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: Debtors 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
|
 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
|
| |
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
|
|
Criminal Code ban on possession
violates Charter of Rights, ruling says
by Jane Armstrong
The Globe &l Mail
Saturday, January 16, 1999VANCOUVER -- 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.
|
|
|
