Parental Alienation- Why must our Provincal Laws be changed

IN 2008 ; The Province of New Brunswick did a study on reforming the current Family Services Act of the Province of New Brunswick. Only those in the legal community were invited to participate in this. Once only certain issues were addressed and it forgot one of the most important reasons why the changes are needed and that is Parental Alienation. On April 25th is Parental Alienation Awareness Day. Last year through Jack Carr, PC MLA with the Province of New Brunswick I introduced Parental Alienation into our Legislature. Currently over 2 years later the Pilot project is still not begun and is slated for May of this year. This is one of my conclusions when people ask me what causes Parental Alienation.



“Why do parents alienate their children from each other?”


“A key factor in all parental alienation families is the alienating parent’s real or perceived fear of abandonment. If the alienating parent is female, somewhere in her past she felt abandoned physically or emotionally by her father or another parental figure. If the alienating parent is male, in his past he felt physically or emotionally abandoned by his mother or another maternal figure. Unless these feelings are addressed, they stay with people into adulthood.


“So imagine a parent with unresolved abandonment issues going through a divorce or separation. In the parent’s mind, he or she is being abandoned all over again – this time by the ex. Since the parent never resolved the original issues, all the old abandonment feelings resurface. The parent needs someone to take responsibility for keeping the old feelings away and gives the job to his or her child – taking over the role just vacated by the ex.”


“So why can’t the child help the parent keep the abandonment feelings away and still have a relationship with the other parent?”


“The bond that forms between the alienating parent and the child is characteristic of a number of unhealthy issues including enmeshment, dependency and even Borderline Personality Disorder. In Borderline Personality Disorder a person has extremely poor boundaries and a pattern of instability in his or her interpersonal relationships. People with Borderline Personality Disorder are also emotionally unstable and have a poor self-image. And don’t forget, you also have a scared child who is being told that ‘Mom or Dad abandoned us.’ In such an unhealthy, co-dependent relationship, there is no room for the other parent.



So next time you wonder why people are so upset and asking why this is happening to them ask your local MLA or MP why they are still letting this happen. In 1998 " The For Sake Of the Children report" made 48 recommendation to change the current laws. They unlike the Provincial Report brought everyone from lawyers, Judges and all involved including people effected by the Archaic system. Its up to you to help and educate those around you why this is needed or it is our children that will suffer.



If you would like to read the report follow this Link.



http://www.gnb.ca/0062/FamilyJustice/FinalReport-e.pdf



Edward Hoyt



Founder of NBCEPA

Candidate for MLA Fundy River Valley
People's Alliance of New Brunswick

When Equal Parenting does not work

In receiving emails over the last few years and being an advocate of Equal Parenting I do get asked that question. " When do you believe Equal Parenting is not an option?'. In 80% of our society 100% true Equal Shared Parenting will work without question. In 15% there is from points where people just need parenting education and properly psychological intervention .The other 5% is what I will discuss tonight. When Equal Parenting just is not the acceptable alternative.

There are people in today's society that are far gone psychologically. They are the ones you read about in Newspapers or see on the TV news. I over the last few days have been involved in one certain case where the father that was too intoxicated and tried to as far as I can see murder the mother and unborn child. Even if his intent at the highest point of rage was to injure or maim the female still forgot their child inside awaiting to enter this world. This person with rage issues while intoxicated also has shown rage in front of their child. So if this child comes into the world how can the parents work as equal parents? This is when supervision is needed with proper authority. The thing is the aggressor can be male or female so how can this be stopped? Do we terminate parenthood , do we send them away and never think a person can change?

I look to see what possesses a person to finally snap and let that last little mouse off the wheel. Was it a build up from childhood and then the last synapse in the brain goes poof or is it that one last straw and the drug infusion in last push that last button. Do we attempt integration back into society or do we leave them as the lost souls of society?

The others that should never be allowed to enter into such agreements are perpetrators that invoke abuse and that is proven abuse not false allegations and pedophiles. They should not be allowed to be left alone in any circumstances. Never to have the right once they commit the ultimate of biblical atrocity. Maybe I sound extreme on this stance but why should anyone have the right to warp a child's mind?

I guess this should be one of the statements you need a licence to get married or drive even to have a dog or cat but not a child. Children should never have to suffer through any forms of abuse but when it becomes the difference between their sanity or life and the adult can not chose to manage their own selves within societal norms then its time not to look down the Equal Parenting path.

