"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage bill"
16.10 Maximum
Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal BREACH OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State assigns
Rights &
Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from pre-war Nazi
Germany. Under the British system rights are not
State-given, but God Given.
Buying
into the Court's position that what rights remain are Children's Rights,
is buying into the same position that "<Natural> Parents have no
rights", and Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.
...
No one would listen to my father
, no one would give him a chance to speak. ... My dad was an abused
husband, he was abused by his wife, and the justice system. ... He
was a kind man who fought a good fight but no matter what he did or
said, he could never win with this system.
Instead their position to promote the "rights" of
a "Parent" in the widest sense of the word, making NO distinction
between NATURAL PARENTS and wannaabe
Legal Parents. They have bowed to
University of Victoria's
assertion that the SCC's
Trociuk Decision"endorses a
Heterosexual View of the Family and must be ignored",
legitimizing the ongoing
Child
Trafficking by the State which views
Canadian
children as State Property and merchandise for sale in the
lucrative Child Adoption
Market They refuse to be hampered by prior obligations to that
pesky Natural Parent who thinks they can
Veto an Adoption.
It appears that many
"Fathers Rights" groups commonly fall in with the United Nations and
Liberal Irwin Cotler's
assertion that the
Child's Right is to be protected, but the Natural Parent has
"NO RIGHTS", making the
State, not the Natural Parents the
Protector of the Child..
Without
Cause or Consent, no Child shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!
Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and they will
likely tell you it is
"Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say
"Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these days".
This is
completely FALSE. The Judges are Agents of the Crown
and they BY DEFINITION Judges
are WITHOUT CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever. Since
1649, only PARLIAMENT
has the Capacity to make Law.
British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was only observed
and documented by individuals sent out by the newly Norman Crown after
the
Norman Conquest of 1066 to observe and codify the laws and
customs of the various peoples of Britain.. This was done with a
view to aggregate existing customs which may vary across the land,
into a unified body of Laws. The Authority quoted by the Commoners
in their administration of
Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the
Bible and principles
of
Danelaw
The process of documentation took only a couple of
hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body of Law which was
historical, popular, and has served in the intervening centuries as a
Benchmark against which
Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".
It does NOT change.
Equal Parenting Roundups for Natural Parents' Rights
An EP Roundup is a gathering of NATURAL parental rights groups
that are within driving distance of one another.
An
"Equal Parenting Roundup" is a gathering of all the disparate
parental rights groups
that are within driving distance of one another. Whereas any group
can call an "Ad Hoc" Roundup with their neihbors, we hope you will have
at least one annual EP
Roundup an incorporate it into the
Equal Parenting Trek
"Honourable senators know that I have studied a terrible and pernicious
heart of darkness that has developed in our court system, being the use
of
FALSE ACCUSATIONS in civil justice.
This is
the mischief of litigating parties, usually mothers, suddenly within the
context of divorce and within child custody proceedings falsely accusing
the other party, usually fathers, of the sexual abuse of their own
children. ,,,
These
FALSE ALLEGATIONS are often made with the overt or covert complicity
of their lawyers. They are a lethal weapon in the business of parental
alienation. They are a tool for achieving sole custody of children and
creating fatherlessness."
We are also fortunate to haveJay Hill, MP(Prince George – Peace River) here in British Columbia.
“I’m
pushing for equality —both parents should have equal rights and equal
access to their child,”
Hill said. “The courts
seem to start from the premise that somehow fathers aren’t responsible
parents. But both parents are deemed good parents as long as the
marriage lasts; why are they not when the marriage ends?”
We are fortunate in British Columbia to have a
number of pro-family parliamentarians. Of particular
prominence is Paul Forseth,
M.P. - member of the "For the Sake of the Children"
Committee, co-author of the
Dissenting Opinions, and a staunch advocate of pro-family
concerns. Paul has put in many years pushing to have Equal
Parenting issues brought forward to the Canadian Parliament, and
faced fierce opposition from the Prime Minister. Both
Paul and Senator Cools have pressed on to redeem fathers from groups
like the Status of Women (SOW) enduring multiple death
threats from various radical feminist groups while serving on the
Committee. These MPs are tough.
