12-year-old girl got a lawyer after father cancels trip
www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/01/13/mtl-parental-rights-1301.html
This may be of interest to those who have children and or grandchildren. As things now stand, there are many variations in the interpretations of parental rights. In the case of Children whose parents are not together and where custodial parents are held to different standards than parents of Children who remain together, who suffers the most?
Anyone with significant experience in parenting teens realizes that modern parents are faced with an increasingly disproportionate amount of vague and ever changing criteria that threatens both structure in the Children's lives as well as structure within the home environment as a whole. Reactions to situations like this one will vary for sure, as some will agree it was excessive and others will support the parents decision. Which brings me to the question, who has a right to say? This isn't polygamy, or even a case of corporal punishment. It is simply a case of a parents choice of means to guide or exercise control of a Child's acknowledgment and compliance with parental guidance. Isn't it?
Then there is the consideration of great variances when it comes to the State involving itself in these matters. When it is a case of a Child in the custody of a person addicted to drugs and there is no other upstanding member of society offering full time care for the Child, then the system goes to great lengths to keep that Child with the parent. Having discussed this issue with people who have had lengthy direct experience, and having read of a number of cases where Government Agencies have turned a blind eye so to speak, I am left to wonder how a parent is to know what to do?
Would it be fair to assume that confused parents would only heighten the confusion of the Children?
Canada stated to the UN the rights of the child was protected under the Charter while the SCoC ruled fathers have no rights. It`s not a matter of the best interests of the child, it`s a precedent based decision.
ReplyDeleteThere is no confusion as to why the courts ruled in favor of the child. They could not rule in favor of the father even though he has sole custody. In 1987 the SCoC ruled fathers have no rights. Had the lower court ruled in favor of the father, the child, using the 1987 precedent could have taken this all the way to the SCoC and won anyway.
Robert, my information is largely second hand accounts, personal experiences and via media articles based on real life occurrences. The issue of parental position in this new age structure is a wide concern and I expect transcends the spectrum of gender. I have few experiences I can point to regarding what women in similar circumstances experience, but the few that come to mind indicate they tend to give in to these pressures more readily.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't necessarily make them uncaring or bad parents, but more likely more inclined to try to make the best of what seems like a no win situation.
One of the main things that bothers me about all this, other than the effects on the Children is that the parent gets it from both sides. What I mean by that is, if your Child gets into trouble, the system looks upon you as having failed and holds you responsible to make necessary corrections that result in turning the Child around. Yet, the same system doesn't support you when you make best efforts to guide the Child's thought process, attitudes and behaviour. It's a blatant double speak, double standard that hurts the Children most of all.
Good for the Justice Industry though.
Everything the courts do has one overbearing result. Deny the child a parent. While the government, with absolutely no evidence in favor, states child support is the most important thing to a child of divorce the overwhelming bulk of data says not losing a parent is the most important. The courts continue to use ever method, legal or illegal to separate children from parents.
ReplyDeleteThis is a business of making money. Government not only looks the other way but supports this use of sole custody for profit with false information and that explains how government is ungoverned by the rule of law, the courts look the other way as long as their cash cow is on stream.
We are seeing the results in Vancouver with mischief from the highest number of parent denied children in history pushing mischief up 39% in one year as they turn street age.
I agree that taking a position that child support is "the" most important thing speaks to the level of wisdom attained by those supporting this position. Sufficient finances are definitely important, but the way child support is determined and administered in some provinces, gives rise to abuses. It is largely based on income from the year past and totally based on officially documented income. Both cause problems. It is also ordered often times before all pertinent information has become available in many cases. The bureaucracy of Family Responsibility Departments are also cumbersome and often defy logic.
ReplyDeleteNone of which actually addresses the turmoil inflicting on the Children as this overall scenario plays out. Having lost a parent at a young age, I can associate somewhat with what achieves peace of mind for a Child. Thanks to Government policy and bureaucratic authoritarianism, I know what it is like to have one parent and to be poor. I also know that financial considerations are not the only thing or likely the major thing that determines security and peace of mind for a Child. There is a lot more to it than just that.
While the federal government still insists child support is the most important a few statistics have surfaced that government refuses to address.
ReplyDeleteQuebec collects the most child support with BC slightly behind at over 80%. Ontario collects less than 50% yet have far fewer youth problems. Obviously the child support program is failing the children.
A large portion of the non-custodial parent tax collected is kept by the provincial governments even though the feds say it`s the most important thing to a child. Not only is the term, `child support is for the children` a lie it`s also unconstitutional to have one group, non-custodial parents, pay an inordinate amount into a social safety net which costs are constitutionally born by all tax payers.
As I`ve said the rule of law, constitution rights of both parents and children, and the best interests of the child are all ignored while the number of parent denied children with problems increase.
Meanwhile rabid anti-father propaganda by msm that included the public persecution and consequent suicide of and by a dead broke father by the Toronto Star continues.
yep, the system is broken by corruption and will not fix itself.
No, it won't fix itself and so long as the overall focus is on making one parent or the other carry financial burden that is often disproportionate and continuing with the current legal and bureaucratic solutions, there won't be a fix.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the 80% and 50% represent? The percentage collected in relation to the amount collected by the province of Quebec?
Speaking of crime, I'm a little shaken this week. A young person who attended school with my Son last year, was killed late last week by a 17 year old. The young person died from stab wounds resulting from a fight over a girl. I have no idea if this has anything to do with single parenting or related issues, but I can't help but feel it has to do with the ever increasing cycle of violence and how that infects the minds of the young. The inaction of our school systems and the courts I believe are having a tremendous impact. A lot of the people involved here don't seem to see it though.
