Globe essay
That toxic tug-of-war
In a custody battle, making peace is more important than being
right. Indeed, the very notion of 'parental alienation' glosses over whose
rights are at issue — namely, the child's
HARVEY BROWNSTONE
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
April 24, 2009 at 11:40 PM EDT
Several recent court cases have focused on the serious problem of
parental alienation. Although many are hearing about it for the first
time, it has always been a prevalent concern in high-conflict custody
litigation.
Mental-health professionals debate the definition of parental alienation,
and whether it is a clinical "syndrome," but few would disagree that the
problem exists. In simple terms, "parental alienation" refers to a parent's
persistent campaign of denigrating the other parent to their child
(sometimes called "brainwashing" or "poisoning" the child against the other
parent), which causes the child to unjustifiably reject the other parent.
Alienating conduct can take many forms: badmouthing the other parent's
personality and conduct; portraying the other parent as dangerous, abusive
or as having abandoned or not loving the child; withdrawing love and
affection from a child who expresses positive feelings about the other
parent; and denying the other parent contact with the child. While some mean
by "parental alienation" only the misconduct of custodial parents, we judges
often see high-conflict cases where both parents badmouth each other to the
children, cruelly placing them in conflicts of loyalty. Moreover, such
conduct is not in the exclusive domain of mothers or fathers; both engage in
it.
In my view, the term "parental alienation" incorrectly identifies the
target parent as the victim. The true victims are the children, who are
innocent in parental break-ups. Every child has a right to enjoy a loving
relationship with both parents. Since it is the child's right that is being
violated by a parent's alienating behaviour, it is the child who is being
alienated from the other parent. However you name it, there is no doubt that
children are at risk of emotional harm when they become weapons, pawns and
spies for bitter, angry, vengeance-seeking parents who turn custody disputes
into battles for power and control — battles that often focus entirely on
the parents' needs and not at all on the children's.
There is widespread dissatisfaction among parents with the family justice
system. Among the most angry are non-custodial parents desperately seeking to
enforce access to their children. Judges hear daily from heartbroken parents who
say that the legal system vigorously enforces child support but does not care
about enforcing access. I see their point, but it troubles me when people liken
the enforcement of a parent-child relationship to the collection of a debt.
Children are not pieces of property that can be "seized" or "garnisheed"; they
are vulnerable human beings. Decisions affecting a child's emotional well-being
must be carefully made, always with a view to making a child's life better, not
worse.
Non-custodial parents routinely allege parental alienation when access is
denied. The court must first decide if the allegation is valid. Family dynamics
are layered and complex, and it is no simple task to find out why a child is
refusing to see a non-custodial parent. What is the child's age and stage of
development? Does the child have independent reasons stemming from memories of
events before the break-up, or relating to the way access is occurring? Has the
child been coached, bribed, threatened or manipulated to express negative views
about the access parent? Family courts often require the assistance of
assessments from psychologists or social workers. This can take time, which
intensifies the problem if alienation is occurring.
If the court finds that alienation is causing a denial of access, what are
its options? Sometimes supervised access will take place at an access centre,
where trained staff observe the quality of parent-child interactions. Or a court
could order police to enforce access. While this can be effective, the police
exercise discretion in enforcement, and are understandably reluctant to "arrest"
children and drag them kicking and screaming to visits with parents they are
adamantly refusing to see. As difficult as this may be for some parents to
accept, a child's negative feelings about a parent are real and true for the
child, however unjustified these feelings may be.
WON THE BATTLE, LOST THE WAR
A second possibility is to find an alienating parent in contempt of court and
impose a fine or jail sentence. This can be effective, but there is a serious
risk of backfire. When a custodial parent conveys to an alienated child that the
other parent has caused financial hardship because of the fine, the child's
negative feelings toward the non-custodial parent can intensify. Even worse, a
child whose custodial parent says, "Your mom/dad sent me to jail," may see the
custodial parent as a martyr, and become even angrier at the non-custodial
parent. Moreover, when a custodial parent goes to jail, the other parent does
not automatically get custody; the children's aid society may have to intervene
to determine a proper placement for the child during the parent's absence. Some
children end up in foster care during this period, and are unforgiving toward
the parent they believe put them there. I have seen more than my share of
non-custodial parents who "won the battle but lost the war."
Court proceedings are not conducive to peacemaking; they tend to increase
acrimony between parents, which is bad for children. Many non-custodial parents
simply walk away from an impossible situation, devastated to lose contact with
their children, but consoled to know that their children's exposure to a toxic
tug-of-war is over. If this happens, custodial parents should know that their
"victory" may be short-lived. Adult children often seek out estranged parents
and assess the situation for themselves, with an independent mind and open
heart. A custodial parent who has selfishly cut the other parent out of their
child's life may end up being the excluded one when the child grows up and
learns the truth.
Another option is to suspend or terminate child support. After all, if a
non-custodial parent is being deprived of the right to see the child, why should
he or she have to pay support? Proponents of this argument forget that access is
the child's right, as is the right to be financially supported. If the child is
being victimized by not getting to see a parent, it does not help the child to
also be deprived of the right to be supported by that parent. The law must be
child-focused. Children must be fed, clothed and housed even if they are being
deprived of a relationship with an alienated parent. Two wrongs do not make a
right. The only cases I am aware of where a court suspended or terminated child
support for a minor child because of parental alienation, are cases where the
custodial parent's financial circumstances guaranteed no reduction in the
child's standard of living even without child support. Different considerations
might apply for adult children seeking continued support from alienated and
blameless parents, but for minor children it is highly unlikely that a child's
financial lifeline will be compromised as a remedy for parental alienation.
