|
IMPORTANT NOTE The following contains the basic notes and
working text, which I gave as a speech to the
Shared Parenting
Conference in Regina Sask. on May 15/99. Most of the material
sources are borrowed, and I claim no originality in phrasing or
sentence structure. However, I accept accountability for what
was said, as the comments reflected my understandings of the
political and legal situation at the time of the Conference.
Speech delivery may have varied slightly from the working text
Plenary Address
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you this morning. We
are here today, because we have a deep concern about how
Canadian society values children, especially concerning
dissolving families. Much can be said about the social place and
significance that children play in defining who we are -as a
people -as Canadians. I am reminded this morning of the song
from a recent "Rankins CD album, where they sing, "we rise
again, in the spirit of our children". So in emotionally
reaching, and thinking about the future, we reflect on how we as
Canadians are raising our children. What is the spirit, which is
rising and living on?
Times are changing. Technological capacity and economic
capacity, creates its own new demands. Expanding boundaries of
"the freedom to know", "the freedom to move", and "the freedom
to be and become", challenges the core of social orders. The
freedom to move across the landscape, the change in our social
relationships and parenting styles, the post war emergence of
the "rush hour", the journey to work in a car on the freeway,
and the myriad of social permutations that we are able to paint
into the "picture of our lives", brings exciting prospects, -but
they also bring new challenges and consequences. So in the
middle of the emerging "cyber-age", the well-being of our
children is of grave concern to me.
I come from a background of public and community service. My
father was a Reverend Minister who led by example, and dedicated
his life to serving others in the larger community. My mother,
as a stay at home mom, raised my sister and I, in that way. Mom
had our home open, always serving the temporarily dispossessed
individual. The choice to have a parade of people through our
house, was premised on the principle of helping, and showing
encouragement for those who were downcast so they could help
themselves, and that a better tomorrow could be made. My parents
left me an example of lives helped, -and most importantly that
in life, showed me there was more to life than just acquiring
"things".
Maybe that example had some effect on my choosing an academic
goal of obtaining a teaching degree to become a High School
Counsellor, (service over sales, helping over acquiring) which
then led me into a 23-year career as a professional helper in
the forensic social work field. I became a B..C. government
public servant in the Corrections Branch of the Provincial
Attorney General, and became an Officer of the Courts of British
Columbia, giving advice to Judges on sentencing, and doing
pre-court diversion, and alternative resolution programs. I was
also a Probation Officer and a Parole Officer, and administered
Orders of the Court on individuals. I was also the eyes and ears
of the Judge in the community to make recommendations on
disputed child custody and access cases. I served as a divorce
mediator and referee on disputed child maintenance and access
problems. I recite a few of these things for you, to provide
perspective on my work, as I have represented the Reform Party
view on the workings of the Divorce Act, and what the present
Liberal government is not doing.
Again we have the picture, that the Reform Party has a
well-researched and broadly popular plan of action for change to
the Divorce Act. Note the 48 recommendations of the Committee,
as well as the dissenting opinion on page 106-107. The Liberals
are defending what we have now, resisting change, and not taking
action in view of the obvious community need. How many times has
the country been in that situation -whether it is managing the
economy for growth and full employment, -criminal justice
reform, -national unity, -or caring for our children. It is the
official opposition vrs. the government. Reform vas the Liberals
-positive change vs. stay where we are. -what a picture!
Obviously there is a lifetime of work for me to accomplish as an
MP Perhaps it can be seen that I am just the pointed tip, out in
front of a great community effort to bring Canada successfully
into 21st century. We must admit, that we have what we have from
government, because people voted for it. If you didn't vote that
way, I say don't give up and opt out, but work to convince just
a few more to vote positively for a vision, rather than just
sorting between options to consider which would do the least
amount of damage. Politics matters.
