The Canadian Parliament MUST:

1. Impress on the Canadian Courts  the Supremacy of Parliament, as  expressed in the legislation of the  Canadian Parliament.  Judges  are not  the "New Priests" of Canada, creating their own "Law" and ruling by "Divine Right". (Judges are New Priests) ; 2000-xx-xx  "The Charter Revolution & The Court Party" They may not hijack the legislative process in the execution of the PUBLIC TRUST placed in them to ADMINISTER our LEGISLATION created in Parliament.

2. Put into Law and practice the major components of  48 Recommendations  such as the equality of male and female parents.  It seems the Charter, the trump law of Canadian legislation has been too easily ignored by those entrusted with the administration of our Canadian legislation.

3. Purge the law and practice of  the "Child Support Guidelines" of feminarcissism and hyperbolic reasoning. and make mothers equally burdened by it.

The most outrageous example of Judges usurping the role of Parliament is, of course  these "New Priests"  making the false claim  that the Charter's  protection against discrimination based on "sex" means protection against discrimination based on "sexual orientation".  Does the Charter  protect sexual orientations such as  polygamists, pedophiles and bestiality?  Of course not! 

What the Charter DOES say is:

S.15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, SEX, age or mental or physical disability.

S.28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to MALE and FEMALE persons.

The Charter makes absolutely NO REFERENCE to SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  This is simply a wish of the Judiciary they have read into the Charter, while  ignoring the clear wishes of the Electorate.  On this point they have simply been taking care of their own.  See: Egan v. Canada

Similarly the Family Law Judges, in BC especially, typically ignore the Statutes of Parliament in the Divorce Act, which require Judges to remove custodial rights of a Parent who will not use those rights to maintain the relationship with the other parent, usually the mother, and assign those rights to the other parent, usually the father.

The Charter's usage of the word "sex" is as the common usage of "gender".  The Charter's clear intent is that there to be no discrimination between male and female, even in such questions as Parenting.   The Courts are driven inexorably towards Equal Parenting by the Charter, the "Supreme Law of Canada".  And yet they do not comply with our instructions to them in the Statutes of a duly elected Parliament.   

More...  Issues

Saskatchewan's changes after Truciuk's SCC win

On May 12, 2004, Bill-49, An Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act, 1995, was introduced and read for the first time in the Saskatchewan Legislature. The proposed amendments fail Saskatchewan fathers and children.

The proposed amendments to section 5 of the Act is an attempt by the government to remove the unconstitutional term ‘unacknowledged’ from the Act, has found by the Supreme Court of Canada in Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General) 2003 SCC 34 and further acknowledged by the Attorney General for Saskatchewan in the matter of Giles v. Beisel SKQB 49 of 2002 (decision not yet pronounced).

The proposed amendments will still allow a father not to be named on his child’s birth registration and by extension, will still preclude a father from participating in the naming of his child. This loophole is found by allowing a mother to state that a father is ‘incapable’ when registering the birth of a child.

The Act defines ‘incapable’ as "unable to act because of death, illness, absence from the Saskatchewan, or otherwise". It is open for interpretation as to what is meant when the term "otherwise" is used when stating that a father is incapable of completing his child’s birth registration.

If a father is found to be ‘incapable’ at the time the birth registration is completed and then later applies to correct the erroneous information in the original birth registration of his child, a father is still precluded from having his particulars added to his child’s original birth registration by s. 28(3) of the Act:

Further, if a father is ‘incapable’ at the time of the original registration of birth and is later found to be the father of the child, the father is still precluded in participating in the naming of the child, specifically the child’s surname, without the consent of the mother. This does not address the finding of the Supreme Court of Canada in Trociuk, supra at para. 42:

Section 5 of the Act currently states, in part:

1. the mother and father of the child;
2. the child’s mother, if the father is incapable or is unacknowledged by or unknown to the mother;
3. the child’s father if the mother is incapable;
4. if both parents are incapable, or if the mother is incapable and the father is unacknowledged by or unknown to the mother, the person standing in the place of the parents of the child; or
5. if there is no person to whom clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) applies, any person who has knowledge of the birth of the child.

1. the child’s mother and father together;
2. the child’s mother, if the father is incapable or is unacknowledged by or unknown to the mother; or
3. the child’s father, if the mother is incapable.