In some alienation cases, the children's aid society intervenes to protect
children from emotional harm. If the children are lucky, the parents may be
amenable to counselling to overcome their emotional baggage, so they can
reinvent themselves from ex-partners to co-parents. In some cases a relative
will offer a suitable parenting plan that insulates the children from the toxic
parental conflict. Sadly, in other cases, children end up in foster care, as
this is the only way they can have peace and neutrality in their lives.
In severe cases, can the court simply change custody from the alienating to
the alienated parent? Yes, but only if, in all the circumstances, it would be in
the child's best interests. The alienated parent must establish that he or she
can best meet all of the child's needs. This can be a very difficult hurdle for
an alienated parent who has had little or no contact with the child for some
time. If custody is to change, intensive counselling and therapy are almost
always ordered. Some therapy programs are more intrusive, lengthy and costly
than others — and there is no guarantee of success. There is no
one-size-fits-all when it comes to the emotional health and well-being of
parents and children.
RESPECT, FOR THE CHILD'S SAKE
Could parental alienation be avoided by ordering joint custody with 50-50
shared parenting in every case? Should courts divide up the elements of custody
to create parallel parenting regimes? Many say yes. Judges say it depends on the
individual circumstances of each case. Experts tell us that many alienating
parents are suffering from personality disorders, and would not be amenable to a
co-parenting arrangement. After 14 years on the bench, I seriously doubt a court
order can make immature non-communicative parents become child-focused and treat
each other with mutual respect, for their child's sake. But I have seen it
happen. Judges try their best to do what is right for children, given the often
incomplete and conflicting evidence we get.
I believe that family counselling and therapy are the most important
resources that separated parents need to overcome their pain and anger. Parents
must carefully consider the impact of their behaviour on their children — and
become aware of the potentially devastating consequences to themselves and their
children of high-conflict litigation. Reaching compromise and making peace for
the sake of your children are more important than being right. Having healthy,
well-adjusted and happy children is more important than getting revenge. Parents
can have new partners, but no child gets a second childhood. Children learn
about relationships and parenting from observing their own parents. No one
should forget this.
Harvey Brownstone is a family court judge in Toronto and the author of
Tug of War: A Judge's Verdict on Separation, Custody Battles, and the
Bitter Realities of Family Court.
Commentary by the Ottawa Mens Centre
The Globe and Mail has deleted a very large number of posts.
Here below is commentary posted that the Globe Removed.
"Your mom/dad sent me to jail" - Brownstone is providing "a justification" as
to why mothers should not be jailed for failing to facilitate access. Judges
have a very large range of tools to do the job, but choose, not to against
women. Women simply get unbridled support to do almost anything and everything
they want.
Brownstone also engages in "the process of justification" to give "all the
reasons" why, (a mother) should not be denied child support when denying access.
He talks about "its the child's right to child support". There is an unstated
assumption that the child will starve if child support is not received. Bullony.
Brownstone FAILS to state that "its the child's right to have a relationship
with both parents, and, that child support, GREED, drives custody issues, show
dead beat mother's that they lose financially and their motive will disappear,
but, no, Brownstone provides the ultimate incentive to flout orders, that is,
"flout access, and I wont do anything"... Why go to see Justice Brownstone
exhibit such a callous disregard for children's emotional rights that are
obviously more than the financial rights of "the mother"..
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Ottawa Home of the Corrupt Judge Allan
Sheffield, Canada) wrote: "Family Counselling" This pure propaganda
that you expect from a feminist judge. The reality is that if a case gets to a
motion or an exceedingly rare trial, one or both the parties has a very serious
personality disorder or mental illness. Those sort of people will NOT genuinely
participate in any counsellling , therapy or mediation.
Sending a child to a one hour session with a shrink will not solve anything
while with a vindictive mother hell bent on alienating the child 24/7 with
carrots of every thing they could possibly want combined with threats.
The ONLY way "peace" can be ensured is by having mandatory legislation of a
presumption of equal parenting after separation.
Justice Brownstone ignores the fact that other jurisdictions apply that legal
presumption and have only a fraction of that litigation.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
- Posted 25/04/09 at 11:56 AM EDT
Justice Brownstone's gift
for public speaking, his ability to portray himself as god, his legal abilities,
are only exceeded by his arrogance and the typical Judicial pathological hatred
towards fathers.
Brownstone has been able to convince his superiors, that "he can do it", that
Brownstone can be the Gobbels of the Judiciary, perhaps we could call him
Justice Haw Haw, after that treasonous Englander who was the Third Reich's voice
of propaganda.
Anyhow, the judiciary email group will be probably be running hot with
suggestions on how they can get the Globe and Mail to remove those articles that
don't show Brownstone or the judiciary in a positive light.
Brownstone, reveals, for Canadians to read, classic examples of what is called a
legal term called "the process of justification" which of course is not a legal
expression, its the same reasoning Criminals use to murder their opponents or
simply engage in shop lifting.
