Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Update on Bill C-422

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

  • Update on Bill C-422

    In talking with my MP, I learned a few things I thought I would share here;

    Bill C-422 is now in the top 100 private members' bills, but is not scheduled to be debated until the fall of 2011. I have a Conservative MP and the "position" explained by his office was that he will not have a position on it until the government takes a position on it...which was hastily corrected to "until it reaches the top 30 PMBs."

    It is a slow process, and perhaps it can be expedited with enough support and with enough attention brought to it. Sadly, my MP had no clue what Bill C-422 referred to, and had to research and get back to me, stating that they have had no calls or letters regarding this piece of potential legislation...well...here I go, spending my spare time doing up a petition and going door to door in my riding!

    If I knock on your door, have your pen and your story handy!

  • #2
    I am a firm believer in equal parentingb but what provisions will be made to this bill? I am actually from the US, and we have what is called Friend of the Court, they are similar to FRO, with the major differnce that Friend of the Court not only has the right to enforce Child Support, but Custody and Access as well. I will tell you that this organization is defunct and needs a lot of work, but the general purpose for theis organization and the resonings for it it being implented are one I support, and I am saying this as a mother that PAYS child support. In the State of Michigan however there is a clasue that occurs within divorces, I share what is known as legal custody of my children, meaning I have equal rights to make any legal decisions regarding my children, I wont go into the messy details of why he has physical custody other than it was an abusive marriage. Michigan law states that I cannot move more than 160km without consent of my former spoaus eand the courts and still retain "joint legal custody". In some cases equal parenting is not in the children's best interests, depending on what equal parenting entails, does this mean that the parents can live 200km apart and share care? Where are the rights of the children when these situations come up, should there not be defined rules and laws about how far apart 2 parents can live and provide not only a healthy relationship with both parents, but a healthy lifestyle. It is impractical to live more than 50km apart from each other and retain shared care. Canadian Law does not define these kind of rules and protection for children, and it should. While there may be no physical abuse, or neglect, this kind of arrangement wears on a child.

    Comment


    • #3
      Equal parenting does not necessarily mean equal time...it generally means equal ability and input into your child's life...there are obviously exceptions to the rule, and those are factored in when determining any parenting arrangement

      Canadian Law does allow for these circumstances, with typical clauses in parenting orders regarding mobility of the custodial parent, although there needs to be more clarity and caselaw when the non-custodial parent moves...unfortunately, either these parents can agree and are rarely in court (good thing!) or the non-custodial parent does not care enough or for whatever other reason is unable to seek court assistance (bad thing).

      Comment


      • #4
        the proposed bill, supporting equal parenting

        the proposed changes to the divorce act and others, covered by bill c-422, can be found at the web address below:

        www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3995880&Language=e&Mode=1&F ile=27

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by InterprovincialParents View Post
          Equal parenting does not necessarily mean equal time...it generally means equal ability and input into your child's life...there are obviously exceptions to the rule, and those are factored in when determining any parenting arrangement
          "Equal parenting" is not a legal term, and it means whatever you want it to mean. In the bill C-422 the term is introduced into legislation to refer to what is called "Shared parenting" in other legislation. It is not yet a legal term as it is not used in legislation up until now. "Shared parenting" is a legal term in the federal child support guidlines and the Ontario Family Law Act which refers to shared physical custody within a 40/60 percentage. It is also recognized by the CRA although I am not sure if it is in the Income Tax Act or if it is just within regulations.

          "Legal Custody" refers to decision making, it may be shared or split in what is referred to as a parallel, where each parent has control over different decisions. "Physical Custody" refers to where the child resides. In Ontario law, "Access" refers to Physical Custody, but is more commonly used to differentiate between Custodial parent and Access parent in a full custody situation. However the FLA uses "Access" to refer to physical custody in any and all situations.

          Comment


          • #6
            Because most do not speak legalize and I am trying to understand he depths of this amendment, is this bill all inclusive for child support, custody/access. I also rea, the following in the amendment: parenting” means the act of assuming the role of a parent to a child, including custody and all of the rights and responsibilities commonly and historically associated with the role of a parent;
            “parenting order”
            « ordonnance parentale »


            “parenting order” means an interim order or a final order made under subsection 16(1) and includes a custody order made under this Act before the coming into force of this definition;
            “relative”
            « membre de la famille »


            “relative” means, in relation to a child,


            (a) a brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, stepbrother or stepsister,


            (b) a grandparent,


            (c) the spouse or common-law partner of either parent,


            (d) an uncle or aunt,


            (e) a nephew, niece, or cousin, and


            (f) any other person who has the status of any of the persons referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) according to the cultural norms of either parent;


            so the bill will include stepsibling, but not stepparents, who can be as much involved in the childrens lives as any parent (and i am not being biased as a step parent but i do know there are many step parents fighting for rights)

            How will distance in relation to custody/access be clarified? I do agree with the bill if it truly is in the children's best interest and it is not simply to make more wars in reagrds to child support, but I think this bill has some more tweaking before it is oficially passed into law. I am more than willing to advocate for this and stand behind it, but I think a fight for some more clarified revisions is imminent, and well needed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Stepmom, the Federal Child Support Guidelines are law, they are not addressed by this legislation and are not affected.

              The bill sets a default position that the best interests of the child are that the access of each parent be equal (within 60/40). There is is a subsection which states that if there is reason that the best interest of the child are NOT that access be equal, and it is factually shown, then the default postion is fully rebutted. If that is not clear, then in simple terms, equal parenting unless it can be shown otherwise. IF it can be shown otherwise, then there is no assumption that equal parenting is preferable in that individual case. To phrase it yet another way, this is not a competition for number of points. It is not that equal parenting gets 50 points and other arguments need to get 51 to win. If there is reason to show that parenting should not be equal, then argument for equal parenting is reduced to 0.

