Equal Shared Parenting ??

 Children need Dads and Mums !!

 

 

When a man and a woman enter into marriage it has to be one of the best partnerships in life. The ultimate consummation of that union will result in children and a family.

 

This is what we are taught as kids and strive for, a perfect union and therefore family.

 

Our society gears us towards this goal to nurture our children, family and ultimately that is the nucleus of the society we live in.

 

Whilst growing up we are taught values and principles and laws to which we govern ourselves and live by as a “template” of life. These guidelines we are taught may come from our religions, our schools, our parents, our groups, our affililiates, our politics and many other factors.

 

All these factors, rules and commandments we live by guide us to lead good lives and liberties, whilst making us “good” citizens and contributing to our society.

 

Most of us can say we are good people and abide by the laws of the land. The common sense we develop as people allow us to function within the boundaries set in the law. Most of us in our lifetime, never cross that line and come into contact with the wrath of the law.

 

This is of course until one ends up in a family court.

 

Unfortunately, what we think is common sense or law does not now apply.

 

Obviously, if a person is bad or abusive, the wrath of the law should apply wholeheartedly and its mighty sword swings to punish this type of offender.

 

But what of the innocent?

 

If 50% of unions/marriages end in divorce, what of the two people who did love each other and what of the children of the marriage?

 

By virtue of common sense we grow up with, most people try to “work it out” and make the breakup as painless as possible. That would be ideal and the parties after the heartbreak of a breakdown could split the assets of the union in half and go on in life to other rewards. This split would mean estate, money and of course the children of the marriage.

 

This of course is where this problem becomes difficult. Split the children ? Well we can’t take half a kid. Split two kids, one each, etc. ??

 

We then have to think, ok……..Time…….Responsibility……what else ?

 

 Joint time.  Joint responsibility………. Right  ?..........Wrong !!!

 

This is where the “practice” of the law now takes on a life of its own. Now think about “fair”…The law is designed to be fair and impartial. It’s is suppose to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. The “practice” of the law is quite different.

 

But who is guilty? And guilt of what ? Regardless of why the marriage breaks down, both parents are innocent to any laws broken as there is no law against “falling out of love” or “growing apart”

 

But who is innocent? And what is innocent ? What if both parties feel they are innocent and they have not broken any laws? There is no “presumption of guilt” in a divorce. Regardless of which person leaves or forces the breakdown, it is over.

 

The children are innocent!!

 

We have all heard the expression “the best interests of the children”. What does this mean? Common sense would say what the kids need to grow up is a safe, secure, nurturing, educational and happy environment. We have to assume that this was the environment before the breakdown and that we want the same environment after.

 

How is that attained? We know that research shows that children need both their Dads and Mums. This is indisputable and is the recipe for a well-balanced child. There are certain things a child gets from their Mum and the same from their Dad. This “balance” of traits from the male and the female, produces the two sides of the personality of an individual whether it is a girl or a boy.

 

But where does the law or the “practice” of the law, come into this equation? Well this is the problem……….

 

As mentioned we are not talking about any bad people here, just normal.

 

In our western society of today, it is assumed by the courts that a woman is far more capable of raising a child than that of a man.

 

Well let’s face it, if the man is out all day working, is it not the mother who stays at home to nurture the child? What about the man who stays at home? What about the woman out at work too? What about the children in a daycare? What about the gay couple?

 

It is statistically proven that the overall percentages of residential custodians in the western world are mothers. Why is this? Is this not old style thinking in 2004?

 

Can we honestly say that Men are NOT capable of raising children? No is the answer, of course!! But our Courts and specifically, our Judges do not agree with this. If they did, the percentages of residential custody would be split 50/50 in a joint custody and joint residential arrangement.

 

Why is this not the case? Is it because the system that used to give Mothers a hard time many years ago when the man was “to the manor born,” has now had the pendulum swung back to their favour ? Has the pendulum swung so far, it is now bias? Is it because our society as a whole still believes mothers are better caregivers?

