. If that expert also fails to evaluate critically the abuse claims or the agenda of the claimant, they may be taken at face value and again potentially support the undiagnosed PAS. If that professional is not also sensitive to the subtleties of access and contact blocking as its motivator, he or she may potentially support it, thereby contributing to the PAS process. When these things occur, the mental health professional expert has actually become part of the PAS, albeit unwittingly. Alarmingly, this happens often. Suffice it to say, if PAS is suspected, the attorney should closely and carefully evaluate the mental health professional's investigation and conclusion. Failure to do so can cause irreparable harm to the case, and, ultimately to the children.
Criteria IV: Intense Fear Reaction by Children
The fourth criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is admittedly more psychological than the first three. It refers to an obvious fear reaction on the part of the children, of displeasing or disagreeing with the potentially alienating parent in regard to the absent or potential target parent. Simply put, an alienating parent operates by the adage, "My way or the highway." If the children disobey this directive, especially in expressing positive approval of the absent parent, the consequences can be very serious. It is not uncommon for an alienating parent to reject the child(ren), often telling him or her that they should go live with the target parent. When this does occur one often sees that this threat is not carried out, yet it operates more as a message of constant warning. The child, in effect, is put into a position of being the alienating parent's "agent'' and is continually being put through various loyalty tests. The important issue here is that the alienating patent thus forces the child to choose parents. This, of course, is in direct opposition to a child's emotional well being.
In order to fully appreciate this scenario, one must realize that the PAS process operates in a "fear based" environment. It is the installation of fear by the alienating parent to the minor children that is the fuel by which this pattern is driven; this fear taps into what psychoanalysis tell us is the most basic emotion inherent in human nature--the fear of abandonment. Children under these conditions live in a state of chronic upset and threat of reprisal. When the child does dare to defy the alienating parent, they quickly learn that there is a serious price to pay. Consequently, children who live such lives develop an acute sense of vigilance over displeasing the alienating parent. The sensitized observer can see this in visitation plans that suddenly change for no apparent reason. For example, when the appointed time approaches, the child suddenly changes his or her tune and begins to loudly protest a visit that was not previously complained about. It is in these instances that a court, once suspecting PAS must enforce in strict terms the visitation schedule which otherwise would not have occurred or would have been ignored.
The alienating parent can most often be found posturing bewilderment regarding the sudden change in their child's feelings about the visit. In fact, the alienating parent often will appear to be the one supporting visitation. This scenario is a very common one in PAS families. It is standard because it encapsulates and exposes, if only for an instant, the fear-based core of the alienation process. Another way to express this concept would be that whenever the child is given any significant choice in the visitation, he or she is put in the position to act out a loyalty to the alienating parent's wishes by refusing to have the visitation at all with the absent parent. Failure to do so opens the door for that child's being abandoned by the parent with whom the child lives the vast majority of the time. Children, under these circumstances, will simply not opt on their own far a free choice. The court must thus act expeditiously to protect them and employ a host of specific and available remedies.(6)
As a consequence of the foregoing, these children learn to manipulate. Children often play one parent against the other in an effort to gain some advantage. In the case of PAS, the same dynamic operates at more desperate level. No longer manipulating to gain advantage, these children learn to manipulate just to survive. They become expert beyond their years at reading the emotional environment, telling partial truths, and then telling out-and-out lies. One must, however, remember that these are survival strategies that they were forced to learn in order to keep peace at home and avoid emotional attack by the residential parent. Given this understanding, it is perhaps easier to see why children, in an effort to cope with this situation, often find it easier if they begin to internalize the alienating parent's perceptions of the absent parent and begin to echo these feelings. This is one of the most compelling and dramatic effects of PAS, that is, hearing a child vilifying the absent parent and joining the alienating parent in such attacks. If one is not sensitive to the "fear-based" core at the heart of this, it is difficult not to take the child's protests at face value. This, of course, is compounded when the expert is also not sensitive to this powerful fear component, and believes that the child is voicing his or her own inner feelings in endorsing the "no visitation" plan.
Conclusion
All the criteria listed above can be found independent of each other in highly contested dissolutions, but remember that the appearance of some of them does not always constitute PAS. When all four are clearly present, however, add the possibility of real abuse has been reasonably ruled out, the parental alienation process is operative. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it is succeeding in that the children are being successfully alienated from the target parent. The best predictor of successful alienation is directly related to the success of the alienating parent at keeping the children from the target parent. When there are substantial periods in which they do not see the other parent, the children are more likely to be poisoned by the process. Another variable that predicts success is the child's age. Younger children generally are more vulnerable than older ones. Also, another variable is the depth and degree of involvement of the pre-separation parent-child relationship. The longer and more involved that relationship, the less vulnerable will be the children to successful alienation. The final predictor is the parental tenacity of the target parent. A targeted parent often gives up and walks away, thus greatly increasing the chances of successful alienation.