    

Bill-49 would repeal subsection 5(2) in its entirety, to be replaced with the following:

1. the mother or the father of the child or both;
2. if both the mother and father are incapable, the person standing in the place of the parents of the child; or
3. if there is no person to whom clause (a) or (b) applies, any person who has knowledge of the birth of the child.

Bill-49 would amend subsection 5(3) to read:

Biill-49 would repeal clause 7(b) and replaced as follows:

1. the child’s mother and father together;
2. the child’s mother, if the father is incapable; or
3. the child’s father, if the mother is incapable.

Prior to the introduction of Bill-49, the Saskatchewan government introduced Bill-25, The Adoption Amendment Act, 2004 and Bill-26, The Adoption Consequential Amendment Act, 2004.

The proposed amendment changes the definition of ‘birth father’ to include all biological fathers, regardless of their circumstances and relation to the birth mother. As the Minister responsible for Bill-25 states, "the birth mother and birth father definition are aligned together to reflect equity in being assessed as a birth parent … the amendment represents a recognition of the rights of birth fathers in planning for their biological father."

Although this is a positive step in attempting to recognize equality between both biological birth parents, the proposed amendments to The Vital Statistics Act defeats this purpose by still allowing a biological father to be ‘unacknowledged’ by virtue of being ‘incapable’, which can be any reason that the Director deems this definition to be.

Bill-25 eliminates the use of the ‘Affidavit of Birth Mother’ as an attempt to ‘unacknowledge’ a birth father of the child. The Minister admitted that this was indeed happening with the use of this affidavit, as "the affidavit has been used far more often than anticipated and the department has concerns that it is being used by birth mothers to unacknowledge a birth father." This very fact was stated and argued in full during my NCQ hearing.

However, even though the use of an affidavit is being eliminated, a mother can make an ex parte application to a court to dispense with informing the birth father of the impending adoption of his child. Although there are legitimate reasons for not informing the birth father of the impending adoption of his child (sexual assault, incest or anonymous sperm donor, the same legitimate reasons for not naming a father on the birth registration), the door is left open for a birth mother to make false allegations, which are rampant in family law proceedings, to preclude a birth father from opposing the adoption of his child. As the Minister states, reasons may include "safety concerns … or stalling tactics" for not informing the father of adoption proceedings, with the ultimate decision left to a judge.

Additionally, the proposed amendments do not address the current loopholes found in Part VI of The Children’s Law Act, 1997. Subsections 43(9) and (10) preclude a father from making an application to the court for a finding of parentage once his child has been placed for adoption. It will be interesting to see if further bills are introduced to repeal these subsections.

The current Bills before the Saskatchewan Legislature do not address the constitutional defects addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Trociuk v. British Columbia. Bill-49 still allows a father to be ‘unacknowledged’ on his child’s birth registration by using the loophole ‘incapable’; it still allows the original birth registration not to be altered to include the father’s particulars; and it still impairs a father’s right to participate in the naming of his child. Bill-25 will still allow a mother to make false allegations to the court to ensure that a father will not participate in the adoption proceedings of his child.

Although the Minister stated, in introducing Bill-25, "the need for these amendments … became more apparent following the recent Supreme Court decision in Trociuk versus British Columbia", it is readily apparent that the two current Bills fall short of addressing the issues raised and spoken to by the Supreme Court of Canada and will necessitate further litigation before the courts to address the both constitutional defects found in these bills and the current constitutional defects found in the current statutes that are not addressed in these Bills.

In British Columbia,  the  Provincial Legislature MUST:

1. Impress on the BC Courts & BC legal community the Supremacy of Parliament, as  expressed in the legislation of duly elected BC and Canadian Parliaments.  Judges are civil servants, subordinate to democratically elected Parliamentarians, not  the "New Priests" of Canada. (Judges are New Priests)  Their powers are held In Trust, on behalf of the Electorate.  They may not hijack public office and public funds to effect their own secret, political goals.

2. Eliminate the public funding of the ubiquitous father-hatred groups.  Reallocate a portion of these funds for gender neutral, equal-parenting groups, particularly those assisting fathers being victimized by the existing process.

