Maurice Vellacott's Private Bill C-422 is bad news for mothers and children

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
martin dufresne
Maurice Vellacott's Private Bill C-422 is bad news for mothers and children

People concerned with women's and children's rights would do well to warn their MP of a private Bill designed by advocates of what they call a « presumptive equal parenting » upon divorce.

Bill C-422, fashioned by Conservative MPs Maurice Vellacott and Steven Blaney - with the support of Liberal MP Raymonde Folco, is a new version of Motion M-483, which died on the agenda during a previous session.

It is aimed at what the proponents are calling an "overall bias" favouring women in divorce and child custody law. (No mention is made of the available statistics as to whom actually does the parenting before separation and whom commits to doing it after it.) This private bill is really about enthroning male entitlement, ending child support and imposing paternal authority.

Ignoring the reality of domestic violence - the main reason for divorce today - and criteria such as parental skills and demonstrated commitment, features NOT equally shared in most divorcing couples*, this law "would make it mandatory for two parents who are divorcing to discuss with either a mediator or a judge how they would divide the time with the children," said Folco to a Laval newspaper, adding that "equal parenting means that 50 per cent of the time a child would be with one parent and 50 per cent with the other."

The lobby behind this one-size-fits-all fathers' rights bill is the "Canadian Equal Parenting Council," and includes the obnoxious Fathers for Justice organization of Batmen and Spidermen-garbed media darlings.

"Men in Canada need to quite literally start protecting themselves from the flawed family law system," an anonymous spokesman from Fathers for Justice said in a statement supportive of Bill C-422.

The Canadian Equal Parenting Council claims support from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, quoting a 2002 book where he called unspecified shared parenting legislative changes « sensible and overdue suggestions ».

As for the Bloc Québécois, F4J accuses it of favouring women. It rants, on its website: « It's time for Mr. Duceppe to step away from the dark side and stand behind equal parenting... »

Source : « Private bill for ‘equal parenting' goes on Parliament's order ». Martin C. Barry, The Laval News, July 15, 2009.

Background : http://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/canada-equal-parenting-bill-c...

http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/2003%20MV%20Speaks/June%2017,%202009%20-%20Backgrounder%20for%20EP%20press%20conf.%20press%20kit.pdf

Feminist critiques of « presumptive equal parenting » - such as that penned by Gatineau sociologist Denyse Côté in "La garde partagée: l'équité en question" (Éditions du remue-ménage, 2000, 202 p.) - can be found on various web sites, such as The Liz Library. This material amply documents that not all equal-custody claims are justified or respectful of the children's best interests. Most family court judges are aware of this, but the anti-feminist lobby goes on trying to force their hands, via conservative politicians.

For instance, The Ontario Women's Justice Network offers a detailed analysis of a good 2001 Supreme Court decision in the custody case between Kimberly Van de Perre and Theodore and Valerie Edwards, here.

Please remain aware of this issue, and don't let the patriarchalists pull the wool over your MP's eyes.

____________________________________________
* In The Canadian Family in Crisis (2003), John Frederick Conway wrote : « ...the anti-feminist men's movement has won some victories but they have not been total... it failed to win the imposition of compulsory joint custody... joint custody must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and situations of marriage breakdown that include domestic violence, addictions to drugs and/or alcohol, and psychological abuse ought not to involve joint custody, co-parenting provisions. » This caveat gets short shrift in C-422.

 

remind remind's picture

Thanks martin, but I suspect few here are interested.

martin dufresne

I am more optimistic than that. Many of us have seen children in horrific family conflict situations, and can understand how catastrophic it would be to let Vellacott and his FR cronies impose 50-50 shared custody and no child support on any person seeking divorce.

Sean in Ottawa

It is particularly interesting in the light of a court system that rewards those who have more money to spend on lawyers. Yep-- looks like men never really did lose that much of an advantage anyway.