 

What about Gays in our society that adopt kids? Are they not capable, whether they are Men or Woman? Can a Judge really ask the question “which of you is the “Butch” or “Fem?” Of course not!! That would be biased and discriminatory!! But what of men in the Family court? With 98% of women automatically getting residential custody in family courts, is this not gender bias, is this not gender discrimination against Fathers?

 

YES is the answer!!

 

Has the Feminist movement, who fought for women’s rights so many years ago created a “beast” all of its own? How many women out there feel they do not have a say in society? Are the rights of women still being trampled? Some would argue yes. But, can they honestly say that if they truly want “Equality” that it should not work both ways? Is this the classic example of “having their cake and eating it too?” There are a lot of women that are appalled at the situation in the family courts. Many women do recognize this. This is also true because there are many women suffering along with their new partners in life on the other side of the custody equation.

 

Perhaps it does not suit the family court system that produces millions of dollars per year with custody disputes. Some call this the “Divorce Industry”. The lawyers propagate the fight, the character assignation is set in the court. The Judges get paid a salary which by selection of a political party, not election, leaves them with a political agenda or for that matter their own personal agenda, to keep the “cogs” turning. Perhaps our Judges feel the best place for a kid is in the mothers arms? Just remember these people started off in the same shoes as the lawyers who are now arguing the case in the family court. So this means, regardless of their new “elevated” position as Judges, they were lawyers in the same system they are now controlling. We know contempt, breeds contempt and violence breeds violence; can we then say lawyers breed Judges? We need to read Shakespeare again… “first we start with the Lawyers…..”

 

What of the Politian's who stand on platforms, voted by us the people, to manage our society in a true and just way? Is it not the political system that creates the laws in the parliament of our country? Then these very laws we speak of are implemented in the courts by the very Judges that are appointed by them and control the day to day operations of our courts.

 

We can look at the two latest developments where our parliament has failed to implement laws. We can use both the Marijuana law and the Gay marriage law to see that the decisions around these were not made by our politicians or parliament, but decided by the Judges themselves!! This also applies to the “Child support Guidelines” that were never argued in parliament. But are now wholeheartedly used by all Judges as the “guideline” and “by the way,” are given full “Discretion” themselves to apply, waive or reduce, as they see fit with absolutely NO recourse. If we don’t like it, we can go back to court, we are told. What if we end up back in front of the same Judge?

 

This is where we have to look to the future and implement a fair system, that both recognize’s the children’s needs in all the area’s and those of the parents after separation.

 

We can only guess the effects on our society into the future, but we can see some of the effects presently in society. If children are growing up without the input of both mother and father, the children will suffer from many needless negative effects. We know that kids get pregnant earlier, they get into trouble with the law, and they turn to the dark side with regard to drugs, abuse and violent tendencies. They suffer from emotional and mental issues. These are only a few we know of.

 

What about the children who see their dad’s in jail for false allegations of abuse? Or the fact they want to fight for the kids rights to see them? What about the dads who march, climb tall buildings or picket courts over these very issues. What signals are we sending to our children? Our laws are unjust? Biased? Discriminatory? Judges are part of a big problem, which seemingly only they cannot see!! That lawyers are like nuclear weapons, great as a deterrent, but as soon as you use them, they mess everything up???

 

Do our Judges think that at some point, the truth does not come out and all the lies and sharp practices that the law has propagated will be forgotten? How about all the perjury that is committed in court to get custody of kids. Are we to believe that the Judges are that naive to this or that they allow it, because mothers need to lie, because they are emotional over their kids that pure justice does not count? Do we see these same mothers going to jail? No, but what about Fathers? Fathers end up in jail….Double standards!!

 

If the judges and courts (and for that matter mothers), could only see fit to realize that the children they now force into a “one parent family” will suffer in the future, then should we not think we should change the way things are done? Are these people that blind as to think that theirs is the only way or does it really matter, so long as they get their way?

 

Just remember, if the system gives the children to the mother and the dad is a loving and responsible dad then what is his recourse to protect and care for his kids? He has to fight against a biased judicial system. If the presumption of joint custody and joint residency was in place he would not have to “Fight for their rights”.

