Bruce Haines,  QC on Judiciary's refusal to obey "Friendly Parent" statute 16.10

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established;  Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act, the "Friendly Parent" Rule was going to be removed by the last Liberal Government to conform Canadian Statute to Judicial Practice rather than prosecute the Activist Judges for Breach of Trust by a Public Officer.  The Death Penalty for Treason of course had been long removed.

Toronto lawyer, son of the late Mr. Justice Edson Haines. On February 3, 1997, he wrote:

"Dear Senators:   For over thirty years I have practiced family law in Ontario and during that time have watched the development of the law and the dramatically changed social conditions which have not only seen a very high percentage of married women move into the work force in most every area but have also seen a significant narrowing of the income differentials between men and women. During that same period I have watched spousal social expectations change in that husbands have embraced a full participation in all aspects of family functions, particularly in the nurturing and raising of their children.

Changes to the divorce law have rarely kept pace with changing attitudes and, despite the gender neutral language of the Divorce Act, its actual implementation in the areas of child custody and child support has continued to be marked by an entrenched systemic gender bias that `mother knows best and father pays best.' The administration of justice does not treat spouses equally when it comes to assigning child custody. By and large, custody is almost always assigned to mothers and the most fathers can hope for is a generous access order. Where fathers interfere with custody orders they will ordinarily bear the full weight of the law while mothers who flaunt access orders will, by and large, receive judicial admonitions with usually little other consequence.

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."

See also Courts have turned the Law upside down contrary to the will of Parliament, Solicitor Adrian Pellman

The so-called "Friendly Parent Rule" , by which Parliament has directed the Courts to facilitate the maximum contact of the children with their Parents when they allocate custodial powers to any Parent.  This coupled with the Charter of Rights prohibiting discrimination by the Government and it's Courts on the basis of sex (Sec 15.1 & Sec. 28) the statutory obligation on the Courts is (in the absence of evidence that the Maximum Contact principle is not in the best interest of the children) to create an Equal Parenting Plan for every child after every Divorce. 

Section 16(10) of Divorce Act (RS1985). reads:

The Courts have thereby been instructed by Parliament that on review of a Parenting Plan, a Sole Custodial Parent who uses their custodial powers to restrict contact of the children with the other Parent are to LOOSE their custodial powers to the parent that WILL facilitate the contact of the children with both parents.    Family Law Courts in particular, of course, ignore Statues at will.

Statistics Canada has produced Selected Statistics on Canadian Families and Family Law, dated 2000 which demonstrates on page 17 that eighteen years after the passage of the Constitution Act and Charter of Rights that the Courts AT BEST give  a father 1in10 chance of getting custody of his children. A popular Feminist deception is to make hay of the reluctance of Fathers to "fight for their children" in Canadian Courts.  The stunning news however is NOT that fathers "abandon" their children in Divorce Court.  The news IS that a father WILL fight for his children in spite of the fact that his prospect of being successful is less than 10%!

More:  "Friendly Parent Rule" 16.10 , AKA "Maximum Contact" ignored, almost eliminated by Liberal Party of Canada;      Custody Orders not Enforced when Moms are in Breach;      Parental Alienation & "PAS"