Private Member’s Bill C-422 - Equal parenting (Mr. Velacott)

D

dinkyface

New member
A question from the "politically inexperienced": What can be done to support Mr. Vellacott's bill?

Google "vellacott 422" for more info.
 
Text of the Bill: C-422

I have to read this one again, it's sending shivers up my spine. Before I can even worry about any other provision of this Bill I have to ask the question: Does the definition of Parenting, as defined by this private members bill:

“parenting”
« rôle parental »



“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;


mean a person is only a parent if they Act to assert their role as a custodian?
 
This somewhat saddens me that this particular thread, regarding Bill C-422, has received little attention here online. This Bill represent a potential for great change and bring restore the concept of "equality" in the eyes of the law.

It's depressing to here stories about good parents wanting to be part of their children's lives but are finding no justice in a system that is suppose to treat them equally. What's even more depressing to see the lack of support from many of these dads to work towards making change in our democratic system. If you don't like the rules that you've been force to play with, than work towards changing the rules...

Support Bill C-422 by writing to your MP and encouraging your friends/family to do the same.

BTW: Spend the 5 minutes and sign the online petition for Bill C-422. It is just a small step in a long trip but these small steps may turn into something large.

SUPPORT BILL C-422 EQUAL PARENTING
 
Last edited by a moderator:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
logicalvelocity said:
Why is the cause restricted to federal level. Why not petition on the provincial levels ... considering provincial or territorial statutes.
Click to expand...

The Divorce Act is a federal legislation. Thus the reason for us to write to your local Federal MP to indicate the importance of supporting this bill. However, the provinces will implement the laws through the courts so for sustainable reform, the provinces need to be on board as well... So contacting your local MPP may also be a worthwhile effort.

logicalvelocity said:
There are many ... but not so much for the bill ... but the concept.

Shared Equal Parenting - Signatures

Equal Shared Parenting Family Law Reform In Canada Petition

Petition-them.com

Links on "Canadian Equal Parenting Council" | Facebook

Parental Alienation (Canada): London, Ontario ~ free seminar on equal parenting and the fathers rights movement.
Click to expand...

The online petition is just one of many ways to try to get attention to the Bill. Writing to your MP is also an approach too that should be done as well. What we really need is to start preaching to the non-converted. Starting with your friends and family is a good start. However, my experience so far in getting my friends involve have been abit disappointing so far. I've only email a few friends (to test the water) and it took abit of nagging to get them to even just sign the online petition. What I will be doing is printing out a letter template asking their local MP to support Bill C-422. Then I'll go around and get my friends/family to sign them and I'll mail them on their behalf. Otherwise, most of them likely will just put it off for a more convenient time and then they'll end up forgetting all together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EqualParent said:
The Divorce Act is a federal legislation. Thus the reason for us to write to your local Federal MP to indicate the importance of supporting this bill. However, the provinces will implement the laws through the courts so for sustainable reform, the provinces need to be on board as well... So contacting your local MPP may also be a worthwhile effort.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the Federal Statute. However, as a starting point in Ontario - Apparently the presumption exists under Section 20 of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 For instance:


...Under the Children’s Law Reform Act, a mother and father are equally entitled to custody of a child. When an access dispute breaks out, judges use a list of criteria to determine whether or not to depart from an equal-access regime.

Judge Ingram ruled that Ms. Johne and Mr. Cavannah’s child would be best served by a 50/50 access arrangement....

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f9/milking-parental-rights-breastfeeding-6931/
Click to expand...

EqualParent said:
The online petition is just one of many ways to try to get attention to the Bill. Writing to your MP is also an approach too that should be done as well. What we really need is to start preaching to the non-converted. Starting with your friends and family is a good start. However, my experience so far in getting my friends involve have been abit disappointing so far. I've only email a few friends (to test the water) and it took abit of nagging to get them to even just sign the online petition. What I will be doing is printing out a letter template asking their local MP to support Bill C-422. Then I'll go around and get my friends/family to sign them and I'll mail them on their behalf. Otherwise, most of them likely will just put it off for a more convenient time and then they'll end up forgetting all together.
Click to expand...

Many parents who have intact relationships -- Couldn't care less about the cause until their own relationship failed and find themselves on the outside looking in when it comes to their children.

