|
As the Canadian story involving Clayton Giles and his family is unfolding, it is unfortunate that too many people, including many in the media, still cannot see the forest because of the trees.
Licia Corbella, a columnist from the Calgary Sun newspaper, reported that Clayton's father is delinquent in his child support payments and that he published some of the family's dirty laundry when emotions between the feuding couple were at a peak. She said the father was naughty for making numerous court motions in 1993 while fighting for the rights of his children.
Somehow, in Corbella's eyes, the focus has changed from what is in the best interest of the children to what dad did wrong years ago. Like so many others, she has become blinded to the most important issues and now seems to feel that it was OK for the judge to use the children as weapons, and the threat of not seeing the children as a way of stopping the father's determined efforts to fight for his kids. She seems to feel that one parent's wrongs can be used to justify another parent's and the court's wrongs.
No matter what the circumstances, however, two wrongs still don't make a right.
While there may be no disputing of the facts Corbella reported about the father, under no circumstances should any judge cite reasons such as these as an excuse to use the children's relationship with a parent as a weapon in court to intimidate another parent. Under no circumstances should any parent interfere with the relationship between their child and another loving and caring parent, no matter what the reason.
A loving relationship between a parent and a child is something that our society must protect at all cost, for it is one of the most important building blocks, especially in the early years, that helps children develop into healthy and well adjusted adults.
On his website, Clayton makes it very clear that he enjoyed a loving relationship with his father and that his mother had a history of emotionally abusing him and his sister before Justice Hutcheson of the Court of Queen's Bench made his ruling in 1993.
Hostile parenting lasts a lifetime
Clayton describes a number of disturbing ways in which his mother was emotionally abusing them and attempting to interfere, if not destroy the children's relationship with their loving and caring father. In professional circles, this is referred to as hostile parenting and it is one of the most destructive forms of child abuse. Its negative affects last a lifetime.
Where was the court in 1993 when Clayton and his sister needed protection from his mother's emotional abuse? Did anyone not ask the children what their mother was doing to them or what their wishes regarding their father were? Did anyone consider the children's relationship with their father as being important? It doesn't seem so, because Clayton, the victim, felt he was being abused prior to this judge's order.
Keep in mind that this information is coming from Clayton, the one being abused, not from court files which often contain so many lies that seldom can one determine the truth in the affidavits of the parents. If the court had taken steps to stop the abuse of the children in the first place, then Mr. Giles would likely not have resorted to the tactics he felt would bring justice to his children and himself. Whose word should we most believe - that of the victim who has nothing to gain except a parent's love, or that of a parent for whom considerable power and control is at stake.
How far is too far?
Mr. Giles has been criticized for making six court applications in one month. But when the court system remains the only place where a parent can go to protect their children's rights, should a parent be criticized for trying too hard to protect their children?
If he had not, would many others have criticized him for not fighting tooth and nail to stop harm being done to his children? Many Lawyers use dirty tricks and court procedures to disadvantage self-represented people every day, yet seldom does the court blink an eye. Reportedly, Mr. Giles wrote things to make mom look bad. Although this may have been wrong, it shows the frustration and desperation people feel when the court system has failed to protect their children.
The bottom line is that parents who emotionally abuse their children during a custody battle by interfering with a child's relationship with another parent ultimately pay the price. It would seem that Ms. Giles is now paying back the piper for her emotional abuse of her children.
It can be said that actions and results speak louder than words. Based on Clayton's actions now and his story as he has described it on his website, it seems quite clear as to which of his parents better understand his best interests and emotional needs. Yet, for whatever reason, in over a year the court has been unable to legitimize Clayton's right to be with the parent who is best able to protect his rights and act in his best interest. This is a clear failure of the system itself that must be remedied.
Family court dilemma
Family Courts are in a dilemma today: false allegations, lies and perjury are rampant in the family court system, and many in the legal profession openly to admit this. The adversarial system, by its very nature, forces both parents to undermine the other side to win the prize - the kids. This is no secret to those who work within the system.
To those who study conflict management, it is widely accepted that as long as there is a winner and a loser there will likely be conflict. Back in 1993, the Court made Ms. Giles the winner and Mr. Giles and both children the losers. That is why, eight years later, this matter is still not resolved and why the conflict continues.
The court failed to take into account the emotional abuse of the children and instead likely based their ill-informed and unfair decision on the twisted and distorted information contained in the court affidavits. Unfortunately, tragedies like this are happening in courts across this country and both mothers and fathers are being denied access to their children because of the failure of the courts to recognize what is truly in the best interest of the children.
There is one very simple solution to all of this. Simply give both parents the equal opportunity to parent their children under an interim shared parenting agreement for six months to one year before a final order. Provide both parents the dignity of being an equal stakeholder in their children's lives and appoint a neutral third party to monitor their arrangement until emotions have stabilized. If the court had done this back in 1993, Clayton would not be making news today.
Maybe if everyone took a moment to consider a fresh perspective and tried hard to see the forest behind the trees by looking at the underlying causes of divorce court conflict, then we would truly be on the way to ending much of the harm being done to children and families in our family courts. Clayton Giles must not be commended for having the courage and conviction to stand up and tell the judges and the lawyers what many of them know already: that the current family court system is not working. Let us hope they hear him and make things better.
Vernon Beck is a mediator, family coordinator and child advocate from Ontario. He is involved with the development of programs focussed on reducing divorce related conflict. He may also be reached at (905) 829-0407.
What do you think? - Post your comments on the Equalitarian Forums.
|