No announcement yet.

Courts from hell: Family InJustice In Canada

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

  • Courts from hell: Family InJustice In Canada

    Here I come across one more interested book.
    Courts From Hell: Family InJustice In Canada
    2007 by Frank Simons.

    Here is link to author site
    Courts from hell

    Here is direct link to PDF of the book from the official site of author
    Courts from hell - PDF

    Here is some video regarding the topic
    Frank Simons, author of Courts From Hell

    I found all this on
    NADADS Site

    God (and he has to because court interfere with his power) help us and me on my coming TRIAL ...

  • #2
    Sigh it gives me second thoughts. My ex refuses to communicate, refuses to negociate, refuses to go to mediation. She wants all the money from the sale of our marital home, unlimited spousal support (plus CS of course) and sole custody. We were only married for 6 years! She didn't work for 3 years.

    I can live with giving her most of that but I need SOMETHING to live for. She changed the locks, kicked me out the day after payday, cleaned out all the joint accounts and withdrew access to my son until I got a lawyer.

    I've been paying so much support that I am basically living on the kindness of others for the last 8 months, but now I've been asked to find some place to live.

    She won't even agree to release the money from the sale of the matrimonial home so I have literally nothing.

    I finally gave up after she threw mediation back in my face and have decided to take her to court hoping to win on at least some of the issues. But stories like this... eek.

    Good luck, WorkingDad, I'm with you :P


    • #3
      From the book

      Judicial Discrimination: Custody judgements
      From Kevin Thompson’s book following are court arguments
      used to discriminate against fathers.

      The "primary caretaker" is a "Court-invented" label that does not exist in the intact family. In intact families, recognized by most as the optimal family unit, the parents are "co-caretakers." Parenting responsibilities are shared equally with each parentcontributing gender-specific influences that uniquely enhance the child's physical, mental, and emotional development.

      A widely used argument to oppose joint physical custody is that children need one home base for continuity and routine. This argument revolves around the false notion that children need unvarying sameness above all else, to the exclusion of the other parent's involvement if necessary. The classic refrain is that children will not be able to cope with two different caretakers and
      two different homes.

      Yes, children need stability, but even more important are the need for consistency and predictability, or an awareness of what is to come. Children cope and adapt quite well with change when they know what to expect. Giving both parents equal parenting time with a consistent schedule contributes to continuity in the child's life, not confusion.

      Sacrificing the significant involvement of a father in a child's life to accommodate the pie in the sky ideal of providing one home base for a child is insane.

      The reality is that the child has two parents who do not live together. The court should have no higher priority than preserving the relationship with both parents because there is not a more powerful predictor of future well-being than the significant involvement of both parents in a child's life.

      Research and experience with infant day care, early pre-school, and other stable care-taking arrangements indicate that infants and toddlers readily adapt to such transitions and also sleep well, once familiarized. Indeed, a child also thrives socially, emotionally, and cognitively if the care-taking arrangements are predictable and if parents are both sensitive to the child's physical and developmental needs (Lamb, 1998).

      The evening and overnight periods with non-residential parents are especially important psychologically not only for infants, but for toddlers and young children as well. Evening and overnight periods provide opportunities for crucial social interactions and nurturing activities, including bathing, soothing hurts and anxieties, bedtime rituals, comforting in the middle of the night, and the reassurance and snuggling in the morning after awakening. These everyday activities promote and maintain trust and confidence in the parents while deepening and strengthening child-parent attachments (Emery, 1999).

      As child expert, Dr. Joan Kelly, points out, "Courts have overemphasized providing geographic stability of residence for the child at the expense of the more important emotional stability of regular time with each parent. It has been thoroughly shown, by work done in the last decade, that the problems associated with movement of children between homes are less than those created by removing one parent from day-to-day connections with a child."

      In Wallerstein and Kelly’s book Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce, Basic Books, (1982). Instead, the courts exaggerate the effect of two home bases so that this MINOR inconvenience illogically outweighs the very real problems with sole custody to the mother.

      The "most flawed" argument used by the courts to deny a father his right to parent is that if one or both of the parents will not cooperate with the other or one parent will not agree to joint physical custody, then any form of joint custody is impossible.

      This argument eliminates any possibility of due process and equal protection for fathers because mothers have the gender-exclusive power to "not cooperate" and "be hostile" to the father to ensure that joint physical custody is not even considered by the Court.

      The unilateral choice to be hostile and uncooperative after separation is often used by mothers as a legal tactic since they are overwhelmingly more likely to gain custody. Mothers also enjoy the added convenience of pleading their case to judges who are eager to confuse legal conflict with genuine conflict outside of court. The out of touch judges in the family court system will rule
      that "since you two are in dispute over the custody arrangement, then joint custody will not work." Therefore, in the best interests of the children, the primary caretaker of the children (guess who according to court stereotypes?) will have sole custody.