Considering Divorce statistic hovering about 50% - some will be on board soon enough.
 
EqualParent said:
The Divorce Act is a federal legislation. Thus the reason for us to write to your local Federal MP to indicate the importance of supporting this bill. However, the provinces will implement the laws through the courts so for sustainable reform, the provinces need to be on board as well... So contacting your local MPP may also be a worthwhile effort.
Click to expand...
Custody is both a federal and provincial jurisdiction due to an odd occurance in the BNA Act. Divorce is specificly a federal responsibility, but civil matters (of which marriage and custody are included) are provincial. The divorce act can't help but affect child custody so there is a rare jurisdictional crossover.

The provinces and feds have tried to deal with this by keeping laws in sync and not contradicting each other. For example the Ontario Family Law Act requires the use of the Federal Child Support tables.

As I understand it (but I could be mistaken or oversimplifying) when we separate only, if we seek custody ruling we go through provincial court and provincial law. If we seek a divorce along with custody, we go through federal court and law. Some provinces also use unified courts.

If the Federal law is changed, the provinces will be strongly obliged to sync up with it. Meanwhile if several provinces went this route, the Feds would be more inclined to sync as well. It can flow either way.

The courts are already favouring shared parenting, compared to a generation ago. The last news article I read in the Toronto Star noted that almost 50% of cases were shared now. There is still a strong bias towards the mothers having custody if the finding is sole custody, this is also close to half, and the smallest percentage is for the fathers to have sole custody.

The court decisions tend to follow previous trends. Lawyers quote other cases, the judges certainly read other judge's decisions and are aware of social studies and statistics. So common law derived from court cases is supporting this trend anyway.
 
I believe Yukon Jurisdiction has made some changes to their statutes with respect to the presumption.

On the US side - Arizona and Washington State to name a few.
 
Does that suggest that Ontario judges are encourage to pursue a shared parenting plan first unless one of the parents do not meet the criteria list.... or is the criteria list bias towards mothers and that this presumption is a farce

logicalvelocity said:
I'm aware of the Federal Statute. However, as a starting point in Ontario - Apparently the presumption exists under Section 20 of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 For instance:


​



Many parents who have intact relationships -- Couldn't care less about the cause until their own relationship failed and find themselves on the outside looking in when it comes to their children.

Considering Divorce statistic hovering about 50% - some will be on board soon enough.
Click to expand...
 
EqualParent said:
Does that suggest that Ontario judges are encourage to pursue a shared parenting plan first unless one of the parents do not meet the criteria list....
Click to expand...

To me - it suggests Justice Ingrim of the S.C.J views...as quoted from the media article:

...Under the Children’s Law Reform Act, a mother and father are equally entitled to custody of a child. When an access dispute breaks out, judges use a list of criteria to determine whether or not to depart from an equal-access regime.

Judge Ingram ruled that Ms. Johne and Mr. Cavannah’s child would be best served by a 50/50 access arrangement....
Click to expand...


EqualParent said:
or is the criteria list bias towards mothers and that this presumption is a farce
Click to expand...

Thats an entirely different subject. Just to clarify - Is the "criteria list" Section 24 of the CLR as enumerated?
 
Last edited:
If you have a situation with one breadwinner out of the house working and one caregiver who is stay-at-home, then there will be a bias toward giving more custody to the stay-at-home. Essentially this is tracing status quo back to when the marriage was intact. The argument is that the childrens' lives are less disrupted, the working parent has less experience with childcare and has probably been less involved all along.

If that's not true, then the working parent has to show it. The judge wasn't there in the home with them 24/7 and has to go by what seems likely.

The situation right now seems to be, shared parenting where all else was equal, ie both parents were working out of the home. Where one parent was stay-at-home, then from what articles and statistics I've seen, the custody will end up mainly with the stay-at-home.

Is this gender bias or is it role-playing bias?

Now the question, "Should the default be 50/50 shared parenting when the situation during marriage was not 50/50", that is a different question and I don't have an answer for it.
 
Mess said:
If you have a situation with one breadwinner out of the house working and one caregiver who is stay-at-home, then there will be a bias toward giving more custody to the stay-at-home. Essentially this is tracing status quo back to when the marriage was intact. The argument is that the childrens' lives are less disrupted, the working parent has less experience with childcare and has probably been less involved all along.