EMOTIONAL/BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH SOLE CUSTODY

The continued involvement of the non-custodial parent in the child's life appears crucial in preventing an intense sense of loss in the child... The importance of the relationship with the
non-custodial parent may also have implications for the legal issues of custodial arrangements
and visitation. The results of this study indicate that
arrangements where both parents are equally involved with the child are optimal. When this type of arrangement is not possible, the child's continued relationship with the non-custodial parent remains essential.

Source: Young Adult Children of Divorced Parents: Depression and the Perception of Loss, Rebecca L. Drill, P.h.D., Harvard University. Journal of Divorce, V.10, #1/2, Fall/Winter 1986.


"Parental divorce and father loss has been associated with difficulties in school adjustment (e.g. Felner, Ginter, Boike, & CowenJ), social adjustment (e.g. Fry & Grover) and personal adjustment (e.g. Covell & Turnbull)..." "The results of the present study suggest that father loss through divorce is associated with diminished self-concepts in children...at least for this sample from the midwestern United States."

Source: Children's Self Concepts: Are They Affected by Parental Divorce and Remarriage; Thomas S. Parish, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1987, V.2, #4, 559-562.

"It is ironic, and of some interest, that we have subjected joint custody to a level and intensity of scrutiny that was never directed towards the traditional post-divorce arrangement (sole legal and physical custody to the mother and two weekends each month of visiting to the father). Developmental and relationship theory should have alerted the mental health field to the potential immediate and long range consequences for the child of only seeing a parent for four days each month. And yet until recently, there was no particular challenge to this traditional post-divorce parenting arrangement, despite growing evidence that such post-divorce relationships were not sufficiently nurturing or stabilizing for many children and parents."
"There is some evidence that in our well-meaning efforts to save children in the immediate post-separation period from anxiety, confusion, and the normative divorce-engendered conflict, we have set the stage in the longer run for the more ominous symptoms of anger, depression, and a deep sense of loss by depriving the child of the opportunity to maintain a full relationship with each parent."

Source: Examining Resistance to Joint Custody, Monograph by Joan Kelly, P.h.D. (associate of Judith Wallerstein, P.h.D.) From the 1991 Book Joint Custody and Shared Parenting, second edition, Guilford Press, 1991.

- Nunan compared 20 joint custody children (ages 7-11) with 20 age-matched children in sole maternal custody. All families were at least two years after separation or divorce. Joint custody children were found to have higher ego strengths, superego strengths and self-esteem than the single custody children. The joint custody children were also found to be less excitable and less impatient than their sole custody counterparts.

Source: S.A. Nunan, "Joint Custody vs. Single Custody Effects on Child Development", Doctoral thesis 1980. California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley, UMI No. 81-10142

- Welsh-Osga compared children intact families with joint custody and single custody families. Age range 4.5 to 10 years old. Children from joint custody were found to be more satisfied with the time spent with both parents. Parents in joint custody were found to be more involved with their children. (Joint custody parents found to be less overburdened by parenting responsibilities than sole custody parents).

Source: B. Welsh-Osga, "The Effects of Custody Arrangements on Children of Divorce." Doctoral thesis, 1981. University of South Dakota, UMI No.82-6914.

- Cowan compared 20 joint custody and 20 sole (maternal) custody families. Children in joint custody were rated as better adjusted by their mothers compared with children of sole custody mothers. The children's perceptions in sole custody situations correlated with the amount of time spent with their father! The more time children from sole maternal custody spent with their fathers, the more accepting BOTH parents were perceived to be, and the more well-adjusted were the children.

Source: D.B. Cowan, "Mother Custody vs. Joint Custody: Children's Parental Relationship and Adjustment." Doctoral Thesis, 1982. University of Washington. UMI No. 82-18213

- Pojman compared children in the age range 5 to 13 years old. Boys in joint custody were significantly better adjusted than boys in sole maternal custody. Comparing boys in all groups, boys in joint custody compared very similarly to boys from happy families.

Source: E.G. Pojman. "Emotional Adjustment of Boys in Sole and Joint Custody Compared with Adjustment of Boys in Happy and Unhappy Marriages." Doctoral thesis 1982. California Graduate Institute. UMI No. ? Source of similar finding: V. Shiller. "Joint and Maternal Custody: The Outcome for Boys aged 6-11 and Their Parents." Doctoral thesis 1984. University of Deleware. UMI No. 85-11219. Source of similar finding: J. Schaub, "Joint Custody After Divorce: Views and Attitudes of Mental Health Professionals and Writers." Rutgers University,Doctoral Thesis, 1986. No. 86-14559

- 90 fathers were questioned regarding how unequal recognition of parental rights might encourage conflict. Joint legal custody was found to encourage parental cooperation and discourage self-interest. Sole custody in both custodial AND non-custodial status encouraged punishment-oriented persuasion strategies. Unequal custody power was perceived as inhibiting parental cooperation by BOTH parents.