Our judiciary, are probably , the greatest criminals in Canada, they are
entrusted, to apply the law, but they don't, they use "the process of
justification" to make endless draconian feminist politically correct decisions
that destroy children's relationships with their father.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
- Posted 25/04/09 at 12:16 PM EDT
Repeated
Justice Brownstone's gift for public speaking, his ability to portray himself
as god, his legal abilities, are only exceeded by his arrogance and the typical
Judicial pathological hatred towards fathers.
Brownstone has been able to convince his superiors, that "he can do it", that
Brownstone can be the Gobbels of the Judiciary, perhaps we could call him
Justice Haw Haw, after that treasonous Englander who was the Third Reich's voice
of propaganda.
Anyhow, the judiciary email group will be probably be running hot with
suggestions on how they can get the Globe and Mail to remove those articles that
don't show Brownstone or the judiciary in a positive light.
Brownstone, reveals, for Canadians to read, classic examples of what is called a
legal term called "the process of justification" which of course is not a legal
expression, its the same reasoning Criminals use to murder their opponents or
simply engage in shop lifting.
Our judiciary, are probably , the greatest criminals in Canada, they are
entrusted, to apply the law, but they don't, they use "the process of
justification" to make endless draconian feminist politically correct decisions
that destroy children's relationships with their father.
look at the research by Peter Roscoe at www.OttawaMensCentre.com
Peter who is not a criminal, is presently incarcerated at the Ottawa Detention
Centre based on fabricated order for unpaid support. Peter has been the victim
of several draconian orders, the worst being by Justice Denis Power of Ottawa
which Peter successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal of Ontario, who put in
a poison pill of costs, as they usually do, that is, you can win an appeal on
the issue but they do "indirectly what cannot be done directly"
Many of the readers of this forum will know Peter Roscoe and will know that his
health has taken a toll over the last year and your letters of support will be
appreciated.
Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Ottawa Home of the Corrupt Judge Allan
Sheffield, Canada) wrote: "The court must decide" so says Justice
Harvey P Brownstone, except what he does not state is the obvious fact, that a
decision, a real decision, is unlikely ever to be made. A real decision requires
real facts, and real facts cannot be determined in what is called "a quickie
motion" which is where feminist judges like Brownstone do their dirty work by
giving mothers virtually anything and everything they ask.
Brownstone talks about 'the harm of parental alienation' , wonderful stuff to
read, sounds like he has grandchildren or kids running around his chambers...
Brownstone, just fails, conveniently omits to show any innovation, any
leadership, as IS displayed by some the saints of the Ontario Judiciary, not all
are tarred with the feminist brush, those judges live in a virtual closet, and
dare not come out of that hetrosexual closet for fear of suffering the wrath of
powerful feminists who control the appointment process.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
.
- Posted 25/04/09 at 12:35 PM EDT
Brownstone's solution, to
parential alienation, is 'supervised access' !
You just don't see or very rarely see a mother getting supervised access, and
unless you earn several hundred thousand dollars a year, no father can afford to
litigate to a trial of the issue which of course is where "real facts" are
learned.
But, whats the point of a trial, if you have a judge, determined to engage in
the process of justification?
Fact is, only around 5% of the cases set down for trial lists ever get to trial,
most fathers are told, they will make a feminist decision, don't go to trial, so
they settle.
For those father who persist, generally self represented, the underbelly of the
judiciary step in, they use a "hit man" like Justice Allan Sheffield in Ottawa
to make orders for "summary judgement' or like Denis Power who hit Peter Roscoe
with a Vexatious Litigant order. Appealing these orders is next to impossible,
Peter Roscoe was successful on his appeal of Power's order but, hit him with
draconian costs.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
- Posted 25/04/09 at 12:35 PM EDT
Justice Brownstone's
revealing book, fails to describe the blunt very dirty, corrupt, realities of
family law.
Justice Brownstone does not describe how the hatred towards fathers just oozes
out of the courtroom walls, its such a pathological hatred that the courts are
generally nothing more than a pretense of justice, its a stage, the judges and
lawyers might as well be putting on a play, they all "pretend" that its law when
its not, is political correctness gone mad.
Just how does the entire Superior Court of Ontario Family Division get to be
such an insult to justice?
It starts with a feminist NDP government who dictate that judges go to
"brainwashing school" thats right, judges must attend courses on feminist law
that has as its mantra, that females are victims and males are those violent
abusers who must show a reverse onus of proof that they are not violent, that
they are not abusers, that they can parent, and that they don't suffer a mental
health problem, and that they dont have an anger problem which or course is an
impossible burden of proof.
You can't prove a double negative, its a Male Sharia law, enforced by judges who
failed to spend time with their own children and were probably raised entirely
by their mothers with an absent father.
Being born with a silver spoon protruding from your rear end, will definitely
increase your odds of becoming a lawyer and a judge but unfortunately, it can
also be a guaranteed way to raise children in snobby world with a conceited
arrogance towards anyone not of their social circle. That's a general
description, some judges are shining examples of humanity and professionalism
but when, the administration of the courts, from the top down is rotten with Man
Haters, its almost impossible for even the most reasonable judge to be able to
do their job devoid of the all powerful feminist lobby groups.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
- Posted 25/04/09 at 1:13 PM EDT
Peter Roscoe is presently
incarcerated at the Ottawa Regional Detention Centre, ostentatiously on a FRO
warrant for failing to pay child support.
He is anything but a dead beat dad.
Peter Roscoe was not allowed by Justice Denis Power to show the evidence that he
did not have a millions in assets, in fact his material had literally scores of
examples of fraud by his ex wife's lawyer who put before the court false
information.