If that's not true, then the working parent has to show it. The judge wasn't there in the home with them 24/7 and has to go by what seems likely.

The situation right now seems to be, shared parenting where all else was equal, ie both parents were working out of the home. Where one parent was stay-at-home, then from what articles and statistics I've seen, the custody will end up mainly with the stay-at-home.
Click to expand...

Interesting... Is that the truth behind the statistics we see with mothers receiving the majority of custody awards? The large percentage of them are stay-home moms? If you factor that out, are the outcomes more in favor of shared parenting? Can you point me out a resources you've seen that suggest that... I'd be really interested in seeing those numbers..
 
EqualParent said:
This somewhat saddens me that this particular thread, regarding Bill C-422, has received little attention here online. This Bill represent a potential for great change and bring restore the concept of "equality" in the eyes of the law.

It's depressing to here stories about good parents wanting to be part of their children's lives but are finding no justice in a system that is suppose to treat them equally. What's even more depressing to see the lack of support from many of these dads to work towards making change in our democratic system. If you don't like the rules that you've been force to play with, than work towards changing the rules...

Support Bill C-422 by writing to your MP and encouraging your friends/family to do the same.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm late to get on the train, but I'm here now, and contacting Rob Nicholson as I write this, what else needs to be done? Maybe a march on the Hill. Where is the best place to keep updated?

EqualParent said:
Interesting... Is that the truth behind the statistics we see with mothers receiving the majority of custody awards? The large percentage of them are stay-home moms? If you factor that out, are the outcomes more in favor of shared parenting? Can you point me out a resources you've seen that suggest that... I'd be really interested in seeing those numbers..
Click to expand...

I am for any petition, but what about demonstrations, I've thought about putting a sign on myself and walking up and down the courts side walks. What about about marching on Parliament Hill to support this Bill? I would help in anyway possible from my end.

Speaking of Private members bills, what are the chances and has it gone through any readings? What stage? These things tend to die out after the second.

EqualParent said:
Interesting... Is that the truth behind the statistics we see with mothers receiving the majority of custody awards? The large percentage of them are stay-home moms? If you factor that out, are the outcomes more in favor of shared parenting? Can you point me out a resources you've seen that suggest that... I'd be really interested in seeing those numbers..
Click to expand...

I am for any petition, but what about demonstrations, I've thought about putting a sign on myself and walking up and down the courts side walks. What about about marching on Parliament Hill to support this Bill? I would help in anyway possible from my end.

Speaking of Private members bills, what are the chances and has it gone through any readings? What stage? These things tend to die out after the second.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Update -

Update -

c/p

From:

VellaM0@parl.gc.ca email


The following article appeared in today's National Post. Responses to the letter are greatly encouraged. You can submit letters online on the NP website here: Letters | Contact | National Post or send them to letters@nationalpost.com.

---

Tasha Kheiriddin, National Post · Tuesday, Jun. 15, 2010

Tomorrow, June 16, is a day that has come far too quickly: my daughter Zara's first birthday. It is a time to pause and reflect on the joys and craziness of parenting, and on the realization that Zara will never again repeat her first steps and first words (no, not Mama or Dada, but "car". Oh well, at least the kid knows what she likes).

Her birthday also falls less than a week before Father's Day, and thus also brought to mind a piece of legislation before Parliament which would radically change child custody and access laws in Canada: Bill C-422.

This private member's bill, introduced by Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, would amend the Divorce Act to mandate "equal shared parenting" when parents split up. Courts would start from the presumption that parents share time with the kids and decision making on a 50-50 basis, and put the legal onus on parents to show that such an arrangement would not be in the child's best interest.

Before I had a baby, I would probably have supported this legislation. Who would deny a child the right to the equal love and care of both parents? Why do mothers get custody so much more often than fathers?

Raising an infant as a single parent for the past year, however, has changed my opinion. Not because I think that children don't need fathers, but because I realize that they need each parent in different ways at different stages of development. And unfortunately, Bill C-422 presumes that equal parenting is best regardless of circumstance, including the age of the child.

Children are constantly changing, and what may work for a 12-year-old may hurt a two-year-old. Case in point: shared physical custody. A pre-teen can fully understand that when he stays with mom one week and dad the next, he will be seeing mom again soon. But an infant cannot grasp this fact. Even a toddler is unable to fully verbalize desires and feelings, while teenagers, if I recall the drama I put my own parents through, are only too able to express themselves.

