Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

National Post - commentary piece re: equal shared parenting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • National Post - commentary piece re: equal shared parenting

    Barbara Kay: How the Tories abandoned desperate fathers | National Post

    Barbara Kay's commentary piece... if you filter out the Con vs Lib stuff, her comment seems to be basically, that politically, "equal shared parenting" overhaul to the divorce act, won't be coming anytime soon (and after nothing really being done in the last decade either).

  • #2
    In Canada, I feel there is very little chance of getting this until there is someone in power that isn't willing to cave to the special interest groups, be those groups feminists or the legal profession etc.

    Any PM who allowed such change would be decried as a misogynist and otherwise butchered by the progressive media, notwithstanding that they are trying to promote actual equality.

    Harper could've let Villacourt's motion pass, but Villacourt wasn't a high level Conservative. He was a fringe party member if anything. Ergo, letting Villacourt flounder actually provided him with more clout with the progressive crowd while not impacting his standing with his own party base.

    IMO, if one is against share parenting than they don't really believe in equality. Children deserve both parents equally, and the courts either need to start understanding willing that or be forced to accept it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Nobody has hope that Trudeau's own experience of having a bipolar mother and loving father would encourage him?

      Comment


      • #4
        Maurice Vellacott (not Villacourt), who's been pushing equal parenting, is a big part of the problem. He's well-known as a nutcase who is convinced The Feminists are destroying Canadian society and pushes all kinds of ultra-conservative stuff. I'm not convinced that his support for presumed equal parenting come from genuine concern for children, as distinct from his crusade against The Feminists. If someone else would take up the cause, and articulate a clear rationale for why equal parenting should be presumed (as opposed to heart-tugging stories of sad divorced dads), I think the concept would get a fair hearing.

        Personally, I'm not convinced that a presumption of equal parenting is a good idea - I would rather see each case decided on its individual merits. Given that the cases that make it to court are the most conflictual and volatile (because the less heated ones get settled outside of court), I don't think any one-size-fits-all rule is a good idea. But I'd be willing to listen to (calm, rational) arguments for this presumption, just please not from Maurice Vellacott.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by stripes View Post
          Maurice Vellacott (not Villacourt), who's been pushing equal parenting, is a big part of the problem. He's well-known as a nutcase who is convinced The Feminists are destroying Canadian society and pushes all kinds of ultra-conservative stuff. I'm not convinced that his support for presumed equal parenting come from genuine concern for children, as distinct from his crusade against The Feminists. If someone else would take up the cause, and articulate a clear rationale for why equal parenting should be presumed (as opposed to heart-tugging stories of sad divorced dads), I think the concept would get a fair hearing.

          Personally, I'm not convinced that a presumption of equal parenting is a good idea - I would rather see each case decided on its individual merits. Given that the cases that make it to court are the most conflictual and volatile (because the less heated ones get settled outside of court), I don't think any one-size-fits-all rule is a good idea. But I'd be willing to listen to (calm, rational) arguments for this presumption, just please not from Maurice Vellacott.
          My bad regarding the spelling of Vellacott. I agree he was a nut-case and as such on the fringe of the party, so anything he did was easily dismissed by everyone.

          I agree that it should not be one size fits all. But shared parenting should be the basis of where you start and then the circumstances of the situation dictate where you end up. It would also likely eliminate some of the custody battles as everyone would understand you start at shared and unless there is evidence not to go with it, that is where you will end up.

          It also eliminates the argument of "well, X did most of the parenting while together", which I think is a red-herring. The parents are divorced now, unless parents A work schedule won't permit for shared due to traveling etc. then each parent has to suck it up and learn to live as parents apart. If that means less overtime and/or less travel (if possible) than that is what is necessary. If it means finding after-school care for an hour or so until the parent gets home, than those are the costs of parenting.

          Comment


          • #6
            Personally to me politicians can make up as many laws as they want around Divorce it won't matter. It's the mindset of Judges that won't change or can't

            Laws are on the books right now, but unenforced, and each day Judges see the most outragous cases and turn a blind eye....to afraid to break from the herd of Judges to set a precident.

            Speaking as probably one of the few Caucasins left in Toronto, the culture I grew up in is over. The Divorce Act that Justin Trudeau's dad brought in destroyed marriage.

            The kids that were the product of divorce for the last 30 or so years are not marrying anymore, nor do they want children. Common law relationships have out paced marriage already in Quebec

            Aborigionals have the highest birthrates now in Canada who also have there own divorce laws, Sharia Law popped it's head up for other cultures (though beaten back) and the multitude of other growing cultures with they're baby boom (that loves there freedom of religions) and have there own community (within communities) divorce laws.(they reject Canada's)

            The Divorce Act applies to Ozzie and Harriet....it doesn't apply to the multi cultural surge in Canada (25,000 Syrians will be here soon and not interested in the divorce Act of Canada ...I assume)

            I see the Divorce Act collasping on it's own because there won't be anyone from a 1970 "culture left" to use it.

            Maybe when gay or lesbian marriages fall apart with adopted kids the Divorce Act will (of course) be amended for Equal parenting

            But for the culture that was wiped out ...over the "percieved sins" of one genders past...it's sad to see.

            not spelled checked

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
              My bad regarding the spelling of Vellacott. I agree he was a nut-case and as such on the fringe of the party, so anything he did was easily dismissed by everyone.

              I agree that it should not be one size fits all. But shared parenting should be the basis of where you start and then the circumstances of the situation dictate where you end up. It would also likely eliminate some of the custody battles as everyone would understand you start at shared and unless there is evidence not to go with it, that is where you will end up.