Source: M.R. Patrician. "The Effects of Legal Child-Custody Status on Persuasion Strategy Choices and Communication Goals of Fathers." Doctoral thesis 1984. University of San Francisco. UMI No. 85-14995.

-Self Esteem found higher in children of joint custody. Children in joint custody report significantly more positive experiences than children of sole maternal custody.

Source: S.A. Wolchik, S.L. Braver and I.N. Sandler. J. of Clinical Child Psychology. Vol. 14, p.5-10, 1985.

- Age range of children 5 to 12 years, studying early period of separation or divorce. Boys and girls in sole custody situation had more negative involvement with their parents than in joint custody situations. There was an increase reported in sibling rivalry reported for sole custody children when visiting their father (non-custodial parent). Girls in joint custody reported to have significantly higher self-esteem than girls in sole custody.

Source: E.B. Karp. Children's Adjustment in Joint and Single Custody: An Empirical Study. Doctoral thesis 1982. California school of professional psychology, Berkeley. UMI No. 83-6977.

- Comparative study of children in mother sole custody, father sole custody, joint custody with mother primary, joint custody with father primary. Children in joint custody situations were found to be better adjusted than children in sole custody situations.

Source: J.A. Livingston. "Children After Divorce: A Psychosocial Analysis of the Effects of Custody on Self-esteem." Doctoral thesis 1983. University of Vermont. UMI No. 83-26981.

Nationally, 19.1% of children from 3 to 17 years old, living only with their biological mother, and 23.6% of those living with their biological mother and stepfather, exhibit a significant emotional or behavioral problem. This compares to only 8.3% of children living with both biological parents.

Source: N. Zill and C. Schoenborn, "Developmental, Learning, and Emotional Problems: Health of our Nation's Children", National Center for Health Statistics, Advance Data, 190 (November 16, 1990).

Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent.

Source: Jean Bethke Elshtain, "Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children", The Christian Century (July 1993), pp. 14-21.

Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teenage pregnancy and criminality.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, "Survey on Child Health" (Washington, D.C., 1993).

Children who live apart from their fathers are 4.3 times more likely to smoke cigarettes as teenagers than children growing up with their fathers in the home:

Source: Warren R. Stanton, Tian P.S. Oci, and Phil A. Silva, "Sociodemographic Characteristics of Adolescent Smokers," The International Journal of the Addictions (1994), pp.913-925.

Woman charged after grandchildren drowned

SARNIA—A southwestern Ontario woman has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her grandchildren.

Sarnia police told a news conference Friday that Jane LaMarsh, 48, also faces a charge of attempted murder in relation to her daughter.

She was arrested on Thursday afternoon.

Police have been investigating since a car plunged into the St. Clair River on Dec. 3.
LaMarsh, of Wallaceburg, Ont., and her 12-year-old daughter, Jennifer LaMarsh, managed to get out of the vehicle and make it to shore.

The grandchildren, six-year-old Taiya Talbot and 10-year-old Tyler Bernard, died in the submerged vehicle.

“We have formed the grounds that will show that there was a premeditation in regards to this incident,” said Sgt. Scott MacLean.

“Following just over three months of investigation, members of the criminal investigation division sought and were granted a warrant for the arrest of Jane LaMarsh.”

St. Clair Catholic District School Board director Paul Wubben said news of the arrest has yet to trickle down to students at St. Elizabeth School where the children attended.

“They will, of course, become aware over the course of the weekend,” he said.

“As a result, we will have in place for them, if needed, social workers, our elementary chaplaincy leader will be there and certainly for the staff we'll take similar steps.”

Wubben suggested the arrest doesn't come as a huge surprise as local media reports have alluded to the fact that homicide detectives were involved in the accident investigation.
LaMarsh made a court appearance Friday. She was remanded into custody and will appear again Feb. 26.


http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/764564--woman-charged-after-grandchildren-drowned?bn=1

Alta. father didn't know drowned boys were with mother

Alta. father didn't know drowned boys were with mother

Man rushed home to check on kids after finding out his wife was in hospital; police confirm boys' deaths are homicides

Bob Weber

Edmonton — The Canadian Press Published on Wednesday, Feb. 03, 2010 6:57PM EST Last updated on Wednesday, Feb. 03, 2010 6:59PM EST


It was a call from the police that gave Curtis McConnell the first hint that something had gone terribly wrong.

