Canada Court Watch Home

Canada Court Watch Audio




Guy Fawkes thumbnail

Remember, Remember the 5th of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot, I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
should ever be forgot

    ● EP-BC Home About  Issues & Petitions  TaxCap Testimonials News  Reference Meetings  Fun Stuff Members


About Area Home

Beware of the IMPOSTER!!!!
Contact Us at Equal Parenting-BC
Equal Parenting How To's
Grandparents in Equal Parenting
Equal Parenting Q & A
Equal Parenting as a Consent Agreement
Equal Parenting as a Living Will
EPA = Equal Parenting Anonymous
EPA Meeting Formats
EPR = Equal Parenting Roundups
EPT = Equal Parenting Trek
EPT March, How To
Families-4-Justice
Fathers-4-Justice
SOS & Partniers in Healing

Liberal Irwin Cotler:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS"

Irwin Cotler, former Liberal "Justice" Minister robbed Canadians of their NATURAL PARENTS' Rights

Irwin Cotler - Google Search;
Irwin Cotler - Google Video

"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.

More:  News:  Cotler, Irwin:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS...;
News:  European Union;
Issues:  Paul Watson:  Nazi Origins of European Union;;;
Issues: G. Edward  Griffin ;
Issues: Fabian Socialism;

Beware of the "Parental Rights" IMPOSTER!!!!

"Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights"

Be on the lookout for the "Parent's Rights" IMPOSTER.  Insist on "Natural Parents Only", please!

It comes as a big surprise to us that many groups that present themselves as "Parents Rights" groups  REFUSE to defend the  NATURAL PARENT, and  and to demand RESTORATION of Natural Parents Rights taken from Canadians in the Homosexual Marriage legislation.

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!!!

More:  About:  Beware of the IMPOSTER!!!!  "Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights";
News:  Lessard, Hester - Heterosexual view of Parenthood must be ignored
News:  Smith, Judge Daphne, BCSC, for Child Trafficking;
Issues:  Trociuk, Darrell;
Issues:  Child Trafficking, Canadian;
Testimonials:  Rick Fredrickson of Saskatoon

Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy

Chapter VII. The English Common Law. Section 57. The Norman Conquest

A beautiy of British  Common Law is that it is STATIC, and NOT DYNAMIC as these Activist Judges would have you think.

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.

More:   Issues:  Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy;
Issues:  "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization is Treason

Beware of the IMPOSTER!!!! 
"Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights"

Be on the lookout for the "Parent's Rights" IMPOSTER.  Insist on "Natural Parents" only, please!

It comes as a big surprise to us that many groups that present themselves as "Parents Rights" groups  do NOT subscribe our position that it is the NATURAL PARENT who's rights are being impinged upon. 

Instead their position is to promote the "rights" of  a "Parent" in the widest sense of the word, and make NO distinction for the rights of a NATURAL PARENT and a NATURAL CHILD to be with each other. 

More:  About:  Beware of the IMPOSTER!!!!  "Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights"

Senator Anne Cools on the Evil of False Accusations

Anne Cools - Google Search

Anne Cools' Website
 Anne Cools on False Accusations

EP Nemesis, Liberal Hedy Fry, the Queen of FALSE ACCUSERS

"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."

More:  Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne

Jay Hill, MP (Prince George – Peace River)

We are also fortunate to have Jay 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?”   

More:   Jay's site;
Iissues:  Hill, MP Jay.

Paul Forseth, past M.P., (New Westminster-Coquitlam-Burnaby)

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

Betty Hinton, MP (Kamloops Thompson)

Many thanks to  Kamloops MP Betty Hinton for standing up in Parliament  for us against the State funded FATHER HATRED of the Status of Women.  For an example of Betty's provocative advocacy, see:  Betty Hinton, Kamloops Thompson MP speaks against SOW's promotion of Father Hatred

Roger Gallaway, MP (Sarnia-Lambton, ON, Liberal)

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 "Cross My Heart" - Google Search;
Arnie Hein "Cross My Heart" - Google Video

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. "


Arnie Hein

More:  Issues:  Hein, Arnie: "Cross My Heart" Equal Parenting Trek 2005;
Meetings:  Equal Parenting Trek 2005

McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs",
Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...

