"Without Cause or Consent, no Child
shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!
"Two Equal Parents may .. agree to unequal Parenting
Time, but this does NOT impugn the Parental Authority of either Natural
Parent relative to Third Party Interlopers.
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.
2. Middle Layer: The Annual Supplement
& its Parenting Timetable
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.
"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."
"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.
Equal Parenting How To's:
Equal Parenting is like a Three Layer Cake
Knowing Me,
Knowing You, ABBA
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.
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.
The Initial Agreement establishes a collection of Covenants which
span all years to the children's
Age of Majority.
Some Covenants will span the entire term of the Agreement, while some Covenants
can only be made In Principle and will be deferred to an
Annual
Parenting Supplement
In an Equal Parenting Agreement, Parenting Time is NOT an indicator of
Parental Authority.
Two Equal
Parents may by consent agree to unequal Parenting Time, but this does
NOT impugn the Parental Authority of either Natural Parent
relative to third parties without Cause or Consent.
Each
Annual Supplement is made about the same time each
year and deals only with parenting decisions for the upcoming year which were
deferred in the Initial Agreement, and made only In Principle.
one
will be made annually until the Agreement's
term is completed at the Age of Majority of the youngest Child.
Failure to create an Annual Supplement means the requirements of the
Initial Agreement made In Principle will be by silence be
given approval.
3.
Top Layer: Autonomy of Both Equal Parents on all matters not
previously Constrained
Both Natural
Parents retain full Parental Authority relative to all third parties,
and are subject to no third
party Interloper or to a Public Officer without statutory Cause or
Consent. This way the Natural Parent who is not the
Timetabled Parent (and is now a subordinate Co-Parent) remains at all
times empowered to protect the Child from the
State and all other
threats.
4.
Icing on the Cake.....
Forget about the Courts,
and your Ex, and go have fun with your kids!!!
"The Family
Courts are a bunch of second rate hangers-on
... build each other's businesses through
referrals...Family Law is a <parasitic> self-sustaining
Industry"
Having hopefully shown that a comprehensive
Equal Parenting Agreement spanning all years of a Child's
minority can be created
using our
"Three Layers",
WITHOUT the confounding influence of Third Party Interlopers,
Law Societies and Family Courts we can now turn to a more
general discussion of Equal Parenting. 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 Parent" on
all matters not previously constrained.
Equal parenting does not require a parent to be
an exemplary parent, indeed we maintain
WITHOUT CAUSE
or CONSENT
NO Child shall be removed from a NATURAL PARENT.
What Cause is claimed by a
Public Officer to
remove a Child must be supported by Statute, NOT
"CASE LAW"
which is no law at all, but is the
Courts program
of usurping the legislative role of Parliament.
When
an
Equal Parenting Agreement
includes a
Parenting Timetable which distributes
Parenting
Time about equally between the the
two
Co-Parents (usually the two
Natural
Parents), controversy about how birthdays
and special calendar days are allocated between parents
can vanish 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, with an
Equal Parenting Agreement
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.
We
encourage Natural
Grandparents and Natural Siblings of an Equal Parent to
stand as Subjugate Co-Parent to a Natural 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.
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 Natural
Grandparents, Aunt and Uncle, or God Parent as
Trustee of the Parenting Time for the Natural Parent and
their side of the Natural Family.
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
(from the current Annual Supplement to the Initial
Agreement).
The
Equal Parenting Agreement is ideally
created by the married parents as a Trust, and provides for the
Children of the marriage in the event of the marriage's demise
by protecting their
Custody
and Family Assets
from the Canadian
Bar Association and Family Court. If the Marriage dies
through Separation with or without Cause, the newly Un-Married
Natural Parents then act as
Co-Trustees in preparation of the
Annual Supplements to review Guardianship topics and
distribute
Parenting Time for the upcoming year between the
Co-Parents as required by the Trusts created in the
Initial Agreement.
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.
So long as the Natural
Parents remain married, there will be no need for the second or
third layers, of course. These layers of Agreement
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.
Although
existing Canadian statutes for the most part already require Equal Parenting
as the outcome of Family Court proceedings,
these are typically ignored by the gangsters at the
"Law Societies"
and in the Judiciary.
Equal Parenting is about
equality in PARENTAL STATUS AND
AUTHORITY relative to third party interlopers.
Equal Parenting
does NOT require equality of Parenting Time,
though equality of Parenting Time is desirable.
our
"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.
An
Initial Agreement
should include a section for either an
Agreement in
Principle or
Settlor's Wishes (in a Parenting Trust) concerning a FINITE
and SPECIFIED set of parenting issues which are too difficult to
determine with finality in the initial year. These
SPECIFIED issues only may be revisited in the
Annual
Supplement
In the
Initial Agreement, it is
probably helpful to prepare Drafts of
several if not all of the
Annual
Supplements in advance. Later on, these tentative
arrangements may be used as a fall back position for decision-making
if at some point, the two Equal Parents fail to make
an
Annual
Supplement in a timely fashion.
Usually the term of an Annual Supplement is one Calendar Year, or one
School Year. 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 choice of school, sports memberships, etc..
Embedded within each Annual Parenting Supplement is the final....
Parenting
Timetable
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.
It's better to count in "sleeps" only
for equality checks. Forget about counting hours within a
day. Solve that problem by switching parental roles at "dinner
times" or "lunch times".
