When children are pushed away from parents

As a direct result of our country's child custody laws, judicial practices and bureaucratic policies, millions of fit, loving and dedicated parents have been pushed away from their children. While its reported that many custodial parents primarily mothers are living in poverty, the same may also apply to non-custodial parents. A University of Wisconsin study found that 58 per cent of non-custodial parents are living below the poverty level. The fact financial resources are being transferred from one parent to the other without any accounting of how this money is being spent is a disincentive. In many cases, so-called child support money is not being used for the benefit of the child.

See the following example:

A man has a wife and children and his family is intact. He becomes involuntarily unemployed and may go many, many months without a job. He's not able to support his children and may not be able to for a long time. How would this situation be characterized? Unfortunate or sad? What will you all the man? A dead beat? How is his government going to interfere in family relationships? Will the government interfere with his ability to find a new job by revoking his drivers license or trade license? Will he be thrown in jail for not supporting his kids? Of course not! But, if he were to legally separate or divorce, everything would be different. If he loses his job and cannot support his children, the government intrudes into his life in a major way. He will likely not be awarded custody of his children, he will be allowed to visit them per a schedule and will be ordered to provide financial support. If he doesn't support the children, regardless of the fact that he has lost his job, he will be labelled a dead beat, have his trade license and drivers license revoked, and may even be thrown in jail.

A Michigan study found the boat or refugee children from the Far East who settled in America in the mid-1980s and are attending public schools, are out-producing American children in the classroom even though most of these refugee children live at or below poverty levels. The report concluded family structure, cultural values, parental involvement not economics led to healthy, successful and well-adjusted children. Studies show children from single-parent homes are more at risk of teenage pregnancy, poor academic performance, juvenile delinquency, suicide and violent crimes. It seems that in Canada, the first thing after separation and divorce is to create hostility through the children via lawyers and custodial parents to distance the other parent. The latest study out of Alberta shows 92 per cent of maintenance is paid.

An article appearing in the Canadian Bar Association from March/April of 2001 entitled, Whose best interests? by Janice Macalov also asks why are these changes are not being made to help children. The American Psychological Associations report says joint custody is best for children but government often decides that we should only have single-parent families or create dead beats. The most unbelievable statistic is that from 1968-92, divorce rates rose 505 per cent so the No Fault Divorce Act only created a way for people to not take responsibility for their actions. Finally, a Michigan State University study by Joan Ditson showed that single-parent households are responsible for 66 per cent of child abuse.

This study concluded:

Equal parenting/joint custody reduces single-parent overload, a major
cause of child abuse.

It reduces the amount of unsupervised time their child spends with
unrelated adults.

It serves as an early warning system if the second parent is losing
control.

The next time you hear the words dead beat, ask yourself the question ofwhy and who created them.

Edward ---- Your guest column, as it ran on Tuesday, May 21 --- regards,



Ron Barry