Peter Roscoe is another self represented father who simply wanted to be a
father, and Justice Denis Power declared him a vexatious litigant. "enough is
enough" said Power, he wanted to "get rid of him" another unrepresented father
who just had the balls and the skills to put his case forward, Power could not
deal with the level of proof provided so he decided to "fix him" and "fix him"
he did.
Justice Power's order was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal successfully,
but the Appeal court put a poison pill of costs to prevent him from litigating.
In law, its improper to do indirectly what is prohibited directly, Justice Denis
Power is a classic example of that Criminal offence called "Obstruction of
Justice" and is that criminal offence by Justice Denis Power that has put Peter
Roscoe in Jail, its a lifetime sentence of indefinite repeated incarceration
without ever a trial being held or the right to bring a variation proceeding.
Peter Roscoe has done more research on judicial bias than another person in
Canada, he has made more efforts to take them to task in court than probably any
other father around, he is an example of what it takes to get going when the
going gets tough.
You can donate to Peter Roscoe's Jail Canteen fund by sending a Money Order made
out to Peter Roscoe at
Peter Karl Roscoe C/o
Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Ottawa ON
K1B 4C4
You are encouraged to send him letters of support.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
Ontario is one of the few jurisdictions, that will only issue an order for joint
custody, providing the mother consents ( can communicate is the term the courts
use), that means Ontario Judges encourage women "not to communicate" so a joint
custody order will not issue.
Ontario Judges have lots of tools in the box, you don't need "Ontario Joint
Custody' to have equal shared parenting, an order for sole custody can
incorporate virtually all the features of an order for joint custody except in
name only and to deal with real problems.
The fact is, most Ontario Judges, use every excuse to give mother's what they
ask for be it custody, support , financial division of net family property.
Those who claim "50/50 does not work well" are from the feminist camp,
regardless of the name they use to post with.
Fact is, ask separated parents who did not need to litigate, who are the
examples of successful parenting after separation, they all generally choose
50/50 parenting, there is no other method to give children of separated parents
their emotional needs.
Judges know this but have, a feminist doctrine, a legal farce, an unwritten
instruction to prevent any father's contested request for equal parenting.
"Substantial cooperation" can and will take place if there is a legal
presumption of equal parenting after separation in the first place.
Spare a thought for Peter Roscoe, another father incarcerated for simply wanting
to be a father. Read the prior post about his address for letters of support.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Ottawa Home of the Corrupt Judge Denis
Power, Canada) wrote: Absolute Proof of Bias in Ontario Family Court is
evidenced by that courts abysmal failure if not blatant refusal, to make Spousal
Support orders in favour of men.
Another example is court costs, Ontario Family Court will apply a double
standard, if a woman has a lawyer, she creams out the father on costs, often the
costs are deliberately incurred as part of a financial war of attrition, that
generally she can survive and he cannot.
The same Ontario Family Court will not give an unrepresented male litigant court
costs so, the entire system is stacked, its guaranteed to end in failure.
If judges were pilots, hardly a flight would ever get off the ground and any
flight that got of the ground would crash.
If the same deliberate negligence was practiced by the medical profession, no
patient would survive an operation, let along get examined appropriately, there
would just be assumption and if male, the patient would be given a fatal
prescription.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
Ontario Courts Pendulum
is swinging against dads. Ontario Family Court judges are increasingly prepared
to engage in knife fights with fathers in the courtroom except, the fathers are
not just bound by the hands and feet, they are "Gagged", thats right gagged.
The vile most corrupt pitiful examples of humanity who belong in jail, are not
your child sex offenders, they are, Ontario Superior Court Judges and of course
the worst examples can be found at the Court of Appeal of Ontario blatantly and
flagrantly, "obstructing justice" , fabricating evidence , that is, justifying
evidence that knew or ought to know is false , thats achieved by saying "the
father supplied no proof of his allegations" when its probably written like
stone in certified court transcript, something that judges don't want fathers to
have.
Ontario Judges have several dirty tricks up their sleeves, one is avoiding or
delaying the supply of transcripts, they also can "ALTER TRANSCRIPTS" thats
right, if an Ontario Judge does not "like" or "approve" of wording in a
transcript, she or he can simply order the court reporter to type up something
different.
Then there are the court staff who use every opportunity to make sure a father's
transcripts "go missing".
In one famous case in Ottawa, the court reporter kept the money for transcripts
and was never charged nor did the father ever get his transcripts.
Judges will "authorize" transcripts for mother's feminist lawyers of case
conferences but ignore a similar request from a father, especially when
incriminating admissions were made, you see, judges simply don't wish to deal
with any form of perjury , fraud or fabrication of evidence, "by a woman".
If its a man, he can expect the book to thrown at him by way of criminal charges
based upon nothing more than "allegations"
Its Ontario Government's policy of Male Gender Apartheid.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
www
..
Justice Browstone is just
another judge encouraging women to flout access orders. His message, flout
orders, do what every you like and you will NOT go to jail or even loose child
support.
If mothers knew that they would go to jail for failing to comply with an access
order, they would not flout the orders, if Mothers knew that child support
payments would be lost if they flouted access orders than they would be more
reluctant to flout access orders.
Brownstone's logic is almost narcissistic, Brownstone KNOWS that child support
payments are not just for the child but have what is called "a spousal support
component" that is even if the father is a deserving case for spousal support
from the mother, a judge will still let a mother collect these inequitable
payments even when she flagrantly ignores orders for access.