Nevermind that, men have other advantages in tending to have more money. They have advantages in using the money to control the home and in using money after divorce to help ensure access. And some of this is not all bad-- after all one who pays support ought to be expecting more access than a deadbeat. One who pays support earns goodwill with the custodial parent as well and therefore more cooperation-- not always but often enough especially in those families that do not go to court to rip themselves up when they can't live together. Let us never forget that money has an advantage and that men still generally have that advantage so the whole fiction about men having no advantages in family court is dangerous since if we remove the advantages women have that tend to level things, then men will have an overwhealming advantage.

If people here are not interested-- they should be with a high divorce rate it is in the interest of children that people see this power grab for what it is.

As for the practice of women getting custody-- usually that is because they earned it throughout the building of the relationship with the children. And the court is obliged given a child first bias to consider that. In order to allow a so-called equal parent right option or father's rights consideration we would have to undo the child-first doctrine of family court. Do we really want to go there????

martin dufresne

Unfortunately we are already there and in spades, Sean in Ottawa.

If I may comment on your very appropriate post, where you write "As for the practice of women getting custody-- usually that is because they earned it throughout the building of the relationship with the children", I wish this was true but genrally when women get custody, it is because men aren't asking for it, have disappeared or are blatantly lethal (and even then...).

And where you write "after all one who pays support ought to be expecting more access than a deadbeat", the twist is that by demanding 50% access, the fathers' lobby actually hopes to terminate men's child support obligations, even though the law stipulates an equalizing of parents' contributions according to their income, in the children's interest. They try to get women to sign away such entitlement in divorce agreements and make these binding without having to be cleared with the Court.

Sean in Ottawa

I don't disagree with what you say Martin-- I am making the point that money does make a difference.

I should have added that a lot of cases men are not interested- but was speaking more of contested cases since uncontested cases are not usually at issue. That women have the advantage in many contested cases has to do with the interests of the child and what they have put it. This of course does not contradict your comment about uncontested situations.

Those who pay child support include those who want their children to have the money they need- but in many other cases it is to ensure access. Just another example of money providing advantage. Still the issue of 50% custody end-running support is worrisome- especially as it is a bogus argument. Two households must be maintained and the one with the lower income will need almost as much support for a 50% custody situation as a 100% custody situation-- only a small amount of food makes that difference-- the idea that income between parents who live apart must be to some degree equalized remains regardless of whether custody is exclusive or not. That said the other parent also has to bear the costs of a home. Some parents have to learn the hard way that having custody can be an incredible pleasure but not an economic windfall. The courts hopefully will take a balanced view when considering this-- even if the father's rights groups don't get it.

martin dufresne

That women have the advantage in many contested cases has to do with the interests of the child and what they have put it.

Fathers win 55-70% of contested cases.

Sean in Ottawa

what do you call contested? The ones the fathers fight in court or including the ones the fathers don't fight because they don't have a chance-- because the mothers have the relationship with the children to win.I would include the ones the fathers go to a lawyer and are told not to  bother. Most court cases are situations where one side has misread the situation as most are somewhat predictable. With better legal advice and money, the men are less likely to misread the situation.

I think the stats can go back and forth and I don't think we disagree-- when custody is contested-- the women have a lot of advantages but as you point out in the end money is the bigger advantage. Men will seldom go to court if they do not have something that can help them win-- but that does not mean they should win-- that something could be financial advantage, allegations that may or may not be baseless etc.

I suspect that where the women have equal abilities to mount a legal case financially, the numbers would go in their favour. All this supports the premise that I made which essentially supports the initial statement of concern you posted while still showing money makes a difference.

martin dufresne

I realize you feel we are on the same side of this issue, but I feel it's important to gauge just how bad the situation is so allow me po pick at a few of your statements:

what do you call contested? The ones the fathers fight in court

Yes

or including the ones the fathers don't fight because they don't have a chance

or because they can't be bothered to impede "turning a new leaf"

-- because the mothers have the relationship with the children to win.

Fathers often win even when the mothers have the relationship with the children to win.

-I would include the ones the fathers go to a lawyer and are told not to bother.

That characterization is a FR myth and the stats prove it. Lawyers know how easy it is to win unsupervised access if not custody for just about any man , however incompetent or dangerous as a parent, if he applies the right amount of money, supportive testimonials and salgging Mom.