When it comes to very young children, the presumption of the bill contradicts the first law of every parenting book on Earth: Disrupt a baby's routine as little as possible. Expert after expert advises parents to establish one sleep routine, nap routine and meal routine, and to ease young children slowly into transitions, such as moving house or mommy going back to work. They further warn that vacations -- or any time away overnight from home -- will prove disruptive. Indeed, what parents haven't returned from a trip with their tots only to find that they suddenly won't sleep through the night, or cling to your leg like Saran Wrap?

Add to that the advice of the medical community that breastfeeding is best for infants under one year. As a mother who nursed for that time, I can testify only too well that breastfeeding is about much more than food. It is about comfort-- when baby cannot sleep or is sick, teething or cranky. No offence, dads, but there are some things men just cannot do. Separating a breastfeeding infant from its mother is just plain cruel, never mind impossible if the child refuses to drink from a bottle.

Which brings us back to Bill C-422. Equal shared parenting would mean that very young children could be constantly shuttled back and forth between their parents' homes. Breast here, bottle there, stay-at-home parent here, daycare there. This type of endless transitioning will do them no favours -- in fact, it can do a lot of damage. Courts can already order these kinds of arrangements, even without shared parenting rules, and there is mounting evidence that the stress hurts a young child's ability to attach to either parent, and to other people in general.

Bill C-422 would make this type of arrangement even more common at a time when other jurisdictions are questioning this model. Case in point: The Australian government, which four years ago introduced mandatory equal parenting legislation, is currently under pressure to revise its laws in the wake of several damning reports. Researchers found that not only were some children at risk of being placed in violent situations, but even children who were physically safe felt depressed, stressed and confused, and suffered adjustment problems. They also found that some fathers' motivation in seeking shared custody was not to bond with their children, but to reduce the amount of child support they had to pay.

A consistent theme in child psychological literature is that children under the age of three need stability to grow up to be well-adjusted and confident adults. In Zara's case, she is fortunate to have a father who gets that, and puts her needs ahead of his "right" to take her overnight alone, even under current laws. Until she is ready for overnights, Zara visits with him regularly at her home in the GTA and at his home in Montreal, with both parents present. Now one year old, Zara recognizes her father, greets him with her sunny smile, calls him Dada and is happy in his presence and his arms -- all without suffering the anxiety of being torn from one parent to another at a young age.

Granted, this type of arrangement takes compromise by both mom and dad, and would not work for everyone, but isn't that the point? Imposing a universal shared parenting presumption, with equal time regardless of age or situation, is not in the best interests of children. Respecting their stages of development is, and so is allowing parents to come up with their own solutions.

I hope our lawmakers will allow other fractured families the same latitude, and defeat Bill C-422 or amend it to respect the needs of very young children, and other special circumstances. Until then, happy birthday Zara, and happy Father's Day, Ian. You both deserve the best celebrations a daughter and dad can have.

tkheiriddin@nationalpost.com

Read more: Sometimes unequal works
 
Blah blah blah...Holy tender years doctrine.

And there are some things that Dads do better than Moms, like throwing a baseball.

OK, set up the law to provide for mandatory 50/50 access when the child turns one. And when the child gets to age 7, keep him/her with Dad for a year in order to round them into sports shape...because Mom throws like a girl.

Did those researchers also find that some mothers' motivation in breastfeeding well past a year old was not to bond with their children, but to increase the amount of child support they received? Nice character attack thrown in there to cement your argument Tasha.
 
Last edited:
The article is so slanted it makes my neck hurt trying to read it.

There are "best" situations to raise children. I'm sure 99.9% of parents want the "best" for their children. Not a single parent is able to provide this theoretical "best" in all catagories. We have to make choices, compromises, not to mention mistakes. Somehow our children thrive despite not having everything be the "best" choice.

The "best" choice is for a child to have full 7 day a week access to two involved parents, not mention a supportive extended family. Divorce precludes the "best" choice. More time spent with the mother is better for the mother/child relationship and bonding, at the expense of the father/child relationship. This isn't "best". It's one possibility that is not "better" than a shared parenting arrangement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top