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

[dadtotheend]

I'm still steaming over that piece of s**t.

No doubt she has invited a huge response from parents that disagree with an approach that works for her and her ex, who live hundreds of miles from one another b/w Montreal and Toronto.

I guess she failed to see that her approach is absolutely nonsensical for the many (tens of?) thousands of co-operative separated parents who live around the block from one another because they realize that those kind of living arrangement compromises (where child comes before career) make 50/50 shared parenting highly workable.

Projecting her unique situation where the two of them have chosen to live so far apart onto everyone else who put their child's proximity to them ahead of their career (or whatever other selfish reason that caused them to live so far apart) is reprehensible.

Shame on her.

 

[logicalvelocity]

The median is tendering further views...

 

[LostFather]

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.

Yeah, exactly, she's all for the breast to the bottle campaign, when there are thousands of baby's that don't breast feed at all, or mom pumps, today more than ever, as mom is a as busy with career as dad.

Then there is the status quo argument, now that baby has been with mom over that last year, so we can't change routine now! Ahh, the crap reasons are still the same. Oh, and they still have to through in that "dads don't want to pay CS". What about all the moms that don't want to give up all that CS? That goes both ways, or so you would think?

 

[dadtotheend]

Link into the article. She gets blasted by everyone who commented on it.

 

[SillyMe]

Link into the article. She gets blasted by everyone who commented on it.

Link to the full comment....

 

[HammerDad]

Did anyone read this comment:

THere are few involved fathers compared to mothers.The only thing most of the dad are loking for is the reduction in child support.If give a choice between seing their children with child suoport and not seeing them with no child support majority will pick not to pay and not to see .
Its natural that mothers have more emotions and are more responsible when it comes to their children ​

I rarely hope violence on anyone, but I really hope this lady gets a kick in the head someday.

All men want is a reduction in child support? FU!!! I want to be a material part and influence on my daughters life. Right now, due to not having any substantial time with my daughter, I cannot. I would happily continue to pay full support even if I did have 50/50. It is about my relationship, not money. And for her comment that most dads would choose not to pay support and not see their child if given the option is complete BS. The vast majority of men are involved in their childs life and pay their support. It is only a small percentage of deadbeats that give the rest of us that do what we are supposed to do that give us a bad name.

As for having more emotions and generally being more capable parents, but I thought we are all equals.....oh, right...we are only equals when it benefits you, not when its the other way around....hypocrit.
​

 

[SillyMe]

Heh, heh...who would have thought there would be a back peddling Part II

I just love when people have no idea about the court system. Yeah right, lets go to court every year. Hell, it takes a year in court just to get started...

 

[billiechic]

I'm sorry all of the good dads were subject to that article. it was a piece of spewed garbage.

I'm not sure if I support the bill yet. I am more worried about what sorts of "proof" would be needed to change the situation from equal parenting to something different.

Most of you know I came from an abusive relationship. I choose not to call the police, so my "proof" can only come from my sworn affidavit and from what I told the women's shelter and counsellors. Is that enough to change the automatic shared parenting, shared custody? How exactly do you quantify what is enough?

I think if this goes through there will be A LOT more unnecessary court time with parents fighting to get something different. While it could be a very good thing for many families, there are others who should not have shared parenting (abuse and PA situations) that are going to be forced to prove something that really is common sense.

 

[HammerDad]

Heh, heh...who would have thought there would be a back peddling Part II

I just love when people have no idea about the court system. Yeah right, lets go to court every year. Hell, it takes a year in court just to get started...

I do agree with her that there should be a sliding scale, but I am pretty sure that the new bill takes it into consideration.

Also, share parenting should actually help ELIMINATE her concerns about different house schedules as each parent will see how these changes affect the child and are more likely to work together towards a common schedule that best suits the child (in the small percentage of instances where the child is very young).

Anyway, I don't like the idea that I am not going to be treated as an equal just because I didn't give birth to the child I helped create.

 

[LostFather]

Bill C 422

Bill C 422

Well I got a typical political response from my MP concerning the bill, but at least he responded I guess. Below is his response:

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding Bill C-422. I am always happy to respond to the questions and concerns of my constituents.

Bill C-422 is still being reviewed by the Government and a position has not been taken at this time. We believe that strong families are the foundation of our society and that the best interests of the child are paramount. Clearly, the "best interests of the child" is a fundamental principle of family law not only in Canada, but in many countries around the world.

Our Government is committed to promoting positive outcomes for the entire family during separation or divorce. Since parents usually understand their children better than anyone else, our Government strongly encourages parents cooperate to make parenting arrangements in their children's best interests.

Further, we have been working closely with the provinces and territories to help them. For example, as part of the five-year Supporting Families Experiencing Separation and Divorce Initiative (SFI) that began on April 1, 2009, the Government of Canada is providing financial assistance to the provinces and territories for family justice services such as parent education and mediation. The Government is continuing to work closely with the provinces and territories to ensure that Canada's family laws are as fair as possible to all parties. We believe that strong families are the foundation of our society and that the best interests of the child are paramount.

Thank you again for taking the time to write regarding this issue. If you have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Yours sincerely,


Gary Goodyear, P.C., M.P.

 

[BitHunter]

OK, and what is this bill about?

 

[logicalvelocity]

Sadly, it appears Mr. Goodyear is sidestepping the issue.

 

[LostFather]

OK, and what is this bill about?

Just google; Equal Parenting, bill c 422 you'll get all the info you need.

Sadly, it appears Mr. Goodyear is sidestepping the issue.

Yes I sent him back a pointed reply asking when we could expect a position one way or another, since this bill has been introduced and has been through it's first reading over a year ago.

 

[logicalvelocity]

It's unfortunate that they cannot support their fellow PC member on a national initiative.

 

[LostFather]

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.

 

[BitHunter]

cool. That's what I need.

 

[LostFather]

cool. That's what I need.

You, me and thousand of others across Canada like us!

 

[Mess]

Reactions on Rabble.ca

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 answer

The 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.

Maurice Vellacott's Private Bill C-422 is bad news for mothers and children

Feminist critiques of « presumptive equal parenting » - such as that penned by Gatineau sociologist Denyse Côté in "La garde partagée: l'équité en question" (Éditions du remue-ménage, 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.

Private Bill C-422 con't

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.

Thinking about "honour killings"

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.

The collision between children's interests and fathers' rights = Pamela Cross

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.

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.

 

[LostFather]

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





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.

The common themes that seem to show up in your quote appear to be money and men can't parent like a woman can.

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.

 

[Mess]

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.