Its thanks to the double standards applied by judges like Brownstone that we
have, a totally dysfunctional Family Court riddled in part at least, with Judges
who apparently gain sadistic satisfaction from destroying childrens
relationships with their father.
Ontario is simply a very bad place for dads.
If you a male, thinking of immigrating to Canada, give Ontario a wide berth.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
Jim Mohagan, Thanks for
your well written post. I'll correct you on one statistic, its not just 1:5 kids
who live without their father, its more like in excess of 50%.
I've asked several teachers this question and all report that about half the
class do not live with their known assumed biological father.
I've got some more stats that are extremely alarming.
One in Three to One in six children have a man named on their birth certificate
who is NOT their father. 50% of all women will have an affair when they know
they can conceive a child with a man they are not married to.
Thats not all, Men, 80% of men, will have sexual relations with a woman when
they know they could cause a pregnancy, mind you many will not have a brain or
what brains they have are overtaken by hormonal desires.
Children have a "RIGHT" to know WHO their father is, and men have a right not to
be named as a father, fraudulently, as many women simply choose an unwitting
sperm donor and walking CASH Machine or alternative, get pregnant to a
"unwitting donor" and get the CASH off the unwitting "father".
The only solution is Mandatory DNA tests upon birth registration of child and
the "father" declaring paternity. The reality is, at least 30% are in for a very
rude shock.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
Justice Brownstone
although a highly skilled persuasive writer, shows a lack of comprehension of
parenting. His bio sounds impressive, but, its impressive for the wrong reasons.
His "family law" background is a list of being involved with those with an
agenda of treating fathers as an inferior species that is less than human.
Justice Brownstone also shows, very clearly, his underlying goals, the picture
or rather the propaganda message that he wishes to have others think
- Posted 25/04/09 at 6:16 PM EDT
Justice Brownstone holds
a zealous view that is that of extreme feminists, who oppose equal parenting, he
also has a long history of being involved as a lawyer in "enforcement" that is,
the setting in place of child support that cannot be easily varied, that ends up
being paid by a father's relatives because the father loses his employment.
He was a key person in the Family Responsibility Office, yes, thats the
enforcement office that results in almost every up to date payor of child
support being told that they are in arrears.
Thats the same office that a member of parliament investigated and found
pallets, yes, pallets of Checks and Money Orders held in storage, thats right in
deliberate storage so father's would "be in arrears".
To this day, Brownstone's FRO office engage in a similar war against men, its
records can conveniently show an up to date payer as behind, and if a father
wants a copy of that highly misleading statement he will have to pay $50 for a
document, deliberately designed to be misleading.
Other jurisdictions operate very differently and equitably, but not Ontario, for
which we can thank the likes of Anti - Father judicial activists and a society
that is indoctrinated with feminist doctrines of gender superiority.
The problem is getting worse, not better, Ontario Family Court Judges are
increasingly prepared to push the boundaries beyond what is a very obvious
criminal offense but into retribution and revenge for daring to expose them
publicly.
Experienced lawyers dare not say anything publicly, its all ready very public
knowledge that some judges will also exact revenge against lawyers they don't
like and sometimes those reasons go to having been a former law partner which
you would think would be a conflict but no, its not a conflict unless the same
judge says so.
Thats the Ontario Judiciary for you. A cess-pool of corruption.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
Ontario has placed most
interim child custody issues in the hands of the Feminist controlled local
police "Domestic Violence Squads", that means, any call to 911 is vetted to
ensure that generally he gets arrested and she gets the kids, HE is released on
conditions, criminal conditions that make a custody decision.
If a mother flees the home with a child, its not abduction, if a father does the
same thing, police will demand he "turn over the child" and threaten him with
abduction charges if he does not. In fact they will keep him in jail for a day
just to give her a head start and organize every feminist support in town to
help her while he is still locked up to be eventually released without charges
but after the damage is done.
For this, you can thank the Attorney General, who gave police forces policy
directions that follow feminist doctrine.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
Thanks D.
Bell for your post. Changes to legislation happen painfully slowly and first we
need to bear in mind, how the family court system has changed, not by
legislation, but by "directions" it's insidious, virtually silent process of
change that has stark reminders of how the Nazis came to power.
Parental Alienation is just "an effect", we need to cure the cause, and that is
one of a need for dramatic changes in legislation to bring Ontario into line
with other less backward jurisdictions.
Australia for example has a legal presumption of equal parenting after
separation, child support is varied upon the filing of a tax return, not by a
separate bureaucracy whose sole purpose is to act as government office for Male
Gender Apartheid called the Family Responsibility Office.
Child support in Ontario is factored to disenfranchise fathers, its specifically
used to prevent access, deter access, deter any motion for variation by creating
massive costs to vary while it costs nothing to institute.
(Justice Brownstone was a key person involved in that effort and has associated
himself with those who have an anti father agenda, despite his god like eloquent
words of wisdom that fail to hide his underlying motivations.)
The other major change required is a "Judicial Authority" that has real power.
Judges are granted absolute power, and its a fact, absolute power corrupts
absolutely, it is just "too tempting", the judiciary attracts the very
personalities who have serious personality disorders who are also highly skilled
actors who can fool most people most of the time but not those who have to
endure their collective endless abuses of power.
