OK, and what is this bill about?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Private Member’s Bill C-422 - Equal parenting (Mr. Velacott)
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Originally posted by rszalai View PostOK, and what is this bill about?
Originally posted by logicalvelocity View PostSadly, it appears Mr. Goodyear is sidestepping the issue.Last edited by Mess; 07-28-2012, 11:38 PM.
Comment
-
Hopefully if there is enough pressure from the public they'll all get on board, but by the sounds of his response that will not be forthcoming anytime soon. But yes I would agree their own party member who is essentially supposed to have the same value system can't seem to stick together on such an important and high priority (in my mind at least) issue. Got to love politics.
Comment
-
Reactions on Rabble.ca
I was memeber of Rabble/Babble some years ago, it was an interesting, informative site with a variety of opinions and critique. Personally I think it went off the deep end on too many issues and I only browse there occasionally now. I think the level of discussion there on this topic is disgusting, but I'm showing it here so that it can be clear that there is huge opposition to this kind of bill, plenty of rhetoric and little facts, wild claims and hostility, and anyone who supports the issue gets jumped on as a member of the wife-beating father's rights crowd.
There are references here to many papers and articles released by feminist organizations that have the ear of several of the parties and many MPs. It seems to have simply become an accepted and unchallenged fact that shared parenting is an attack on women and children.
There is huge political opposition to this, and the only reason we don't hear more of it is because this is a private member's bill that is receiving little attention and will like die before final reading anyway.
Should shared parenting be forced? Feminist critique of private bill C-422
Women and children deserve custody laws that respect their right to live
free from violence and the threat of violence. Bill C-422 does not offer this
and needs to be defeated.The FR lobby would have you think so, but feminists are not alone in slagging C-422. I have found a detailed critique of this Bill in an excellent letter addressed to Vellacott by the Quebec Bar Association. I've summarized it below (in French).
The president of the Canadian Bar Association Family Law Section has expressed similar reservations, and Minister Rob Nicholson attempted to distance himself from C-422 over the weekend: "Kids' interests No.1 priority in divorce, justice minister says"Good question. In her column of today, Antonia Zerbisias reminds us how anti-woman the Cons are but notes that Nicholson was applauded by CBA members when he expressed reservations about the Bill:
Divorce law needs updating, but Tory's proposal is not the answerThe salient point here is the necessity for judges to be able to take violence into account as a primary consideration in upholding the child's best interest, regardless of which parent is the assaulter.
As it stands, C-422 moves that consideration into a secondary position, along with the children's own desires, making both second to the so-called principle of maximum contact with each parent, which is clearly predicated - I read Father-Right literature - on some men's desire to escape financial responsibility by taking custody and actual parenting work out of the ambit of divorce legislation, regardless of consequences to children.
Feminist critiques of « presumptive equal parenting » - such as that penned by Gatineau sociologist Denyse CĂ´tĂ© in "La garde partagĂ©e: l'Ă©quitĂ© en question" (Éditions du remue-mĂ©nage, 2000, 202 p.) - can be found on various web sites, such as The Liz Library. This material amply documents that not all equal-custody claims are justified or respectful of the children's best interests. Most family court judges are aware of this, but the anti-feminist lobby goes on trying to force their hands, via conservative politicians.For instance, The Ontario Women's Justice Network offers a detailed analysis of a good 2001 Supreme Court decision in the custody case between Kimberly Van de Perre and Theodore and Valerie Edwards, here.
Please remain aware of this issue, and don't let the patriarchalists pull the wool over your MP's eyes.It is particularly interesting in the light of a court system that rewards those who have more money to spend on lawyers. Yep-- looks like men never really did lose that much of an advantage anyway.
Nevermind that, men have other advantages in tending to have more money. They have advantages in using the money to control the home and in using money after divorce to help ensure access. And some of this is not all bad-- after all one who pays support ought to be expecting more access than a deadbeat. One who pays support earns goodwill with the custodial parent as well and therefore more cooperation-- not always but often enough especially in those families that do not go to court to rip themselves up when they can't live together. Let us never forget that money has an advantage and that men still generally have that advantage so the whole fiction about men having no advantages in family court is dangerous since if we remove the advantages women have that tend to level things, then men will have an overwhealming advantage.And where you write "after all one who pays support ought to be expecting more access than a deadbeat", the twist is that by demanding 50% access, the fathers' lobby actually hopes to terminate men's child support obligations, even though the law stipulates an equalizing of parents' contributions according to their income, in the children's interest. They try to get women to sign away such entitlement in divorce agreements and make these binding without having to be cleared with the Court.
I'm not sure why there should be a presumption of equal shared parenting when, overwhelmingly men don't share parenting equally. Perhaps they do in other countries but I doubt it. I know they don't here. Statistics show that. Men already have legal access to their children - they just need to exercise it before I think any such presumption can be considered valid.It is precisely because most men don't share parenting that the patriarchal lobby is angling for a presumption that they have and will and therefore should be empowered by the State to resist any acknowledgment of the needs of parent that has and will...
Another element that is obscured in these partiarchalists world-view is the role played by stepfathers and other partners of the primary parent that often do much better responding to the child's needs than Battling Bio-Dad and his cheap tactics to remain in control and save a few bucks a week.
Yes it does. It's the extreme end point of the attitude that draws a sharp distinction between a man's domestic violence and his traditional paternal entitlement, an attitude that bill C-422 would entrench into law by restricting any accounting of a parent's abusive behaviour to a secondary list of criteria for determining children's best interest, as in "He may have abused/killed her, but he is a good father". In a spirit of "harm reduction", people, including lawyers and judges, wll typically say things like : "Yes, he killed her, it's a terrible tragedy, but why worsen it by making his children complete orphans if we force their father, their only remaining parent, out of their life?" The same rationale is used to maintain access and custody privileges for fathers who have acknowledged having commtted incest. The perpetrator's own responsibility in fouling the family nest to that extent is systematically covered up and society bends over backwards to protect his privileges from his actions. Indeed, children and wives are forced into service to achieve this moral rehabilitation.
