Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stats Canada data: 80/90% custody for women

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stats Canada data: 80/90% custody for women

    i graphed the statistics canada 2006 data comparing provinces on lone women (divorced, separated common law, etc ) and lone men whom have children living with them , you can see the graphs and where the data came from here :

    http://www.wheretheylie.com/statcan2006.htm

    graphed numbers show women have children with them 80% of the time, if there are multiple children as in 3+ in the home than the percent of custody in favor of the female increases and peaks at 91%.

    the numbers show right across canada province by province there isnt much flucuation.

    these numbers are fact not speculation - you can argue that men die earlier or whatever but that would really just be speculation as to the effect it has on the placement of 1.5 million children indicated by Statistics Canada.

    the numbers it shows for Alberta men with children is higher than my experience has indicated, regardless the numbers show reform is overdue.

  • #2
    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
    i graphed the statistics canada 2006 data comparing provinces on lone women (divorced, separated common law, etc ) and lone men whom have children living with them , you can see the graphs and where the data came from here :

    http://www.wheretheylie.com/statcan2006.htm

    graphed numbers show women have children with them 80% of the time, if there are multiple children as in 3+ in the home than the percent of custody in favor of the female increases and peaks at 91%.

    the numbers show right across canada province by province there isnt much flucuation.

    these numbers are fact not speculation - you can argue that men die earlier or whatever but that would really just be speculation as to the effect it has on the placement of 1.5 million children indicated by Statistics Canada.

    the numbers it shows for Alberta men with children is higher than my experience has indicated, regardless the numbers show reform is overdue.
    The problem with the statistics you rely on is that they don't identify which were the result of a custody and access dispute. The statistic includes all the single parents. It also doesn't show how many men give up custody and access of their children.

    Comment


    • #3
      Agree with Tayken. I've lost count of the number of men on this board who come on and state that they are not seeking shared custody (or full custody) because they work shifts, travel for work, etc. Many men simply never seek custody. When a family has been operating with one parent the bread-winner and the other parent the care-giver, it is difficult to change that. It is difficult in court, it is also difficult conceptually for many to even consider a change.

      If you look at statistics for families with both parents working, children in school/daycare full time, fathers who sought shared or full access, those statistics would be meaningful.

      A retrospecitve observation cannot prove cause and effect. It can only show correlation, not cause. You have far too many lurking variables to form a conclusion. If you are doing this to make a point, you aren't managing.

      That doesn't mean to say that the situation is perfectly equal and balanced between genders, but it does mean that if you want to show something, you have to do it in a meaningful way that will be able to withstand analysis.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mess View Post
        Agree with Tayken. I've lost count of the number of men on this board who come on and state that they are not seeking shared custody (or full custody) because they work shifts, travel for work, etc. Many men simply never seek custody. When a family has been operating with one parent the bread-winner and the other parent the care-giver, it is difficult to change that. It is difficult in court, it is also difficult conceptually for many to even consider a change.

        If you look at statistics for families with both parents working, children in school/daycare full time, fathers who sought shared or full access, those statistics would be meaningful.

        A retrospecitve observation cannot prove cause and effect. It can only show correlation, not cause. You have far too many lurking variables to form a conclusion. If you are doing this to make a point, you aren't managing.

        That doesn't mean to say that the situation is perfectly equal and balanced between genders, but it does mean that if you want to show something, you have to do it in a meaningful way that will be able to withstand analysis.
        Furthermore, more detailed analysis is avalible from Statistics Canada on divorce.

        Vital Statistics - Divorce Database

        Divorce: Guide to the latest information

        Check this one out:

        Family court cases involving child custody, access and support arrangements, 2009/2010

        Making Fathers "count":

        Making fathers “count”

        Profile of child support beneficiaries

        The problem with the analysis as Mess pointed out is the sample size for which the statistics are drawn on. The above links are more accurate reports from Statistics Canada but, they all have errors but, the authors note the issues in them.

        Good Luck!
        Tayken

        Comment


        • #5
          to put things in perspective, if every person who ever registered on this website (20,000) was a father an chose not to persue custody and were excluded from the stats it would have little effect on the percentages.

          is someone saying fathers dont persue custody in pandemic proportions?

          if this was 1944 an the 1/2 million men shipped overseas and their children were removed from the statistics it would still show women are significantly favored.
          Last edited by pokeman; 03-22-2012, 04:43 PM. Reason: mobil device spell issued

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pokeman View Post
            to put things in perspective, if every person who ever registered on this website (20,000) was a father an chose not to persue custody and were excluded from the stats it would have little effect on the percentages.

            is someone saying fathers dont persue custody in pandemic proportions?

            if this was 1944 an the 1/2 million men shipped overseas and their children were removed from the statistics it would still show women are significantly favored.
            Gee, you're a real whiz with stats and logic.

