Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

User CP

New posts


  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Old 06-15-2007, 10:15 PM
OB1 OB1 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 136
OB1 is on a distinguished road
Default Where are the equal rights, when it comes to child custody?

Type: Common Interest - Politics
Description: Men have the right to participate fully in the lives of our children after a divorce. There are lots of fathers' rights groups out there, and I won't bother repeating their arguments here. Suffice to say that being a father is probably the most wonderful experience a man can have and, despite a minority of men who want nothing to do with their children, most men feel a strong attachment to their kids. It is grossly unfair to take a father who is deeply attached to his children and toss him aside on the presumption that he fits some feminine stereotype of a "deadbeat dad." Women often use the "best interests of the child" as a weapon to crush their ex-spouses and exclude them from their children's lives. This is wrong. It is done out of pure self-interest.¹ It is abuse, both of the ex-husband and the children. It's about time that a man and a woman in divorce court had exactly equal rights and exactly equal real-life chances of staying in their kids' lives after a marriage breaks up.

Men have the right to a fair and equal chance at custody of their children in cases where sole custody is mandated. I've heard the (probably invented) story of the father who asked for custody of his children, only to be asked by the judge, "Did you breast-feed your kids?" You know, it's funny: when there were no women in business, a lot of people thought that women would be no good at business. When there were no women in politics, a lot of people thought that women would be no good at politics. This didn't stop feminists. "Men are better at politics and business because they've had more practice," they said, "We deserve a chance to gain experience." So, it was full steam ahead with getting women into business and politics, including a relatively brief trust with "affirmative action" to "even out the numbers." Now, when fathers complain that they don't often get custody of their own children, feminists respond with, "Mothers are better at raising children." I don't hear feminists talking about "affirmative action" in this area, and I doubt that I ever will.

Men have the right to an accounting of how our support payments are spent when we are non-custodial, supporting fathers. In turn, we accept the responsibility of providing such records when we are custodial fathers receiving child support from our ex-wives. This is another situation in which women rule when it comes to divorce courts and family law. After a divorce, men are required to continue paying their ex-wives, ostensibly to support their children. (Career-oriented women who divorce their stay-at-home husbands must also pay upkeep, but they have a worse record for non-payment than do men. Does this surprise anyone?) However, the money doesn't go to the kids; it goes to the ex-wife, and she is under no obligation to: a) spend the money on the children or b) explain where the money went. All she has to do is get up in court and justify a certain amount based on a budget. Actual spending makes no difference. If we are willing to hold a hammer over men's heads to press them into paying what they ought to, then the least we can do for them is offer them an accounting of where their money went. In the spirit of feminist's back-handed "equality" we offer to do the same in those few cases in which women are paying us the support.

Men have the right to know whether we are fathers. Women do not have the right to use us as sperm donors and then raise the baby alone, unless we have explicitly agreed to this. I understand that it is practically impossible to discover whether you are a father if the mother does not want you to know. However, it boggles my mind that a woman can purposely get herself pregnant, have a child without the father's knowledge, start raising it on her own, decide that she wants some money, then sue the (unknowning) father for support, and win. I find this incomprehensible. A woman who uses a man for procreation without his knowledge should have the same social status as a man who gets a woman pregnant and then skips the country (i.e. "scum"). She should also be treated by the courts in an analogous fashion. For example, if she didn't bother to inform the baby's father that she was pregnant, then when she tries to sue for support the case should be thrown out. This should be the law. Any argument by feminists that men don't care whether they're fathers or not is pure bigotry and should not be a basis for public policy.
Old 06-16-2007, 10:14 AM
FL_Needs_To_Change's Avatar
FL_Needs_To_Change FL_Needs_To_Change is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern Ontario
Posts: 1,261
FL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura aboutFL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura about

Thank you OB1, this is so true, but the difference between the women's rights movement and men's rights in Family Law is that the women pooled together, unified. On the onset of a divorce and the whole issue surrounding the children, most men are, to some degree, and I do NOT mean this as derogatory, ashamed to admit they failed, even when it was NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN! Once the system has bashed them around they throw up their arms and emotionally, financially broke, call it quits.

I know I'm living the life too. I've watched a dad tell the truth in court believing that was what would win him his child. Then I watched him loose his shirt trying to win the right to see his child at all costs. Then I watched him get vindictive, nothing worked, WHY? He has testicles not breasts. And that my dear is the bottom line in FL.

Thanks for the post OB1, I wish there was some way to get dads to understand they MUST unify and take this to the supreme court like the women's movement did to win their ground and get recognition in this world. Get recognition that they matter, that their presence is as important, if not more so than the mom and however many ex’s she will have come and go in the lives of their children. Dad’s matter, and the stuffy old judges afraid to stand up and say to the mom, this does not make sense, and for once rule in the favour of dad need to understand that too and “actually” do something about it! And SOON!!
Old 06-17-2007, 03:17 AM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity

Ever notice that the multi million dollar government research report "For the Sake of the Children" which basically concluded a presumption for Joint Shared Custody regimes by default in Canada was swept under the carpet with no explanation to the public. Basically the issue and report was swept away when the prevailing government at the time lost power.

Old 06-18-2007, 09:49 AM
OB1 OB1 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 136
OB1 is on a distinguished road


How could I get more information on that report. For the Sake of the children.
Is there anything in the works regarding shared custody being given without a court battle?
Over the last few years my I been seeing my kids every Wednesday and every other weekend from Friday to Sunday evening. My 11 year old daughter would like to be with me 50/50. What chances do I have in granting her wish.
Old 06-18-2007, 01:47 PM
Decent Dad Decent Dad is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point

OB1... I did a quick google on:

Here is a good link:

Here is the report;

Recommendation 16.3 would help you:

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 include

16.1 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;

Finally, here is why men do not win these battles for law reform. Simply look at the Ontario Women's Justice Network (be afraid... be very afraid
Closed Thread

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
new here & need advice Please??? momofnl Divorce & Family Law 4 03-25-2007 03:36 PM
Status Quo and Parallel Parenting robbie Parenting Issues 1 01-10-2007 07:20 PM
bigamy? lost in relation Divorce & Family Law 1 10-22-2006 10:45 AM
Custody issue helpme124 Parenting Issues 13 05-31-2006 06:18 PM
How to proceed CatvsLion Divorce & Family Law 9 04-25-2006 11:10 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:57 AM.