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)

Equal Shared Parenting Protects You The Canadian Tax Payer:

Since the introduction of the so-called “No Fault Divorce,” the divorce industry has evidenced unprecedented growth, and has become a multi-billion dollar business in Canada. After it’s introduction the divorce rate has steadily climbed from 8% to being among the world’s highest at about 50% of marriages. Each year there are approximately 75,000 divorces and 50,000 child custody orders. Of these approximately 90% of the time custody is awarded to mothers. There are approximately 2 million children in Canada who are now living life without their Father due to the adversarial Family Court System.

So, what is the financial cost of the adversarial Family Justice System to Canadian Taxpayers and Families? Here is a breakdown of the annual costs just for the operations of the Family Justice System only.



You the Canadian Taxpayers are paying for this:



Cost of Judges Salary – $300,000,000


Cost of Administration, Operations, $400,000,000


Cost of Court Security - $100,000,000


Cost of Legal Aid - $200,000,000


Cost of Enforcement - $120,000,000


Cost of Lawyers - $4,600,000,000



These numbers are estimated, based on the Ontario numbers provided by the Ontario Provincial Auditor, as details for New Brunswick were not available. With one third of the total population of Canada residing in Ontario, the totals for Canada were prorated accordingly. In those cases where input numbers included Civil and Criminal justice, the proportion to Family Justice was approximated. These costs do not include the many other associated costs such as mediators, social workers, police, children’s aid societies, etc. They are just the costs related to the Family Court portion.


References: Attorney General, Ontario Court Services Annual Report 2005, Ontario Provincial Auditor – Annual Report 2003, Federal Funding of Provincial Child Support enforcement, Department of Justice – Report on Plans and Priorities 2004-2005, Canadian Judicial Council, Profile of legal aid services in family law maters in Canada, CanLaw.


The Total Yearly Cost to Canadian Taxpayers and Families in Crises is approximately $6 Billion per year. Remember though, that is only the administrational costs.


For this huge expenditure, there is absolutely no value or benefit to our Canadian families, or Canadian Society as a whole. In fact, our Family Justice System only brings about harm and damage to our Families, and our Society. The only people benefiting from the court created family conflict are the Judges (Former Lawyers) and Family Law Lawyers, as well as the Assessors, who charge up to twenty thousand dollars to do an assessment.


What is the financial cost of the adversarial Family Justice System to Canadian society as a whole? When you add up the costs incurred by society for items such as; courts; legal subsidization; additional costs to healthcare; additional costs to education systems and other social institutions; the increase in crime, including juvenile delinquency; policing; welfare costs for those single parent families that fall into poverty; E.I.; support and enforcement agencies such as FRO; the impact on workplace productivity and placement, as well as loss of productivity on the part of affected adults; personal bankruptcies; crime; and the future costs related to be responsible for such a situation; the costs to Canadian society and Canadian Taxpayers is astronomical. Some estimates have been given as high as 10 to 12 Billion Dollars annually.
Although buried in our social fabric, these are real costs that impact the country’s bottom line, and from a global business perspective, they impact our competitiveness. For our society as a whole, the dissolution of marriage is a costly proposition.


Couldn’t this money be put to better use?


Can you imagine the benefit to society as a whole if these funds were used for healing families, or for dealing with poverty?


Couldn’t this money be used to speed up the wait times in our National Health Care system?
Wouldn’t this money be better spent on Education programs?


France has free University for its Citizens, to the extent that there is no tuition charged by public universities. Students are only responsible for their own housing, food and other expenses. Couldn’t the billions being wasted on our failing Family Justice System be used to put a similar Public University Program into service here in Canada? Wouldn’t such a Public Service be more beneficial to Canadian society???


Shouldn’t the Billions wasted be redirected for programs to:


- Prevent family crises.- Help families on the edge recover.- Equitably address all issues of domestic violence regardless of gender.- Support families to help them survive divorce and help enable “New Beginnings”.- Focus efforts on legitimate cases of need and enforcement only where there is a dereliction of responsibilities.- Initiate programs to help eliminate the poverty caused by the impacts of divorce.


As we, the Canadian Taxpayers support divorce, as well as the added cost to society of single parent homes, shouldn’t we be the most powerful lobbying group the Government should pay attention to?

Unfortunately for the Children of Divorce, the Canadian Bar Association is the most powerful lobbyist group in Canada when it comes to the Family Justice System, and they don’t want things to change at all.

