I don’t support the presumption of ESP and believe every case should continue to be judged on an individual basis. Although I suspect in 80-90% of the cases ESP would be of value, I can’t let go of the 10-20% of children who would suffer terrible consequences from the presumption, and the amount of time it would take to revert to protect them - The system moves too slowly to help those in immediate need.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
National Post - commentary piece re: equal shared parenting
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mcdreamy View PostI don’t support the presumption of ESP and believe every case should continue to be judged on an individual basis. Although I suspect in 80-90% of the cases ESP would be of value, I can’t let go of the 10-20% of children who would suffer terrible consequences...
If you think ESP would be of value to 80 or 90% of situations, to help speed things along, in a fairer fashion, you think the 100% should continue to work the way it does, because the 10 to 20% might suffer "terrible consequences". It's simply a presumption, to start off with. Obviously, mitigating factors could override that presumption, for this 10 to 20% you speak of, to avoid the "terrible consequences".
Comment
-
Originally posted by mcdreamy View PostI don’t support the presumption of ESP and believe every case should continue to be judged on an individual basis. Although I suspect in 80-90% of the cases ESP would be of value, I can’t let go of the 10-20% of children who would suffer terrible consequences from the presumption, and the amount of time it would take to revert to protect them - The system moves too slowly to help those in immediate need.
Comment
-
Originally posted by blinkandimgone View PostAlthough I understand what you're saying, about protecting the 10 - 20% that ESP would not be appropriate for, I do think it's unfair that under the current system the 80-90% that would be appropriate for ESP may suffer negative consequences to protect that 10-20%. The system does move slowly to help those in immediate need and the time it takes to protect the 80-90% is exponentially higher than it would take for the 10-20%.Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mcdreamy View PostI don’t support the presumption of ESP and believe every case should continue to be judged on an individual basis. Although I suspect in 80-90% of the cases ESP would be of value, I can’t let go of the 10-20% of children who would suffer terrible consequences from the presumption, and the amount of time it would take to revert to protect them - The system moves too slowly to help those in immediate need.
And instead of having emergency motions to get 50-50 parenting BACK when one parent runs off with the children, we'd be able to have emergency motions in cases where one parent should NOT have 50-50.
And frankly, if children are in that much danger from one parent that they should not spend equal time with him/her in the event of separation, then hopefully authorities are already involved and that emergency motion would be a slam dunk.
I may be an optimist.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post...I'm just not going to get behind presumptive ESP until the system is fixed and files move swiftly for the benefit of the children. I won't sacrifice the safety of even 1% of the children in our society, for 90% of the best interest of any adult, male or female...
Comment
-
Originally posted by dad2bandm View PostThat doesn't make a lot of sense.
If you think ESP would be of value to 80 or 90% of situations, to help speed things along, in a fairer fashion, you think the 100% should continue to work the way it does, because the 10 to 20% might suffer "terrible consequences". It's simply a presumption, to start off with. Obviously, mitigating factors could override that presumption, for this 10 to 20% you speak of, to avoid the "terrible consequences".
There's a saying in Social Services - you spend 80% of your time on 20% of the people. I imagine court has very similar statistics. Doesn't make one less equal to the other, and I believe that was the point.
When entering the court - assumptions and presumptions should be nil. If the problem is biased judges, then address the problem - don't change the system to accommodate them.
Comment
-
For a lot of people its about control and money. The child, and amount of access to the child dictate how much they receive.
As a respondent / payor in the family court system, criminals have more rights in criminal cases than I do, that are even constitutionally enshrined. Rights to speedy trials, a presumption of innocence, and an ability of a judge to dish out a lesser judgement. The law is so concrete that common sense isn't allowed for in family courts.
Finally I don't see JT jumping on the family law bandwagon any time soon. He likes to say the word misogynist too much. Seriously, his largest fan base is women. Reforming family law would be seen as a move against women as in most cases he would be reducing access of women. As such, I didn't understand why any man with an interest in family law reform would vote for him.
I'll get off my soapbox now, and back to lunch...
Comment
-
Originally posted by nfc4ever View PostFor a lot of people its about control and money. The child, and amount of access to the child dictate how much they receive.
As a respondent / payor in the family court system, criminals have more rights in criminal cases than I do, that are even constitutionally enshrined. Rights to speedy trials, a presumption of innocence, and an ability of a judge to dish out a lesser judgement. The law is so concrete that common sense isn't allowed for in family courts.
Finally I don't see JT jumping on the family law bandwagon any time soon. He likes to say the word misogynist too much. Seriously, his largest fan base is women. Reforming family law would be seen as a move against women as in most cases he would be reducing access of women. As such, I didn't understand why any man with an interest in family law reform would vote for him.
I'll get off my soapbox now, and back to lunch...
Maybe the men that voted for him understood the division between Provincial and Federal politics?
And the flipside of the coin - the amount of access the non-custodial parent receives (either through judgment or presumptive shared parenting) also dictates how much the payor pays - whether they do their share of parenting or not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MS Mom View Post...When entering the court - assumptions and presumptions should be nil. If the problem is biased judges, then address the problem - don't change the system to accommodate them...
It's not unlike criminal court. One is presumed innocent, until proven guilty, as that is better than the alternative.
When it comes to family law, equal shared parenting, should be presumed to be in the best interests of the child, unless determined otherwise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dad2bandm View PostNo, it's a Federal one. The Divorce Act, is a federal thing. The provinces all have their nuances, but this is at the Federal level.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MS Mom View PostIt's a Federal Act in which the provinces have jurisdiction. That's why the decisions vary from Province to Province.
Provinces are granted jurisdiction in some aspects, but not all.
Federal parliament has the exclusive jurisdiction to make changes in the major divorce law areas.
Comment
Comment