Robb MacKenzie Equal Parenting Bike Trek - Google Search;
Robb MacKenzie Equal Parenting Bike Trek - Google Video

Rob Pederson, Equal Parenting - Google Search;
Robert Pederson, Equal Parenting - Google Video

Cycling4Children.com Equal Parenting Bike Trek's photostream

More:  Issues:  McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs", Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...;
Issues:  Smith, Ron:  DC Family Preservation Rally, Compulsory Drugging of Children;
Issues:  Compulsory Drugging of Children, Thymerisol;

Liberal Irwin Cotler:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS"

Irwin Cotler, former Liberal "Justice" Minister robbed Canadians of their NATURAL PARENTS' Rights

Irwin Cotler - Google Search;
Irwin Cotler - Google Video

"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.

More:  News:  Cotler, Irwin:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS...;
News:  European Union;
Issues:  Paul Watson:  Nazi Origins of European Union;;;
Issues: G. Edward  Griffin ;
Issues: Fabian Socialism;

Bill Graham, Pedophile Parliamentarian & Defense Minister


Bill Graham, mp - Google Search;
Bill Graham, mp - Google Video

Lawrence Metherel - Google Search

2007-06-19  Liberal MP Bill Graham announces resignation

"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

More:  News:  Graham, Bill:  Pedophile Parliamentarian, Defense Minister

Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy

Chapter VII. The English Common Law. Section 57. The Norman Conquest

A beautiy of British  Common Law is that it is STATIC, and NOT DYNAMIC as these Activist Judges would have you think.

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.

More:   Issues:  Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy;
Issues:  "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization is Treason

Debtor's Prison, abolished in 1869 in the UK, reinstituted to appease "Femi-Nazis"

Debtor's Prison - Google Search;
Debtors Prison - Google Video;
Debtors Prison abolished - Google Search

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. 

1869-xx-xx Debtors Act 1869 (c.62), United Kingdom

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,.

More:  Issues:  Debtors's Prison Reinstituted;
Issues:  Passports Removed to Appease Femi-Nazis;
Issues:  Driver's Licenses removed to appease "Femi-Nazis";
Testimonials:  Jeffery, Hal & Danica;
Issues:  Imputed income;
Issues:  Child Support Fraud;

Barbara Kay, National Post

Barbara Kay - Google Search;
Barbara Kay - Google Video

"In Ontario alone, the names Cornwall, Prescott, and London became synonymous with "respectable" pedophile rings -- lawyers, doctors, police officers and Catholic clergymen -- that for decades preyed on society's most vulnerable boys."

;

2007-09-26 Forgetting the male victims of child abuse, Barbara Kay

2006-06-14  Welcome to the matriarchy, Barbara Kay;


More.... Issues:  Barbara Kay,  National Post;
Testimonials:  Prior, Byron: Sexual Abuse;
News:  Mount Cashel Orphanage, St. John's NL;
Issues:  Boys Of St. Vincent <Mount Cashel, NL>
News: Southin, Mary: BC Judge backs Pedophilia, Solicitation of Children for Sexual Activities;
News:  Ramsay, Judge David BC Judge & Pedophile
News:  Orr, Judge David:  Protection of Pedophiles in Public Service;
News:  Hickman, T. Alex, NL Judge, alleged Pedophile & Town Tyrant
Testimonials:   Earle, Shane: Mount Cashel Orphange, NL;
Testimonials: Samson, Pierre:  Duplessis Orphans, QU
News:  Duplessis Orphans:  Nazi Experiments Orphange, NL
Issues: Child Trafficking by Public Officers & Judges;
Issues:  Judicial Freemasonry
Issues:  Judicial Interpretation;
News:  Crowley, Aleister:  Luciferian Freemasonry, Homosexual Pedophilia & Pederasty;

 Philip Mayfield, Cariboo - Chilcotin

We also wish to thank retired MP Philip Mayfeild,  Cariboo - Childotin for his work in the Joint Committee.

Recovered pages of EPG website

equalparenting.net

Rights of fathers Ignored?
Both Parents Vita, Lynn Bentz
Broken Homes Mean Bleak Future
Fatherneed
Perception vs Reality
"For the Sake of the Children"
Some Facts on Families

Equal Parenting Q & A


Should mandatory Equal Parenting become law how will the following issues be addressed?

Firstly, this is something you can do NOW, with EXISTING legislation.  If you wait for things like the gutted "For the Sake of the Children" legislation to get past the current crowd of Activist Judges, you and your kids will be waiting a long time.