The question remains: What if all four criteria are present, but the children are not successfully alienated? Should this failure at alienation be seen as nullifying the attempt at alienation? The answer to that should be a resounding "No!" It should be, but often it is not. It is very common to read a psychological evaluation or a GAL's report that identified PAS but then notes that since it was not successful, it should not be taken very seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood, which is to promote and encourage a positive and loving relationship with the other parent, and the concept of shared parental responsibility.
It is our feeling that when attempted PAS has been identified, successful or not, it must be dealt with swiftly by the court. If it is not, it will contaminate and quietly control all other parenting issues and then lead only to unhappiness, frustration, and, lastly, parental estrangement.
1 PAS syndrome applies and relates equally to the nonresidential, as well as the residential parent. D.C. Rand, The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome. 15 Am. J. Forensic Psychol. No. 3 (1997).
2 S.S. Clawar and B.V. Rivlin, Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children, A.B.A. (1991).
3 M. Walsh and J.M. Bone. Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Age-Old Custody Problem, 71 Fla. B.J. 93 (June 1997).
4 N. Theonnee and P.G. Tjaden, The Extent, Nature and Validity of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody Visitation Disputes, 12 Child Abuse and Neglect 151-63 (1990).
5 National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, 2998, Contract 105-85-1702.
6 The appointment of a guardian ad litem, the appointment of an expert to conduct a psychological evaluation of the child and the parents, the employment of make-up or substitute access and contact, or an enlargement of same to the nonresidential parent, and as previously suggested by the authors in their last article, a consideration for entry of a multidirectional order. Walsh and Bone, supra note .3
J. Michael Bone, Ph.D., is a sole practice psychotherapist and certified family law mediator in Maitland. He concentrates in divorce and post-divorce issues involving minor children, and has a special interest in PAS. He has served as on expert witness on these and related topics and has been appointed by the court to make recommendations involving PAS and families.
Michael R. Walsh is a sole practitioner in Orlando. He is a board certified marital and family law lawyer, certified mediator and arbitrator, and a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. For more than 20 years, he has been a frequent lecturer and author for The Florida Bar.
This column is submitted on behalf of the Family Law Section, Jane L. Estreicher, chair, and Sharon O. Taylor, editor.
How to Detect It and What to Do About It
by J. Michael Bone and Michael R. Walsh
Although parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a familiar term, there is still a great deal of confusion and unclarity about its nature, dimensions, and, therefore, its detection.(1) Its presence, however, is unmistakable. In a longitudinal study of 700 "high conflict" divorce cases followed over 12 years, it was concluded that elements of PAS are present in the vast majority of the samples.(2) Diagnosis of PAS is reserved for mental health professionals who come to the court in the form of expert witnesses. Diagnostic hallmarks usually are couched in clinical terms that remain vague and open to interpretation and, therefore. susceptible to argument pro and con by opposing experts. The phenomenon of one parent turning the child against the other parent is not a complicated concept, but historically it has been difficult to identify clearly. Consequently, cases involving PAS are heavily litigated, filled with accusations and counter accusations, and thus leave the court with an endless search for details that eventually evaporate into nothing other than rank hearsay. It is our experience that the PAS phenomenon leaves a trail that can be identified more effectively by removing the accusation hysteria, and looking ahead in another positive direction.
For the purpose of this article the authors are assuming a fair degree of familiarity with parental alienation syndrome on the part of the reader.(3) There are many good writings on PAS which the reader may wish to consult now or in the future for general information. Our focus here is much more narrow. Specifically, the goal is twofold. First we will describe four very specific criteria that can be used to identify potential PAS. In most instances, these criteria can be identified through the facts of the case, but also can be revealed by deposition or court testimony. Secondly, we wish to introduce the concept of "attempted" PAS; that is when the criteria of PAS are present, but the child is not successfully alienated from the absent parent. This phenomenon is still quite harmful and the fact of children not being alienated should not be viewed as neutral by the court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The criteria described below are fairly easy to identify separate and apart from the court file. When there is uncertainty about any of them, these criteria can be used to guide the attorney in the deposing of witnesses as well as in their examination in court.