As a historical marker for national change, we must remember the
Joint Senate-House of Commons Report "For the Sake of the
Children". As a member of that Committee, we brought forward 48
recommendations from well over 500 witnesses, and a very
balanced investigation of the present situation. The recent
government response is to it, is merely a message of "just
further consultation". From the Official Opposition viewpoint,
the government's answer to the Committee Report, from my
perspective, - is a carefully crafted "no". When one reflects
upon the government response, it becomes much more like an "in
your face" bold "no", to the Committee and the country, when one
clears away the snow. At best, we have the likelihood of a
political promise for action from the Liberals that might arise
during the next election. Then we know how reliable are Liberal
election promises. The Liberals never wanted the joint Committee
in the first place, and has been resisting ever since, while not
wanting to offend anyone, but just hoping that the whole thing
would go away.
But I want to turn to the need for change. For change begins
with the recognition that a problem exists. Sadly, the
government is in denial. Let me talk awhile about the problem as
I see it, -from an insider's view from within the court system.
For I had a ringside seat with the operations of the family law
system for years. I witnessed systemic hypocrisy, sanctimony,
and incompetence. The picture is that the divorce process in
this country is a mess. Let us sharpen our view and see that not
all fathers are deadbeats or child abusers, and not all mothers
are blameless victims. Both men and women can get shafted in
divorce, both can become victims. We live in a society where a
mother can poison her children's mind against their father, then
steal the children away and nobody will give a damn. Politicians
need to change that.
However, in some Unified Courts where there were extra services,
or in situations where truly neutral mediators were provided, I
saw a lot of good work being done to respond to marital
breakdown, and to protect children from at least the worst of
what a father or a mother were perpetrating on the other, and
their children.
The problems are more widespread than most realise. I saw from
working inside the system, how rampant were the myths,
prejudices, and sexist biases embedded in our views about men,
women, and divorce. I saw how gender politics inflamed and
clouded the issues, how a pervasive media bias then distorted
them, how a blind enslavement to political correctness was
preventing justice from being served and the truth from being
told. In view of what I have seen, as a politician I see the
need to speak out, to become a spokesperson from the Federal
Reform Party of Canada, to let the country know where we stand
and how we are committed to change things. We are fundamentally
committed to basic fairness and equality.
In the 35th Parliament, Bill C-41 established federal support
guidelines and introduced punitive measures, such as revoking
passports and driver's licenses, for payers who were usually
fathers, who failed to meet their payment obligations of
support. While uniform child support guidelines might have been
needed, the bill was regressive because, among other faults, it
considers only the payers income, reinforced stereotypical
notions about post-divorce parenting roles, and heightened the
possibility of custody fights, because whoever got the children
got the money, power and control, with no accountability
required. The bill utterly failed to address the other side of
the issue, which is the widespread problem of custodial parents
-usually mothers -who denied non-custodial parents contact with
their children, and consequently the best interests of the child
did not result.
That legislation can be said to be degrading to fatherhood. It
did produce a groundswell reaction once the public learned of
the details by the time it hit the Senate. Justice Minister
Allan Rock's exchange deal with the Senate to ensure passage,
was a promise to establish a Joint Senate - House of Commons
Committee to investigate the issues of child custody and access.
As the Committee got going, some of the media were awakened to
the idea that there just might be another side to divorce -the
real needs of children, rather than parental wants, or feminist
victimology. We also became known as the "politically incorrect
committee" because we were prepared to hear all sides, and ask
tough questions.
We have the media cliché "the deadbeat dad" but perhaps the more
predominant reality is perhaps "the deadbolted dad" -locked out
of his children's hearts after divorce. I said at the beginning
that times are changing, our social lives are being re-ordered.
The greater role fathers are taking in direct raising and
supervision of children is one of the strongest shifts in the
image of the manly ideal. More men, whose wives are employed out
of the home, are acting as primary caregivers to pre-school
children. Yet when divorce occurs, the courts are still
operating in the retro world of mother and female as victim of
the male patriarchy. In many sad family stories, those
characterisations are true, but maybe in just as many, it is
not.