... I don't think we disagree-- when custody is contested-- the women have a lot of advantages but as you point out in the end money is the bigger advantage.

So women DON'T have lots of advantages.

I suspect that where the women have equal abilities to mount a legal case financially, the numbers would go in their favour.

Yes, and "if Blacks had lighter skin"... I think such a statement evades the issue: it seems central to this contest that women do NOT have equal financial capability, mostly because they are the ones sacrificing financial opportunities to care for the children, ensuring that unless they are lucky or the guy demurs, they stand a better than average chance of losing custody.
And things will be much worse for them of the Grits discreetly support C-422, so please, folks, share your concern with your local candidates.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

I agree with all that you say except the part about the so-called FR myth. I would not underestimate the value of representation not just in court but in how to manage what goes to court.

I agree money is the bigger advantage and in the legal system I would caution you against trying to use stats without recognizing how that works.

If the men have the money and think that they would not do as well in court then they will use the high priced lawyer for a better forum -- a settlement conference and there get what they could not get in court. The skill to understand and control a legal case will deliver many advantages.

I made the point that in some areas women have the advantage but that money is trumping this. My point is if you focus on an advantage women have (even the stronger cultural presumption of a child being better off with the mother than the father) and level the playing field you will be tilting it severely against women if you do not recognize the role money is playing.

Money turns these cases into a minefield-- if they go to court the high priced lawyer will win- but if you think that you might win-- they will settle and get you in the settlement conference what they cannot in the court.

I am not saying men don't have the ultimate advantage-- what I am saying is those precious advantages women have if they are somehow compensated for as FR groups argue, then the cold hard cash will win-- as it almost always does now.

I don't think that it serves the argument to say that women have no strong cards because they do and people are aware of them. It it serves the cause better to make clear that there are other cards the women rarely hold that will trump those. That is the direction I have been following.

Yes, I do think we are on the same side. The difference is perhaps a tactic of logic. I acknowledge the few advantages women have that we all know about  and show how theya re still nothing compared to what is stacked against them while you seek to establish that women in the end have no advantage. In the end, when all is considered, you are right but it may not be the best way to put it I think. This especially since FR groups point to things like apparent cultural bias that should advantage women but gets overwhealmed by the elephant in the room -- the money. I prefer to acknowledge the social bias (that in some countries works, along with the money in the opposite direction), and then point to how it is not near enough to level the field.

Again, I think these are tactics in argument not significant differences.

Snert Snert's picture

So if family court judges shouldn't start with the assumption that custody will be shared, what assumption should they start with?  Something more fair, like mom gets the kids 99% of the time and dad gets 99% of the bills?  Something like that?

I find it hilarious that you're actually arguing against something as obvious as the assumption that both parents are important to a child (in ways other than ze munnee).  Horrors!!

martin dufresne

Gee Snert, do you really expect us to take your catankerous "contribution" seriously or is this just a running snipe shot and you'll crawl back in the woodwork? Why do you want judges to proceed on assumptions, rather than on an examination of the evidence and of people's abilities, wishes and rights? If you really want to be helpful, try convincing men - before divorce - that both parents are important, instead of trying to justify carving out even more entitlement for them, regardless of merits...

 

Sean in Ottawa

No Snert I am arguing that the so-called rights of the parents (in this case fathers) should not displace the rights of the child in such cases--

The assumption that is reasonable is the court is to decide what is the best custody arrangement for the child and then back that up with an order on support.

To link the money to the custody or have some formula based on an assumption of father's rights is a trip backward and very dangerous.

Does that help clarify things for you?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Why do you want judges to proceed on assumptions, rather than on an examination of the evidence and of people's abilities, wishes and rights?

 

My understanding is that that's exactly what they'll do. Specifically, I see this as an "onus" issue. Should we assume that only mothers can be good parents until the facts of the situation show otherwise, or should we assume that both parents can be good parents until the facts of the situation show otherwise?

 

Quote:
Does that help clarify things for you?

 

Not even slightly.