Criteria I: Access and Contact Blocking
Criteria I involves the active blocking of access or contact between the child and the absent parent. The rationale used to justify it may well take many different forms. One of the most common is that of protection. It may be argued that the absent parent's parental judgment is inferior and, therefore, the child is much worse off from the visit. In extreme cases, this will take the form of allegations of child abuse, quite often sexual abuse. This will be addressed in more detail in Criteria II, but suffice it to say that often this is heard as a reason for visitation to be suspended or even terminated. On a more subtle and common level, an argument heard for the blocking of visitation is that seeing the absent parent is "unsettling" to the child, and that they need time "to adjust." The message here is that the absent parent is treated less like a key family member and more like an annoying acquaintance that the child must see at times. Over time, this pattern can have a seriously erosive effect on the child's relationship with the absent parent. An even more subtle expression of this is that the visitation is "inconvenient," thereby relegating it to the status of an errand or chore. Again the result is the erosion of the relationship between the child and the absent or "target" parent. One phenomenon often seen in this context is that any deviation from the schedule is used as a reason to cancel visitation entirely.
The common thread to all of these tactics is that one parent is superior and the other is not and, therefore, should be peripheral to the child's life. The alienating parent in these circumstances is acting inappropriately as a gatekeeper for the child to see the absent parent. When this occurs for periods of substantial time, the child is given the unspoken but clear message that one parent is senior to the other. Younger children are more vulnerable to this message and tend to take it uncritically; however, one can always detect elements of it echoed even into the teenage years. The important concept here is that each parent is given the responsibility to promote a positive relationship with the other parent. When this principle is violated in the context of blocking access on a consistent basis, one can assume that Criteria I has been, unmistakably identified.
Criteria II: Unfounded Abuse Allegations
The second criteria is related to false or unfounded accusations of abuse against the absent parent. The most strident expression of this is the false accusation of sexual abuse.(4) It has been well studied that the incident of false allegations of sexual abuse account for over half of those reported, when the parents are divorcing or are in conflict over some post dissolution issue.(5) This is especially the situation with small children who are more vulnerable to the manipulations implied by such false allegations. When the record shows that even one report of such abuse is ruled as unfounded, the interviewer is well advised to look for other expressions of false accusations.
Other examples of this might be found in allegations of physical abuse that investigators later rule as being unfounded. Interestingly our experience has been that there are fewer false allegations of physical abuse than of other forms of abuse, presumably because physical abuse leaves visible evidence. It is, of course, much easier to falsely accuse someone of something that leaves no physical sign and has no third party witnesses.
A much more common expression of this pattern would be that of what would be termed emotional abuse. When false allegations of emotional abuse are leveled, one often finds that what is present is actually differing parental judgment that is being framed as "abusive" by the absent parent. For example, one parent may let a child stay up later at night than the other parent would, and this scheduling might be termed as being "abusive" or "detrimental" to the child. Or one parent might introduce a new "significant other" to the child before the other parent believes that they should and this might also be called "abusive" to the child. Alternatively one parent might enroll a child in an activity with which the other parent disagrees and this activity is, in actuality, a difference of parental opinion that is now described as being abusive in nature. These examples, as trivial as they seem individually, may be suggestive of a theme of treating parental difference in inappropriately subjective judgmental terms. If this theme is present, all manner of things can be described in ways that convey the message of abuse, either directly or indirectly. When this phenomenon occurs in literally thousands of different ways and times, each of which seems insignificant on its own, the emotional atmosphere that it creates carries a clearly alienating effect on the child.
Obviously, this type of acrimony is very common in dissolution actions but such conflict should not necessarily be mistaken or be taken as illustrative of the PAS syndrome; however, the criteria is clearly present and identifiable when the parent is eager to hurl abuse allegations, rather than being cautious, careful. and even reluctant to do so. This latter stance is more in keeping with the parent's responsibility to encourage and affirmatively support a relationship with the other parent. The responsible parent will only allege abuse after he or she has tried and failed to rationalize why the issue at hand is not abusive. Simply put, the responsible parent will give the other parent the benefit of the doubt when such allegations arise. He or she will, if anything, err on the side of denial, whereas the alienating parent will not miss an opportunity to accuse the other parent. When this theme is present in a clear and consistent way, this criteria for PAS is met.