Equal Shared Parenting Helps To Reduce Conflict

For the Sake of the Children, the Rebuttable Presumption of Equal Shared Parenting would help reduce the conflict, as it levels the playing field between both parents, and ensures that neither parent needs to feel threatened about losing their relationship with their child. Equal Shared Parenting provides both parents, and the child, with the security of a continuing relationship with one another.

Research is abundantly clear that the level and intensity of Parental Conflict is the most influential factor in a Child’s post divorce adjustment. High conflict between parents is the single best predictor of a poor outcome for the child.

Common sense tells you that parental conflict deeply affects children, but it is even worse when the parents feel hatred towards one another. The adversarial nature of the Canadian Family Justice System is a perfect vehicle for generating outright hate amongst a divorcing couple. It does so by increasing the conflict and tension with an atmosphere built around fear of loss instead of hope and promise.

When parents sense that they may lose their child forever, because the child, being so young, will not have the capability of recovering the relationship on his or her own, they react to this threat with anger, hostility, and sometimes an irrational sense of impending doom.

Sometimes they flip out and do outrageous, and illegal things

... like the mother in Barrie who was embroiled in a bitter custody battle, who drowned her 2 children, Serena and Sophia (age 1 and 3), in 2006.

Frances Elaine Campione, who selfishly wanted to win sole custody of the children, so that she could return to her native New Brunswick and start a new life, murdered both children, because her ex-husband, Leonardo Campione, appeared to have been on the verge of more regular visits with his children, after more than a year of barely seeing his two daughters.

The Campione Family Tradgedy should haunt every politician, judicial officer, Family and Children Services worker, counsellor and family involved in a separation. The murders of these 2 precious little angels should make our Members of Parliament hang their heads in shame.

If our Government would have done the right thing back in 1991, and implemented the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into our National Law, including our Family Law, the Campione Children might still be alive today.

If our Government would have done the right thing back in 1998, and amended the Divorce Act to put into practice the recommendations of the For The Sake Of The Children report, little Serena and Sophia might still be alive today.

If our Government would have done the right thing back in 2002, and passed the Honourable Jay Hill’s, Equal Shared Parenting Private Members Bill, Bill C-245, two beautiful little angels might still be alive today.

If our Government refuses once again to reform the Family Justice System in Canada, and put into practice the Rebuttable Presumption of Equal Shared Parenting, it is just a matter of time before a similar tragedy occurs.

To read an article from Canada.com on The Campione Family Tragedy , please click on the title.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=d3559993-aa42-41db-87b1-d227556b1840

New Brunswick Needs a "Safe Haven" Legislation to protect those that are unprotected

In 1999, Texas became the first state to enact a "safe haven" law, which is intended to protect children from neglect, abuse, abandonment, or infanticide. Safe-haven laws, versions of which now exist in 48 states but vary from state-to-state, allow parents to safely relinquish custody of newborn infants at hospitals, police stations, fire stations and EMS stations. As of February 2008, only Alaska, Nebraska and Washington, D.C., have no safe-haven laws.

In New Brunswick we presently have no such law to protect those that are murdered by their very own parents. Last year I sent this to a few Members in the Legislature to look at and bring forward motion to our Province. Last year two high level cases happened where two childfen may be alive and well if we did possess this " Safe haven Legislation".

This is my Proposal submitted last March:

Who May Relinquish a Child

In the USA depending on the state, the birth mother, the birth father, legal guardians, and/or individuals acting as representatives of the parents may bring a child to a safe haven. In New Brunswick this should follow suit as the person relinquishing the child must fill in a legal documentation and have valid New Brunswickk Identification to be able to relinquish.

The Age of a Child

In the USA most states require that children be no more than one month old, but some states accept children no more than 72-hours-old and others permit children as much as 1-year-old. The timeframe is deliberately narrow in order to ensure that newborns receive adequate care.

Immunity from Prosecution

The USA some states guarantee that the parents of unharmed infants will not be prosecuted for abandonment, others reduce the severity of charges or make clear that relinquishing a child at a safe haven is an affirmative defense in the event of prosecution. If a child has been abused or neglected, the parent or guardian loses all guarantees of anonymity or immunity of prosecution. I believe all of this should be taken into consideration and the other parent male/female or extended families must have the first option at Guardianship and/or Adoption of the child. The Child must be examined within 48 hours for any forms of such mentioned abuses or neglect and then a 60 day window where family members are given first option.