 

I love how this is about "fathers' rights". Just like homosexuals who want to marry are after some kind of "gay rights". No, not just normal rights or equal right, but special, scary rights!

 

Anyway, judges are certainly free to, say, award sole custody to the mother if dad is an incompetent parent. That's not enough for you? The judge should have to start with some assumption that dad's incompetent, and let dad prove otherwise??

stepped_on

First of all, child support under the current system would mean that the 50/50 shared custody would balance based on HOUSEHOLD income.

Parent A grosses 25K

Parent B grosses 45K, plus their partners additional 20K

Table values of 25K vs 65K means parent B would be on the hook to pay the owed difference to parent A on 40K worth of income. They have recalc services; these cost less than court dates, and hardship cases can be heard. Keep in mind, court is the END of the road. There are numerous stages in between. Have you ever attended a FTSOTC course? Perhaps you should educate yourself before frothing at the mouth about abuse and the politics of men vs. women.

As to the rights of the CHILD - they were born to two parents - and THEY are entitled to both regardless of living arrangements. This has nothing to do with agendas and vendettas. Most divorces do not end due to abuse - some are for the good of both parties. Claiming that one parent is more/less safe based on a chromosome is ridiculous; as a parent I have things to offer my child that his other parent can/does not.

The fact of the matter is, it took two to tango, and if the court correctly says "50% access unless good reason is given" it means that it will discourage people from trying to use child access as a weapon to hurt the other party.

martin dufresne

I guess this latest contribution clarifies the extent to which Father-Right lobby rhetoric and hostility to mothers is very much the driving force behind Mr. Vellacott's private bill.

remind remind's picture

Yep

Ghislaine

martin, why do you think mothers should always get custody as a default regardless of the facts of the case? I agree that they should when there is abuse, neglect, etc.  (And we all know that there is a MUCH larger percentage of fathers who have no interest whatsoever in their children as compared to mothers). But if there is a divorce occuring for mutual reasons (or even infidelity) - just two people who are not in love anymore and don't want to argue/be unhappy in front their children, why should the father not get equal custody rights as a default?

You do realize that there are custody cases involving two fathers - ie gay couples. Do you propose giving the birth mother custody in these cases as well?

Snert Snert's picture

Ya.  Equal parenting can only be the result of hostility and rhetoric.  Fathers For Justice pulled a Jedi mind trick on all of us.

That's gotta be it.  And thanks so much for your usual smear.

RP.

martin dufresne wrote:

Ignoring the reality of domestic violence - the main reason for divorce today -

If this is true, I would like to see the source for it, because it's not been my experience.  BTW the bill is garbage.  The only consideration should be the best interests of the children.  If both parents are fit, then it might be that the best interests of a child might include maximal time with each parent.  Or not.  Every family's different, this kind of presumption would make it harder for a judge to tailor a custody arrangement that suits the child and reflects the reality of the family.

 

martin dufresne wrote:
Fathers win 55-70% of contested cases.

What does that even mean? Again I would be interested in the source.

martin dufresne wrote:

I guess this latest contribution clarifies the extent to which Father-Right lobby rhetoric and hostility to mothers is very much the driving force behind Mr. Vellacott's private bill.

 

Is that addressed to stepped on? Because it's the argument I would use against the so-called fathers' rights jerks. Most of the time, judges DO consider 50/50 as departure point. All codifying a presumption does is reward the unfit.

(and even though I was asking for sources, I don't have any to give except, again, my own experience)

G. Muffin

RP. wrote:
BTW the bill is garbage ... this kind of presumption would make it harder for a judge to tailor a custody arrangement that suits the child

It would be fairer than the current presumption which is that kids belong with their mother unless there are extraordinary circumstances suggesting otherwise. 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The only consideration should be the best interests of the children. 

 

As I understand it, the bill only follows from a joint House-Senate report called "For the Sake of the Children", which explicitly recommends adopting a presumption of shared parenting because that's in the best interest of children.

 

Thing is, you have to assume something, and I think the assumption that women are "natural caregivers and parents" is so long-ingrained in us that we can't reasonably say "let's not assume anything at all".