3. Pass the Legislation blocked by SOW Making  False Witnesses punishable in Family Law.  This recommendation was in the For the Sake of the Children Report until the opposition to it by by Hedy Fry and others was so fierce, it was dropped just before going back to Parliament.  Nevertheless, False Accusations to gain sole custody MUST be dealt with severely to  protect a child's parental and family relationships.   Family reassignment, like sexual reassignment must be deferred until the child is older and can make their own choices.

4. Make British Columbia  legislation gender-neutral to comply with the "Supreme law of Canada" the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.  BC Judges do not always ignore unconstitutional provincial legislation, as the Charter requires them to do. 

5. Revise it's Vital Statistics Act in compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada's instructions after Trociuk.  To our knowledge, the BC Legislature has not complied with the SCC's instructions and ended the practice of allowing mother to declare fathers "unacknowledged".

6. Enforce custody and monetary orders of mothers and fathers equally. 

7. Demand monetary orders of mothers and fathers equally. 

8. Ideally, eliminate the need for monetary orders and the legal burdens they place on families by supporting  Equal Parenting, as they are required to do by the Canadian Charter of Rights.  As Equal Parenting is is given effect generally to protect the children of British Columbia from state sponsored family vandalism, many, many jobs at FMEP and Ministry of Children and Families will be eliminated creating savings which can be reallocated to real needs such as Health Care. 

9. Dismantle and privatize the intended functions of Family Services apostate femocentric civil servants, and bar them from re-entry into publicly funded bodies.  A new, initially minimalistic, gender-neutral Ministry of support for distressed families needs to be built from the ground up.

10. Reallocate or eliminate existing  Provincial funding for the ubiquitous Femi-Narcissist father-hatred groups.  Families, Fathers and Children will benefit immediately every time the Femi-Narcissists' funding is CUT!

Draft Bill Amending The BC Family Relations Act (RSBC 1996)

AN ACT to amend the Family Relations Act (RSBC 1996) relative to children brought before any court in British Columbia.

SECTION 1.

The Family Relations Act (RSBC 1996), is amended by deleting the current language in its entirety, and by substituting the following:

(i) When parents coming before a court in BC agree to joint parenting of their children, the court shall order joint guardianship, and joint physical and legal parenting, with no "custodial" parent designated, nor lawful use by the courts of BC of the term 'custody', nor 'access' relative to parents and their own children. The court will presume that blood relation is of sufficient significance to the child or children as to be a mandatory and presumptively inalienable part of the child's heritage.

(ii) The courts of British Columbia will assume and interpret the 'best interests of the child' as best known to the parents of the child. If both the parents agree one should have sole parenting for a specified period, the court shall order sole parenting to the agreed upon parent, and joint guardianship.

(iii) If both parents request sole parenting to the exclusion of the other, or one requests sole parenting and the other requests joint parenting, the court shall order joint physical parenting, with 'legal parenting authority and joint guardianship' alternating between parents. While a parent has the ordered legal parenting as defined in the previous sentence, or in any other term of this Act, such parent is the sole parent and joint guardian for the duration of the schedule.

(iv) The court has the widest discretion in setting the timing and duration of legal parenting alternations, which shall result in a substantially equal schedule, unless one parent agrees to their own parenting schedule being less than equal.

(v) A court may deviate from the substantial equality required by Part (iv) only if clear and convincing evidence proves it places a child in imminent danger of substantial harm or unconscionable neglect. For determining a substantially equal parenting schedule, this shall include the division of parenting time from when a court is first requested to exercise parens patriaie jurisdiction to settle a contentious difference over the parenting of a child, or children.

(vi) With every resource at its disposal, a court shall favour the natural parents of a child with every consideration to assist them, as and if necessary, in the completion of their parenting duties against any others interests in their children.

(vii) In the absence of one or both of the parents, the court shall seek to settle a child, or children of a union between a male and female persons, equitably first with the child's grandparents, next with siblings of the missing parent or parents, next by blood relation, next by godparents, each in due consideration of their willingness and capacity to act in loco parentis, and lastly by public or private charitable organizations, and in consideration of their willingness to support whatever family structure and blood relationship as may endure for the children

SECTION 2

a) A person who, without lawful excuse, interferes with the parenting of, or access to, a child in respect of whom an order for shared parenting or access was made or is enforceable under this Act commits an offence.

SECTION 3

This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.