Monday Nov.7th 2005 Dear Equal
Parenting-BC: "Conservatives are committed to
Shared Parenting. The national party “Policy Declaration” that was
passed by delegates at our March 2005 Montreal convention says
clearly that: 65. Shared Parenting: A
Conservative Government will make the necessary changes to the
Divorce Act to ensure that in the event of a marital breakdown, the
Divorce Act will allow both parents and all grandparents to maintain
a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren,
unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of
the children.
My Liberal colleagues that served with me on
the Senate-Commons committee that wrote the “For
the Sake of the Children report, admitted that they have
little confidence that their Party will ever enact the needed
amendments to the Divorce Act, that completely fulfills the report
recommendations. The NDP opposed us during the Committee process,
and have never been supportive of dads.
Conservatives are the only hope for fairness
and reasonableness in Divorce and Family Law. I encourage those who
care, to focus their energy where it will help the most, by working
to elect as many Conservatives as possible. I hope that the many who
are frustrated, not become sidetracked into protest, which does
nothing during an election but undercut our ability to make good
things happen. The Liberals and the NDP will say anything in an
election to get a vote, but they will never deliver “shared
parenting”. Every vote that does not go to a Conservative in the
next election is a vote against “shared parenting”.
Paul Forseth MP
Although not from British Columbia, and less familiar
to us, we cannot neglect to recognize the solid support of once Liberal
MP, Rodger Gallaway of
Sarnia. Gallaway and Cools were frequently photographed together
while championing the rights of children to both
NATURAL PARENTS.
Arnie Hein's, "Cross My Heart" Equal Parenting Trek
CA 2005
Arnie Hein is embarking on a cross-Canada cycle to raise awareness
regarding the Father being stripped of
the family by the Family Court System. He is seeking fairness.
" I want my
kids back, at least half the time. I want this law that removes children
from their fathers - and fathers from their children -to change. I am
cycling across Canada to raise awareness of this problem.
I need other fathers to know they are not alone. I want to unify the men
and children abused by this Family Court System. It is important that
the general public becomes aware of this problem. "
"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage bill"
16.10 Maximum
Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal BREACH OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State assigngs
Rights &
Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from pre-war Nazi
Germany. Under the British system rights are not
State-given, but God Given.
Buying
into the Court's position that what rights remain are Children's Rights,
is buying into the same position that "<Natural> Parents have no
rights", and Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.
"In spite of credible revelations dating back to
April 2002 about Bill Graham, a sex addicted bi-sexual sodomizing a 15
year old male prostitute named
Lawrence Metherel, Paul Martin
allowed Graham to remain
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister - and eventually named him to the
portfolio of Minister of Defense.
"On Sept. 28/2005 a vote was held in Parliament to raise the age of
consent from 14 (one of the lowest age of consents in the world) to 16
(an age which many still consider too low).
"Bill Graham, Paul Martin, and Anne McLellan, on
Sept. 28th, voted against raising the age of consent to 16
Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and they will
likely tell you it is
"Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say
"Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these days".
This is
completely FALSE. The Judges are Agents of the Crown
and they BY DEFINITION Judges
are WITHOUT CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever. Since
1649, only PARLIAMENT
has the Capacity to make Law.
British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was only observed
and documented by individuals sent out by the newly Norman Crown after
the
Norman Conquest of 1066 to observe and codify the laws and
customs of the various peoples of Britain.. This was done with a
view to aggregate existing customs which may vary across the land,
into a unified body of Laws. The Authority quoted by the Commoners
in their administration of
Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the
Bible and principles
of
Danelaw
The process of documentation took only a couple of
hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body of Law which was
historical, popular, and has served in the intervening centuries as a
Benchmark against which
Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".
It does NOT change.
The common practice in BC Courts when Fathers do not
pay Child Support -
which most of the time is merely
Imputed - is to send
non-paying Father to Prison until he or his family members pay the fees
imposed by the Judge.
Even when mothers agree that Child Support should no
longer be paid, we find that the Family
Enforcement agencies, which are private contractors functioning as
Bounty Hunters, typically refuse to end their claim on the father's
income,.
EqualParenting-BC
invites websites in other Provinces and States to create
collaborative web-pages and link with us when they share our
purpose of making available to those that need them any day of
the week
MEETINGS, within driving distance of the alienated parent
who still suffers.