But the call was about Mr. McConnell's wife, Allyson, who had been taken to hospital. It wasn't until the panicked Alberta man rushed home to check on his two young boys that he found their bodies, apparently drowned in a bathtub.

“The police didn't know there were kids involved,” said Cara Rotenburger, a friend of Mr. McConnell's who spoke to him after Mondays tragic events in Millet, Alta.
“(Curtis) got a call from the Edmonton Police Service stating that Ally McConnell was in the hospital, to which he responded, Where are my children? “ Police told him the boys were with a babysitter or neighbour, Ms. Rotenburger said. Still, Mr. McConnell went home to check.
“(He) went in and looked around for his kids. And they weren't in their rooms or anywhere. He went into a bathroom that they don't use and found his kids ... floating in a tub of water. He pulled them out and laid them out onto the floor and then he ran and got his neighbour.
“He was on the phone, screaming his head off, asking, Why? “ Edmonton police have said a woman tried to kill herself Monday by jumping off a bridge onto a busy expressway in the city, although they wouldn't confirm the woman was Allyson McConnell, 31. The woman survived the fall.

A car that police said has ties to the McConnell home was found in the parking lot of a nearby toy store.

RCMP have identified the boys as Connor, 3, and Jayden, 10 months old, and say the medical examiner has deemed the deaths homicides.

Police would not release the cause of death, or give any other information, saying it could jeopardize the investigation.

No one has been arrested and no charges have been laid.

Mr. McConnell, 31, now with his family, said in a Facebook memorial to his sons that he has been left with “unanswerable questions.”

He said he is “holding on to the feelings I got from holding them.”

“They loved me so much and I loved them so much.”

He said that although he couldn't protect his children, he can still work to be the best person he can be for them.

“I have to live the life my kids would want me to live.”

By Tuesday afternoon, a pile of stuffed animals and flowers had been placed as a memorial outside the family home in Millet, a town of about 2,000 southeast of Edmonton.

The McConnells met in 2005, when Allyson, an Australian, was living in Canada on a work permit. They were married in Australia in 2007 and moved back to Canada.

But court documents show the couple had been going through a painful divorce, with custody of the children a major issue.

In an affidavit, Mr. McConnell said Ms. McConnell had “been threatening me that she wants to move back to Australia with our children. I am fearful that she will attempt to do this without my consent or knowledge.”

“I have taken our children's passports for safekeeping,” he said.

A statement of defence filed on behalf of Ms. McConnell noted she has limited family contacts in Alberta but has “a broad network of support in Australia” and would “be entitled to significant government financial support should she return to Australia.”

The document also says she would have better professional opportunities in Australia.
A final decision in the case was not made, but the judge had ruled the children should stay in Alberta under joint custody, staying with Ms. McConnell, while the matter was being sorted out.
Rotenburger described the McConnells as “a great couple” until recently.

“Ally just wanted to go home,” Ms. Rotenburger said. “She just wanted to go back to Australia.”
Ms. Rotenburger called Mr. McConnell a great father, happy to do things like join in the fun when his boys and Ms. Rotenburgers daughter played in the ball pit at a recent trip to West Edmonton Mall.

“He tried his best to be the best dad he could be.”

She described Ms. McConnell as a quiet person she didn' get to know that well.
“She didn't want to be here any more. She didn't have any family here.”

In Memory of All Good Fathers

The following is a speech by the then 15-year-old Ashlee White, whose father, Mr. Darrin White, had committed suicide in March of 2000.


Mr. White, who was being denied any access to his children by his former wife and the so-called “Family” Court System of Canada, had also been ordered by the courts to pay his estranged wife twice his take-home pay in child support and alimony each month.


BC Supreme Court Judge, Master Doug Baker ordered Darren to pay $2,071 per month in child and spousal support (yet, he wasn’t even being allowed to see his own children). His monthly income at the time of that order was only $950 after taxes. He was also paying $439 a month to support an older child from a previous marriage. Master Baker also ordered Darren out of his home with only two days notice. Darren had nowhere to live nor any way to meet his court ordered financial obligations. Darren was already being denied any access to his children. He was 32 years old, and he had suddenly lost everything; his home, his marriage, his children and his dignity. Darren went into the woods near the University of Northern BC in Prince George, and hung himself.

In Memory of All Good Fathers

March 11, 2002

My name is Ashlee Barnett White. I am the daughter of late Darrin White, the loving father who committed suicide because of unjust treatment from the family court system. I would like to thank everyone for coming here today and for joining in to not only remember the death of my father, but more importantly to help bring hope for the many other children who suffer now as a result of family court injustices or will at some time in the future.