 

And really, this is nothing more than "Employment Equity" for fathers. The law doesn't state that they MUST receive any particular level of custody, just that they have to be presumed capable and given a fair shake. I find it fascinating that people are arguing against that. Presumably the assumption that mothers are better than fathers is a more progressive one or something??

RP.

G. Pie wrote:
It would be fairer than the current presumption which is that kids belong with their mother unless there are extraordinary circumstances suggesting otherwise. 

No such presumption exists.

martin dufresne

Ghislaine asked: "martin, why do you think mothers should always get custody as a default regardless of the facts of the case?..."

I don't. Please point out where I suggested I did.

What I actually support is, in matters of contested child custody, a presumption in support of the person who has been (and usually will remain) the primary caretaker when there was/is one (almost all cases). In some cases, this primary caretaker is the biological father. In most cases, it's Mom, but it can be someone else (mother's new partner, even nanny (Michael Jackson's children).

"...I agree that they should when there is abuse, neglect, etc. "

Sometimes it's the mother who is abusive. And social service agencies routinely accuse women of neglect (almost never fathers, strangely). Men also do so, sometimes, in order to wrest custody, and they easily win, even when they have had little caretaking experience.

All these important distinctions are obscured in Vellacott's proposed legislation, that would create instant entitlement for biological fathers - whatever their skills - and would give them an unfair advantage in negotiations with anyone trying to protect the children's interests.

 

G. Muffin

RP. wrote:

G. Pie wrote:
It would be fairer than the current presumption which is that kids belong with their mother unless there are extraordinary circumstances suggesting otherwise. 

No such presumption exists.

Oh, I disagree.  The most common arrangement seems to be kids live the mother, father gets access one day a week plus every second weekend.  And I know fathers who after stating their wish to be the primary parent were advised by their lawyer "Don't even bother trying."  There's a clear bias in favour of mothers.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
No such presumption exists.

 

In the same way that no such presumption as "the white job candidate is better than the black job candidate" exists.

martin dufresne

"Most common arrangements" do not necessarily reflect bias. They generally reflect pre-divorce arrangements (or fait accompli ) between parents, e.g. Mom is left to do most of the parenting work. When the parenting has been equalitarian, breakups are generally less common and less adversarial, and joint custody is usually consensual. In short, most couples agree to leave things as is after separation or divorce. When they don't - and this can be for many other reasons than the child's best interests - lawyers and sometimes judges assess who has been doing the parenting and whether there are valid reasons - other than daddy's fat wallet - to change what has been the status quo.

 

RP.

Snert wrote:
As I understand it, the bill only follows from a joint House-Senate report called "For the Sake of the Children", which explicitly recommends adopting a presumption of shared parenting because that's in the best interest of children.

 (Firstly, are you talking about shared parenting or equal custody?)  Anyway, by extension, it creates a presumption that in all circumstances, maximum contact with both parents is in the best interest of all children.  This is not the case even in the majority of cases.  Presumptions have to be overcome.  The analysis becomes about the parent, instead of the childen.  This is unacceptable to me.

Quote:
Thing is, you have to assume something, and I think the assumption that women are "natural caregivers and parents" is so long-ingrained in us that we can't reasonably say "let's not assume anything at all".

Again, the parent-centred reasoning. 

Quote:
And really, this is nothing more than "Employment Equity" for fathers. The law doesn't state that they MUST receive any particular level of custody, just that they have to be presumed capable and given a fair shake. I find it fascinating that people are arguing against that. Presumably the assumption that mothers are better than fathers is a more progressive one or something??

I think you know as much about employment equity as you know about family law.

RP.

Snert wrote:
In the same way that no such presumption as "the white job candidate is better than the black job candidate" exists.

You fail at analogies.

RP.

martin dufresne wrote:
What I actually support is, in matters of contested child custody, a presumption in support of the person who has been (and usually will remain) the primary caretaker when there was/is one (almost all cases). In some cases, this primary caretaker is the biological father. In most cases, it's Mom, but it can be someone else (mother's new partner, even nanny (Michael Jackson's children).