There is the continued Court bias in the struggle for control,
using notions such as -continuity, sameness and predictability
of the supposed child's perspective. What this often means, is
what mother wants, rather than what children need. In the court,
it is still sadly and wrongly viewed, that mothers meet child
needs better than fathers. And in the larger social context,
mother will most often win custody, because it is seen as a
great social disgrace for a mother to lose custody of a child,
as compared to a father losing.
According to Statistics Canada in 1994, mothers were awarded
custody approximately 70 % of the time, and fathers
approximately 10 % of the time. Parents wound up with joint
custody 20% of the time, and on half the occasions that fathers
fought for custody, they won. Fathers usually would only attempt
to be the primary care giver when the evidence was already
highly in their favour, yet they were successful only one-half
of the time.
Family lawyers point out that they often see fathers who want
some form of custody, but refrain from seeking it because they
are advised and are convinced they will never win, while others
embark on the fight but wind up so brutalised by the system that
they eventually withdraw. Likewise, many devoted fathers become
so frustrated dealing with "access" problems that they throw up
their hands and walk. I can't tell you how many clients I have
had in my office who appear to be very decent fathers who have
no relationship with their kids. Many have untold access
problems, and they often finally just give up.
The reality in Canada today is that no matter how good a father,
a man might be, if his marriage ends and the wife wants child
custody, it is almost a forgone conclusion that she gets
control. Naturally nearly every lawyer will advise the mother to
go for everything, as Bill C-41 has turned the child into a
lucrative prize of power. If the mother decides to make it
difficult for a father to see his young children, the chances
are overwhelmingly that the father will lose the right to be a
significant parent to his children. For where the kids go, so
does all the power and control. There is sometimes also the
attitude that if a parent got the kids, they obviously were not
the "turkey" in the marriage relationship. Child custody is used
to vindicate the winning parent over the other concerning the
fight about why the parents divorced. Possession of the children
to cover the sins in the marriage is a powerful motivator for
control.
Yet despite too many fathers being only at the edges, an
impressive and growing body of social science research tells us
that fathers are vitally important to children's lives, that
they want to parent, that they grieve when they cannot, that
children want to be parented by their mothers and their fathers,
and that when fathers are absent, a litany of disastrous social
problems like poor school performance, drug and alcohol abuse,
teen suicide, welfare dependence, and child poverty follow.
Fatherless boys become confused about their masculinity and
disproportionately become violent criminals. Fatherless girls
believe their fathers have abandoned them for not being good
enough or pretty enough, suffer from low self esteem, and fail
to learn how to conduct healthy relationships with men as
adults. We also know that there is absolutely no reason to value
the contribution of one parent over the other. Mothers and
fathers give their children different gifts, but each gives
something necessary and valuable. Are we raising a generation of
fatherless children -heaven help us when that generation decides
to pay us back.
We know that fathers who live with their children, usually work
hard to increase their incomes, while fathers who have been
banished from the day to day routines of raising their children
tend to lose the sense of meaning to put sacrificial effort and
money into the estranged mother's household. There is no
widespread problem in this country of fathers refusing to
support their children within marriage. It is unlikely that all
of these same men who have supported their children when
married, suddenly turn into deadbeats once divorced. The crux of
the issue is that when we evict fathers from their children's
lives, then tell them their only function as a father is to pay
the bills, we should not be shocked if some of them temporally
withhold support money. It is often the only leverage they can
use to see their children. Many lose heart and drift away, or
perish the thought, become criminal.
The sudden amputation of their fathering role -the hurt of cut
off visitations and the pain of partings, the sadness they feel
knowing their ex-wives new partner will see more of their
children than they -becomes unbearable for them. So they fade
out of the picture and tell themselves it is disruptive for the
children if they do. Often they gravitate towards second
families, where they can be fathers again -fathers who have the
opportunity to support their children not only in a financial
sense, but also in an emotional one.
It is important for children to maintain relationships with
their fathers and mothers. Some feminist academics, family
lawyers, lobbyists, advocates in government-funded women's
groups, the Justice Department, as well as some feminist
journalists, are arguing that what is best for women and
children is to maintain the legal status quo -mothers should be
the primary caregivers with the final say in most matters for
the children. In effect that means that mothers have dictatorial
powers regarding the children, that they are not held
accountable if they violate court orders or deny their children
contact with fathers, and that fathers will see their children
at the mother's discretion, while providing them with child
support on pain of having their wages garnisheed or their
drivers licenses and passports revoked should they fail to make
payments.