I am here today not only to speak for my father, but for all fathers and all non-custodial parents who have suffered injustice because of the family court system. The destruction of parents, mostly fathers, is a plague on our nation. It is no less than a national disgrace. To have parents who cannot see their children in a civilized country is nothing less than barbaric. To have a family court system that destroys families and punishes good loving fathers is not acceptable.
I know that if my father was alive today he would be proud to see me up here and speaking in front of a group of supporters for this is not an easy thing to do. I know that he would be thankful to see that his death was not in vain but that it has served as a rallying point for a more noble and just cause. My father was a good man and would be happy to see me fight for something he believed in – Justice.

Let me tell you about my father. He was a loving and devoted father who only wanted to have what most fathers want – a family that he could care for and love. In the time before his death the thing he wanted the most was to have contact with the children he loved. He was a father who I know loved me.

Probably the biggest fault of my father was that he trusted and believed in those around him. He trusted his wife, only to have her leave him, take his children and prevent him from seeing the children he loved and adored. He trusted the court system to bring him justice for he believed that Canada’s Family Court System was supposed to be one of the best justice systems in the world. But he was wrong. The family court system took his money and rather than giving him justice, subjected him to the most harsh and cruel punishment. He trusted his country, Canada, for he believed that Canada was supposed to have rights and freedoms to protect its citizens. But he was wrong. His country did not come to help him but trampled on his rights and freedoms and supported those in the family court system who was subjecting him to the injustice. His county let him down.

Since the death of my father, I have found out much about our family court system. I have found out that the circumstances surrounding my father were not isolated events. I have learned that many other fathers in Canada are being subjected to the same cruel torture by the same biased family court system that destroyed the heart and soul of my father prior to his death. I have learned that many other fathers have taken their lives as well just so that they can stop the pain and suffering.

Fathers play an important role in the lives of their children. They are there to share the birth of their children and to see them take their first steps. The first day of school and the first tooth are events that father’s share with their children. There are countless children who can remember how their father taught them to ride their two-wheeler bikes. Many fathers are there to give hugs, to say good night and to tell bedtime stories. Lets not kid ourselves, when it comes to raising kids, fathers are important.

Let all of us pause for just a minute and close our eyes and think for one moment. Think of something good about your father when you were little and bring it fresh into your memory…

(Pause)
Now think of a few more things you remember about your father when you were little…(Pause)

Now imagine if your father was not there in your memories. Imagine that all the good thoughts you just had were never there. Imagine your father being ripped away from you. …forever. Would your life not be missing something?

Every day in Canada, this very thing is happening to young children across Canada. Every day children are being ripped away from their loving fathers as a result of a family break up. Every day hopes and dreams are being torn away from children. What is most disgusting is that our very family court system allows this to happen. When this is allowed to happen children are destroyed.

How many girls, like myself, have been robbed of their father to walk them down the isle when they get married? How may boys have been robbed of their father to guide them and to make them honest and caring men themselves? How many children have been robbed of their fathers who will help them fix their toys and be there to hug them? How many grandchildren have been robbed of their grandfathers?

As a young Canadian, after seeing how the court system and the country that support this court destroy my father and how it continues to destroy other children and their families, I can only say that I am utterly ashamed. As a Canadian, I am ashamed as to how the justice system continues to ignore the wishes of its own people and continues to delay implementation of much needed changes to our divorce laws, changes that Canadians want. As most of us know the Justice Department has deliberately delayed implementation of the Joint Senate/House of Commons report on Custody and Access.

We have a challenge ahead of us. We must stand together. We must fight together. We must fight to return justice to Canada’s Family Courts for the sake of the children of Canada and for the sake of Canada itself.

Now let’s spread the word and on behalf of all the children in Canada, let us continue on with our fight and to let our government know that if Canada is truly to be a place that families can be proud to call home then our family courts must understand only one thing, and that is Shared Parenting. Let us not ever forget that Kids Need Both Parents.

Thank you and God Bless.
Ashlee Barnett White

New Brunswick needs to Adopt 1998 recomendations

Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access December 1998

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS *

Page numbers in parentheses indicate the location of the recommendation in the text of the Committee's report.

