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

Guy Fawkes thumbnail

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


Testimonials Area Home

A Judge's Story
Andrade, Franklin, Montreal
Armstrong, Brian
Bailey, Russell , RIP
Brown, Arthur
Carlin, Sara, RIP:  Death by Anti-Depressant
Cino, Sam
Conway, Maurice
Crockford Scott v RCMP
Deadbeat Dad or Mum
Dexel Mark Edward RIP
Duplessis Orphans:  Nazi Experiments
England, Jonathan Vs Lesbian Lover
Earle, Shane: Mount Cashel, NL
Fleury , Theoren: Sexual Abuse
Fredrickson, Rick RIP, Sask
Gonis, Frank & Ashley
Imputed Income Testimonials
Jeffery,  Hal & Danica
Kempling, Dr. Chris
Lohstroh, Rick, RIP: Mother Ass'd Patricide
M
Mabbot, Mel
Manley, Perry, RIP:  RIP:  Suicide-by-Cop
McLaughlin,Terry -  RIP
Millar, Wrongful Arrest
Murtari, John
Prejean, Carrie, Miss CA, "Tolerance...
Prior, Byron: Sexual Abuse by Public Officer
Renouf, Andy - RIP
Samson, Pierre:  Duplessis Orphans
Sielski, Paul:  Debtor’s Prison, Imputed Income
Street, Wilbur - RIP
Thornton: Womens' Threats
Trociuk, Darrel - SCC
White, Darren - RIP
Wiebe, Ken  v Status of Women
Winkler, Matthew-RIP:  Homicidal Moms
Deadbeat Dad or Mum
Fathers 4 Justice
Fathers Thrown into Poverty
MY LONG DISTANCE LIFE

Father Suicide Directory







Jeffery, Hal & Danica: Imputed Income, Debtor's Prison

Hal was a Widower and had a daughter, Danica, from a previous marriage.  He then had two children with a new wife who left him when they were toddlers. (She was reported to have taken up with her Courtenay lawyer.) When our BC Family Courts put Hal through it's torments of Imputed Income, Gleaned Wages, State Imposed Homelessness, and Debtor's Prison, they imposed these same torments on his daughter Danica, then a Tween. Hal points out the Support Tables assume the only children to support are the Payee's children.  You can see where that left Hal & Danica:  homeless and dependent on the kindnesses of neighbors.

More... Imputed Income
Jeffery Hal's Testimonial;
Hall Jeffery's Danica Petition

"Desperate Husbands", by Stephen Perrine

2006-06-18  Keeping Divorced Dads at a Distance, Stephen Perrine,  Stephen Perrine, the editor in chief of Best Life magazine, is the author of the forthcoming "Desperate Husbands."(Thanks, Paul Forseth)

EVERY other weekend for the past four and a half years, I've spent three precious days with my two adolescent daughters. We play tennis in summer, ski in winter, travel when the school schedule allows. But no matter where we are, we're all keenly aware of the thin membrane of secrecy that keeps us from being as close as we were before their mom and I divorced.
<Equal Parenting eliminates this!!!>

Like most divorced fathers, I'm caught in exactly the kind of nightmarish situation that experts on stress say to avoid — a great deal of responsibility, but very little power.I'm the major source of support for my children; my financial obligations are set by the state, and my wages automatically garnished. (If I lost my job tomorrow, and couldn't keep up with my payments, a warrant for my arrest would be issued within two months.) But my influence over how my daughters are being raised is limited, sometimes by decisions their mother makes that I have no input into, and sometimes by their allegiance to her when she and I are at odds.    ...  They'll forget to tell me some detail of their lives — or downright lie if they have to — so I won't feel sad that I've missed something they shared with their mom, or raise issue over some decision she's made with which I might not agree. As a result, I sometimes come away from visits or phone calls feeling shaken, saddened and angry.   My ex and I have been to court over support issues, and we've been to court over custody issues, and the legal battles inevitably trap our children in the middle and force them to choose sides. Sadly, this is exactly what not to do if you want to foster a loving parent-child bond. In a study by a child psychologist,   ...

The first step toward fostering a father and child reunion is to make private mediation of the parenting provisions (physical custody, legal custody and visiting) the standard procedure. Allowing parents the chance to negotiate their support — and possibly give fathers more of a say in how their support is spent — will decrease the vitriol, and let fathers feel more like parents, not just paychecks.