Criteria III: Deterioration in Relationship Since Separation
The third of the criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is probably the least described or identified, but critically is one of the most important. It has to do with the existence of a positive relationship between the minor children and the now absent or nonresidential parent, prior to the marital separation; and a substantial deterioration, of it since then. Such a recognized decline does not occur on its own. It is, therefore, one of the most important indicators of the presence of alienation as well. as a full measure of its relative "success." By way of example, if a father had a good and involved relationship with the children prior to the separation, and a very distant one since, then one can only assume without explicit proof to the contrary that something caused it to change. If this father is clearly trying to maintain a positive relationship with the children through observance of visitation and other activities and the children do not want to see him or have him involved in their lives, then one can only speculate that an alienation process may have been in operation. Children do not naturally lose interest in and become distant from their nonresidential parent simply by virtue of the absence of that parent. Also, healthy and established parental relationships do not erode naturally of their own accord. They must be attacked. Therefore, any dramatic change in this area is virtually always an indicator of an alienation process that has had some success in the past.
Most notably, if a careful evaluation of the pre-separation parental relationship is not made, its omission creates an impression that the troubled or even alienated status that exists since is more or lees an accurate summary of what existed previously. Note that nothing could be further from the truth! An alienated or even partially or intermittently alienated relationship with the nonresidential parent and the children after the separation is more accurately a distortion of the real parental relationship in question. Its follow-through is often overlooked in the hysterical atmosphere that is often present in these cases. A careful practitioner well knows that a close examination is warranted and that it must be conducted with the utmost detail and scrutiny.
If this piece of the puzzle is left out, the consequences can be quite devastating for the survival of this relationship. Also, without this component, the court can be easily swayed into premature closure or fooled into thinking that the turmoil of the separation environment is representative of the true parent-child relationship. Once this ruling is made by the court, it is an exacting challenge to correct its perception.
In a separate but related issue, a word should be said about the use of experts. First, it must be understood that all mental health professionals are not aware of nor know how to treat the PAS phenomenon. In fact, when a mental health professional unfamiliar with PAS is called upon to make a recommendation about custody, access, or related issues, he or she potentially can do more harm than good. For example, if the psychologist fails to investigate the pre-separation relationship of the nonresidential parent and the children, he or she may very easily mistake the current acrimony in that relationship to be representative of it, and recommend that the children should have less visitation with that parent, obviously supporting the undiagnosed PAS that is still in progress. If that expert also fails to evaluate critically the abuse claims or the agenda of the claimant, they may be taken at face value and again potentially support the undiagnosed PAS. If that professional is not also sensitive to the subtleties of access and contact blocking as its motivator, he or she may potentially support it, thereby contributing to the PAS process. When these things occur, the mental health professional expert has actually become part of the PAS, albeit unwittingly. Alarmingly, this happens often. Suffice it to say, if PAS is suspected, the attorney should closely and carefully evaluate the mental health professional's investigation and conclusion. Failure to do so can cause irreparable harm to the case, and, ultimately to the children.
Criteria IV: Intense Fear Reaction by Children
The fourth criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is admittedly more psychological than the first three. It refers to an obvious fear reaction on the part of the children, of displeasing or disagreeing with the potentially alienating parent in regard to the absent or potential target parent. Simply put, an alienating parent operates by the adage, "My way or the highway." If the children disobey this directive, especially in expressing positive approval of the absent parent, the consequences can be very serious. It is not uncommon for an alienating parent to reject the child(ren), often telling him or her that they should go live with the target parent. When this does occur one often sees that this threat is not carried out, yet it operates more as a message of constant warning. The child, in effect, is put into a position of being the alienating parent's "agent'' and is continually being put through various loyalty tests. The important issue here is that the alienating patent thus forces the child to choose parents. This, of course, is in direct opposition to a child's emotional well being.
In order to fully appreciate this scenario, one must realize that the PAS process operates in a "fear based" environment. It is the installation of fear by the alienating parent to the minor children that is the fuel by which this pattern is driven; this fear taps into what psychoanalysis tell us is the most basic emotion inherent in human nature--the fear of abandonment. Children under these conditions live in a state of chronic upset and threat of reprisal. When the child does dare to defy the alienating parent, they quickly learn that there is a serious price to pay. Consequently, children who live such lives develop an acute sense of vigilance over displeasing the alienating parent. The sensitized observer can see this in visitation plans that suddenly change for no apparent reason. For example, when the appointed time approaches, the child suddenly changes his or her tune and begins to loudly protest a visit that was not previously complained about. It is in these instances that a court, once suspecting PAS must enforce in strict terms the visitation schedule which otherwise would not have occurred or would have been ignored.