1. This Committee recommends that the Divorce Act be amended to include a Preamble alluding to the relevant principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (Page 23)*

2. This Committee recognizes that parents’ relationships with their children do not end upon separation or divorce and therefore recommends that the Divorce Act be amended to add a Preamble containing the principle that divorced parents and their children are entitled to a close and continuous relationship with one another. (Page 23)

3. This Committee recommends that it is in the best interests of children that- They have the opportunity to be heard when parenting decisions affecting them are being made;- Those whose parents divorce have the opportunity to express their views to a skilled professional, whose duty it would be to make those views known to any judge, assessor or mediator making or facilitating a shared parenting determination;- A court have the authority to appoint an interested third party, such as a member of the child’s extended family, to support and represent a child experiencing difficulties during parental separation or divorce;- The federal government work with the provinces and territories to ensure that the necessary structures, procedures and resources are in place to enable such consultation to take place, whether decisions are being made under the Divorce Act or provincial legislation; and- We recognize that children of divorce have a need and a right to the protection of the courts, arising from their inherent jurisdiction. (Page 23)

4. This Committee recommends that where, in the opinion of the court, the proper protection of the best interests of the child requires it, judges have the power to appoint legal counsel for the child. Where such counsel is appointed, it must be provided to the child. (Page 23)

5. This Committee recommends that the terms “custody and access” no longer be used in the Divorce Act and instead that the meaning of both terms be incorporated and received in the new term “shared parenting”, which shall be taken to include all the meanings, rights, obligations, and common-law and statutory interpretations embodied previously in the terms “custody and access”. (Page 27)

6. This Committee recommends that the Divorce Act be amended to repeal the definition of “custody” and to add a definition of “shared parenting” that reflects the meaning ascribed to that term by this Committee. (Page 28)

7. This Committee recommends that the federal government work with the provinces and territories toward a corresponding change in the terminology in provincial/territorial family law. (Page 28)

8. This Committee recommends that the common law “tender years doctrine” be rejected as a guide to decision making about parenting. (Page 28)

9. This Committee recommends that both parents of a child receive information and records in respect of the child’s development and social activities, such as school records, medical records and other relevant information. The obligation to provide such information should extend to schools, doctors, hospitals and others generating such information or records, as well as to both parents, unless ordered otherwise by a court. (Page 28)

10. This Committee recommends that all parents seeking parenting orders, unless there is agreement between them on the terms of such an order, be required to participate in an education program to help them become aware of the post-separation reaction of parents and children, children’s developmental needs at different ages, the benefits of co-operative parenting after divorce, parental rights and responsibilities, and the availability and benefits of mediation and other forms of dispute resolution, provided such programs are available. A certificate of attendance at such a post-separation education program would be required before the parents would be able to proceed with their application for a parenting order. Parents should not be required to attend sessions together (Page 30).

11. This Committee recommends that divorcing parents be encouraged to develop, on their own or with the help of a trained mediator or through some form of alternative dispute resolution, a parenting plan setting out details about each parent’s responsibilities for residence, care, decision making and financial security for the children, together with the dispute resolution process to be used by the parties. Parenting plans must also require the sharing between parents of health, educational and other information related to the child’s development and social activities. All parenting orders should be in the form of parenting plans. (Page 32)

12. This Committee recommends that the relationships of grandparents, siblings and other extended family members with children be recognized as significant and that provisions for maintaining and fostering such relationships, where they are in the best interests of those children, be included in parenting plans. (Page 32)

13. This Committee recommends that the Minister of Justice seek to amend the Divorce Act to require that parties applying to a court for a parenting order must file a proposed parenting plan with the court. (Page 32)

14. This Committee recommends that divorcing parents be encouraged to attend at least one mediation session to help them develop a parenting plan for their children. Recognizing the impact of family violence on children, mediation and other non-litigation methods of decision-making should be structured to screen for and identify family violence. Where there is a proven history of violence by one parent toward the other or toward the children, alternative forms of dispute resolution should be used to develop parenting plans only when the safety of the person who has been the victim of violence is assured and where the risk of violence has passed. The resulting parenting plan must focus on parental responsibilities for the children and contain measures to ensure safety and security for parents and children. (Page 33)

15. This Committee recommends that the Divorce Act be amended to provide that shared parenting determinations under sections 16 and 17 be made on the basis of the “best interests of the child”. (Page 44)