Second, we need to enact and enforce sensible penalties for interfering with visits. Jailing a mother is no way to solve the dispute; neither are financial penalties that hurt her ability to care for the child. But mediation — perhaps compelled by the threat of financial penalty — might be the solution. It's estimated that one in five children of divorce has not seen his or her father in the past year. Without substantial rethinking of our current support and custody law, children will continue to be alienated from their fathers, and lawyers will remain on hand to soak up the resulting legal fees.



Just this month, I received a summons to attend a custody conference at the Allentown, Pa., courthouse, and another letter informing me that an accounting error has left me short on support payments, and that my passport may be suspended. I want to shield my daughters from these harsh truths. So these are the secrets I'll be trying to keep from them as we gather together for Father's Day.  What secrets will they be keeping from me?

Stephen Perrine, the editor in chief of Best Life magazine, is the author of the forthcoming "Desperate Husbands."

For more... canadacourtwatch.com

My name is M.

 

Dear Editors at the CBC,

My name is M. and I am a father of two young children, and I live in Burnaby, BC.

Last year I went through a divorce trial in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in front of Justice Duncan Shaw . (This is the same Justice that struck down the part of the criminal code that said possessing child pornography was a crime). Although I have a good job, I was not able to afford a lawyer in my two-week trial, and there was no legal aid to help me. I was slaughtered in that trial by the ex-wife's legal aid lawyer and and also by the Judge. The Judge rendered a judgment only hours after the trial ended, and he also announced he had a verdict part-way through the trial! The judgment itself is a litany of contradictions and contraventions to the Divorce Act. It was the worst custody Judgment I have ever read, and I have read most every published family judgment from the Supreme Court of BC for the last 5 years. It is no wonder that the Shaw J REFUSES to publish my judgment. I am trying to Appeal it because of the flagrant abuses of the law and proceedings in that judgment. But alas, I have even less money now (I am in debt beyond my means to repay) and I am trying to take on the Appeals Court by myself. Believe me, this is the most stressful and upsetting thing I have ever done, and I wont be surprised if I land in hospital because of this.

However, to the bigger picture. This country's CHILDREN NEED EQUAL PARENTING. What I mean by that is there should be a presumption in law that children NEED (require, can't exist without, etc) both the Mother and the Father EQUALLY. Although this is hinted at in the Divorce Act, it is a well known fact that it is abused to the fullest extent by, in the most part, mothers, their lawyers, and the Judges that condone and promote this. This is in effect tantamount to abuse of children, and in no way reflects on the best interests of the children. When judges are finding that the majority of fathers seeking custody (joint or sole) and equal access are actually loving, caring and competent, (and even more so than the mothers in many cases) the Judges must fight back even harder to vilify the father and remove custody from him. Thus reducing the father's role in a post-separation family to be a pay check and a casual visitor of his very own children. The children only suffer because of this.

Family law in this country has gotten way out of control, especially in BC and Ontario. We need to legislate a law that requires parents to have joint custody and equal access to the children, and that anything otherwise will require a very high threshold of proof to remove that from one of the parents. Take for example the proposed legislation in the state of Tennessee. This is the right way to do it: equal, simple, and effective. What ever happened to the report "For the Sake of the Children?" that I heard so much about a few years ago, but it has disappeared. Why is the government pushing through legislation to protect and enhance other groups' rights in Canada, but however completely ignoring anything to do with protecting our Children's rights, after separation or divorce. If about 50% of marriages end up in divorces, that would imply that there are a lot of children out there who would be affected and would benefit from protection of their rights. It would be much more than the number of people in the other groups that are successfully getting what they want. One reason for this is that the children don't have a strong voice... after all they are children. The few people that publicly triumph children's rights (for example equal parenting advocates and the Honourable Senator Anne Cools) are not heard adequately by the media. But biggest reason is that the Family law industry (and it is an industry) is massive and huge amounts of money get put into the pockets of the legal industry and taken out of the mouths of children. Judges and lawyers don't want to find themselves out of very lucrative work, so they promote and strengthen the adversarial role of family law. Our government needs to step in and get rid of this abuse.

I want this issue to be part of this coming election and I think that we need much more media exposure on the plight of court-ordered fatherless children. Please address this issue in your broadcasts and when you interview the politicians for this election.