 

Recall: Trust Terminology applied to a Parenting Agreement constructed as a formal Trust.

You don't have to set up your equal Parenting Agreement as a Trust, but it helps in manifold ways.  After the “death” of the married parents, they “settle” the care of the marriage’s children (and assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries / children) to the “Trustees” – the unmarried parents.  Use “Covenants” and “Wishes” for the Settlors’ binding and non-binding intents on the “death” of the married parents.  Trustees who do not obey the Trusts are removed from the list of Trustees (in effect, loose legal custody, not necessarily physical custody, as in “Friendly Parent Rule”.)

What if one or both of the former spouses re-marries?  Do the Step Parents have Parenting Rights and get involved in the Parenting Agreements?

No, and No!!   What Parenting rights a Step-Parent may exercise are only those LOANED to them by their Spouse, the Natural Parent.

What if an employer transfers a Natural Parent to another city, state or province?

Don't do it.  You have "prior commitments".   If you go without prior arrangements with the remaining Natural Parent, you will forfeit your Parenting Time for at least the current parenting year.  You may be able to work something out in the next Annual Parenting Agreement Supplement .

We adamantly discourage Move-Aways because it separates a Child from one of their Natural Parents and the established family & social network (all the more necessary when their family is disrupted). 

We encourage zero-tolerance of Sole Custodial Parents' practice of contriving a Move-Away to Alienate a Natural Parent, almost always a Dad. 

In the event of a truly necessary Move-Away, we would encourage that the children remain in their familiar environment and maintain their social activities and friends in conformity with the last Annual Agreement.

A critical point of Equal Parenting as we have it set up is that Equal Parents share the decision-making capacity equally.  The Natural Parent moving away has de facto by consent assigned some of their Parenting Time to the Natural Parent who remains and will probably incur the wrath of the corrupt Child Support Tables, but they DO NOT loose any right to make parental decisions.  There has to be good reason to eliminate a parent from Equal Parenting status. 

Again, equality is about status and decision-making, not Parenting Time – although Parenting Time should be about equal in the long haul

What if the family has siblings one which decides to remain with the mother, and the other with the father?

This is sometimes called "Split Custody".  Set this up when you're making the Annual Parenting Agreement Supplements and tweaking the Parenting Timetable it contains.

Kids always have the ability to ask the Timetabled Parent if they can have a sleepover for special events at the other parent’s as an “Ad Hoc” Agreement, but whether or not this change happens is exclusively at the discretion of the Timetabled Parent. 

We encourage cooperation and facilitating a happy life for the kids, but it is always at the discretion of the Timetabled Parent whether or not the change will be made. 

Again, by allowing the child a sleep-over at the non-Timetabled parent’s, the Timetabled Parent looses NOTHING in rank or right.  There is ZERO IMPACT on their ability to function in the future as an equal parent.  This is directly analogous to leaving your kids with a baby sitter or a school teacher. 

Kids do seem to be drawn to male and female parents in some unpredictable alternating pattern to come to some kind of balance of viewpoints over time. The Annual Parenting Agreement Supplements and zero-legal-impact Ad Hoc agreements support this, but we discourage an obvious departure from equal Parenting Time in a given year until a few years after puberty. 

Parents with kids living in 'blended families" will have as many Agreements as there are pairs of Natural Parents.   .... Do keep that simple, please.

What if one of the EPs enrolls the child in an activity without the agreement of the other parent? What about the costs & effects on Parenting Time?

Like the move-away, whoever makes a decision has to take responsibility for the consequences of their decision and bear the costs.  Like any other area of law, the instigator of the disturbance is also required to cease or provide Remedy for the disturbance caused by their decision.  It's probably better not to do it at all. 

By consent, of course, the two Equal Parents can do anything they want in the formal Annual Parenting Supplements of in an Ad-Hoc Agreement. 

We encourage parents to demonstrate problem solving, reason, and fair play.  The current methods of Feminist double-talk, double standards, and bullying  NCPs into capitulation under the fear of greater   Femi-Narcissism has to be named, labeled and and eradicated in the Equal Parenting community..

What if one parent has an RESP (Registered Education Savings Plan) for a Child, but the other does not?  How are the costs for Post secondary education dealt with?

RESP contributions should be planned in the Annual Supplemental Agreement.  In our experience, parents are usually too broken by the Family Law Industry to take asset management and financial planning seriously, but that is not where we want to be.  