16. The Committee recommends that decision makers, including parents and judges, consider a list of criteria in determining the best interests of the child, and that list shall include16.1 The relative strength, nature and stability of the relationship between the child and each person entitled to or claiming a parenting order in relation to the child; 16.2 The relative strength, nature and stability of the relationship between the child and other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and persons involved in the care and upbringing of the child; 16.3 The views of the child, where such views can reasonably be ascertained; 16.4 The ability and willingness of each applicant to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child; 16.5 The child’s cultural ties and religious affiliation; 16.6 The importance and benefit to the child of shared parenting, ensuring both parents’ active involvement in his or her life after separation; 16.7 The importance of relationships between the child and the child’s siblings, grandparents and other extended family members; 16.8 The parenting plans proposed by the parents; 16.9 The ability of the child to adjust to the proposed parenting plans; 16.10 The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent; 16.11 Any proven history of family violence perpetrated by any party applying for a parenting order; 16.12 There shall be no preference in favor of either parent solely on the basis of that parent’s gender; 16.13 The willingness shown by each parent to attend the required education session; and 16.14 Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular shared parenting dispute. (Page 45)

17. This Committee recommends that the Divorce Act be amended to ensure that parties to proceedings under the Divorce Act can choose to have such proceedings conducted in either of Canada’s official languages. (Page 46)

18. Whereas the federal government is required by statute to review the Federal Child Support Guidelines within five years of their implementation, this Committee recommends that the Minister of Justice undertake as early as possible a comprehensive review of the Guidelines to reflect gender equality and the child’s entitlement to financial support from both parents, and to give particular attention to the following additional concerns raised by this Committee: 18.1 Incorporation into the Child Support Guidelines of the new concepts and language proposed by this Committee; 18.2 The impact of the current tax treatment of child support on the adequacy of child support as it is awarded under the Guidelines and on parents’ ability to meet other financial obligations, such as to children of second or subsequent relationships; 18.3 The desirability of considering both parents’ income, or financial capacity, in determining child support amounts, including the 40% rule for determining whether the parenting arrangement is “shared parenting”; 18.4 Recognition of the expenses incurred by support payers while caring for their children; 18.5 Recognition of the additional expenses incurred by a parent following a relocation of the other parent with the children; 18.6 Parental contributions to the financial support of adult children attending post-secondary institutions; 18.7 The ability of parties to contract out of the Federal Child Support Guidelines; and 18.8 The impact of the Guidelines on the income of parties receiving public assistance. (Page 51)

19. This Committee recommends that the federal government work with the provinces and territories toward the development of a nation-wide coordinated response to failures to respect parenting orders, involving both therapeutic and punitive elements. Measures should include early intervention, parenting education programs, a make-up time policy, counseling for families experiencing parenting disputes, mediation and, for persistent intractable cases, punitive solutions for parents who wrongfully disobey parenting orders. (Page 55)

20. This Committee recommends that the federal government establish a national computerized registry of shared parenting orders. (Page 55)

21. This Committee recommends that the provincial and territorial governments consider amending their family law to provide that maintaining and fostering relationships with grandparents and other extended family members is in the best interests of children and that such relationships should not be disrupted without a significant reason related to the well-being of the child. (Page 57)

22. This Committee recommends that the federal government provide leadership by ensuring that adequate resources are secured for the following initiatives identified by this Committee as critical to the effort to develop a more child-centered approach to family law policies and practices: 22.1 Expansion of unified family courts across Canada, including the dedication of ample resources to interventions and programs aimed at ensuring compliance with parenting orders, such as early intervention programs, parenting education, make-up time policies, family and child counseling, and mediation; 22.2 Civil legal aid to ensure that parties to contested parenting applications are not prejudiced by the lack or inadequacy of legal representation; 22.3 A Children’s Commissioner, an officer of Parliament reporting to Parliament, who would superintend and promote the welfare and best interests of children under the Divorce Act and in other areas of federal responsibility; 22.4 The provision of legal representation for children when appointed by a judge; 22.5 Parenting education programs; 22.6 Supervised access programs; and 22.7 Enhanced opportunities for professional development for judges, focused on the concept of shared parenting formulated by this Committee, the impact of divorce on children, and the importance of maintaining relationships between children and their parents and extended family members. (Page 59)

23. This Committee recommends that the federal government continue to work with the provinces and territories to accelerate the establishment of unified family courts, or courts of a similar nature, in all judicial districts across Canada. (Page 63)

24. This Committee recommends that unified family courts, in addition to their adjudicative function, include a broad range of non-litigation support services, which might include 24.1 family and child counseling, 24.2 public legal education, 24.3 parenting assessment and mediation services, 24.4 an office responsible for hearing and supporting children who are experiencing difficulties stemming from parental separation or divorce, and 24.5 case management services, including monitoring the implementation and enforcement of shared parenting orders. (Page 64)

