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

Mess said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was only referring to the quotes you've posted and not to your views, I did not think that they were your views or opinions. As for which way the 'public' is leaning, and what you believe, I think it would seem to be who you believe is telling you the truth on that one, as I've seen the opposite, so time will tell which way the public is going.
 
what 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?
 
rszalai said:
what 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?
Click to expand...

Here is a link to the bill, I believe it will help parents who are struggling to get equal rights to parent their, like a lot of fathers out there.C-422


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.
 
Green Party supports Shared Parenting

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
Click to expand...
 
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!
 
Much of the stuff I have read from the feminist camp all amounts the belief that Bill 422 will hurt women and children. They claim that men do not look after kids, and that men don't want to have more than just occasional access.

My point is then having Bill 422 won't make any difference to women having custody of the kids. If the feminists are correct, then equal parenting won't affect the average divorcing couple.

But why do I need to fight tooth and nail just to be a father to my kids now? This should have been my kids right since day one. But it took 5 years and $200K and only once the schools confirmed my complaints, did I get custody of the kids. But 2 years from then, my ex has fought twice as hard to try to get the kids back, and now I have had to deal with more allegations of abuse and neglect, not only leveled at me, but also at my current wife.

I have had my career destroyed, my savings plundered, my health has suffered, and my life has been put on hold. None of this would have happened had Bill 422 been in effect from day one.
 
rwm1273 said:
Much of the stuff I have read from the feminist camp all amounts the belief that Bill 422 will hurt women and children. They claim that men do not look after kids, and that men don't want to have more than just occasional access.

My point is then having Bill 422 won't make any difference to women having custody of the kids. If the feminists are correct, then equal parenting won't affect the average divorcing couple.

But why do I need to fight tooth and nail just to be a father to my kids now? This should have been my kids right since day one. But it took 5 years and $200K and only once the schools confirmed my complaints, did I get custody of the kids. But 2 years from then, my ex has fought twice as hard to try to get the kids back, and now I have had to deal with more allegations of abuse and neglect, not only leveled at me, but also at my current wife.

I have had my career destroyed, my savings plundered, my health has suffered, and my life has been put on hold. None of this would have happened had Bill 422 been in effect from day one.
Click to expand...

I know your pain, I am now separated from my current wife, because of my ex's ruthless and unscrupulous and disgusting behavior has now affected her 12 year old son, and is the straw that broke the camels back. My ex's constant barrage of disparaging comments, like "dady left us for that woman to to feed that whores's son", frivolous police and CAS involvement, in failed attempts to support her denial of access to one of my sons. Now 4 years later of her constant interference and disruption in our lives, my wife and I, whom I love dearly have separated directly because of my ex's refusal to leave us and our family alone....NO ONE will help!!!

The police show up, I show them the order, they see my ex is just using them, but do nothing to deter her from using them to disrupt our lives, the financial burdens have been overwhelming to point of bankruptcy. Meanwhile my ex enjoys financial stability, mine is a reck, soon I will have not be able to afford my 2 bedroom apart, her next move will and already been making indications, is that I do not have a suitable place for my children to live. No wonder father's are committing suicide, but really, no one cares, unless is a poor defenseless mother... defenseless, bullsh!t. Ruthless and dangerous!

There needs to be something in place that will penalize parents that do this, give them jail time, reduce access to supervised, this system and the parents who do this are tearing apart good families and damaging childing lives forever, for what...revenge! This bill needs to be supported, we need to start somewhere.
 
There are a few very good laws that just are not being used in our current court system.


[FONT=&quot]Public mischief[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]140.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Punishment[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) Every one who commits public mischief[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 140; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 19.[/FONT]

Enforcement order
40(1) Subject to subsection (5), the court, on application by a person with a right under a time with a child clause, if it is satisfied that there has been a denial of time within 12 months of the application being brought, may make any enforcement order that is appropriate in the circumstances.
(2) An enforcement order under subsection (1) may contain any one or more of the following provisions:
(a) a provision requiring the respondent to give the applicant compensatory time;
(b) a provision requiring the respondent to give security, in the form and amount and under the conditions determined by the court, for the performance of the obligation in the time with a child clause;
(c) a provision requiring the respondent to reimburse the applicant for any necessary expenses actually incurred as a result of the denial of time;
(d) a provision imposing on the respondent a penalty in an amount not exceeding $100 for each day there has been or is a denial of time to a maximum of $5000 and in default of payment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 90 days;
(e) a provision providing for the respondent to be imprisoned, continuously or intermittently, to a maximum of 90 days for a denial of time until time with the child is given;
(f) where the court is satisfied, based on the respondent’s history of denial of time or based on other reasonable and probable grounds, that a denial of time will occur, a provision directing an enforcement officer to act in accordance with section 44;
(g) a provision directing the respondent or the applicant, or both, to do anything that the court considers appropriate in the circumstances that is intended to induce compliance with the time with a child clause.