              It also eliminates the argument of "well, X did most of the parenting while together", which I think is a red-herring. The parents are divorced now, unless parents A work schedule won't permit for shared due to traveling etc. then each parent has to suck it up and learn to live as parents apart. If that means less overtime and/or less travel (if possible) than that is what is necessary. If it means finding after-school care for an hour or so until the parent gets home, than those are the costs of parenting.
              Not all parents are willing to work less overtime/travel less/ or change their work routine to accommodate equal and shared parenting. It may not be common amongst the people on this board, but it's certainly a common problem - whether the absent parent be mom or dad.

              There seems to be a willingness to assign the obligation to the parent because it's what they should want, and not because it's what they actually want. That's where the issue is fuzzy to me. A presumption of equal parenting may put the onus on the only parent that is parenting.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                Not all parents are willing to work less overtime/travel less/ or change their work routine to accommodate equal and shared parenting. It may not be common amongst the people on this board, but it's certainly a common problem - whether the absent parent be mom or dad.

                There seems to be a willingness to assign the obligation to the parent because it's what they should want, and not because it's what they actually want. That's where the issue is fuzzy to me. A presumption of equal parenting may put the onus on the only parent that is parenting.
                A presumption of shared parenting where either parent wants it?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                  A presumption of shared parenting where either parent wants it?
                  That requires them being asked if they want it. A presumption is a presumption, meaning it is assumed before it is even asked.

                  Can't make a parent be a parent, and the other parent shouldn't have to deal with the bs that comes out of a presumptive 50/50.

                  Of course, my opinion is based on my experience. And, the other parent isn't parenting at all. Period. Nadda. And I'm definitely not the only parent raising their child alone.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Presumptive 50-50 parenting UNLESS the parents agree otherwise, or a court decrees otherwise because one parent has been proven unfit.

                    I don't see what's so hard about it.

                    If one parent wants less time, that's their choice. But at least this way, one parent can't HOG all the time when the other parent wants half.

                    Right now, we have no presumptive arrangement at ALL, assumptions that vary from judge to judge, with many still believing the mother should have the bulk of the time, and status quo of that assumption being adhered to even if it was done through manipulation.

                    Of course, I'm one of those parents who have more than 50 because the other parent was disinterested. So I might be a bit biased.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                      That requires them being asked if they want it. A presumption is a presumption, meaning it is assumed before it is even asked.

                      Can't make a parent be a parent, and the other parent shouldn't have to deal with the bs that comes out of a presumptive 50/50.

                      Of course, my opinion is based on my experience. And, the other parent isn't parenting at all. Period. Nadda. And I'm definitely not the only parent raising their child alone.
                      So we agree, the rest is semantics

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                        Presumptive 50-50 parenting UNLESS the parents agree otherwise, or a court decrees otherwise because one parent has been proven unfit.

                        I don't see what's so hard about it.

                        If one parent wants less time, that's their choice. But at least this way, one parent can't HOG all the time when the other parent wants half.

                        Right now, we have no presumptive arrangement at ALL, assumptions that vary from judge to judge, with many still believing the mother should have the bulk of the time, and status quo of that assumption being adhered to even if it was done through manipulation.

                        Of course, I'm one of those parents who have more than 50 because the other parent was disinterested. So I might be a bit biased.
                        I think if separated parents could agree, they'd make their own arrangement - no courts or presumptive anything to deal with.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                          ...IMO, if one is against share parenting than they don't really believe in equality. Children deserve both parents equally, and the courts either need to start understanding willing that or be forced to accept it.
                          Exactly. That should be the presumption from the start. Other countries get it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well as we can see many different scenerios produce many different outcomes.

                            If you have 2 parents who can agree on how they will parent after separation then its not a problem.

                            i donot see how having a presumption of shared parenting will change much. If one parent does not agree the they will end up on court anyway.

                            I think there are bigger battles to fight. There needs to be firmer rules of disclosures, only 1 CC and 1 SC and then Next week you are in court ready on not. Because it seems to be that more problems occur when the system keeps giving parties another chance or only dealing with one part of the issues. The system currently works to increase legal costs and to muddy the waters of proceedings.

                            Look at LF32. Why the heck could the judge not just make his comments an order. Or say looks this is the reality here, so you have 24 hours to go and make a settlement along these lines or I will make it for you. Which is what is going to happen in January anyway. If you were a criminal on trail you would have the right to a quick and speedy trail. But if you are child your life will be in limbo,while a bunch of lawyers and judges " play the game"
                            Last edited by Beachnana; 10-29-2015, 01:30 AM. Reason: Spelling and clarification

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There are definitely benefits to a presumption of equally shared parenting. Presently, judges make things up based on their personal biases. Some matters get to trial because one or both parties is being unreasonable but at trial, presently it's roulette. The rebuttable presumption of equally shared would ensure that the result of a trial would be based on the child's interests instead of the opinion of someone who is not an expert on children's interests.

                              As has been said above, another thing this assumption would do is provide a strong financial incentive to agree to equally shared unless there is a clear reason to not do that. If one party, after a trial, is found to have taken an unreasonable position, then that party would be liable for paying costs to the reasonable party.

                              If one parent agrees to not have much time with the children (I do not mean a situation in which one parent feels obligated to do loads of paid work because the other parent refuses to), then that's unfortunate for the children. The case would not go to trial because the two parents, assumedly, would agree to that arrangement.

                              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