            Give it up already.

            Comment


            • #7
              over you- daughtry

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by billm View Post
                Gee, you're a real whiz with stats and logic.

                Give it up already.
                I agree. The argument presented by the OP is a good demonstration of "emotional reasoning".

                Comment


                • #9
                  will make a plea here that women who dont want whats in those graphs
                  for their sons and grandsons an all men at minimum contact their MLA
                  for reform, there's lots of great websites out there with 'how to'
                  already posted, like Welcome to the "Canadians For Family Law Reform" website

                  not sure what reform might look like ?

                  A) one thing I believe that needs to be legislated is 50/50 access by
                  default (excluding child abuse cases ) , here's example of why :

                  lawyers through disclosure are the only profession you will ever encounter that knows exactly how much money you have while selling you a variable length service. lawyers have the tools but the structure they are to build is not well defined and so its argued all along the way.

                  Compare that to the engineering profession, a bridge is needed to join two communities, it needs to be 2 lanes wide across 'n' feet of water, the structure is defined so an engineer can tell you how much it will cost, how long its going to take and when they can start, engineers dont know how much money you have, they effeciently bid and commit to building a bridge for a fair price.

                  sound good ?

                  legislated 50/50 reform is not only fair it gives lawyers the blueprint they are to build and if done right minimizes the '$argument$' as to what child access looks like.

                  today those profiting from the current model say the structure is 'from the eyes of the child' and then 'one parent got money' and the court doors swing open sometimes for 5+ years and argue 80/20 - 90/10 - 70/30 - 100/0 custody ratios ... not what the child wants at all .

                  B) i would like to see cap'ed legal fee's for a divorce, if 50/50 is legislated then lawyers are just like engineers, divorces can be profiled and slotted into a catagory (like a 'n' foot wide bridge ) and the cost and time is know up front, not like the 'nerver ending storeys' we have
                  today.


                  be weary of anyone opposed to 50/50 what their motives might be $$


                  --
                  please take a moment to write your MLA, mark it on your calendar and let them know every month, it only takes a few minutes - be counted
                  --

                  till then , fathers view the graphs and make your own decisions - the judges(or lawyers) that placed all those children most likely still active - fight for your children but budget accordingly - my experience and all i know say 'its up hill all the way' , i fought for my children till i ended up in a tent, i feel
                  to many of us do similar and then with no reserves left then struggle or fail with C/S and/or S/S obligiations severly damaging the family as a whole.
                  Last edited by pokeman; 03-24-2012, 02:08 PM. Reason: incomplete sentence

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    will make a plea here that women who dont want whats in those graphs for their sons and grandsons an all men at minimum contact their MLA for reform, there's lots of great websites out there with 'how to' already posted, like Welcome to the "Canadians For Family Law Reform" website
                    Why are you targeting "women" in particular. The problem is with the Family Law system. It isn't women that are the problem. It is the systemic problems in the system. The issue is not about "women" or "grandmothers". It is about families and the systemic problem in the Divorce Act you should be addressing.

                    Like defining what the "best interests" are. The systemic problem with the best interests rule is that it is open for too much interpretation potentially. That would be something to work towards... Better definition of "best interests" of the children.

                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    not sure what reform might look like ?

                    A) one thing I believe that needs to be legislated is 50/50 access by
                    default (excluding child abuse cases ) , here's example of why :
                    This is already defined in the Children's Law Reform Act, Divorce Act and Criminal Code of Canada. The problem is not 50-50 as that is the default under the law. The problem is systemic issues with people "fighting" over something other than 50-50. A better definition of what constitutes a difference for changing what is already defined in law is needed. Not new law. Just clarification as to how "best interests" test should be applied.


                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    lawyers through disclosure are the only profession you will ever encounter that knows exactly how much money you have while selling you a variable length service. lawyers have the tools but the structure they are to build is not well defined and so its argued all along the way.
                    This has nothing to do with Custody and Access of children. It has to do with the governance structure of the legal profession. Take the matter up with the Law Society.