In
EPA
we do nothing to make marriages "work". It takes a
MINIMUM of TWO to make a Marriage work. It takes
only one to end it. Only occasionally, is it both
who end it, and only occasionally is there NOT a Victim
left behind.
about
with
NO FAULT DIVORCE was an outrage, and for the most
part should be Repealed. Meanwhile the best we can do is
to show you how to protect yourselves, your children,
and your money from the
Wolves in Sheep's Clothing
everywhere in the Courtrooms, Schools, and other
Government Offices. You can effect Equal Parenting
in various forms. We like the form of a
Living Will, the best to keep you out of that Hell
called "Family Court".. Please make it while you
still both love each other, and look forward to a life
together. Please part as friends, and continue to
love your children with a whole and undistracted heart.
Now we turn to the function of each layer of
an Equal Parenting Agreement. Note that Equal Parenting does not require the
two parents to get along on matters of daily living.
Equal Parenting provides
AUTONOMY of the 'Timetabled Equal
Parent" on
all matters not previously constrained. Equal parenting does not require a parent to be
an exemplary parent, indeed we maintain
NO NATURAL PARENT shall be displaced from a Child's life WITHOUT CAUSE
or CONSENT.
Although
existing statutes for the most part already require Equal Parenting,
these are routinely ignored by the Judiciary. To gird your
Natural Parents'
Rights against the pervasive
Judicial
Activism of Family Courts, we suggest it really is an
obligation of any responsible parent or potential parent to
create & notarize an
Equal Parenting Agreement. Each Agreement
consists of three basic components we seem to be calling "Layers" of a "Three
Layer Cake".
The
"Layers" of Agreement sort all components of parental agreement
into
The Remedy for
Non-Performance of an Equal Parent is already
provided by the
Friendly Parent
Rule (Divorce Act 16.10) - the loss of the
alienating SCP's Parental Rights to the
"Friendly" NCP - which Judges and their
Liberal & NDP
lackeys in Parliament are determined to
hold in contempt.
Sadly it has been proved almost impossible to
prosecute
a Judge - even when they are engaged in
racketeering
and molesting boys and
girls brought to them in trade.
It has become clear
that the Law Societies' culture of sexual perversion is
cultivated with YOUR tax money from the inception of their
careers at the University's
Law Faculties.
We advise the
loss of Parental Rights of the non-performing Equal Parent
provided by the
Friendly Parent Rule be limited to the current and following
Annual Supplement.
BTW, we also encourage
Natural Grandparents and Natural Siblings
of an Equal Parent to stand as Subjugate Co-Parent to an Equal
Parent's half interest in Parenting. Their signature is
not required at the creation of an Equal Parenting Agreement,
but their signature will be required to sign off as Subjugate
Co-Parent to the defaulting Equal Parent before a Sole Custody
arrangement is settled on.
So long as the Natural
Parents remain married, there will be no need for the second or
third layers, of course. These are evoked upon Separation,
on the death of the legal Person constituting the married
couple. We think there may be good argument for .keeping
your Agreements maintained with a
Notary Public, and avoid the Family Courts completely if you
can.
The
Initial Agreement creating the Equal Parenting Plan,
the "Bottom
Layer", establishes the
equality of BOTH NATURAL PARENTS subordinate
to NO third parties. The equality of both Natural Parents
cannot be revisited without Cause.
Equal Parenting is about
equality in PARENTAL STATUS AND
POWER,
and does NOT require equality of Parenting Time,
though equality of Parenting Time is desirable. Embedded
within this
Initial Agreement is an Agreement in
Principle (or Wishes in a Trust) concerning a FINITE and
SPECIFIED set of parenting issues which are too difficult to determine with
finality in the initial year. Instead, there is within it, the Agreement
in Principal and the Covenant to revisit these SPECIFIED topics annually in.....
The
Annual Supplement, the "Middle
Layer" of an Equal Parenting Agreement. The
Annual Supplement finalizes for the coming year the
parenting elements which could only be agreed to In Principle
(or as Wishes) previously. These parenting elements are
typically the Guardianship topics and include things
like like choice of school, sports memberships, etc..
Embedded within each Annual Parenting Supplement is the final.....
Parenting
Time Timetable, the
"Top Layer" , which for the current year's
Annual Supplement alternates primary
parental care and control of the children between the two Equal Parents on specified
Calendar days, distributing Parenting Time more or less equally across the Calendar Year.