These particular kind of feminists who have controlled the
debate and the direction of legislation pertaining to "women's
issues" most often speak as if women and children are one
entity, as if the two are inextricably bound, and that what is
good for one is automatically good for the other. They assume
that fathers have nothing to do with children's issues, nor have
any place in discussions about the future of their children.
They argue that child support and access parenting should not be
linked, because children are entitled to the financial support
of both parents, regardless of the parental relationship or
parent-child contact. This view also says that there can't be a
presumption of joint custody in our divorce law, because of
widespread domestic violence. The violence thing is always
thrown in to manipulate and side-track the debate.
However, the tendency to lie, cheat, and be an unreliable
person, to act like a bully, or even a child abuser, is not
gender specific. Both men and women equally fail to fulfil their
duties in life, and as parents. But the mother as "saint and
victim", and father as "disinterested brute" still holds far too
often.
These kinds of ideas were presented to the government prior to
the passage of Bill C-41, and to members of the joint Committee
on Child Custody and Access. They have been used to encourage
the government to introduce ever more punitive measures to
punish fathers who fail to meet their support obligations, and
are at the centre of a strenuous lobbying effort designed to
prevent change in the divorce laws that would give fathers a
greater role after divorce than they are currently permitted.
This manipulative contest is also waged at the Provincial level
to deepen biases, both in statue and in social services
practice.
We know that some men walk away from their children and support
obligations, but we know little of what was done to them that
contributed to that behaviour. We also know that, statistically
so far, divorce causes women more economic hardship than men,
but it is changing. It is a sad fact that domestic violence goes
on in far too many homes. However, with all the selective
"abuse" statistics being hurled from both sides of the gender
divide, and the media's denigration of divorced fathers through
repetition of inflammatory phrases like "deadbeat dad" and
"power-monger etc" it is easy to forget that what makes a good
parent is character, not gender, and that the vast majority of
divorced parents in our communities are decent citizens who
don't shirk their obligations, and they just want to raise their
children to the best of her abilities. The media also falls into
the trap by talking about "violence against women and children",
instead of reporting on the social stain of "family violence" in
all its subtleties.
Feminists pulled down the walls of the patriarchy in part to
help create the new man -the dad who is in the delivery room
when his children are born, who enrols them in their classes,
reads them stories, nurses them when they are sick, stays home
from work for child emergencies. Ironically, the kind of man
feminists might have celebrated as an ideal father to his
children in marriage, is the same man feminists attack for not
walking away from his children except to pay the bills. For me,
that is the essential bankruptcy of the feminist position in
family law.
Feminism as I define it, is about equality, about mutuality
between the sexes, not about replacing one double standard with
another, or a patriarchal society with a matriarchal one. The
sad truth is that there's a double standard at the heart of some
feminism that is as bad as what it sought to replace. Many
feminists, who speak about women's issues in relation to
divorce, refuse to acknowledge that there is another side to the
family-law story. They may demonstrate a blinkered stone-hearted
lack of understanding and compassion for what that story might
be. What's truly best for the children of divorce is eclipsed by
a deep resentment of men. Even the institution of marriage
itself is sometimes described as oppressive for its very
existence. In other situations, there is an overshadowing anger
at ex-husbands, and the need to seek revenge against them with
an us-against-them mentality based on the idea that men are
finally getting what they deserve, and that is it is payback
time for the oppressive patriarchy. What most know but few will
admit, is that for the ex-wives who wish to exact revenge on
their ex-husbands or extort money from them, the best weapon is
the children.
Both sexes play the system using the cards that they are dealt,
and there is no question that in the "heat" of divorce, the
adversarial process can bring out the worst in everyone. But the
women to whom I am referring, cash in on the perceived moral
superiority of mothers, beat their breasts and play the victim
card all too often. They leap to the moral high ground and
appropriate the language of children's best interest to advance
mainly their own interests.
