Glenn Cheriton from FatherCraft, Jason Bouchard from NAANCP, and Lillian George from GRAND had been seeking this meeting for almost a year. Justice Canada has had extensive consultations with government-subsidized women's groups who have used state money to lobby for exclusion of men from the lives of their children except on terms determined solely by women. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that a federal cabinet minister has consulted with representatives of non-custodial parents.
Allan Rock comes across as a pragmatic, uncompromising, skillful, determined politician, somewhat feeling limited by what he feels as "lack of consensus" and the division of powers between federal and provincial governments. He seemed almost apologetic in moving on support issues in his Bill C-41 on a "55/45 consensus" while saying he couldn't deal with custody, access and since there was "no consensus".
C-41will establish a system of child support guidelines, much harsher enforcement for those unable to pay, removal of licenses, passports, etc and access to personal records including private tax returns of support payors by provincial collection agencies.
He seemed genuinely surprised by our analysis of the Thibaudeau decision in whichCanadian Supreme Court Justices McLaughlin and L'Heureux-Dub state that custodial mothers preferentially get custody because of their "immutable characteristics" rather than their "merit". The rest of the court apparently agreed. Our interpretation was that the Supreme Court acknowledges that Family Court judges are biased against male parents and that children are disadvantaged because of this prejudice. This court threat to the health and safety of children (children are at greater risk of abuse in the absence of the bio- dad) is, in our opinion, a form of legalized "stalking" of the non-custodial parent.
Loss of a parent, or denial of access, or refusal of shared parenting sought by either parent, except in those rare cases where a parent is proven to be totally incompetent or a real threat, is not in the child's interest. Family Court judges knowingly and systematically violate what the law states: their decison must be solely on the "best interests of the child".
Rock also became testy on mention of Ross Finnie, whose report was adapted into the current child support formula of Bill C-41. Finnie has strongly condemned Rock's implementation, saying that it risks collapse of the system, discourages re- marriage, and is unreasonable, especially at low income levels.
Mr Rock also mentioned a judge in Alberta who has publicly proclaimed that C-41 guidelines are too low and that she will lobby the provincial government to establish much higher provincial guidelines. NAANCP (the National Alliance for the Advancement of Non-Custodial Parents) presented calculations showing that a support paying parent with annual income between $8000 and $10,000 would be paying up to $1.40 for each dollar of income after taxes and basic exemption.
This renegade Alberta judge is infamous for bias against men getting custody and for extreme support judgments, in some cases higher than men's income. I don't think we changed any minds: the governing Liberals are committed to "improving the support system for women" as Allan Rock and Finance Minister Paul Martin have promised radical feminist women's lobby groups.
Biased judges view women's interests and children's as the same. Politicians feel they have to be seen to be doing something, even if privately they admit the current approach may make things worse.
FatherCraft presented evidence showing that support to women is rising by 6-7 percent per year while support paid to custodial fathers is dropping sharply.
GRAND (Grandparents Requesting Access 'N Dignity) made he case that the loss of extended family in adversarial divorce was rarely in the child's best interest and, with the State involvement in this access denial, the government may be repeating the disaster of the Native Residential Schools, only on a larger scale. This refers to the forced removal of native children from their families to attend church-run schools which abused the children, denigrated their culture and devastated the communities who lost their children.
I had previously talked to a staff lawyer at Justice Canada and expressed my concern about the use of the expression "deadbeat dads" by the government. He said, "We're trying to get the Minister to stop using that expression." At the end of our meeting, I asked Minister. Rock to promise not to use that expression and to educate his department that the "D-word" was offensive, unfair and counterproductive. He turned his bright blue eyes and craggy face to an aide and, asked, "Have I ever used that expression... I don't remember using it." But then, to his credit he promised not to in future, agreed that it was offensive and degrading, and said he "would try" to inform his Department that the phrase was "unacceptable".
Of such small victories a Canadian movement for children, fathers, parents and grandparents moves forward.
| Home | January | Features | Columns | OrgNews | Boutique | Directory | Links | Definitions |
The Backlash! is a feature of New Chivalry Press
Copyright © 1997 by New Chivalry Press
Email to the Editor -- If you don't want it published in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so. Otherwise, it may be published.