In the
Annual Supplements the roles of "Timetabled
Parent" and
the
"Co-Parent" alternate between
the two
parents with the intent that
"Maximum Contact" with the
Natural Parents is maintained, and that over
the long haul,
Parenting Time will be approximately equal between the Natural Parents.
If Parenting Time is not about equal
in the long
haul, it will be non-equal BY CONSENT of the two Equal Parents.
It is
crucially important that neither parent
appear to have greater Parental Authority in the Child's eyes
than the other, and that an Equal Parent with a large majority of
Parenting Time not become demeaning, overbearing or
"abusive"
to
the other
parent or a
child as commonly happens with sole custody. (The remedy
for this of course is a return to equal Parenting Time at the next
Annual Supplement)
Equal
Parenting Time can
be accomplished in many ways, even if a parent makes the very undesirable
decision to work in another town.
In that event, of course it is the
Move Away parent who must
sacrifice their Parenting Time to the other parent. They must
assume the Child will NOT move with them.
If in the unfortunate case where a
Parent isn't doing a really great job, we
prefer it is you, the other Equal Parent or Co-Parent who uses your Parenting Time to compensate as
best as possible WITHOUT inviting third parties to come in and terminate
your Parental Authority, such as it is
since Natural Parents rights were
eliminated.
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 have things work out as
you were told when you're before a Judge, you'll going to 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 an Agreement, and yet this
is the kind of product your lawyer will probably sell you.
Keep legal
jargon - which is only there to bamboozle you - out of your
Agreement, and use terms you can look up in a Dictionary.
exercise
Parental protection and Authority
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
delegated
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's
Parental
Authority without Cause or Consent.
The Annual Supplement by 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 Equal 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.
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, and do not warrant
more Court Time.
Remember, in Equal Parenting yielding
Parenting Time to the other Natural Parent or Grandparent in no way diminishes
your Parental Authority, and is very desirable when unexpected Appointments and
circumstances arise.
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.
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.
By enforcing these simple
Equal Parenting Agreements, most of the disturbances now caused
by 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 .. giving
lawyers
unlimited opportunity to pillage the
Family Assets then remaining, and
winding up the conflict with one Parent so in debt or in
jail, they cannot muster a rally to
have them pay for their crimes.
They will not give up this
"easy money" without a fight.
"Carol
Rhodes, former Friend of the Court Investigator ... recently did
an interview with host Richard Farr on the
KRights.com Internet Radio station. Michigan Shared parenting
activist
Robert Pedersen of
A Child’s Right was also interviewed. To listen, click
here.
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.
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.
Taker v Taker (BC supreme court) the parties agreed on joint custody
and was working for 2 years, they had a scene and communication broke down.
Mother applied for sole custody, judge dismissed the appeal.
Olusanya v Olusanya (bc supreme court) - parents agreed to joint
custody - mother applied to vary it - judge ruled "...those friction points
would not appear to be ones that would be substantially overcome by ending joint
custody and awarding sole custody to the petitioner"
Frydrysek v frydrysek BCSC 1999) bitter custody dispute & other
matters.... judge ruled ..."I doubt if Mr & Ms will ever be able to consult with
one another in a meaningful, let alone civil, way with respect to Mishko(the
son). Usually, such a finding would automatically preclude parents being granted
joint custody of a child. In this case, however, I find there should be an order
that Mr & Ms share joint custody of Mishko."
Wells v Watson (BCSC 2000) J. Collver ruled " In spite of increasing
rancor which has plagued the parties' relationship before and after their
separation, I ordered continuation of joint custody & guardianship."
"Without Cause or Consent,
no Child shall be
removed from a Natural Parent!!!
"Two Equal Parents may ..
agree to unequal Parenting Time, but this does NOT impugn the Parental
Authority of either Natural Parent relative to Third Party
Interlopers.
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!!!
"40% of "Family Assets" is the minimum Fee they will demand,
but 60% is typical. The lawyers would take 100% of Family
Assets, but the Law Societies set the upper limit at
60% which some firms recognize."
The Canadian Bar
Association is now demanding the Assets of unmarried couples in
BC to be ceased by the Family Courts for redistribution among
fellow CBA memebers..
Child Trafficking at CPS, Stopping North American Union, murdered 2010
".... she was wrapping up a self-funded
documentary that "named names" and exposed a very high-level,
child-pedophile ring.
That's enough to get anyone killed."
Former
Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband Bruce have died from
a single shot wound each.
Nancy
was shot once in the back while she lay sleeping. Her husband
Bruce was shot once in the chest.
Both shots were
lethal.
Two shots, Two Kills
The deaths are being handled as
a 'murder-suicide'. More likely Bruce was shot
in the chest while confronting the Shooter having been woken by
the the shot that killed Nancy.
Since the introduction of the so called “No
Fault Divorce” in Canada, the divorce industry has
evidenced unprecedented growth estimated at $6 billion
per year. The problem is that the Legal / Court industry
thrives off the $B’s generated by Tax payers and
Families in crises.
“because lying is both a cause and a
manifestation of evil. It is partly by their lying that we recognize
the evil.”
If you don't want to go nuts in the Family Law Industry, you'd
better prepare yourself to recognize
Peck's previously
undescribed psychological class of what he calls "Evil" people.
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.
"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.
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