Gender politics and a certain brand of feminist rhetoric has
blinded us to the fact that most men are decent, that most make
wonderful fathers, that many make far better parents than their
female partners, and that after divorce, separation, or just
making a baby, not only do children yearn to continue to be
parented by both parents -they are entitled to be -socially and
legally. Politics and rhetoric have obscured the reality that
maintaining involved relationships with both parents is truly
best for children, except in the minority of cases where a
parent is abusing a child. It is also well documented but not
widely known, that child abusers often are mothers -pathology
and sin is not gender related.
The one-upmanship game of domestic disputes is too often played
for years through the children. PAS - Parent Alienation
Syndrome, cited by Dr. Richard Gardner, is real. In Canada, many
judges, assessors, and court authorities are ignorant of
parental alienation syndrome and of the basic empirical social
science data on the needs of children of divorce. Others are
reluctant to dispute the court's prejudices about the inviolate
mother-child bond. Our Committee recommendation number 8 tried
to bury the "tender years doctrine" forever. In addition, the
idea that women are incapable of wickedness permeates our legal
system. In the courtroom setting, "the presumption of innocence
rule" has taken a major hit in a misguided attempt to have
sensitivity to witnesses who are seen as particularly
vulnerable. Children are unreasonably treated as truth tellers
for the purpose of mother's claims.
As a result, the crime of parental alienation -and I really
think it is a crime, -is going unpunished. Parental alienation
is also largely a silent crime, one that exists in the public
consciousness precisely where the crimes of domestic assault an
child abuse existed years ago. We once considered those problems
private family matters and dirty linen. Today we know better.
Because of the subtle and sometimes unconscious nature of the
programming for children, parental alienation syndrome is
extremely difficult to prove in court. Yet even when the
evidence is plain and the syndrome can be proven, the odds are
overwhelming the court will do nothing. Having turned a blind
eye to the problem while it is happening, the Court would most
likely say that once the children were programmed to hate their
father, there was nothing it could do. The defence is "the kids
just don't want to be with him". The Courts almost never remove
a child from the custody of an alienating mother. This deeply
rooted belief, that mothers are morally untouchable and children
of divorce are better off with them, almost regardless of the
circumstances, is a too prevalent notion that we must overcome
for our children's sake.
The judicial system tends to hurt men and women in different
ways. Because it favours the litigant with the deepest pockets,
men are usually perceived to have the upper hand in divorce
court in the financial realm, and sometimes that is the case.
However, it is also the case that many women can qualify for
legal aid, while their husbands are driven into bankruptcy
battling the infinite resources of the state. Men are at a clear
disadvantage in seeking custody through the Courts, and they are
more likely to be held accountable for violating a Court Order,
which is usually for support. Men are also far more vulnerable
to false allegations brought before the Courts.
Many men who wish to protect their rights to a relationship with
their children now know they cannot just leave the home when
their marriage dissolves. For their wives, making false
allegations against them has become an all too easy way to get
them out of the house, to gain the advantage in the battle for
property and child custody. Family lawyers regularly see clients
who are using the criminal justice system to help them
tactically in family law proceedings. As members of the Joint
Commons - Senate Committee, we heard horror stories of false
allegations, that my colleague from the opposite Liberal side of
the House and one of the joint chairpersons of the Committee,
was led to speak in the press, saying that the Divorce Act is
becoming an instrument of the Criminal Code.
In some reported cases, lawyers coached female clients to
provoke an incident. Get him to loose his temper -get him to
shove you or hit you. Sadly the term abuse is now so broadly
defined that a man can be permanently evicted from his home for
stamping his foot and yelling at his wife in the heat of a
domestic argument, behaviour that while socially offensive,
hardly warrants the intervention of the police. The "no
discretion policy" when police are at the door of the house has
not curtailed domestic violence, but has brought the justice
system into disrepute. For that reason, lawyers routinely advise
male clients, particularly those still living in the matrimonial
home, to scrupulously avoid situations that could result in a
nuisance charge, and to photocopy and keep safely outside the
house any documents they might need in a divorce action.