                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    Compare that to the engineering profession, a bridge is needed to join two communities, it needs to be 2 lanes wide across 'n' feet of water, the structure is defined so an engineer can tell you how much it will cost, how long its going to take and when they can start, engineers dont know how much money you have, they effeciently bid and commit to building a bridge for a fair price.
                    Bad example. Engineering projects often over run budgets. Significantly over budget. Ask the citizens of Alaska about that problem. Also, all engineers have to watch a video of a bridge blowing apart in most university programs. The iron rings that engineers symbolize the errors that are often made in engineering and the responsibility the carry in doing their job. Also, Engineering is only regulated in Ontario. No where else in the world.

                    I don't really see the connection to what you are trying to argue.

                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    sound good ?
                    No. Sounds far reaching and unrelated.

                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    legislated 50/50 reform is not only fair it gives lawyers the blueprint they are to build and if done right minimizes the '$argument$' as to what child access looks like.
                    Already legislated as 50-50. What isn't addressed is the definition of "best interests" and how the law should be applied. It is a systemic problem in the legal system. It isn't a gender problem. It is an "interpretive" problem in applying law.

                    Best way to fix that is to bring your matter through to final decision like WorkingDad and bring new case law that others can rely upon. Changing legislation is not going to happen. But, if enough "WorkingDad" decisions come into view... Case law will reform family law. That is how the "system" works.

                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    today those profiting from the current model say the structure is 'from the eyes of the child' and then 'one parent got money' and the court doors swing open sometimes for 5+ years and argue 80/20 - 90/10 - 70/30 - 100/0 custody ratios ... not what the child wants at all .
                    "eyes of the child"? Not familiar with that one. "Best Interests" and "Voice of the Child" are the common titles. Again, the systemic problem is that the system of law is interpretive. But, enough case law has evolved that 50-50 parallel parenting is in effect. The system is changing and it is case law not, legislative reform that is bringing it. Thanks to litigants like WorkingDad... Not reform groups trying to change legislation. I would rather donate to WorkingDad's legal fees than some rouge group that achives nothing other than a bad website.

                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    B) i would like to see cap'ed legal fee's for a divorce, if 50/50 is legislated then lawyers are just like engineers, divorces can be profiled and slotted into a catagory (like a 'n' foot wide bridge ) and the cost and time is know up front, not like the 'nerver ending storeys' we have
                    today.
                    IT IS LEGISLATED. DIVORCE ACT, CLRA, FLR... CCC... What isn't legislated is the systemic problem of the people who miss use the system. 90% of seperations and divorce don't need law... Reasonable people don't do stupid things. What you are focused on is the 10% of stupidity in the family law system. That will never go away even if legislated.

                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    be weary of anyone opposed to 50/50 what their motives might be $$
                    ??

                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    --
                    please take a moment to write your MLA, mark it on your calendar and let them know every month, it only takes a few minutes - be counted
                    --
                    MLA? or MP?

                    Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                    till then , fathers view the graphs and make your own decisions - the judges(or lawyers) that placed all those children most likely still active - fight for your children but budget accordingly - my experience and all i know say 'its up hill all the way' , i fought for my children till i ended up in a tent, i feel
                    to many of us do similar and then with no reserves left then struggle or fail with C/S and/or S/S obligiations severly damaging the family as a whole.
                    Honestly. This is a systemic problem and not a gender one. Stop trying to make it a gender problem. Men are equally to blame in this whole problem.

                    No, not too many do this. Not enough for the systemic problems to be fixed.

                    You would be better off suing the solicitor on the other side who advised the other party to make false allegations and see where that ends for you. Or, to take the matter into full trial and get case law put in place that other parents (even women -- gasp!) can leverage to insure that this doesn't happen again.

                    Post your CanLII.org link to your decision... Then we can talk. Until then... Your story is just that... A story.

                    Good Luck!
                    Tayken

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      i am pointing my finger at the 'systemic problem' ,
                      1 gender is benefiting from it = yes but they are
                      not making the decisions - lawyers/Judges are.

                      50/50 ? - no lawyer i had ever uttered those words,
                      i only know 1 family here with such an arrangement,
                      multiple police charges around child endangerment etc
                      landed a 50/50.

                      my children are in those graphs ... my experience aligns with
                      whats in those graphs, the fathers around me that got better
                      than every second weekend have horrifc stories - so I believe
                      those graphs tell some truths ...

                      right now you only have the right to persue 50/50% - if the court
                      isnt making that clear then its not the law its all argumentive ($$)

                      if 50/50 is practised in the court room then its like the saying
                      "build it, and they will come" ... (edit: for those fathers who are giving up without trying )

                      btw: its interesting you mention CanLII.org, my decision isnt
                      on canLII.org , i never got a trial, my friend John did get a
                      trial - he isnt listed either, we cant not be found in the
                      Alberta Law Society records either ...