Ability to Reclaim a Child

The USA depending on the state, parents may have the opportunity to regain custody of their child if they change their mind within a defined time period. In most states, the birth father retains all parental rights if he was unaware that the child's mother relinquished control of the child. This must be upheld and the other family members given option before set child is openly Adopted.

Relinquishing and Adoption

When a child is brought to a safe haven, the employee may ask the parent about the child's medical and family history, though the person relinquishing the child is not required to provide any information. Staff may also provide the parent with information regarding their parental rights once the child is relinquished.

Once a child is given to staff at a safe haven, the infant will be turned over to child-welfare authorities, receive necessary medical care and, eventually, be placed with adoptive parents.

The psychological aspect of Divorce

To continue off the discussion on Bill C-422 and why it is needed we would have to look at the Psychologial aspect of divorce and what brings one human being to use a child and alientate them against another. Some say it is about control others claim it is becasue of mental illness. I always look at peer reviewed materials and alot of case studies. I also always try to look from my own past experience for conclusions as myself have seen the first hands of Parental Alientation. The main thing with C-422 is to eliminate and remove the ability for one parent to use the system to harm a child's relationship with the Non-Custodial parent.

To understand what people go through is to understand seperation and divorce and the people that go through the system and the system itself. The people have decided that they as a couple will move on some have prior to the relationship ending others the reciever of the ending relationship. The person that ends the relationship will do this for mutiple reasons as you can pick up any oprah book of the week and see why this happens. The thing that seems never to get discussed is the mental states of people once this happens and what they do prior too,during and then immediately after dependant on their own mental states. The mental states of someone with a prior mental condition or during that is driven to a mentally unstable condition will do somethings that others with rational thoughts will find extreme or ludcrist at times. One thing that seems to be the common factor is the ones that go to the extreme have underlying control issues. They will call everyone or anything around them as contrls on them. The thing is usually they are the controller because of their childhood or events that happened within the enviroment they grew up in.

The enviroment I believe is one of the greatest contributers to what does happen as we become parents. The people that have been effected with violence in any form or abuse will be the greatest offenders of parental alienation. I have studied including my own a cicero style of approach to this. This approach is to look back to see what is the route cause not just the end effect and label it. The person if female and is the offender of Parental Alientation in 96% of the cases I have looked at through longitudal studies and real time overt and covert observation seem to see the same pattern. The high end being sexually exploited or abused in their youth. They also seem to have a mother that also follows the same pattern. In the case I put alot of study into showed some interesting yet disturbing facts. The offender was molested by the mothers father and the mother and her female siblings also molested by the father. In most cases where I have seen this prevelent also violence at a young age male or female has been very evident. So looking at the DSV-IV or V shows alot of mental illness is more of a chemical imbalance more than a enviromental and sociogial cause. In medicine though they have proven under extreme stress it can do some nasty things to a persons physcial chemistry. So if we take an abused individual which is during these incidents put under extreme stress and almost soul taking experiences creates an imbalance within the brain chemistry. The thing is once these chemicals are outside the norms can chemicals interventions return that persons thought pattern back to a logical norm. Yes we do have to blame the meida's of the world because they do potray the person as doing the right thing but that is for a different discussion. So this is not only a sociological but a pattern started alomst within the family geniology. So we watch the grandmother how she was and reacted to situtations and then watch the mother to the child. The one I followed closely the grandmother married young and divorced almost 20 years ago. She used everything from false allegations to direct Parental alientation towards the father. She an emotional and sexually abused person and then to see her own child emotionally and sexually abused by her own father will and has been shown in alot of the cases of sexual abuse see that they will put that on to the whole gender not just the perpetrator. So then it becomes a genrational issue or almost cyclical.