In recent years police have responded to complaints of spousal
abuse more zealously, laying charges even in the absence of
supporting evidence, or even indications of the contrary. The
politics of the matter has resulted in provincial Attorneys
General issuing directives to the justice system to proceed on
any domestic and sexual assault complaint, and that the normal
and prudent standards of investigation have been suspended. We
see occasions when charges have been brought forward to
Provincial Court when there was really nothing but a vindictive
motive and no real assault incident. Too often the male is
assaulted, and he might respond within the lmits of the law of
the most minimal force necessary to defend himself and prevent
further assault, but the standards of law change from outside
the home to inside the home. While sadly, there are male
"controllers" who use various methods of intimidation and
violence behind closed doors to control the spouse, women do it
too.
Some judges, confronted with abuse allegations have tended to
operate on the assumptions that it is better to be safe than
sorry. Caution may prevent tragedies, and has the added
advantage of protecting judges from criticism by women's groups
or the media. Once charged, a man will often be handcuffed and
removed from his home, often in front of his children, then
forced to spend the night in jail, have a restraining order
slapped against him, or bail conditions set that restricts him
from returning, except to collect his personal effects. Although
the charges against him may be uncorroborated, he will be guilty
until proven innocent. If the charges are ultimately dismissed,
the damage to his reputation will be done. The stories are
legion of fathers whose lives have been destroyed by malicious
allegations, but it is virtually unheard of for the woman who
falsely accuse them to be held accountable.
(Part two to follow)
This phenomena has turned out to be a boon for a certain type
of woman, not to mention a certain type of lawyer for whom any
tactic, no matter how morally rank, seems justifiable, in the
vigorous pursuit of the client's interests. Some women don't
need to pay for such advice; they are becoming wise to the
opportunities now afforded them in the law.
Many feminists have not been willing to admit that such women
exist, let alone say that their actions cause irreparable harm,
or that they should be held responsible for their reprehensible
acts. Instead, they attack those who voice contrary views, as
merely anti-feminist mouthpieces for the fathers rights groups,
who are just a bunch of angry men who can't admit their
problems. Even Senator Ann Cools who served on the Committee
with me, and who was a pioneer of the Canadian women's movement
and helped found one of the first women's shelters in Canada,
was tagged with the "anti-feminist" moniker for speaking out
against feminist bias.
Fathers groups have for years been trying to raise public
awareness about the issue of false allegations, along with
injustices that divorced fathers and their children face, but
the media have been highly sceptical of the claims of men they
perceive to be mostly angry marginalized, and misogynist.
It is no coincidence that it took a female Senator with a
history of feminism to bring them to national attention. On
these matters men have been silenced in our culture. Men are
simply not perceived to have the credibility to speak about
issues of sexual politics, even though the debate dramatically
affects their lives. And while some fathers groups attract
women-hating extremists, just as some women's groups thrive on
man-hatred, most of the politically active fathers I have met
are dedicated individuals, putting in long hours at their own
expense to change attitudes, and without funding from any level
of government, to make their voice heard.
I have said quite often publicly, that the family law system in
Canada is in a mess. Indeed, the picture that emerged from the
Committee's hearings was one of a system designed to serve the
interests of the legal establishment, while treating with
contempt, the citizens who desperately need its help and are
paying for its operation. We as Committee members heard of a
system rife with vested interests, where judicial discretion is
often synonymous with judicial bias, where perjury in affidavits
is rampant and goes unpunished, and where bringing false charges
to gain advantage has become frequent, and where scorched earth
tactics are so common that lawyers regularly attend professional
development seminars on how to combat them.
I have seen normal people become neurotic, and neurotic people
become psychotic, as a direct result of embroilment in
adversarial proceedings associated with their divorces. I
encountered uninterested lazy and uncommitted judges, or ones
with very strange social attitudes, during my years as an expert
witness. While not all lawyers exploit their clients by
encouraging protracted litigation, some divorce lawyers are
overtly extreme with absolutely no appreciation of the grief
they are causing children.