As the
'Timetabled Equal Parent", one of the two Equal Parents operates independently
of the other on all matters not previously constrained in the
Initial Agreement or by it's reference, the series of
Annual Supplements.
That is the two Equal Parents are AUTONOMOUS ON ALL RESIDUAL
PARENTING MATTERS, while they are the Timetabled Equal Parent. Some
lawyers call this "parallel parenting", but try to get a lawyer
to definitively define their terms and you'll have a difficult
job!!!! We say any Agreement with fuzzy terms or that can
be "Interpreted" out of it's original meaning is worthless.
No one should pay a dime for a such a thing, so keep legal
jargon which is only there to bamboozle you out of your
Agreement.
At all times, the
Non-Timetabled Equal Parent is available to act as Legal
Parent for day-to-day parenting matters should the
'Timetabled Equal Parent" be unavailable to third parties to
whom temporary care and supervision of the Child has been given
for school, sports, or whatever. In the absence of the
Timetabled Equal Parent the
Non-Timetabled Equal Parent" remains a
Custodial Parent to whom Teachers, Lawyers, Social Workers, and other Public
Servants must defer unless they can prove Cause for Removal.
AT NO TIME DOES A
TEACHER, SOCIAL WORKER, PASTOR, or other "Family Services
worker" displace an Equal Parent in Parental Supremacy over
their own Natural Children without Cause. If Cause
exists, it exists only by Parliamentary Statute, and for the
motivated Third Parties to interfere with the Divorced Family,
they must satisfy the criteria set out in the Statute by which
they claim.
When a Natural Parent truly becomes unfit or unwilling to
act
as an Equal Parent the Parenting Time of this Natural Parent should
probably be attributed to a willing Grandparent, Aunt and Uncle, or God
Parent as Trustee of the
Parenting Time for the Natural Parent and their side of the Natural Family.
When and Equal Parenting Agreement includes a
Parenting Timetable which distributes Parenting about equally
between the Parenting Trustees readily ends controversy about
how birthdays and special calendar days are allocated between
parents because each parent has equal likelihood that any
particular calendar date will fall on their time. No need to get
upset by disappointments in the current year. Over time,
everything will even out, .
Equal Parenting makes it easy for the Timetabled Parent to let a
child go to random special events at the other parent's because
firmly establishing the Equality of Parents had ensured there is
ZERO IMPACT on Parental Rights by being flexible in day to day
parenting. The children have about as much freedom as they did
prior to divorce, and their losses due the Divorce are much
less.
Byron Prior on Newfoundland's
"Grubstake System" in which men at sea like Byron's
Dad
Randall Prior work not for cash in payment, but for
a Stake in the grub at the
Company Store. The men are kept at sea, while
their wives are impregnated by wealthy businessmen
dispensing not just the "Grub" to the ladies back home.
In time, women who couldn't pay their
Debts became a commodity to be sold by the
Company Store like any other product open for Offer
and Exchange of goods and services there by Barter.
The stores became a Storefront for prostitution and
trading favors among the Wealthy of the community.
It appears that the Wealthy in Newfoundland have
thoroughly co-opted the Courts and Medical Professions
there, and have made the
"Grubstake System" and
Child
Prostitution in Newfoundland privately acceptable
and "normal" among the very wealthy.
The initial Equal Parenting Agreement establishes the
requirement for future Annual Parenting Supplement, and sets out specific elements
to be reviewed in the Annual Parenting Supplements. In this
initial Agreement, it is likely helpful to pre-plan tentative arrangements for
several Annual Agreements in advance. Later on, these tentative
arrangements may be used as a fall back position for parenting if at some point,
a formal Annual Agreement isn't made in a timely fashion.
Usually the term of an Annual Agreement is one
Calendar Year, or one School Year. An Annual Parenting Supplement establishes for the given year only parenting elements not
already settled in the initial Agreement. Typically the parenting
elements addressed in the Annual Agreements are:
School(s) attended, the
Daycare(s) attended,
extra-curricular activities,
funding these parental
elements, and
the all important Parenting Timetable.