                      that doesnt make me a liar

                      at this time what I do know is the moment i told the court my children are telling me their court ordered therapist told them 'your girls, girls live with
                      their mothers' the Judge/Lawyer (not mine) exchanged some concerns
                      on "new" rules and then the Judge invoked rules of court in
                      my case that are not in my court orders - i asked what they meant and never got an answer ..

                      your absolutely right - its like it never happened

                      but it did ..
                      Last edited by pokeman; 03-24-2012, 10:00 PM. Reason: marked update with (edit: )

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                        i am pointing my finger at the 'systemic problem' ,
                        1 gender is benefiting from it = yes but they are
                        not making the decisions - lawyers/Judges are.
                        Shaw v. Shaw which is case law I have posted a number of times was a *man* using the systemic problems against a (gasp!) *woman*. This president was brought about by a woman not a man. Who would have thought?

                        Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                        50/50 ? - no lawyer i had ever uttered those words,
                        i only know 1 family here with such an arrangement,
                        multiple police charges around child endangerment etc
                        landed a 50/50.
                        The vast majority of solicitors statistically are "solution" oriented and not "negative advocates". Search for "negative advocate lawyer" read the materials and the studies done by William Eddy in the matter then we can talk.

                        By law a solicitor has to advise their clients of the default. I highly recommend you report all the solicitors you dealt with to the Law Society for resolution and provide the cogent and relevant evidence. They are bound by their governing body to advise their clients to the law. If you didn't get this advice then complain. It is the best way to fix it.

                        Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                        my children are in those graphs ... my experience aligns with
                        whats in those graphs, the fathers around me that got better
                        than every second weekend have horrifc stories - so I believe
                        those graphs tell some truths ...
                        Because the *parents* who are reasonable don't go blaming the system. They work together, hire "solution oriented" solicitors to assist (when needed) and don't engage the court. They are the majority not the minority as you claim. Your experience is not the norm. So don't try to apply your definition of the norm to what is the norm.

                        Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                        right now you only have the right to persue 50/50% - if the court
                        isnt making that clear then its not the law its all argumentive ($$)
                        Then you shouldn't have married a high-conflict person. Have you looked at why you married someone and had kids who would do this? Have you looked into why things got so bad in your relationship? Rather than blaming the system as the problem what have you done in your matter to resolve the problem.

                        Blaming the system because you possibly married and had children with someone who is high-conflict is not the system of law's problem. The problem is with who you married and had children with. Not the legal system. Unless you have substantive evidence that is cogent and relevant that the other party miss used the system against you it is a moot cause to blame the system.

                        Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                        if 50/50 is practised in the court room then its like the saying
                        "build it, and they will come" ... (edit: for those fathers who are giving up without trying )
                        Those fathers who give up do so on their own. They don't seek the right advice and are lazy. They don't bother reading, understanding and researching the different options. Publishing positive materials on the importance of both parents equally involved in children's lives is a better use of your time than projecting blame at the system.

                        Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                        btw: its interesting you mention CanLII.org, my decision isnt
                        on canLII.org , i never got a trial, my friend John did get a
                        trial - he isnt listed either, we cant not be found in the
                        Alberta Law Society records either ...
                        Provide them your file number and they will post it. The court can request the posting but, members of the public can too. Post "John's" court file number from any of his materials and I can send the information over and it will be posted. Simple request anyone can make.

                        Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                        that doesnt make me a liar
                        Provide your court file number and I can have a service provider pull the full record. If there was an application before the court it is part of the public record. Just need the file number. Not even the court jurisdiction.

                        Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                        at this time what I do know is the moment i told the court my children are telling me their court ordered therapist told them 'your girls, girls live with
                        their mothers' the Judge/Lawyer (not mine) exchanged some concerns
                        on "new" rules and then the Judge invoked rules of court in
                        my case that are not in my court orders - i asked what they meant and never got an answer ..
                        Do you have a lawyer? Even as a self represented litigant it is your responsibility to KNOW THE LAW. If you don't know or understand the law... Then it is your responsibility to learn it. What are "rules of court"? The only thing enforceable is what is written in an order.

                        Your last paragraph there is really confusing. No doubt you don't understand the law and are confused by the legal system.

                        Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                        your absolutely right - its like it never happened

                        but it did ..
                        Just read the confusing paragraph in your message. It is almost delusional in nature and disjointed. You reference things that don't exist. You sight no Rules or law. You just express projections of blame on the system without any reference to any broken parts. Just the whole system.