This is parent-centred reasoning too.

martin dufresne wrote:
All these important distinctions are obscured in Vellacott's proposed legislation, that would create instant entitlement for biological fathers - whatever their skills - and would give them an unfair advantage in negotiations with anyone trying to protect the children's interests.

 

It also creates an entitlement for mothers, and as you've pointed out, there's no monopoly on unsuitability.

G. Muffin

Snert wrote:

Quote:
No such presumption exists.

 

In the same way that no such presumption as "the white job candidate is better than the black job candidate" exists.

Exactly.

RP.

G. Pie wrote:
Oh, I disagree.  The most common arrangement seems to be kids live the mother, father gets access one day a week plus every second weekend.  And I know fathers who after stating their wish to be the primary parent were advised by their lawyer "Don't even bother trying."  There's a clear bias in favour of mothers.

I'd like to know what parellel universe this happens in.

G. Muffin

In the families that I know, both spouses work full-time and parenting is divided equally.  In a divorce, shouldn't this type of family negotiate from a shared starting point? 

 

Added:  Sorry, I meant this in response to Martin's

Quote:
"Most common arrangements" do not necessarily reflect bias. They generally reflect pre-divorce arrangements (or fait accompli ) between parents, e.g. Mom is left to do most of the parenting work.

G. Muffin

RP. wrote:

G. Pie wrote:
Oh, I disagree.  The most common arrangement seems to be kids live the mother, father gets access one day a week plus every second weekend.  And I know fathers who after stating their wish to be the primary parent were advised by their lawyer "Don't even bother trying."  There's a clear bias in favour of mothers.

I'd like to know what parellel universe this happens in.

Not sure what you're referring to.  The typical custody/access arrangement?  That occurs very commonly in this universe.  The father being advised not to waste his money on a custody application?  Also common.  I spent years typing up custody and access agreements and orders.

Scout

The same one this happens:

 

 

Quote:
both spouses work full-time and parenting is divided equally

 

LMFAO.

G. Muffin

Scout wrote:

 

The same one this happens:

 

Quote:
both spouses work full-time and parenting is divided equally

 

LMFAO.

 

 

Well, it's not a source of humour to my friends.  They take it pretty seriously. This kind of bullying and aggression would count against you in a contested proceeding.

martin dufresne

Me: What I actually support is, in matters of contested child custody, a presumption in support of the person who has been (and usually will remain) the primary caretaker when there was/is one (almost all cases). In some cases, this primary caretaker is the biological father. In most cases, it's Mom, but it can be someone else (mother's new partner, even nanny (Michael Jackson's children).

RP:This is parent-centred reasoning too.

I am not sure that it is. It discusses the parents because they are the parties litigating, but this criterion is based on the evidence-based presumption that children will do better if their parenting arrangements are not changed, unless there is good reason to do so.

I: All these important distinctions are obscured in Vellacott's proposed legislation, that would create instant entitlement for biological fathers - whatever their skills - and would give them an unfair advantage in negotiations with anyone trying to protect the children's interests.

RP: It also creates an entitlement for mothers, and as you've pointed out, there's no monopoly on unsuitability.

True for unsuitability, untrue for suitable parents. Taking into account that, in fact, women generally do much more parenting than men, a 50-50 custody presumption strips these mothers and their children of the entitlement to the parenting situation they had established through women's work.

 

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

Fathers win 55-70% of contested cases.

That was such a stunning and counter-inuitive statement (besides being downright weird - what does 55-70 even mean?), that I decided to look it up:

Quote:

After their parents' separation, the vast majority of children live with their mother

Court orders place 80 percent of children under the age of 12 in their mother's care. Seven percent of children are placed in their father's custody and 13 percent of children are covered by what their parents described as a court order for joint physical custody. Interestingly, most children (69 percent) for whom parents had obtained a shared physical custody order actually lived with their mother only. A very small number of children lived under arrangements where care was shared equally: less than 2 percent of children for whom custody orders were obtained and less than 4 percent in other cases.