 

 

So a major problem is that his duty as a responsible parent is to fight for their rights to have contact with him, now means he has to hire a lawyer and go to court and spend all kinds of money with a stranger he has to trust with his kids and his life. This of course is exactly the “Divorce Industry’s” propagation of this machine we speak of. In other words, the machine is fueled by Dad’s to see their children, by virtue of the courts and judges GIVING the children to the mum, so as he has to pay the machine to get any kind of time with his kids.

 

It gets worse!! The very machine that stops a man from seeing his children will now make him pay to see them!! This is called” Child support”. If the kids lived with each parent 50/50 there would be no need for moneys to exchange hands. The parents would support themselves and their kids in their homes. Perhaps this is too simplistic. What of the mother that has never worked outside of the home a day in her life?  This situation however is really now the exception to the rule. Most families these days have two working parents and children go to daycare or school.

 

Who is now the caregiver? What does that word mean? Does not a man who works, qualify as the caregiver? I mean if he didn’t work for money to put food on the table, would that exempt him as a caregiver? Or do we really mean who looks after the kids? Statistic’s, let alone common sense, will tell you that Dads are a huge part of kids lives these days, from changing diapers, feeding babies at night to the football, hockey and swimming lessons. How many of you exchange stories with others at these meets, whilst watching the games play on.

 

Should we assume that the person who has the money should also have the kids, as that person has the ability to support them, at least financially?  “Back to the manor born?”

Should we not assume that both parents need to look after themselves? Again, this is now the year 2004. If equal shared parenting is seen to be the ideal, then dad’s and mum’s support themselves. The kids are equally supported. Mum can support herself and she only needs to worry about the kids 50 % of the time.

 

However, dad is also responsible for the “Equalization of wealth” rules between the households, because that’s the way it is. That is the way the courts, nay, the Judges have set it up. Just remember, this was NOT voted in by our democratic Parliament, but some backdoor process implemented by radicals. This must be so, because how do you explain the fact that the people did not have a say in this very important facet of our society?

 

In fact the tables for child support where actually manufactured by the tax department!!

Apart from the issue of the taxman deciding these monies, they ignored all of their own expert advice in defining these guidelines. Some even say they were falsely escalated to make sure there was a redistribution of wealth and also including a spousal support percentage. Ever figure how much a child really needs to live in a comfortable manner?

 

Now if there is a redistribution of wealth, what happens to the Dad who has to pay support,  support himself, and his kids when they are with him? The guidelines actually say that non-residential parent gets a financial break at the 40% mark. The Judges have the “discretional” ability to change the amount from the table. This of course does not happen and the Dad is left in poverty at his own home. This is exactly the argument that the feminists used to protect mothers with residential custody!!  How about, if he has joint custody, but the primary residence is with the mother? She has the kids 55 % and he has them 45 %. He will still pay from a table that makes him 100% responsible for the kids. What of the 45% at his home? Does he not have living expenses too? Well here’s a good question.

 

This very case was argued recently and the Judges awarded the mother 100% “child support”, (not spousal support) despite the fact she only had the kids 59%, simply because these Judges felt she needed it!! Not the kids, but the mother!! 

 

Whatever happened to the notion of Equality?? Should this not apply in the home as well as the marketplace?? This was the rally cry for so many years by women!! And still is.

 

This whole problem of family court and judicial bias, discrimination, custody, access and equality, is growing in size as there is a huge men’s movement around the western world against this blatant injustice.

 

Soon it will come to a head. The Judges, lawyers, and politicians will soon realize that if they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.

 

Lest we forget, the problem is that both Children and Families lives are being destroyed needlessly by this current adversarial legal system.

 

History and time will prove the legal industry’s total incompetence in “Family” law!!

 

If every man decided not to go to work, i.e. strike, not vote, and commit civil disobedience or worse, the Western world as we know it would come to a stand still.

 

Our society deserves better……… Fathers and Families deserve better……

 

Our children deserve better !!       

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Layman’s Opinion,

 

 

D J Macdonald-Pearce.

Mississauga, Ont.

 

hyph@hotmail.com

 

Copyright 2004©.