We aim to get Family Assets away from the Family Court Industry and into a Trust vehicle for RESPs and housing. 

In view of the trickery used to put into place the Child Support Tables, we don’t accept their legitimacy.  (These are a gross farce, purposed to transfer wealth from men to women.) For the sake of argument, however, we can take the contributions of “support” per child given by the Tables by each parent and use the RATIO of contributions the Tables provides as a basis for determining the RELATIVE contributions of each parent to RESPs (and other provisions) for the children.   

The Family Court Industry can’t sensibly argue with that.  We take the position that these contributions will of course be “Child Support” so far as the Tables go, and are simply allocated for a specific purpose.  Other examples are team memberships, musical instruments, lessons and so forth.  We need to eliminate or minimize the ability of a spendthrift mother to dissipate family assets and children’s inheritance after divorce.

Does Equal Parenting prevent new relationships & children?  How does that work in terms of Child Support.

No, Future relationships and Children are not precluded.  It does bring up the rather GLARING deficiency of the Child Support Tables in that they make NO accommodation for other children of the Payor born before OR afterwards.

The Parenting Time of the NP in a new marriage should probably be diminished in the next Annual Agreement to give the "new relationship’  time alone for a year or two to get established.  This diminishment of Parenting Time in no way diminishes the Status of either EP, and after a couple years the Parenting Timetable will be back to normal. . 

If not between Natural Parents, Sexual Activity around Children is Passive Sexual Abuse, and invites Sexual Predators

We are not impressed with mothers who displace Dad by hooking up with some other man.  Women are now more likely than men to be promiscuous and have affairs while married, BTW.  

This "Step-parent" scenario is the context identified as one of the top three scenarios in which active  Sexual Abuse occurs, and we take a very dim view of mothers moving into this “I need a man” mode. 

Just last night one of our guys reported his problem with his ex. repeatedly having sex in front of his ~6yr old son, and having sex with two or three of the men in her neighborhood.  Mom is evidently promiscuous. 

While Mom was "engaged" in the bedroom, his son and a little girl from the neighborhood started going i trying to copy Mom and her boyfriend in the living room.  We call this Passive Sexual Abuse. 

Don’t expect the Ministry of Children and Families to stop Mom from doing this, though!  They will probably fake up a bunch of False Accusations against Dad to keep Mom doing whatever she wants!  MCF has a long history of making children available for sexual abuse 

In general, however, we reckon unmarried “new relationships” to be a disturbance to the security of the children’s relationships with their Natural Parents, and if you are looking for a Naughty Weekend with your lover, you had best keep the children out of it by not doing it on your Parenting Time, or if you can't control yourself, by leaving the children with the other Natural Parent while you relieve yourself. 

When the child is at a young age how does Equal Parenting affect the child's school if one of the former spouses reside outside of the child's school district?

Again, the Annual Parenting Supplement is the time to lay down the plan for the upcoming year.  Part of that is establishing a “Parenting Community” which hopefully doesn’t change year over year.  By consent parents can do anything, of course, but we would encourage avoiding change if at all possible, from the tentative plan laid out in the initial Equal Parenting Agreement

If the “Parenting Community” must change, we would encourage that it change at natural breaks like switches form Elementary School to Middle School, and of course to not make changes until a school year is complete.  This is an example of where having two parents not living together is actually an advantage.  Having Equal Parenting in place provide for more rather than less stability for the children with their social peer group.   Remember a parent who moves away, moves away alone, until the next Annual Supplement or Ad Hoc Agreement makes other provisions, and they do NOT loose their equality of decision making as a result.

Equal Parenting Q & A

 

 

 

More:  About:  Equal Parenting Q & A

Equal Parenting How To's 

Equal Parenting is like a Three Layer Cake. 

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

Yearly Annual Parenting Supplements for planning the school year and finalizing the Parenting Timetable for the upcoming  parenting year.  Parenting Timetable must meet the test for equality established in 1) the initial Equal Parenting Agreement.

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!!!

More:  About:  Equal Parenting How To's:  Three Layer Cake;
About:  Grandparents in Equal Parenting;
About:  EPR = Equal Parenting Roundups;
About: EPT =  Equal Parenting Trek;
EP Trek Generic Calendar
:Issues:  Kinship Families or Grandparents raising Children::
About:  Grandparents in Equal Parenting


     

 


 

Copyright 2002  equalparenting-bc.ca 

 

       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.