I made considerable effort last year to bring this issue to the forefront at my Son's school and with the board of education, but to no avail. They were more focused on out maneuvering me than on admitting the basis of the problem lay with their inaction. When I put forward my views on violence during a meeting with the concerned parties, the principal of said institution which houses some 1500 or more students, quipped "I went to a school that had 25 students and there was a fight everyday".
I asked him if inbreeding was a problem in his hometown?
After completion of the school year, we moved to another community where my Son would be able to attend a different school. I had met with less biased officials and spoken to other locals and the problems associated with that school were acknowledged and two other schools were recommended. I met with the Principal of one of them and was very impressed. That is where my Son now attends and it is truly a wonderful school. I attribute this to the highly organized and efficient approach of this administrator. So, to sum up it's not impossible to have success. It just takes the right people.
Good God were are long winded. Did you notice that?
The 50 and 80 % relates to amount collected on amount owed.
ReplyDelete"continuing with the current legal and bureaucratic solutions"
Not sure I`d call rampant corruption a solution but, lol, admitted I`m not the diplomat although I will change names so as to appear less hostile.
got rope is now poppavox
International investors started leaving Canada along with Ontario jobs in 2002. They completed the exodus 3 years ago. I have good reason to say economic conditions will force the changes required.
The government has known for many years what they must do but like the `bad school` you mentioned change will only come as economic conditions finish turning from desperate to brutal. Government has made up its mind to do things the hard way and the people, especially the next generation, will face the consequences of the current generation supporting a system broken by corruption.
Everyone might want to ask themselves how they will explain your silent approval that has them buried up to their necks.
Well, it will be the inquiring minds that ask how this could have happened to them. There will be more that are better compared to the ox bearing his yoke.
ReplyDeleteSomething that nagged at me about the Green Shift fits into your assessment of governments looking out for their own interests first. The plan to generate the tax revenue was quite clear, but the distribution of it wasn't so easy to comprehend. That was a little hazy in my view.
Alternatively, we have deficit financing on the table and I don't see a great deal of difference in this respect. Governments costs and shortfalls will be covered first as it would have with the Green Shift. For some reason, I see red herrings everywhere I look. The only significant advantage I saw between the two evils, was that one plan would have an effect on the consumption of non renewable resources and resulting levels of pollution.
I don't really see an upside to the deficit financing concept. All I can see is that as the system is designed, a whole lot of money has to come from somewhere in order for it to maintain itself.
A freakish experience came over me a couple of hours ago. I thought that I was physically working; turned out it was a nightmare during nap time. It won't happen again, I can assure you of that.
ReplyDeleteWork, that is. I miss hairy. He's always good for a little joviality!
Now, let's move onward and upward.
------
Some Important Health Advice for Women
Do you have feelings of inadequacy? Do you suffer from shyness? Do you sometimes wish you were more assertive?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, ask your Doctor or Pharmacist about Chardonnay.
Chardonnay is the safe, natural way to feel better and more confident about yourself and your actions. Chardonnay can help ease you out of your shyness and let you tell the world that you are ready and willing to do just about anything.
You will notice the benefits of Chardonnay almost immediately and with a regimen of regular doses, you can overcome any obstacles that prevent you from living the life you want to live!
Shyness and awkwardness will be a thing of the past. You will discover many talents that you never knew you had.
Stop hiding and start living!
Chardonnay may not be right for everyone. Women who are pregnant or nursing should not use Chardonnay. However, women who wouldn't mind nursing or cecoming pregnant are encouraged to try it.
Side effects may include dizziness, nausea, vomiting, incarceration, erotic lustfulness, loss of motor control, loss of clothing, loss of money, loss of virginity, delusions of grandeur, table dancing, headaches, dehydration, a desire to sing Karaoke and play all-night rounds of Strip Poker, Truth Or Dare and Naked Twister!
WARNINGS:
**The consumption of Chardonnay may make you think you are whispering when you are not.
**The consumption of Chardonnay may cause you to tell your friends over and over again that you love them.
**The consumption of Chardonnay may cause you to think that you can sing.
**The consumption of Chardonnay may create the illusion that you are tougher, smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Please feel free to share this important information with as many women as you feel may benefit!
------
Good to be back to front / as well as up /down / inside out and moving from side to side all at the same time!
To "I, Charlesius" JAN 14 8:11 PM
ReplyDeleteCharles, that sounds like the best health advice I've heard in a long time. I will buy some, uh, Chardonnay you say, and test it tonight. Many thanks.
Hi Charesius, glad to hear from you. It's good that we are again developing a National voice. Some from the West Coast, some Maritimers, Albertans and a bunch from our most populated province. Not sure about Quebecers yet, but hopefully some will participate.
ReplyDeleteIf you build it, they will come. Field of Dreams, dotted with the occasional rabbit hole.
All about Harry. He popped up on Garth's financial blog as Observer. He travels the internet and is known by various handles that include the words Observer and Observant.
Ah, the Chuxster! Great, we can insert some laughs between our groans.
ReplyDeleteBut let's maintain a low profile so we don't attract Hairy's professional attention.
Poppavox, I'm always interested in what you write about, including the family. When we divorced, we dicussed 'custody' and decided immediately there would be no 'visitation', everything would be shared. Despite the anger and other feelings, we did not want one parent to be the 'sole decider'. We legally opted out of the FSP and made our own financial arrangements. Our daughter only benefits from this. We ran into many challenges in school- still do! (Gr.11) I believe so much of what you write is connected. Thanks.
ReplyDelete