Ontario's judiciary includes judges who have no hesitation in ignoring absolute
proof of fraud, they are lazy, they don't read pleadings and when they do, its
so they can cut and paste to justify a decision they know is legally wrong but
politically correct.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
- Posted 26/04/09 at 11:09 AM EDT
Sorry D. Bell, it is not
available on appeal. Most fathers cannot afford to appeal, and the Appeal court
of Ontario is even more biased than its lower Superior court.
The "Divisional Court" is specifically set up , not to hear cases, to dispose of
cases, its composed of the SAME judges in the same chambers.
If you read their decisions, its like watching criminal court where very large
numbers of cases are heard in a day, there is rarely any genuine hearing of an
appeal, its a pretense.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, pretends to hear appeals but, their judges are so
biased, you need to read the extensive research and the summary of that research
done by Peter Roscoe, You can read that at www.OttawaMensCentre.com
- Posted 26/04/09 at 11:15 AM EDT
Warning to all Fathers - Justice Brownstone does not speak about the
increasing number of fathers who are incarcerated, not for any criminal offence
but for simply going to Ontario Superior Court Family Division and asking for
access.
Fathers should read this post and take careful note because it is going to
happen to a very large, an increasing number of Ontario Fathers.
Ontario Family Court judges do not make legal decisions, many are vile, corrupt
and have a pathological hatred of fathers.
That typically translates into, a father losing his employment or business as a
result of a mother's "allegations" a simple "she said" unproven, uncorroborated,
un-cross examined and or course NO TRIAL. Just quickie motions heard by
"arrangement", that is "judge shopping".
The court will accept almost any financial demand she makes for division of net
family property, and will "invent" property, "invent" income for the purposes of
"calculating child support. In fact, Ontario judges don't even need to see a
claim of imputed income to order support at what ever level the judges mood
feels like.
The same judge then orders "security for costs" and or "orders striking
pleadings" and or "vexatious litigant orders" and restraining orders to further
encumber the father in litigation that is virtually impossible to overcome.
These orders called "Sheffield Orders" or "Power Orders" are effectively,
"DEPORTATION ORDERS" of Canadian Citizens and if they don't leave Canada or at
least Ontario, they will be arrested, and repeatedly incarcerated for six months
at a time, INDEFINITELY till they die.
This has happened to PETER ROSCOE, he is presently in jail in the Ottawa
Regional Detention Centre. Contribute to his canteen fund with a Money Order
made out to Peter Roscoe.
Send LETTERS OF SUPPORT to
Peter Karl Roscoe C/o
Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Ottawa ON
K1B 4C4
Ontario Father's please take note of what has happened to Peter Roscoe. He is
a classic example of how a loving father can be suddenly have his loving
relationship with his son terminated by an Ontario Superior Court Family
Division Judge who issues an order preventing him from having "any further
litigation".
Judges are increasingly flagrantly abusing the judicial discretion to make
"draconian orders".. Now, if you think you know "thins are bad", odds are you
have no idea of exactly how "bad" , "things" are.
Peter Roscoe's pleadings detailed very carefully around 50 examples of
fraudulent claims, generally put together by his ex wife's lawyer, outragious
claims for which no supporting evidence was supplied or for which was
contradicted by their own evidence.
Peter Roscoe did a commendable job for a self represented litigant. He had the
misfortune to end up in front of Justice Denis Power who issued a "vexatious
litigant order". Peter SUCCESSFULLY appealed Power's order but the Court of
Appeal put in a poison pill, to indirectly achieve the same "effect.
Once that order is made, the lid in the father's coffin is nailed down with
outrageous orders for child support that cannot be paid, even "retroactive"
support orders going back more than 10 years even when the mother has a spousal
support obligation to the father.
Peter Roscoe efforts have been "heroic" , he is dire need of any sort of help
from anyone who may wish to help.
You can start by writing him letters of support, and a few bucks for his jail
canteen fund will help him buy postage stamps to reply to you.
Apparently he is not receiving phone messages.
Money Orders can be made out to him directly and mailed to him with a letter to
the
Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre, 2244 Innes Road Ottawa ON K1B 4C4
You can read the very detailed research by Peter Roscoe at
www.OttawaMensCentre.com/roscoe
KUDOS to D. BELL ! Wow, You have correctly identified "one of the causes" of
the problem.
With the greatest respect to those of the judiciary who are 'saints" ,
passionate, compassionate and objective judges of which there are many, there
is, a very serious problem with a very large section of the Judiciary when it
comes to their underlying motivations in decision making.
Lawyers if given a choice, will prefer female rather than male clients because
females win costs hands down.
Many judges make decisions to force litigants to use a lawyer, if you don't use
a lawyer, you are breaking their "unwritten code", at least thats a polite term
for EXTORTION.
Many judges loath any litigant who is not using a lawyer, part of that is
because self-reps are unfamiliar with civil procedure and the rules of court.
To give credit where credit is due, some judges, are in fact, extremely
compassionate and understanding to self reps.
They are not the problem, there are various sub groups of judges who create
destruction, one group are feminist activist judges who simply make decisions,
political decisions rather than legal decisions, then you have those who make
decisions that suit the legal profession.
A classic example is suing a lawyer, what judge in his right mind is going to
find in favour of complaint about a lawyer?
What judge is going to make any favourable decision for a father who has been
critical of a previous judges decision? Very few. Only objective impartial
judges would listen very carefully and find against a brother judge. Thats
breaking a "code of silence" its a bit like asking a Hells Angel to rat against
another Hells Angel.