The alienating parent can most often be found posturing bewilderment regarding the sudden change in their child's feelings about the visit. In fact, the alienating parent often will appear to be the one supporting visitation. This scenario is a very common one in PAS families. It is standard because it encapsulates and exposes, if only for an instant, the fear-based core of the alienation process. Another way to express this concept would be that whenever the child is given any significant choice in the visitation, he or she is put in the position to act out a loyalty to the alienating parent's wishes by refusing to have the visitation at all with the absent parent. Failure to do so opens the door for that child's being abandoned by the parent with whom the child lives the vast majority of the time. Children, under these circumstances, will simply not opt on their own far a free choice. The court must thus act expeditiously to protect them and employ a host of specific and available remedies.(6)
As a consequence of the foregoing, these children learn to manipulate. Children often play one parent against the other in an effort to gain some advantage. In the case of PAS, the same dynamic operates at more desperate level. No longer manipulating to gain advantage, these children learn to manipulate just to survive. They become expert beyond their years at reading the emotional environment, telling partial truths, and then telling out-and-out lies. One must, however, remember that these are survival strategies that they were forced to learn in order to keep peace at home and avoid emotional attack by the residential parent. Given this understanding, it is perhaps easier to see why children, in an effort to cope with this situation, often find it easier if they begin to internalize the alienating parent's perceptions of the absent parent and begin to echo these feelings. This is one of the most compelling and dramatic effects of PAS, that is, hearing a child vilifying the absent parent and joining the alienating parent in such attacks. If one is not sensitive to the "fear-based" core at the heart of this, it is difficult not to take the child's protests at face value. This, of course, is compounded when the expert is also not sensitive to this powerful fear component, and believes that the child is voicing his or her own inner feelings in endorsing the "no visitation" plan.
Conclusion
All the criteria listed above can be found independent of each other in highly contested dissolutions, but remember that the appearance of some of them does not always constitute PAS. When all four are clearly present, however, add the possibility of real abuse has been reasonably ruled out, the parental alienation process is operative. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it is succeeding in that the children are being successfully alienated from the target parent. The best predictor of successful alienation is directly related to the success of the alienating parent at keeping the children from the target parent. When there are substantial periods in which they do not see the other parent, the children are more likely to be poisoned by the process. Another variable that predicts success is the child's age. Younger children generally are more vulnerable than older ones. Also, another variable is the depth and degree of involvement of the pre-separation parent-child relationship. The longer and more involved that relationship, the less vulnerable will be the children to successful alienation. The final predictor is the parental tenacity of the target parent. A targeted parent often gives up and walks away, thus greatly increasing the chances of successful alienation.
The question remains: What if all four criteria are present, but the children are not successfully alienated? Should this failure at alienation be seen as nullifying the attempt at alienation? The answer to that should be a resounding "No!" It should be, but often it is not. It is very common to read a psychological evaluation or a GAL's report that identified PAS but then notes that since it was not successful, it should not be taken very seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood, which is to promote and encourage a positive and loving relationship with the other parent, and the concept of shared parental responsibility.
It is our feeling that when attempted PAS has been identified, successful or not, it must be dealt with swiftly by the court. If it is not, it will contaminate and quietly control all other parenting issues and then lead only to unhappiness, frustration, and, lastly, parental estrangement.
1 PAS syndrome applies and relates equally to the nonresidential, as well as the residential parent. D.C. Rand, The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome. 15 Am. J. Forensic Psychol. No. 3 (1997).
2 S.S. Clawar and B.V. Rivlin, Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children, A.B.A. (1991).
3 M. Walsh and J.M. Bone. Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Age-Old Custody Problem, 71 Fla. B.J. 93 (June 1997).
4 N. Theonnee and P.G. Tjaden, The Extent, Nature and Validity of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody Visitation Disputes, 12 Child Abuse and Neglect 151-63 (1990).
5 National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, 2998, Contract 105-85-1702.
6 The appointment of a guardian ad litem, the appointment of an expert to conduct a psychological evaluation of the child and the parents, the employment of make-up or substitute access and contact, or an enlargement of same to the nonresidential parent, and as previously suggested by the authors in their last article, a consideration for entry of a multidirectional order. Walsh and Bone, supra note .3
J. Michael Bone, Ph.D., is a sole practice psychotherapist and certified family law mediator in Maitland. He concentrates in divorce and post-divorce issues involving minor children, and has a special interest in PAS. He has served as on expert witness on these and related topics and has been appointed by the court to make recommendations involving PAS and families.
Michael R. Walsh is a sole practitioner in Orlando. He is a board certified marital and family law lawyer, certified mediator and arbitrator, and a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. For more than 20 years, he has been a frequent lecturer and author for The Florida Bar.
This column is submitted on behalf of the Family Law Section, Jane L. Estreicher, chair, and Sharon O. Taylor, editor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