The Parenting Time Timetable, divides all
Residual
Parenting Elements (day-to-day parenting, basically) by TIME, and assigns
Parenting Time to each parent in alternation, allowing each
parent severally to make decisions on these
Residual Parenting Elements with INDEPENDENCE of the other Equal
Parent. Each parent is assigned in alternation the SOLE right
of decision making on all parenting matters not previously constrained. The parent
executing these residual rights of decision-making is referred to as the "Timetabled Parent". For the most part the Timetabled Parent
and the parent exercising care and control will be one and the same, but does
not need to be always the case.
In the Annual Supplements the roles of "Timetabled
Parent" and "Non-Timetabled Parent" alternate between parents at least until the
child reaches the age of majority with the intent that over time the sums of
Parenting Time will be approximately equal between the parents. This can
be accomplished in many ways. If Parenting Time is not in the long run
about equal, it will be non-equal BY CONSENT of the two Equal Parents. It is
crucially important that neither parent be able to become abusive to either a
parent or a child, and that the Children perceive NEITHER parent as more
powerful than the other. Living under a Parental Tyranny is highly
destructive to a Childs developing autonomy.
In preparing an Annual Supplement, the parents, are acting as
Parental
Co-Trustees to both "deceased" married parents, and are at all times bound
by the Covenants of the Initial Equal Parenting Agreement prepared
by the married, but divorcing parents - the Settlors. Parental
Co-Trusteesare expected also to conform generally with the Settlor's
Wishes. As
Co-Trustees. The divorced parents make decisions in the Annual
Supplement IN TRUST for the Settlors of the Parenting Trust - the
"deceased" married parents and are subject to being found in Breach of Trust..
The Annual Parenting Supplementby nature incorporates
the Parenting Time Timetable. This is the document to which any Enforcement Officer can refer, and
immediately end disputes. The security of both parent/child relationships,
and the rights of all parents and children are respected and enforceable.
The Provincial Courts and their Officers will not have the latitude to harass a
selected parent they do so casually now.
The "Non-Timetabled Parent" is always "second in command", and
as an Equal Parent is subordinate to
no third parties. This allows them to act on behalf of the children
in the absence of the Timetabled Parent. Good sense though requires
that the Non-Timetabled Parent act invisibly as an assistant to the Timetabled
Parent and be there to smooth over rather than aggravate matters. In the
execution of the Equal Parenting Agreement, the parents are best to to
stay out of each other's business; and focus on the peaceful alternation
of "supremacy" on day to day issues between otherwise equal parents.
It has been said that it is the CERTAINTY of negative
consequences, not the SEVERITY of negative consequences, that is most effective
in ending bad behavior like non-performance of a Parenting Timetable. By enforcing these simple
Equal Parenting Agreements, most of the disturbances now caused Sole Custodial
Parents will be eliminated over several years. This will provide a far better
environment for children than what the Courts provide now, the
Presumption of Sole Custody except by the consent of the mother. As
many have said, Statutory Change must include a Rebuttable Presumption of
Equal Parenting. We skip the oft-mentioned Shared Parenting, because
Equal Parenting is inherently shared.
Changes to the Parenting Timetable can be made at any time
by mutual consent of the parents WITHOUT LAWYERS' INVOLVEMENT by way of an
"Ad-Hoc Agreement". If changes to the Timetable cannot be made by
mutual consent, the
Parenting Timetable in force stands, and the Timetabled Parent has
the last say. The outcome might not be optimal in the light of information
just learnt yesterday, but it is fair, reasonable and workable. Such minor
irritations do not warrant legal action.
Poofy
Judges, Monty Python
Lawyers consistently estimate the homosexual
fraction of the Law Societies & Judiciaries as "forty-something"
percent. That is, a randomly selected Judge or Lawyer is
about thirty times more likely to be homosexual than the
population at large. (BTW, a randomly selected Homosexual
is about forty times more likely to be a
Pedophile than a
randomly selected Canadian.).
The Judiciary now claims the right to
INTERPRET whatever meaning they want into the written Statutes
of Parliament, and refuse to be bound by any literal, contextual
reading of a Statute of Parliament. By these nefarious
means Activist Judges
have "interpreted" the Charter to give themselves Homosexual Marriage
and with it eliminated Natural Parents' rights, obliging - they
claim - our Parliament & Legislatures to replace the term NATURAL PARENT with the term LEGAL PARENT.