              The bill sets a default postion that legal custody (decision making) should be equal, unless shown otherwise.

              The bill sets as a default position that if a parent seeks to move with a child the onus is on that parent to show that this is in the best interest of the child, it is not on the other parent to show that the child should remain.

              The bill should, in practice, reduce conflict over child support, at least somewhat. In situations where a parent is seeking 50/50 it cannot be assumed that this is in any way for financial reasons, it is assumed it is for the best interest of the child. The onus is on the opposing parent to show that the child should not be in a 50/50 situation. The reduction in conflict will be in the cases where access is close to 40% and one parent is resisting due to fears of loss of support money. The conflict would not then be arguable, the opposing parent must show factual reasons why the child would not be best served. In most cases where 39% was perfectly fine, then 40% would also have to be seen as such.

              The bill does not address any rights of step parents. Step parents are not now seen as having rights over step children. This is a difficult issue and should be addressed in a separate bill. There is no connection between the arguments for 50/50 access and custody for biological parents, and the arguments for creation of rights for step parents. The argument does not affect the argument for the other, and conflating the two would mean neither change would be likely to be passed.

              Comment


              • #8
                The more I read about his bill the more I am disappointed, I am not pro- feminist I am not pro-mom- or pro-dad. This bill is very vague when it comes to defining "equal shared parenting" There needs to be clauses contained within that it is not always in the best interest of the child. What constitutes as not in the best interests: A move of residence greater than a defined distance, where abuse can be proven, whether it be abuse of the chid, the former wife, or former husband, yes ladies and gentlmen I said abuse of a former husband, because men can be as much abused as any woman. Anyone can be a mother or father, it takes a man to imprgnate a woman, and it takes a woman to carry a child, it doesnt mean that one parent is better than the other. Thus far in this world it has been said that a mother can provide better for her child, and I will say that is crap. I have known many a mothers that simply should not have children, let alone have custody. I can atest to this growing up in foster care because my mother was diagnosed with clinical schizophrenia, and while she may have loved us, she did not have the mental capacity to care for her children, there are mothers as well that are not mentally ill, but simply do not care for the children the way the should be. I am saying this as a woman and a mother of 5 children 3 of my own and 2 stepkids. What I stand for and advocate for is what is in the "Best Interest of the Child" I cannot support this bill without it defining this, and you dads better stand up and realize what you are fighting for.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Simply put: in the best interest of the children. Why is that so difficult? Rhetorical question, never mind...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A defined distance in a straight line down a rural highway and the same distance across Toronto when two people don't own cars and are dependent on public transit?

                    I'm glad you don't write legislation.

                    Somehow if there is abuse, schizophrenia, drug use, alcholism etc these things can be brought forward as relevant without having them specified in legislation. How is it that it needs to be done now? A list would be worded as "including but not limited to" and in other words mean nothing.

                    What exactly is the scenario that you think would be in danger if occuring under the proposed legislation, and how is this a greater danger than under current legislation? If you have an argument include supporting points, or all you are doing is ranting.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Defined distance meaning it is not practical to share care if 2 parents live 50 km or more apart, how does a child attend school, or have a "normal life" . I live 289 km from my children I know that shared care is impractical, I do retain legal decision making, but with my ex I am not the first person he comes to when making a legal decision regarding our children, and in Michigan there are laws that protect this, but if and when brough up I will be told it was my choice to move irregardless, and since the children's school is where they live with their dad he has all the rights. Not to mention there are too many variables, for instance if two parents can absolutely not communicate. So shared Joint Custody definately fair, but if a parent lives this defined distance, what becomes right and wrong, a child has a right to a normal life whether or not coming from a split home, they have every right to have the advantages that a child coming from a non spilt home has. The Canadian Court System spends thousands of tax payer money, and the public pays lawyers to continue these battles in court, because the laws are not clearly defined, so we are saying yet again we are going to pass into legislation another amendment that is not clearly defined, so we can spend more tax dollars and waste our childrens young lives in litigation over something that should be so simple. Sure give parents equal rights to make legal desions regarding their kids and their future, make sure child support gets paid because it is the right of the child, and above all give your children the life they deserve, know as a parent that sometimes what you think is right for the child can be selfish, because you're thinking of your own wantsand needs to have your child in your life, and as well you should but not if it is going to hurt them.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Blah blah blah

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Mess this is a public forum and within, each person is allowed to voice their opinions. I am trying to understannd if this bill is for the rights of parents or the rights of children? How will this legislation affect The Children's Law Reform Act? I am curious about a lot in regards to this. Does this bill take into consideration that at the age of 13 the CHILD has the right to choose how they wish to excercise access. Have you read Wilson on Children and the Law I think it is quite informative and I feel it takes a pro-child stance. What I advocate is for the Rights of Children, and what is best for them. Equal parenting is the right choice IF it truly is in the CHILD's best interest, and not the parent's best interest alone.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "Normal" is entirely relative to what one is already familiar with. Your definition of normal will not be thee same as mine or the next person's or anyone else's. To have someone else define what my childrens' "normal" should be based on their own experience without taking into my childrens' own experiences would not be in their best interest.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ConcernenedStepMom78 View Post
                              Does this bill take into consideration that at the age of 13 the CHILD has the right to choose how they wish to excercise access.
                              I think that at 13 or thereabouts the children's preferences will be heard by the court. But their preferences are not the only consideration and they don't absolutely get to choose at that age.

                              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