 
LostFather said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know that (or hope, at least) that you did not mean to generalise all women...I have spent the last 8 years fighting for father's parental rights, both in the courtrooms and in the political arena.

I happen to agree with most of your points regarding mother's and their joy of pilfering dad to pay the mortgage and make them more comfortable... I have a spouse who is treated like a pay cheque, and his ex-wife likely wishes we would never have access, but remain merely the oversized paycheque each month...

I work my ass off for fathers who do not have proper representation, and are being screwed by our canuck pro-mom system....and always hate to hear the man bitch about women and paint us all with the same brush...some of us work and fight very hard for your parental rights!

So your ex is a cunt....doesn't mean we all are!

LostFather said:
I know your pain, I am now separated from my current wife, because of my ex's ruthless and unscrupulous and disgusting behavior has now affected her 12 year old son, and is the straw that broke the camels back. My ex's constant barrage of disparaging comments, like "dady left us for that woman to to feed that whores's son", frivolous police and CAS involvement, in failed attempts to support her denial of access to one of my sons. Now 4 years later of her constant interference and disruption in our lives, my wife and I, whom I love dearly have separated directly because of my ex's refusal to leave us and our family alone....NO ONE will help!!!
Click to expand...

I know what your soon-to-be (?) ex has gone through, with my husband's ex manipulating every situation, using access for blackmail...all sorts of things...but I stayed and lived through it....8 years so far...and I will never give up...I am sorry it has happened to another, undermining their relationship....but at the same time, oddly glad that I am not the only woman out there suffering another's psychosis...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
InterprovincialParents said:
I know what your soon-to-be (?) ex has gone through, with my husband's ex manipulating every situation, using access for blackmail...all sorts of things...but I stayed and lived through it....8 years so far...and I will never give up...I am sorry it has happened to another, undermining their relationship....but at the same time, oddly glad that I am not the only woman out there suffering another's psychosis...
Click to expand...

I know not all woman are the same, just as not all men are the same, but frankly, in my opinion, women such as yourself are few and far between. My wife, god love her has done everything she could, but now her son has suffered, not that in someway or another hasn't, though all this crap...being deprived he has done without in order for us to per sue, through the court system over the past 4 years, but now it's physiological....and again the straw.

I am in appeal...but since the final order her disgusting behavior has gotten worse, the more power she has the more power she abuses, I have a court order to see me boy and there is nothing I can do, can not start a contempt motion in another court, because of my appeal...I need to figure out if and how I can get fresh evidence introduced in this appeal, but meanwhile it's been 2 months and each day that passes all I can think of is that the judge will say 'status quo'....I've spent everything on the last lawyer, so now representing myself...and my sons are suffering for my lack of knowledge to per sue the matter, but I can not afford a lawyer....I've been to 3 or 4 assignment court meetings and held my own...but the appeal is another ting all together.
 
billiechic said:
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?
Click to expand...
From what I have seen of the bill, and I have seen many variations of the wording, and have spoken to many of the players involved with it, If there are any concerns as to violence, then this does play a part in the access, and will be decieded by a judge, much as it is now.

The biggest thing this bill will do for most starting on the divorce path is to start it out on equal footing. Neither parent is to be given more advantage or weight in the outcome. But each case will still be considered on it's merits, and according to the best interest of the child.

For me, I was active in raising the kids before the separation, but was removed of my rights after. I fought long and hard to get my rights, and now have custody because of how the mother acted, and continues to act. I should never have had to fight for my rights.

Feminists claim that women and children will be harmed by this bill, they go on to say that more women look after kids than men any ways, and that this bill is only there to let men get out of child support obligations.

None of these arguments are true. If the role of the parents before the divorce was 90% mom looking after the kids, then it will most likely stay that way after the divorce. Bill 422 will make no difference.

If the access is still less than 60/40 split, then full guidelines will be used.