      Joan Kelly in her work, Further Observations on Joint Custody, expresses a concern about the position that argues that joint custody should not be awarded when parents do not agree. As she points out, it is the woman who is opposed to joint custody. Women do not need to ask for, nor agree to, joint custody. They are presumed by society, lawyers, the courts, and themselves to have a right to keep the child. It is the father who must ask for joint
      custody and it is the mother's power to agree or disagree. The Mother has a financial incentive to not cooperate. She is rewarded by the court for her refusal to cooperate with monthly tax-free support payments.

      How does sole custody to the mother better respond to the parents' inability to communicate? Sole custody forces the parents to be chained to each other financially for 18-23 years where, in many cases, the financially responsible parent hands over more than the money needed to support his children to the financially irresponsible parent, sabotaging his own ability to save for his Children’s future activity and educational costs. I call this argument "the most flawed" because, contrary to family court opinion, 50/50 joint physical custody is actually the most appropriate custody arrangement when the parents DO NOT get along. Joint physical custody provides a clearly defined schedule that does not give either parent the power to intrude in the other
      parent's life, emotionally or financially. Neither parent is humiliated, devalued, or stripped of his dignity. And each parent has a more isolated influence on their child, independent of the whims and malice of the other parent.

      The "best interests of the child" standard is where we are now. A standard that is so vague that it gives judges the discretion to play God and interpret its meaning as they subjectively see fit.

      I find this argument the most despicable because the "best interests of the child" is the very last thing that these profit-driven hypocrites are considering when they make their rulings. If the courts cared at all about the best interests of the child, then they would be interested in hearing what BOTH parents believe is relevant before making their rulings.

      The Courts have subjectively interpreted the "best interests of the child" standard to mean removing loving fathers from the lives of their children and replacing them with cash payments and visitation hours. This is NEVER in the "best interests of a child" because there is not a more powerful predictor of future wellbeing than the significant involvement of BOTH parents in a child's life.


      • #4
        Originally posted by iceberg View Post
        Damn this book is scary. Did not read it all just a few titles but I don't know how much truth is in it overall. I doubt every judge is bias
        I do not think there is any reason to believed that it's not truth. I meant I almost finished that book and only hope what I have that may be something changed for the several years since book published ...

        This all situation about family Court is really upsetting me... I can guaranty you if I knew what is real Canadian family law is I would probably seriously reconsider my plan to come to Canada.

        Add to that that main reason was for future of my kids and now when I have son what kind of future he has in he end up in family court Inc. ?

        As a guy said in a book after being thou Family court I am not so proud Canadian anymore... and I can relate to that 100%. I got my Canadian passport at the beginning of all this bullshit in family court and despite the fact it took me about 10 years since I made decision to come to Canada till I got passport there was no happiness whatsoever on my face...


        • #5
          Agreed on the disillusionment about Canada. This has been my first real encounter with 'the system' in Canada since I arrived from behind the iron curtain about 25 yrs ago. My idealised hopes/beliefs about Canada are gone ... what a painful experience it has been.
          Last edited by dinkyface; 04-25-2011, 06:14 PM.


          • #6
            Originally posted by iceberg View Post
            Isn't the family law similar worldwide?
            Well it's depends...

            My understanding that Australia, some states are far ahead in Joint (real)
            joint custody by default

            Like in easter Europe court system corrupt from a bottom to very top. And everybody knows that and because of that NOBODY EXPECT ANYTHING AND DEAL WITH IT IN CORRUPT WAY

            and when you come to Canada which promise you rights and freedom and bla bla bla and find out what big joke that was (at least in regards of family law) that really really painful

            as I said it took me long time just to stop thinking that I made biggest mistake in my life...


            • #7
              Originally posted by iceberg View Post
              Yes I believe Australia has shared joint custody as default but anywhere else I think is similar to Canada. Some poor countries where you can bribe the judge is worse than anything else.
              It's realy depends how to look on that. From my point of view what we have in canada in Family Court is worse than bribe ...


              • #8
                She changed the locks, kicked me out the day after payday, cleaned out all the joint accounts and withdrew access to my son until I got a lawyer.
                And why did your lawyer not advise you to get back into the home to preserve status quo? She cannot change the locks and arbitrarily throw you out of your house.

                Joint accounts should have been frozen the day she tried to change the locks.

                Withdraw access....however you can file a motion and have a hearing in a couple of weeks at most.

                Are you under a court order to pay spousal? Child support? In the absence of an order, you should be paying what you want to wind up with. (ie. using offset table with her being imputed an income)

                Your lawyer is an idiot.


                • #9
                  Hey WorkingDAD
                  Thanks for posting about the book.


                  • #10
                    If a judge makes a final long does one have to wait before they can file a motion to change? A judge made a brutal order to pay child support......when can another motion be put through? is there a waiting time? If anyone can let me know....i would appreciate the input


                    • #11
                      never mind what i intended was to go in another post....
                      Last edited by AtALoss; 05-31-2011, 01:13 PM. Reason: post was redundant


                      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.