Lawyers are fond of saying that they're only acting on their
client's instructions, and therefore it's really the clients who
are to blame when divorce cases turn ugly. While the excuse that
"I was only acting on my client's instructions" conveniently
lets lawyers of the hook for any conduct, it ignores the fact
that client's lives are in pieces and they are emotional wrecks.
Thus scared and confused, the vast majority do exactly as
they're advised to do by their lawyers. They have entered
foreign intimidating territory and much is at stake. Some are
hell-bent on revenge for real or imagined marital pain, or for
all the broad disappointments of their lives. Some are walking
time bombs of repressed rage and have finally found the perfect
forum to act it out. Those are the clients who go looking for a
hired gun -an unscrupulous lawyer.
The process is so brutal that many are reduced to a
dysfunctional state where they become easy prey for those
manipulative lawyers masquerading behind fancy credentials for
whom the fee, the right fee, and the win is everything. Most
parents who turn to the Court system at this traumatic time in
their lives have little idea what lies ahead. They enter the
system, wishing they did not have to be there, but innately
respectful of the process and believing that if they have the
evidence and just tell the truth, justice will prevail. Whether
they win or lose in the end, typically they emerge from the
experience unspeakably angry at the process that appears to have
little to do with justice, and they remain with the feeling that
they have been fleeced. How much they spend before the scales
fall from their eyes seems to depend on how much they have.
The law may appear arcane and beyond the understanding of mere
mortals, but, stripped of its cumbersome, obfuscating language
and forms in triplicate, what family lawyers do is not rocket
science and is made to seem far more complicated than it is. The
staggering amount of money people are forced to spend to
dissolve their marriages is the main reason we are unlikely to
see initiatives for reform coming from the family law community.
It is they who are the chief beneficiaries of the current
system. We cannot rely on the legal profession to clean its own
house, nor to protect us from unscrupulous lawyering. Judges and
lawyers by virtue of their background, their training, and
sometimes their personalities, are hardly the best professionals
to deal with family issues. A short course for lawyers to become
certified family mediators, poorly serves the community. And the
court system, the blunt instrument that it is, is the worst
possible place to bring a family in crisis. And the most ethical
lawyers, those who care about their client's problems and are
sincerely dedicated to solving them in the most expeditious
manner possible -are powerless to help within a system that
consistently rewards the unscrupulous.
The judicial system is fundamentally an adversarial forum based
on competing rights, where two spouses are forced to duke it out
and where one can carry on a personal vendetta against the other
indefinitely, given the will and enough cash. Anyway you look at
it, such a system is damaging to children. So are words like
"custody", "access", "visitation", "primary parent","day to day
care and control parent" - language which only reinforces the
terrible idea that children are property, and that in divorce,
one of the parents becomes more important and powerful to the
children, to the child's psychological detriment.
Canada is seriously lagging behind other western countries in
divorce reform. The trend in other western countries such as
Britain and Australia and in certain American states such as
Washington and California, tries to get parents out of the
courts and around a table where they work out a parenting plan
as part of the process. These jurisdictions have shifted the
focus of their divorce process from parental rights and wants,
to parental responsibilities and children's rights. -which is
the direction in which our thinking must turn. If couples were
told that they must come up with a parenting plan that is based
on some form of co-operative parenting, and that if they can't,
it will be imposed on them, they'd be better served than they
are by the options available to them now.
Parents need a forum where they can take the ongoing problems
that inevitably arise. Fathers who want to co-parent should be
allowed to do so, while those who feel insecure should be
encouraged to take it on. More fathers need to come forward and
defend and protect their children from poor mothers. Mothers who
are not really very good caregivers should be able to admit it
and work out a more appropriate role as a parent. Keeping both
parents actively involved in their children's lives after
divorce is not only better for children, its better in the long
term for parents and the community. Joint parenting also means
that fathers should not automatically be expected to leave the
home after divorce.