[url=National">http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pad-rpad/rep-rap/anlsc-elnej/sum-som.htm... Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth[/url]

The study is admittedly 10 years old. It was conducted by Nicole Marcil-Gratton and Céline Le Bourdais, of the Centre interuniversitaire d'études démographiques at the Université de Montréal / Institut national de la recherche scientifique, and commissioned by the  Family, Children and Youth Section of the federal Department of Justice. I don't know if there's a more recent survey, but it would exceedingly hard to believe that these trends have changed in 10 years in favour of fathers.

I completely oppose the "fathers' rights" champions and the social conservative sponsors of such legislation. But you won't get far in combatting it by pulling numbers and facts out of the air.

RP.

Maybe it's lawyers changing the goalposts as to what defines a win, e.g. I went for 50/50, should've got nothing, but got weekends.  Win!

Scout

Quote:
Well, it's not a source of humour to my friends.  They take it pretty seriously. This kind of bullying and aggression would count against you in a contested proceeding.

 

Oh I'm sure they take themselves very seriously and are certain of how much work they do. That's what's so funny about it.

 

As for the bullying and agressive comment? I'm LMFAO again. What I'm not staying in my place by taking your anecdotes as reality? Laugh at you is bullying?

 

The reality is that the women do the bulk of caregiving to children and and elderly/ill relatives. Regardless of how many men like to delude themsleves that they do an equal number of hours of household task the numbers don't back up their claims.

 

So save the garbage about what will happen to me if I'm not meek enough if I ever have the misfourtune to find myself in court it has nothing to do with the thread and it's actually pathetic.

Scout

G.Pie would you mind not cherry pick fragments of quotes to further your sexism.

Quote:
If you look only at contested cases, it is a fact that fathers win more often than not... and not for the best of reasons.

Context is everything.

G. Muffin

martin dufresne wrote:
it is a fact that fathers win more often than not [IN CONTESTED CUSTODY DISPUTES!!!]

Martin, would you mind providing a cite for that?  I'd be really interested in seeing it.

martin dufresne

You are conflating court orders and contested cases, Unionist. When parents agree, there is still need for a court order. If you look only at contested cases, it is a fact that fathers win more often than not... and not for the best of reasons. Also, you are reducing the ambit of the issue to children under 12. Fathers often go for custody and its attendant advantages once the children are educated.*

Also, the fact that women end up doing the work in most joint physical custody cases makes my point that they are often exploited in an arrangement that has ensured paternal power - and often drastically reduced or eliminated support payments, the mother's mobility rights, etc.

 

*Marcil-Gratton & LeBourdais: "...Older children are more likely to be placed in their father's care or in joint custody arrangements. "

G. Muffin

Scout wrote:
Oh I'm sure they take themselves very seriously and are certain of how much work they do. That's what's so funny about it.

I said they take their parenting seriously and they do.  Why that amuses you I have no idea.

Quote:
Laugh at you is bullying?

Yes, when it's in response to a simple statement that I know some good and committed fathers.

Quote:
The reality is that the women do the bulk of caregiving to children and and elderly/ill relatives. Regardless of how many men like to delude themsleves that they do an equal number of hours of household task the numbers don't back up their claims.

I agree with you that if you added up all the hours society spends on parenting and caretaking that women are responsible for more of it than men.  That does not mean, however, that all men shirk their responsibility.  Your impotent rage is inexplicable to me.  I merely stated that there exist some families where presumed equal parenting would be an appropriate starting point.

G. Muffin

Scout wrote:
G.Pie would you mind not cherry pick fragments of quotes to further your sexism.

Fixed quote, per your request.

If acknowledging that some men are good fathers and equal and committed parents makes me a sexist, then a sexist I'm happy to be.

Caissa

This thread hsa mad we reflect on how Ms. C. and I interact with our children. For that, I am grateful.

martin dufresne

Myth -- Family courts are biased against fathers in custody disputes.

Fact: "Despite the powerful stereotypes working against fathers, they are significantly more successful than is commonly believed. The Massachusetts [gender bias] task force, for example, reported that fathers receive primary or joint custody in more than 70 percent of contested cases."