The criminal aspect appears when Judges make obviously corrupt decsions, in
favour of a lawyer against a self represented litigant.
Thats a almost, guaranteed loosing argument but, not impossible.
Check out Roscoe's research at www.OttawaMensCentre.com / roscoe
JUDGES operate an "Illegal cartel" that is far more damaging to Canadian
society than any Colombian Drug Cartel.
Judges, are lawyers and lawyers are highly educated and highly skilled at how
NOT to get convicted of a criminal offense.
Judges also have absolute power, take a corrupt judge, give him absolute power
and very quickly , you will see a propensity to make decisions against any self
represented litigant who "dares to come to court without PAYING the legal
CARTEL.
Now, "Cartels" are "agreements or arrangements to prevent or lessen competition
unduly or enhance prices unreasonably."
Under Section 45 of the Competition Act, there is a market effects test for all
agreements that potentially yes, "potentially" less competition.
Only 3 out of 20 prosecutions were successful in the last 20 years so, I don't
like the chances of a judge or the entire judiciary of Ontario being convicted
because obviously its an underbelly not the whole lot.
But, there is a "fiduciary responsibility", the supervisory judges KNOW OR OUGHT
TO KNOW, that, several of their judges are NOTORIOUS..
Two of the Most NOTORIOUS JUDGES IN ONTARIO are;
Justice Allan Sheffield - and
Justice Denis Power both of Ottawa.
Their attitude to self reps, their decisions, have all the indicators of not
just a flagrant abuse of judicial power but, other sinister very corrupt
motivations.
What we need, is EVIDENCE. These two judges named a just "examples", you can go
anywhere in Ontario and in any large group of judges you will find some rotten
apples.
The problem is, victims don't speak to each other.
At the Ottawa Mens Centre web site, you will see a Judges directory.
If you have been the victim of a corrupt decision, please let us know, the name
of the judge, and provide a copy of the decision.
Check out the research by Peter Roscoe at www.OttawamensCentre.com / rosco
Peter will appreciate any donations to his jail canteen fund by money order.
JUDGES - Pat 2.
When it comes to anti-self rep judges,
Two of the Most NOTORIOUS JUDGES IN ONTARIO are;
Justice Allan Sheffield - and
Justice Denis Power both of Ottawa.
Their attitude to self reps, their decisions, have all the indicators of not
just a flagrant abuse of judicial power but, other sinister very corrupt
motivations.
What we need, is EVIDENCE. These two judges named a just "examples", you can go
anywhere in Ontario and in any large group of judges you will find some rotten
apples.
The problem is, victims don't speak to each other.
At the Ottawa Mens Centre web site, you will see a Judges directory.
If you have been the victim of a corrupt decision, please let us know, the name
of the judge, and provide a copy of the decision.
Not all judges operate as part of a criminal cartel,
just because there are a few bad eggs does not mean they are all "rotten". They
like fathers, deserve a presumption of innocence, however just as there are
"Dead Beat Parents" there are "Dead Beat Judges" and it takes a Dead Beat Judge
to create a Dead Beat Dad.
Now, some ranting:-
Society does not use the expression, "Dead Beat Mother", even though, family
court litigation is full of examples of mothers with very obvious severe
personality disorders and mental health problems refusing to let "Their child"
have any relationship with their father.
Once these children start to mature and think for themselves, that relationship,
no matter how managed by the mother begins to unravel. Generally its only a
matter of time.
Check out the research by Peter Roscoe at www.OttawamensCentre.com / rosco
D. Bell, Thanks, nice analogy. Brownstone does the legal terrorist act, he
fails to "accurately state the issue", diverts the reader from the substantive
issues, and, continues to make inappropriate orders that are positive to his
personal position or that of political correctness rather than "dealing with the
issue".
As D. Bell points out, Brownstone, blames the parents, the parents, are not to
blame, no, not even that vindictive mother who gets every order she asks for.
The blame, lies squarely on Parliament, who have failed to legislate a legal
presumption of equal parenting after separation.
The blame also lies with the judiciary who Encourage, flagrant contempt of
access orders by, failing to impose any penalty.
Its so rare that a mother gets penalized that it makes headlines.
Remember Wayne Allen?
Parliament is also responsible for the terrorizing child support guidelines
which are regarded as draconian and biased by other more progressive
jurisdictions.
Judges know the law, they supposedly know legal reasoning but, fail to balance
the probative value of children having relationships with both parents against
the mother's loss of child support until she ceases the destructive behaviours.
Ontario Judges are not just negligent, they deliberately fail to apply rules of
evidence impartially, or objectively, every decision is viewed through either a
gender lens to be politically feminist correct or, as a way of intimidating
anyone who dares to come to court without a lawyer.
Check out the research by Peter Roscoe at www.OttawaMensCentre.com
"We Judges" "not in the exclusive domain of mothers or fathers".
This typical of a passive aggressive judge lacing his comments to appear to
favour both sides when he really has his own agenda.
First he says "not in the exclusive domain of mothers - and adds, or fathers.
That in his mind clears him of an impression of bias.
Read further parental alienation "is not in the exclusive domain of mothers or
fathers, both engage in it"...
Well the truth is mothers do it a hell of a lot more than fathers, the reality
is, 95% of mothers get sole custody and it is "the power" the absolute power of
"sole custody' that enables a "custodial parent" to spend 24/7 brainwashing a
child to destroy their relationship with their father. If they really believed
in the best interests of their child, most would have or should have agreed to
50/50 parenting.