Any form of alternative dispute resolution will be useless,
however, unless it's mandatory and timely, unless it involves
binding arbitration and enforcement of decisions, and unless
both parents are held accountable, as much for defaults on
support obligations as for denying children contact with their
parents. Committing perjury and making false allegations should
be considered serious offences. Parents who are given guidance
but continue to demonstrate that they won't exercise their
parental obligations responsibly, should lose those privileges.
Criminal court is the place to deal with criminal matters
-charges of child abuse, or domestic violence or parental
alienation.
As I wrote in the Joint Committee report, changes should be
based on what we know children need. That means paying attention
to our common sense, to the social science literature, and to
what children of divorce tell us, not what judges with
preconceived notions or assessors with vested interest or
special-interest groups with political agendas would have us
believe children need. The whole concept of child support should
be broadened to include emotional as well as financial benefits.
Children need parents who support them not only with money but
also with love. We punish parents who don't pay their child
support, but do nothing to ensure that children receive the
other kind of support they need, even though children are
probably far more able to cope with a lower standard of living
than with losing the guidance and model of a loving parent.
The process of divorce must offer fair value for the dollar and
lie within the financial grasp of the average citizen. Families
suffering the trauma of a divorce are already facing tremendous
stresses and downward mobility; and they should not have to
drain their life savings to dissolve their marriages, nor should
their children be robbed of their inheritances.
As a society, we have to face our fears, examine our prejudices,
and begin talking about these questions, however disturbing or
uncomfortable they may be. These are questions that concern us
all, whether being involved in divorce or not. In the end we
cannot legislate that people be good parents. But we can protect
those who want to be, and ensure that the children of divorce
continue to be nourished by all those who love them.
Divorce should not be reduced to a gender issue, as it is rather
a societal and human issue. To speak of divorce is to speak
about matters of the heart and soul that reside at the centre of
everything we cherish. They reflect the values we hold as a
society, and they distinguish the path we want to establish for
the next generation. If we hope to prepare our children well for
their journey down that path, we cannot avoid the fact, that on
this issue we are failing them, and that we have to
fundamentally change our thinking and our practices around
divorce.
Divorce is about loss, about being cut loose from the moorings
of a former life, forced to watch helplessly as the shore
recedes, never sure that one will make it back to solid ground.
It is one of the most traumatic calamities that can befall a
family. In addition to the sordid, unseemly mess of it, a
divorce brings pain, anger, vengefulness, and deep wounds. We do
not need to add to that agony. We do not have to destroy
completely a family already crippled by marriage breakdown. We
must deal with the devastating realties of divorce, wisely and
intelligently and compassionately. We owe it to ourselves and to
our children to see that we do.
I have painted the picture. But what can we in this very room do
about it. We can have conferences like this one. We can lobby
our Member's of Parliament. But most of all, we can look at what
we know is right, then ask ourselves -"how much do we want to
change things?" What are we prepared to do, to defend what is
right against those who now have control, and who dominate the
national policy agenda. I tell you, the ultimate answer is a
political one.
Do you want just more of the same? -I think not! Wake up and
make a political judgement, a report card for performance if you
will. Ask seriously, who is committed in Ottawa to give you what
you want? What Party and MPs speak for you? If we don't like
what we have, why would we continue to support those who are
directly responsible for the unsavoury situation that we have?
Remember that all we have had in Parliament, is Liberal and
Conservative governments -they are responsible and must be held
accountable for what we have today.
I call upon you in this room to action. We will hear a lot in
the next two days of this conference, that we should galvanise
our commitment to real action. It is about how we define
ourselves as Canadians. Who reflects us in Parliament, -who will
change the laws to give us our vision?
I have painted the picture that we now have. In closing remember
-my parliamentary colleagues in my Party are unequivocally
committed to deliver a new vision of fairness and equality. Give
us 150 MPs who are of like mind, and overnight we will change
"what we have", into "what can be" for the 21st century. |
Teachers
would be necessary to stop the present use of our Schools for
Political Indoctrination by Activists. See also