25. This Committee recommends that, as much as possible, provincial and territorial governments, law societies and court administrators work toward establishing a priority for shared parenting applications, above other family law matters in dispute. (Page 64)

26. This Committee recommends that in matters relating to parenting under the Divorce Act, the importance of the presence of both parties at any proceeding be recognized and emphasized, and that reliance on ex parte proceedings be restricted as much as possible. (Page 64)

27. This Committee recommends that court orders respecting shared parenting be more detailed, readable and intelligible to police officers called upon to enforce them. (Page 67)

28. This Committee recommends that provincial and territorial governments explore a variety of vehicles for increasing public awareness about the impact of divorce on children and, in particular, the aspects of parental conduct upon marriage breakdown that are most harmful to children, and implement such education programs as fully as possible. To the extent practicable, the Committee recommends that the federal government contribute to such efforts within its own jurisdiction, including the provision of funding. (Page 68)

29. This Committee recommends that the federal government extend financial support to programs run by community groups for couples wanting to avoid separation and divorce or seeking to strengthen their marital relationship. (Page 68)

30. This Committee recommends that the Divorce Act be amended to require (a) that a parent wishing to relocate with a child, where the distance would necessitate the modification of agreed or court-ordered parenting arrangements, seek judicial permission at least 90 days before the proposed move and (b) that the other parent be given notice at the same time. (Page 70)

31. This Committee recommends that provinces and territories and the relevant professional associations develop accreditation criteria for family mediators and for social workers and psychologists involved in shared parenting assessments. (Page 72)

32. This Committee recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments work together to encourage the development of effective models for the early identification of high-conflict families seeking divorce. Such families should be streamed into a specialized, expedited process and offered services designed to improve outcomes for their children. (Page 74)

33. This Committee recommends that professionals who meet with children experiencing parental separation recognize that a child’s wish not to have contact with a parent could reveal a significant problem and should result in the immediate referral of the family for therapeutic intervention. (Page 74) 34. This Committee recommends that the federal, provincial and territorial governments work together to ensure the availability of supervised parenting programs to serve Canadians in every part of Canada. (Page 76)

35. This Committee recommends that the Divorce Act be amended to make explicit provision for the granting of supervised parenting orders where necessary to ensure continuing contact between a parent and a child in situations of transition, or where there is clear evidence that the child requires protection. (Page 76)

36. This Committee recommends that the provincial and territorial governments require child protection agencies to provide disclosure of records of investigations to court-appointed assessors examining families who have been the subject of such investigations. (Page 77)

37. This Committee recommends that the Attorneys General of Canada and the provinces, along with police forces and police organizations, ensure that all warrants in child abduction matters provide expressly that their application and enforcement are national. (Page 84)

38. This Committee recommends that the Attorney General of Canada work to develop a coordinated national response to the problem of child abduction within Canada. (Page 84)

39. This Committee recommends that the unilateral removal of a child from the family home without suitable arrangements for contact between the child and the other parent be recognized as contrary to the best interests of the child, except in an emergency. (Page 84)

40. This Committee recommends that a parent who has unilaterally removed a child not be permitted to rely on the resulting period of sole care and control of the child, of whatever duration, as the basis for a sole parenting order. (Page 84)

41. This Committee recommends that the federal government implement the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Development of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled International Child Abduction: Issues for Reform. (Page 84)

42. This Committee recommends that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Passport Office continue to examine ways to improve the identification of minor children in travel documents and consider further the advisability of requiring that all children be issued individual passports. (Page 84)

43. This Committee recommends that, to deal with intentional false accusations of abuse or neglect, the federal government assess the adequacy of the Criminal Code in dealing with false statements in family law matters and develop policies to promote action on clear cases of mischief, obstruction of justice or perjury. (Page 90)

44. This Committee recommends that the federal government work with the provinces and territories to encourage child welfare agencies to track investigations of allegations of abuse made in the context of parenting disputes, in order to provide a statistical basis for a better understanding of this problem. (Page 93)

45. This Committee recommends that the federal government engage in further consultation with Aboriginal organizations and communities across Canada about issues related to shared parenting that are particular to those communities, with a view to developing a clear plan of action to be implemented in a timely way. (Page 97)

46. This Committee recommends that the federal government include as the basis for such consultations the family law-related recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and work toward their implementation as appropriate. (Page 98)

47. This Committee recommends that sexual orientation not be considered a negative factor in the disposition of shared parenting decisions. (Page 99)

48. This Committee recommends that the Minister of Foreign Affairs work toward the signing and ratification as soon as possible of the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Law Applicable, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. (Page 101)