                        Do you take issue with the Divorce Act? The best interest rules? How case law has interpreted these rules? How the Criminal Justice system is leveraged potentially in negligent ways? Failure to train police in proper procedure in dealing with family matters? What are you blaming. The system as a "whole" is an easy target. You need to narrow your argument and focus on a single issue that can be resolved.

                        It is cathartic to make a website complaining about the "system" but, it is unintelligible from what you communicate what the particulars are you are trying to point out.

                        Good Luck!
                        Tayken

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The president set a precedent by citing Homer when he sighted the donut ... DOH!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            alberta rules of court looks like this
                            Alberta Queen's Printer: Alberta Rules of Court 1968

                            yes, i had 160,000$ worth of expensive calgary lawyers

                            "like it didnt happen" was in reference to it not being listed on alta law society website nor canlii.org

                            i hired lawyers in good trust to help me and my family, i listened to them - I gave them instructions like 'work with X lawyer and lets sell the home' so we could "BOTH" get our own place, the lawyers would not take instructions, any instrcutions I gave they said find another lawyer or do it there way - another lawyer wanted $5000 to 7500$ inital retainer fee to read your file without doing anything else - i tried that but they behaved the exact same way ...

                            when we got in front of the Judge (in this example regarding the house ) the X's lawyer protrayed me as someone trying to 'get it all' and my lawyer did nothing ...

                            its like I was held in suspended animation, if I broke free I would have to get another lawyer at $5000 min ...

                            other strange things in court would be while my lawyer was speaking the Judge turning to my X's lawyer mid sentence and telling her council to take a message to her client 'It wont be long now' ...

                            WTF - does that sound like a court room full of professionals seeking justice ?

                            i understand my case might not be normal , but i can honestly say I have sought out other fathers here and all their storeys to me reek of injustice, only those where their spouse died have what sounds like a common sense judgement.

                            right - I dont think this is normal with all the 50/50 i hear, my case involved domestic violence so i often thought maybe just maybe some other rules of engagement where over riding normal protocol ...

                            in summary, my personal experience is "I was processed, not Judged " ,
                            its riddled through out posts on this website that 'bias' exists - when graphed it seems it must be proven otherwise.

                            i will reread the counter posts above and research more, however
                            i experienced whats in those graphs - did you ?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              went through the links posted previously

                              regarding 50/50 access being legislated, i only find access and custody under Canada Divorce Act as follows :
                              Divorce Act.

                              the court is not directed to assume 50/50 access, there is a 'maximum contact' subclause at best that the court is to consider under 'best interest of the children' which becomes argumentive , thats a far cry from 50/50 being legislated. this is what I previously understood and currently believe to still be true.

                              if anyone knows the link can they paste that directs the court clearly on 50/50 access by default ?

                              to rephrase in laymen terms what true reform might look like - not matter how its achived I believe if women and men need to walk into a court room in regards to custody and access then the first words out
                              of the Judges mouth is "access is 50/50 and anyone who opens their mouth to the constrary better have a dam good reason".


                              i looked at some of the other statistics, they are no better - in 2004
                              CANSIM - Results
                              mothers got 50% sole custody, the other 50% is pretty much joint custody, there is no shared custody data ... i have joint custody and 12% access -the statistics canada 2006 data graphs would indicate where my children would most likely live, today its correct.

                              obviously some dont like the 2006 statistics graphed - the graphs may have imperfections and anomolies however the sample is so large it shows the past decade+ trend as of 2006, if the argument is fathers dont try thats all the more reason 50/50 needs to be the norm and clearly stated so, 'build it and they will come'.


                              other reform i would like to see is in domestic violence 'child abuse' cases:
                              if its deemed the abuser can be rehabilitated than child abusers should be
                              handed the equivalent of a sentence like the criminal code does, and the
                              sentence would be something like this ( dont quote me on time frames - just the concept ):

                              1 to 3 years supervised access, mandatory courses, followed by mediator assigned and every other weekend access for 2 years then 50/50 ...


                              my experience in a child abuse case is that "i was put on ice" while my X dragged me to court repeatitly trying to over turn supervision then access with a mountain of evidence against them ... why ? , because no clear structure of what their sentence was - again, it was have $ and the court doors swung open.



                              in closing, if anyone is wondering contrary to what posts in this topic may indirectly suggest, some of my best friends are infact women.

                              individual women who receive custody is not the issue here, its the infrastructure thats the issue - 'systemic' as its been called above.

                              for example , my court experince includes being told by 2 professionals who reported directly to Judge 'children should be with their mothers', one of which added 'especially girls', thats discrimination!

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X