Without the knowledge or
consent of the Canadian people, these Activist Judges
have robbed you of the right to be the Legal Parent of your own
Natural Children.,
We are noticing too that they
are lying to us about what
COMMON LAW is. Ask a few lawyers what Common Law is,
and we guess they will tell you the Lie that it is whatever is
commonly being Ordered by the
Judges at any point in
time, and
is therefore very dynamic and cannot be defined. We can
happily tell you this is completely FALSE, and is instead an
admission of their malicious intent.
no Child shall be
removed from a Natural Parent!!!
1.
The Bottom Layer: The Initial Equal Parenting Agreement
Initial Equal Parenting Agreement creating full time, all time
equality of both natural parents, subordinate to no third parties (a
Constitutional right ignored by most Family Courts); a series of
tentative
Parenting Timetables for each year and statement of intent, or
"Wishes"; the requirement that the tentative Parenting Timetable laid
out there will be reviewed and finalized annually and incorporated into
the
Annual Parenting Supplement. Parental authority and discretion
is always equal and unaffected by inequalities of Parenting Time
allocations.
3.
Top Layer: Autonomy of Both Equal Parents on all matters not
previously Constrained.
Parenting Timetable alternates all residual parenting questions
between the two otherwise equal parents who are subordinate to no third
parties. Full autonomy of each parent during their Parenting Time
as allotted in the agreed Parenting Timetable on all residual parenting
questions not previously constrained by Covenants in the initial Equal
Parenting Agreement, or the current Annual Parenting Supplement.
Full discretion on residual parenting with the Timetabled Parent, but
flexibility encouraged and provided by Ad Hoc Agreements.
4.
Icing on the Cake.....
Forget about the Courts,
and your Ex, and go have fun with your kids!!!
This is a Judge practicing his sexual orientation for decades while
on the BC Bench.
It is inconceivable that the Law Enforcement
officers and other Judges were unaware of all his activities.
Law Enforcement Officers, are of course unable to act without the
support of the Judiciary.
External, existing legislation on
Parental Fitness is sufficient. It is
important that Equal
Parenting legislation be SILENT on a Parental Fitness
to give clear direction to the Courts.
The
Doctrines of "Rights
and Responsibilities" of a good Socialist now being promulgated in
Schools and Family Courts is an idea developed in pre-war Nazi Germany.
They have been popularized by
Peter Drucker.
Fitness Testing IS a core element of Nazism, Eugenics, Socialism,
and a fulfillment of the Peter
Drucker vision for Global Socialism. Fitness Testing of
Natural Parents and Students must be stopped, and it's Practitioners
fired.
A
Grandparent shall be offered Grandparent Days as a
component of the
Parenting Timetable
at the time of the
Annual Parenting Supplement.
Grandparent Days may be assigned severally or corporately, as
each pair of Grandparents choose.
A Kinship
Family is the immediate family of a Blood Relative of the
Child which due to the absence of a Natural Parent assumes the
role of Natural Parent and stands as an
Equal Parent,
but has not adopted the Child.
A Grandparent raising their grandchild
because of the Natural Parent's absence is a
Kinship Family.
A Natural Grandparent or their Appointee
standing as an
Equal
Parent in the absence of their child, the Natural
Grandparent shall NOT be penalized for their kinship or blood
tie to the Child in any application they may make for for
Government assistance, grant, subsidy or other funding to defray
their costs of child rearing which is available to an unrelated
person who might take custody of the Child..
Equal Parenting Roundups for Natural Parents' Rights
An
"Equal Parenting Roundup" is a gathering of all the
disparate parental rights groups that are within driving
distance of one another. Whereas any group can call an "Ad
Hoc" Roundup with their neihbors, we hope you will have at least
one annual EP Roundup
an incorporate it into the Equal
Parenting Trek
An
Equal Parenting Roundup is an exercise in your Freedom of
Assembly and Freedom of
Speech and Freedom of Assembly, following some of the
traditions that established our
Supremacy of
Parliament. Ideally, you will want be evangelical
about your Roundup, you can add to it's end a Free Man's
March
Bruce Haines, QC: "Friendly Parent Rule" 16.10 almost
never invoked
Bruce Haines, QC: Canadian Justice Review Board
Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act
requires courts to take into consideration the willingness of
the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate contact of
the child with each spouse. Practicing family law lawyers know
that
this Section is almost never
invoked."
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.
should
ever be forgot