If there was any violence in the relationship, then this will affect how access is divided.

[FONT=&quot]The Canadian Bar Association National Family Law Section (CBA Section) appreciates the opportunity to explain why it is critical for legislators to retain the “best interests of the child” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]test as the paramount consideration in making determinations of custody and access of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]children. We have frequently stressed this point in past submissions,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and are prompted to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]reiterate it now in response to a Private Member’s Bill sponsored by Maurice Vellacott that would instead impose a presumption of equal parenting time.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The CBA represents more than 37,000 lawyers across Canada. The CBA’s mandate includes [/FONT][FONT=&quot]improvement in the law and the administration of justice. The CBA Section includes family [/FONT][FONT=&quot]lawyers from every part of the country. We are collaborative practitioners, litigators, mediators, arbitrators and parenting coordinators. Our clients are fathers, mothers, same sex partners, surrogates, step-parents, grandparents, extended family members and children. The CBA Section believes that any discussion of “parental rights” is misguided when resolving arrangements for children. The sole focus must be what is best for children. In light of this position, we vigorously oppose passage of Bill C-422.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At first glance, it could seem that the ideas proposed by the Bill are only about equal treatment [/FONT][FONT=&quot]of mothers and fathers. We certainly support equality between the sexes. However, the Bill [/FONT][FONT=&quot]would actually not advance equality. Rather, it would change the primary focus in custody and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]access matters from what is best for children to equal parental rights. Parenting is not about [/FONT][FONT=&quot]adults claiming rights. It is about the desire and ability to put children’s interests first. Where [/FONT][FONT=&quot]divorcing parents cannot do that, for whatever reason, courts must not only be free to, but required to do so.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Why are these people against C422? Bottom line is there will lose their gravy. No more big drawn out legal battles. Obviously they know it is the right thing to do, otherwise they would not be against it. [/FONT]


Here are two reports of groups that oppose C422.

http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/10-43-eng.pdf

http://www.nawl.ca/ns/en/documents/2009.08-BillC-422brief.pdf

Both have vested interests to oppose any changes to the status quo. Both are money related, and nothing to do with children's rights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill C422 is not intended to place children in unsafe environments. It is intended to allow children the right to see BOTH parents equally. Why does a child lose a Dad just because his/her parents get a divorce? The system as it stands today is highly adversarial. Let us do something about it. Let us work together for the children . Canada needs divorce reform now! Australia can do it so can we. Call everyone you know and tell them about this bill...get the word out...call your mpp send letters to everyone on all sides of the political spectrum. Use facebook to tell fellow Canadians.. Young people would be shocked if they knew how archaic our family laws are. I certainly was.
 
Well, I am planning a run/walk/bike in support of, with a big focus being on the after effects on divorce for parental relationships with their children, as well as other longterm relationships...

One of my utter irritants is the fact that parent a gets custody, parent b pays support...parent a can go on, move on, build a new life...but if parent b tries to, any children of that are treated as second class citizens to the first child...and before anyone attacks that, maybe contact me for the full picture, or ask what this opinion is based on...

40% of all second families (to dads) live at or below the poverty line, where 23% of second relationships (to moms) do. Why are children suffering for the parents decisions? Why are they treated differently under law? If those 2 children were born to the same parents who then divorced, child support would be nowhere near the level it is otherwise, treating each child as a single child....THAT is what I will be fighting for next year...the ability to keep all children pre-and-post-divorce equal! And that can only be done if the government acknowledges 2 basic facts: Parents are equally important, and second families should not mean financial success for custodial parents while financial ruin for non-custodial parents....

However, I would not urge anyone to do anything on this right now or soon, as the powers that be will shortly call an election. After an election, Bill C-422 starts from scratch once again:(
 
It is :p

But the neat thing is if you type in 'Bill C 422' you'll find a wealth of u pto date info on it!











sorry...it's the smartass in me, i'm working on it....
 
updates...

The bill is due for second reading in Fall, 2011. However, that only occurs if there is no election first. And if you are in the NCR, you know the word on that...:(
 
InterprovincialParents said:
updates...

The bill is due for second reading in Fall, 2011. However, that only occurs if there is no election first. And if you are in the NCR, you know the word on that...:(
Click to expand...

I'm not that familiar with our beloved parliament system. I know it's a private member's bill, so it would take up to 2~3 year to debate or passing into law?:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top