The cycle is then brought down to the next generation to the third generation. They are taught that their biological parent because of issues of seperation are now for them to deal with in todays reality. The mental illness of the previous generations are not brought by a chemical imbalance but a teaching of psychologial and socilogical deviance. The thing now and bringing the discussion back to Bill C-422 is how do we as a society break the cycle of this. How can there be a pitfall put in place that will protect the children from falling down this rabbit hole that abuse was in their genology but not a causation of the other parent. The emotionally and mentally disturbed parent that will use this form of abuse will not see it as abuse but more of their own protection mechanism of their offspring. The reality it is what they are teaching the child. One of the key factors is abuse of authority which I have discussed in previous blog writings. The custodial parent believes they are above the law and will teach the child that the justice that made a legal decision is not the law that the custodial parent is the law. Parental Alientation once a custody order is put in place is a form of contempt of court. Contempting of a court order is illegal and as probally most have seen in the movies a justice state I will hold you in contempt of court. So if someone and most do not see one justice any differently than another. So do most know the difference between a family court justice and a crimal court justice. Once people look at the amount of studies done on youth offences in the judical system see that most came from broken homes. Are you starting to see the pattern? So a custodial parents shows the child the law is not above them they are starting the psychological and socilogical training of the child that the law is not above them that they control the laws around them. Training them not only to be a controling personality type but laws are to be broken if they see without rationalization that doing this has concenquence as the custodial parent is not held in contempt of court.

So as you are starting to put the pieces together of what creates and causes the perpetrator of Alientation and Abuse and why these nessesary changes need to occur are you seeing the root causes? I will use an analogy so it fits the picture of the reason why this needs to happen. In 1974 in Canada there were no speed laws. So unless a police officer in his own discression though you were going to injure someone else would not pull you over and say you were speeding. Many studies show previous to that excessive speed leads to car crashes. So we brought forward laws to be enforced that speed limits within norms would be introduced for the protection of the Citizens of Canada. So now after years of studies and seeing the global effects which there are so many other societal cost to the way the industry is set up. So when are the politcal realm going to put a speed limit on the people that abuse children?

Bill C-422 and why its nessesary

I only write from time to time when I have a chance but this morning had a little downtime. Today Bill C-422 has started to come full circle and starting to get noticed accross the country. For those who do not know what this bill is about brings some concern but once understanding it will deem it nessesary. The bill is for a new concept of recent years called equal parenting. Equal parenting is when the custodial( parent that holds custody) and the non-custodial parent(usually made a vistor) shares in all aspects of raising their biological child. Today there are many varations of custody orders put into place by our current sitting family court judges. They are Sole Custody(one person has all say and the other parent has been near to completely removed from their childs life) and Joint Custody(which is another form of sole custody). In both of these styles of custody one person hold the controls and the non custodial parent has nothing to do besides agree even if it is not in the" Best interests of the child". In both of these arrangements the secondary parent is permitted by a family court judge an alloted time to see their biological parent. The thing is an as we get futher into the discussion why the need for Equal Parenting is needed.

Equal Parenting or otherwise refered to Equal Shared Parenting has been around for awhile but not until Australia introduced legislation did it start to get worldwide notice. Research has shown time and time again well adjusted children of divorce come from well adjusted parents. The current system works to create dysfunctionability within the child and the parent. Equal Parenting is when the parents assume the same parental roles they did previously prior to seperation or Divorce. They would spend equal time with their child and would have an equal say in how they are raised. There will always be extreme cases where the justice would have to step in and say you have done this and it has been proven so and deem an other arrangement so the safety and interests of the child are upheld. In current statistics though it shows this is only about 5-7% of cases in Canada. So 95% of canadian society falls into the other realm where this type of arrangement would best suit a child's and parents interest. The child is no longer a pawn within the industry of divorce nor subjegated to parental scorn for each other.

Some key points to understand about todays current legislation under the current act. Children are put up as chatel in a divorce case just like how the car or proprty is divided. You may think this is an extreme statement but the sad part its true. The other thing that the current system is not taking into consideration is the parents themselves. I will put this one out to you, someone that is reading this,have you ever ended or had a relationship end on you. My first question is do you think logically or emotionally? Do you first think ooh our poor child or do you think ohh that son of a %^*&. If you answered these questions honestly than we both know the answer. So you as a human being are hurt and distraught thinking they did this not we did this or the big one how are our children or child going to feel. When someone dies we go through states of grief and many times it is compared to seperation. So then the next logical step is meeting with a laywer some when it is available will go to mediation to try to solve the childs best interests. If mediation fails and one or the other party fails to agree then off to the laywers office we go. A laywer is trained to defend you, not the best interest of your child. Their goal is to get the best for you at any expense to you,your child,your wallet and especially your ex. Sounds good right? So who is the first casulties in this, a child, a person at one time you loved, the child's extended family and grandparents. So if the law is there to promote this and the laywers and judges trained to treat custody and access this way.

more to follow:

The education of the masses part 1 - case 133

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.

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."

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.

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