The future of Canada is our children. If they are subject to abuse by the highest levels of Government and Judiciary, then we will have a sorry state of affairs indeed.

Respectfully yours,   M.,   Father
 

 

Child-porn law is struck down by B.C. judge, 1999-01-16

Criminal Code ban on possession
violates Charter of Rights, ruling says

by Jane Armstrong The Globe &ampl Mail Saturday, January 16, 1999

VANCOUVER -- The British Columbia Supreme Court has struck down a section of the Criminal Code that outlaws the possession of child pornography, ruling that the law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The invasion of freedom of expression and personal privacy is profound", Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw wrote in a 33-page judgment released yesterday.

"The intrusion into freedom of expression and the right of privacy is so profound that it is not outweighed by the limited beneficial effects of the prohibition."

The judgment is binding only in British Columbia, but other provinces can look to it for guidance. Geoffrey Gaul, a spokesman for Attorney-General Ujjal Dosanjh, said the province will decide next week whether to appeal.

Police in B.C. said they are concerned about the decision.

"The consensus in the law-enforcement community is that child pornography is a serious issue," said RCMP Sergeant Russ Grabb. "However, Charter rights are paramount in this country."

The judgment stems from a case against a Vancouver man, John Robin Sharpe, who faced four charges stemming from two arrests.

In the first case, Canada Customs officials seized computer disks titled Sam Paloc's Flogging, Fun and Fortitude, and A Collection of Kiddie Kink Classics. The next spring, police raided Mr. Sharpe's home and seized books, manuscripts, stories and photographs.

Mr. Sharpe was charged with two counts of possessing child pornography and two counts of possession for the purpose of distributing and selling the material.

Mr. Sharpe represented himself in court, arguing that both sets of charges violated his constitutional rights.

The Crown presented evidence that children are abused during the manufacture of pornographic material. The court also heard from an expert that child pornography perpetuates an illegal and immoral assumption that child-adult sex can be natural and does not harm children.

Judge Shaw held that a person's private home and belongings, such as books, diaries, pictures and clothes, are an important expression of an individual's identity. To prohibit an individual from possessing child pornography is too great an intrusion on individual freedom, he ruled.

To forbid an individual to simply possess pornography singles out collectors who are simply interested in pornography, but who don't harm anyone, he ruled.

He also held that other sections of the Criminal Code protect children from abuse and exploitation arising from pornography.

In striking down the Criminal Code provision against possession, Judge Shaw also appeared to agree with a theory that sexual aggressors or pedophiles use child pornography to masturbate and "relieve pent-up sexual tension" instead of preying on children, thereby posing less of a threat to them.

"Whether or not this cathartic effect outweighs the harm caused by the possession of pornography is not known, but it is nonetheless a significant factor to take into account."

However, Judge Shaw upheld laws prohibiting the sale and distribution of child pornography.

Pornography critics were angered by the decision, arguing that the possession of child pornography is not a harmless act.

Shari Graydon, executive director of MediaWatch, a group monitoring depictions of women and girls in the media, said allowing individuals to possess child pornography is tantamount to condoning the sexual exploitation of children.

"The very existence of pornography featuring children, on some level, condones and normalizes and makes acceptable the sexual objectification of children, which most people will categorically agree is not appropriate and is not acceptable and should not be condoned."

A spokesman for federal Justice Minister Anne McLellan said that the federal department had not had time to study the decision, but pointed out that the decision on an appeal must come from the provincial Attorney-General.

Private Purposes

"First and foremost, the invasion of freedom of expression and personal privacy is profound.

"Further, the prohibition extends to all persons including those who make no harmful use of pornography. The prohibition also includes pedophiles, who, instead of preying on children, use pornography for very private purposes, such as relief from their affliction by masturbation.

"As noted earlier, sexually explicit pornography is used to relieve pent-up sexual tension of otherwise potential aggressors. Whether or not this cathartic effect outweighs the harm caused by the possession of pornography is not known, but it is nonetheless a significant factor to take into account.

"The ban includes 'mildly erotic' pornography . . . although the evidence indicates that 'mildly erotic' pornography has the effect of reducing sexual aggressions against children."

-- Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw

 

The Child-Porn Provision

The section of Canada's Criminal Code struck down yesterday by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in R. v. Sharpe:

 

Section 163.4 -- Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

 


     

 

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.