With rare exceptions, any mother who only allows ever second weekend when dad
was asking for 50/50 is engaging in parental alienation, thats it, ..
For Brownstone to say parental alienation is a 50/50 gender problem, is not just
disingenuous , its false, its deliberately misleading while "pretending" to be
"objective" and speaks in the plural sense "WE judges"...
Oh, really, just who is WE?
Check out the Roscoe research at www.OttawaMensCentre.com roscoe
Then Brownstone talks about "collection of a debt". As though, children really
don't have a right to equal love and affection from both parents.
Mind you, Brownstone would be just as quick to put a father in jail for not
paying support, and odds are that the income was simply a wild claim or
allegation, without corroborating evidence.
Then he talks about "The court must decide if the allegation is valid".
Brownstone does not state that 95% of cases NEVER get to examine those
allegations, which can only happen at trial. Ontario Family Court Judges are
collectively, corruptly, making arrangements to "get rid of cases'.
Check out the Roscoe research at www.OttawaMensCentre.com roscoe
Thanks Tango Zulu for your post.
You identified one motivating factor MONEY, So, lets "follow the money",
firstly, the biggest winners in family court are ... "the legal profession"....
thats a question everyone can answer.
Who has the greatest motivation to throw fuel on the fire? "The Legal
profession", who would loose the most if Equal Parenting Legislation occured...
"the Legal Profession".
So, who earns the most? Well, judges are way up there on that list, so are
social workers, prisons, child protection workers, foster homes and of course
"the government".
Notice that local governments are "the applicant" quite frequently in family
court? its to get child support from biological fathers to give to the
government to save the government "social costs" such as welfare payments.
Who has the greatest power to force people to use the legal profession? JUDGES..
Who in family law is the person most likely to abuse their absolute power?
JUDGES
Who can commit criminal offenses with total immunity and impunity?
JUDGES..
Who in society are the greatest dangers to children?
JUDGES
Who have the least chance of receiving disciplinary action for a professional
mistake?
What profession has the least controls after "appointment?
JUDGES
What profession has the highest public duty responsibility with the
least amount of accountability ?
JUDGES...
Would you have such a professional as your heart or brain surgeon?
Check out the list of judicial bias by Peter Roscoe at www.OttawaMensCentre.com
...
Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Judges make mistakes, Canada) wrote:
Ontario Family Court judges make mistakes, sometimes mistakes are
deliberate, others are just lazy.
Just to give you an example, here is a little Intelligence Test for Judges. It
must be done in your head only, Do NOT Use a Paper, Pencil or a Calculator.
Take 1000 and add 40 to it. Now add another 1000 Now add 30 . Add another 1000 .
Now add 20 . Now add another 1000 . Now add 10 . What is the total?
Now, Mary's father is paying support for five , thats right FIVE daughters, each
is receiving support according to the child support guidelines at the five child
rate;
1. Nana, 2. Nene, 3. Nini, 4. Nono, and ??? What is the name of the fifth
daughter?
- Posted 27/04/09 at 8:42 AM EDT
Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Judges make mistakes, Canada) wrote:
ANSWER 1
Did you get 5000 ?
The correct answer is actually 4100 .
If you did not use a calculator, you probably used judicial reasoning.
politically correct reasoning rather than logic, that is that people see what
they want to see.
ANSWER 2
If you answered NuNu then give yourself a pat on the back, you think like
Justice Allan Sheffield , Justice Denis Power or any of the other lazy judges
who don't read pleadings because they do not want to see anything that does not
agree with them. Now the answer to the second question. No, the answer is not
nunu , if you read the question, you would know that the fifth daughter's name
was Mary.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
- Posted 27/04/09 at 8:52 AM EDT
A. Nonymous ,
the system is carefully "framed" to disenfranchise men. The major inequity is
that child support is well acknowledged to have "a spousal support component"
yet, its guidelines without the needs and abilities of the parties being
considered.
Ontario, promotes "sole parenting" by providing a financial windfall, a tax free
income, providing of course you keep the father at less than 40% of the time
which of course was chosen because every second weekend, one night ever other
weekend and vacations, just puts a father under that figure. Its a figure chosen
by feminists.
Take other jurisdictions, equal parenting is ASSUMED, and other costs are
considered, but not in Ontario.
Ontario Family Law is corrupt across the board, the legislation is not just
draconian, its Feminist Sharia Law for men.
Again, as Brownstone completely omits, the cause of the problem is Parliament
who FAILED to legislate a legal presumption of equal parenting.
Its that failure of Parliament, that gives a very large financial incentive to
mothers to take advantage of the courts bias, at detriment to their children, to
seek to minimize the children's relationship with their father.
Good judges acknowledge this but are bound by the law, a law which every sane
objective person regards as insane.
Its not an insane law, its a very devious law designed to make men second class
human beings and to ensure that their legal rights are removed unless of course,
you just happen to earn several hundred thousand dollars a year.
Ontario ensures that children's best interests are prevented from being argued
in Family Court by reason of a whole box of tricks that underbelly judges use to
"get rid of another father".
One is "striking pleadings", "vexatious litigant orders", "security for costs"
and "restraining orders" "banishment orders" all of which become a "deportation
order for Canadian Citizens"
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
- Posted 27/04/09 at 9:35 AM EDT