The only thing fathers can get in Canada is a persistent denial of all their civil rights, complete denial of contact with their children, and jail if they miss support payments to parastic freeloading mothers who breed for profit.

The Department of inJustice web site dealing with Parenting After Divorce is little more than reams of feminist propaganda regurgitated at length.

It is anti male, ignores the reality. The "statistics" quoted are more likely to be fabricated, imagined or anecdotal. One section actually says that it is FATHERS who gain custody by intimidation who are denying access to (poor victims) mothers.

What can we expect from a government funded site? The Justice Department and the courts are infested with feminists and their hate male propaganda. There can be no justice for men or fathers in Canada until this changes.

Nevertheless, the web site contains huge amounts of research material and gives some insight into the twisted thinking of the social planners in the Justice Department and the government on family law issues.

Use it with caution. Treat all claims and "facts" on the web site as biased and not to be accepted at face value..... but use it to organize your own cases and to know what the enemy is thinking

J Kirby Inwood

Kirby Inwood is a Canadian veteran of the family law wars and a long term father's rights activist who advocates that women are abusing men and destroying families and fatherhood in their headlong rush to "independence" and that children are paying the price. He has fought for changes in society's perception of men as the source of all evil and has long been a favourite target of Militant Feminists who work very hard to suppress him and his views.

The only good news is that PM Martin looks like he will dump both Rock and McClellan from any Cabinet positions and put them out with the trash.

Here are the Committee's Recommendations. Please review them and tell your MP what you think.

Federal Child Support Guidelines Mothers are awarded custody in over 90% or all cases. Fathers are forced to pay support for children they might never see, or face jail. Mothers are permitted and tacitly encouraged to deny access with no penalties. This is judicial fraud.

Countless thousands of fathers pay huge sums in legal fees to obtain worthless court orders. The courts, the lawyers and the judges know that access orders are not worth the paper they are written on, but nothing is being done. Now this Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access Reform has been set up specifically to examine this issue. It must produce its final report by November 1998. Your input is needed.

STOP SENDING FATHERS TO DEBTORS PRISON

The current child support guidelines are bankrupting men and fathers.

These guidelines do NOT even consider the mother's income in determining the amount that the father, who usually is denied access, must pay. A millionaire mother can collect child support from a welfare father.

The courts are defrauding and cheating fathers who obtain access orders in good faith only to find them utterly meaningless. The same judges who issue these access orders, do nothing to penalize the huge numbers of mothers who refuse to obey court access orders with total impunity. Yet they are quick to jail the same fathers if they miss child support payments. If this isn't scandalizing the courts, what is? These laws are unfair, biased and probably in violation of the Charter as well as simple concepts of fundamental justice, (which is in itself a Charter violation).

Lobby your MP to get them to pass the Committee;s recommendations to help fathers get, if not a fair deal in family court, at least some relief from this persecution. THAT is in the best interest of the children.

Read through the following debate excerpts

- Debate Continued:
On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pearson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs:

• That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and analyze issues relating to parenting arrangements after separation and divorce, and in particular, to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize parental responsibilities rather than parental rights and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests;
• That seven Members of the Senate and sixteen Members of the House of Commons be members of the Committee with two Joint Chairpersons;
• That changes in the membership, on the part of the House of Commons of the Committee be effective immediately after a notification signed by the member acting as the chief Whip of any recognized party has been filed with the clerk of the Committee;
• That the Committee be directed to consult broadly, examine relevant research studies and literature and review models being used or developed in other jurisdictions;
• That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;
• That the Committee have the power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee;
• That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;
• That a quorum of the Committee be twelve members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken so long as both Houses are represented and the Joint Chairpersons will be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;
• That the Committee be empowered to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such subcommittees, all or any of its power except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons;
• That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings; and
• That the Committee make its final report no later than November 30, 1998; and
• That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

In the Debates of the Senate of October 7, 1997, at page 71, under "Routine Proceedings" we see the heading "Child Custody and Access Reform, Notice of Motion to Establish Special Joint Committee."

Under that heading the Honourable Senator Carstairs, Deputy Leader of the Government, gave notice that on October 9, 1997, she would move the motion which she then read to the chamber.

On October 9, 1997, in the Debates of the Senate, at page 153, the Honourable Senator Landon Pearson, for Senator Carstairs, pursuant to notice of October 7, 1997, moved the motion, which I will read in part. This is really the guts of this motion. I ask you to listen carefully. If you understand it, you are doing better than I.

It says:
That a special joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and analyze issues relating to parenting arrangements after separation and divorce, and in particular, to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize parental responsibilities rather than parental rights and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests;

It is my opinion that the drafters of that motion are looking to the committee to choose between parental responsibilities in respect of parenting, on the one hand, and parental rights and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests, on the other hand. This is not what was asked for by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, nor is it what the government agreed to in February 1997 in a letter written by then minister of justice, Allan Rock, on February 12, 1997, and appended to the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to the Senate on that same day.

The following is what was agreed to by the government. I read from page 1520 of the Debates of the Senate of February 12, 1997:

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Allan Rock, in his letter of 12th February 1997 to the Chair of the Committee confirmed that the "government will take the steps necessary to introduce a motion in this session to establish a Joint Senate-House of Commons Committee to study issues related to custody and access under the Divorce Act. The government is offering this commitment in response to concerns raised by some Senators - - Senator Cools, myself and others - - on behalf of non-custodial parents, who believe that this issue should be re-examined."

Simply put, the non-custodial parents who have access rights to their children by order of a court want similar legislation to that passed respecting the enforcement of child support orders; that is to say, they want legislation that will provide more effective and less expensive mechanisms for the enforcement of their access orders. Many argued that child support was being dealt with before any consideration at all of legislation reforms in the areas of access and custody of children.

Had I been asked to draft the first part of this motion, I would have worded it as follows:

That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and analyze issues related to custody and access of children after their parents have separated and/or divorced, including the following issues, namely:

1. the adequacy of current access enforcement mechanisms;
2. the rights of second or subsequent families;
3. the desirability of the mandatory mediation of divorce disputes;
4. the rights of grandparents or other third parties to apply for access or custody;
5. mobility rights of parents after divorce;
6. the rights of non-custodial parents to receive information about the children and to be consulted in decisions regarding such children, e.g.,

   a) is the non-custodial parent to be consulted when deciding such matters as
   i) what schools the children will attend,
   ii) what course of study the children will take,
   iii) what church the children will attend,
   iv) what doctor will be consulted.
   b) what responsibility does the custodial parent have to keep the non-custodial parent informed about the children;
   

7. the psychological and developmental effects of divorce on children;
8. the language of divorce - the use of the words "custody" and "access" are terms used in the criminal law and law of property and therefore are inappropriate to describe relationships between parents;
9. Should there be a presumption in favour of "joint custody" or "shared parenting", which is the case in some jurisdictions, but is currently not the case in Canada; and
10. Such other issues as the Committee may consider appropriate. (1550)