Schafran, Lynn Hecht, "Gender Bias in Family Courts," American Bar Association Family Advocate, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 26

Ruth I. Abrams & John M. Greaney, Report of the Gender Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial Court [of Massachusetts] 62-63 (1983), also citing similar finding from California and other parts of the nation.

Fact: "The various gender bias commissions found that at the trial court level in contested custody cases, fathers won more than half the time. This is especially significant in light of the fact that not only do fathers win more often in court when they take these cases to trial, but also that an overwhelmingly higher percentage of fathers gain primary custody -- by any means -- than were ever the primary caregiver of their children during marriage. Statistically, this dashes the argument that 'only the strongest cases are taken to trial,' and in fact indicates an extraordinary bias against mothers and the value of mothering and mothers' work."

liznote re the more than 40 state gender bias task force reports. Available from the National Judicial Education Program, 9 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013.

Also see: AZ Battered Mothers Testimony Project Report

 

Also: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html

 

Warning: This material risks laying waste to a lot of preconceptions, carefully built up over the years by F-R disinformation and conservative media and politicians.

SO PLEASE CIRCULATE IT FREELY! Wink

G. Muffin

martin dufresne wrote:
*Marcil-Gratton & LeBourdais: "...Older children are more likely to be placed in their father's care or in joint custody arrangements. "

 

Not sure if I can find this source online to check but this quote as stated is ambiguous.  "Older children are more likely ...."  More likely as compared to what?  Younger children? 

 

Added:  I did find this:

 

Quote:
Of the 35,000 custody orders determined through divorce proceedings in 2002, 49% were awarded to the mother, 42% were awarded joint custody to the mother and the father, and 9% were awarded to fathers only.

 

here:  http://www.fira.ca/article.php?id=96

 

I'm not sure about the website (it seems to be from a fathers' rights group) but the numbers quoted certainly align.

 

 

Unionist

G. Pie wrote:

martin dufresne wrote:
*Marcil-Gratton & LeBourdais: "...Older children are more likely to be placed in their father's care or in joint custody arrangements. "

Not sure if I can find this source online to check but this quote as stated is ambiguous.  "Older children are more likely ...."  More likely as compared to what?  Younger children? 

Pretty clearly it means, "more likely than the 7% and 13% figures quoted for under age 12" respectively. It certainly doesn't mean "more likely to be placed in their father's care than in their mother's care". I don't think the study focused on children 12 and older. [url=Here">http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pad-rpad/rep-rap/anlsc-elnej/p3_06.html#... is a more detailed breakdown[/url] of custody stats by province and age group under 12 - again, with the caution that these percentages are about 15 years old. "Mother exclusive custody" ranges from 74.5% in the Atlantic Provinces to 87.4% in Québec. "Father exclusive" ranges from 5.3% in the Prairies to 7.2% in Québec and the Atlantic Provinces.

Scout

Quote:
Your impotent rage is inexplicable to me. 

 

What rage? I'm laughing at you. But if you can't imagine why women might be justifiable enraged by inequality then really, what the are you doing at babble? Trolling? Its also textbook sexist behavior to suggest a woman is irrational enraged when one isn't doing well in an argument- it seems to score points with other boys.

 

Quote:
I agree with you that if you added up all the hours society spends on parenting and caretaking that women are responsible for more of it than men.  That does not mean, however, that all men shirk their responsibility. 

 
What it means is most men think they are doing a lot more than they really are.
 
I'm not suggesting what makes one a good or a bad father here either that's youre schtick. I'm talking about labour. Your talking about shirking responsibilites - that tends to get moralistic.
 
Women get custody because the bulk of the work to keep and kid alive and well is done by her even with the most progressive daddy. Your anecdotal tales mean nothing in terms of why women get custody more often than not.

G. Muffin

The 70% figure is misleading because it clearly states that's where the outcome is primary OR joint custody.  In these disputes, joint custody isn't a win, it's a tie.  If you include joint custody as a win, then of course fathers are going to "win" over half the time. 

Pages

Topic locked