Please read full article. Pamela was quoted by a panelist yesterday at a conference organized to mark the 25th anniversary of SOS Violence Conjugale, Quebec's emergency line 24/7 support service for victims of domestic violence. She is a force to be reckoned with, especially with Bill C-422 coming down the tube to make shared parenting a presumption and paternal child support a thing of the past.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mess View PostI was memeber of Rabble/Babble some years ago, it was an interesting, informative site with a variety of opinions and critique. Personally I think it went off the deep end on too many issues and I only browse there occasionally now. I think the level of discussion there on this topic is disgusting, but I'm showing it here so that it can be clear that there is huge opposition to this kind of bill, plenty of rhetoric and little facts, wild claims and hostility, and anyone who supports the issue gets jumped on as a member of the wife-beating father's rights crowd.
There are references here to many papers and articles released by feminist organizations that have the ear of several of the parties and many MPs. It seems to have simply become an accepted and unchallenged fact that shared parenting is an attack on women and children.
There is huge political opposition to this, and the only reason we don't hear more of it is because this is a private member's bill that is receiving little attention and will like die before final reading anyway.
Should shared parenting be forced? Feminist critique of private bill C-422
Maurice Vellacott's Private Bill C-422 is bad news for mothers and children
Private Bill C-422 con't
Thinking about "honour killings"
The collision between children's interests and fathers' rights = Pamela Cross
Reading all that made me want to throw up. Don't kid yourself that there isn't huge organized opposition to this bill working in the background.
They'll say that men are trying to save a 'few bucks' where the opposite can be said that women do not want that few bucks to stop coming in every month.
As far as a woman being a better parent, well I won't won't even lower myself to answer that one. I think that vast majority of us in here do not believe that for one minute.
I'm tired of hearing about how disadvantaged women are! Mainly we hear about it for pay equity or job positions. This is clearly not the case in this day and age, there are more and more woman in CEO and other executive positions, and coincidently more and more men are taking on more of a parenting role.
So now when it comes to separation, those same people cry about how they're the superior care giver, when in fact men are more the primary care giver or it's been a babysitter or daycare providers.
I believe woman need to except the fact that men are just as good of a parent as they are, and should be given the opportunity and benefit of the doubt to do so. This family law system is in my opinion, trash, and I do not have a problem in speaking for the vast majority of men that have fought for access or custody and have been treated or made to feel like they have no self worth as a parent but a pay check. Things need to change for the sake of the children. Bill C 422 is exactly what is needed.
Comment
-
L F, I don't agree with any of that, and I don't think the opinions stand up to scrutiny, but I am saying that politically this is what you are facing. A huge opposition across the left, which will include the Liberal Party that traditionally tries to get support of feminist groups.
9 out of 10 people base their political opinions on headlines, not content, and on slogans they hear on talk radio. It's sad but true.
I do usually consider myself pro-feminist, but this kind of stuff makes me sick.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mess View PostL F, I don't agree with any of that, and I don't think the opinions stand up to scrutiny, but I am saying that politically this is what you are facing. A huge opposition across the left, which will include the Liberal Party that traditionally tries to get support of feminist groups.
9 out of 10 people base their political opinions on headlines, not content, and on slogans they hear on talk radio. It's sad but true.
I do usually consider myself pro-feminist, but this kind of stuff makes me sick.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rszalai View Postwhat happens if this becomes a bill? I currently my ex has sole custody and she is offering me 4 hours access once a moth will I be able to change this to shared custody without spending my life in court?
I do not know what will happen to the parents already currently going through or have been through the system, hopefully it will help resolve their struggles as well. Email your MP and ask for his or her support, it's a long awaited step in the right direction. As well you can sign the online petitions.
As for your 4 hrs, you need to get that changed ASAP, go to the court house and file, you maybe able to get duty council to help. It's a long process, but stay the course, do not accept 4 hrs a month.
Comment
-
Green Party supports Shared Parenting
For immediate release:
HOUSE OF COMMONS
CANADA
Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin
Vellacott commends Green Party
for passing Equal Parenting motion
For Immediate Release August 26, 2010
OTTAWA – Saskatoon-Wanuskewin MP Maurice Vellacott commends the Green Party for adding a commitment to equal shared parenting as a party policy. Last year, the Conservative MP introduce Bill C-422, which would amend the Divorce Act to require judges to order equal shared parenting for divorcing parents unless it is not in the best interests of the child to do so.
Over the weekend, the Green Party passed a policy motion declaring that “the Green Party of Canada will make the necessary changes to the Canada Divorce Act so that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act will mandate a default of equal parenting – defined as equal time and responsibility unless there is consent from both parents, or there are specific criminal convictions related to the children that preclude equal parenting.
“My work for equal shared parenting has always been a non-partisan effort,” said Vellacott. “Equal parenting groups in Canada are also talking to Members of Parliament from all parties,” he added.
“A survey I conducted shows a large majority of Canadians supports equal parenting, regardless of what political party the respondents support,” Vellacott said.
“Congratulations to the Green Party for voting to add equal parenting to their party policies.”
– 30 –
For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or 297-2249
Comment
-
The problem with this bill is two-fold...number 1, it needs to pass second reading before an election...highly unlikely... and it creates less work for the law society members...who are also the members of Justice Canada, who would be responsible for revamping the legislation...no way will they allow us parents to take away their bread and butter!
It needs much more publicity and support!
Comment
Comment