Author: admin

By Les Sillars
Ottawa’s child custody committee lends a sympathetic ear to divorced dads​

Heading into a hearing of Ottawa’s Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access in Calgary last week, one divorced father was wearing a big grin and two lapel buttons with the words, “Children need fathers, not visitors.” He was telling anybody who would listen he had just enjoyed 10 days of unsupervised access with his two children, but that it had taken eight years of legal wrangling to make it happen. He was smiling about more than just the long-awaited reunion however. For years, complaints by divorced men of a pervasive legal bias against them have been routinely dismissed as inconsequential.​

But here was a parliamentary committee which not only wanted to hear their side of the story, it even seemed sympathetic.​

The driving force behind the all-party committee is Liberal Senator Anne Cools. Last year, she and some Tory senators held up approval of the Liberal government’s Bill C-41, a crackdown on deadbeat dads which critics blasted as irredeemably one-sided. Though C-41 provided a schedule to standardize child support levels and tied support to the income of the non-custodial parent (almost always the father), it ignored the issue of mothers who deny fathers court-ordered access to their children. In exchange for Senate approval of a modified bill, then-justice minister Allan Rock agreed to appoint the custody committee.​

The committee’s mandate is to investigate “a more child-centered approach to family law practices and policies which would emphasize joint parental responsibilities.” It is expected to produce recommendations for amendments to the federal Divorce Act this fall. It has already appeared in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, and will be in the Atlantic region in late May.​

Picture: Calgary hearing: Women’s groups were on the hotseat.​

At the Calgary hearings, Sen. Cools was warmly received by several divorced fathers, most of whom are active in fathers’ rights groups. She worked her way through the crowd, hugging a few and chatting with the rest in her soft Caribbean accent. By standing up for fathers’ access rights and the need to reform Canada’s adversarial family court system, she has become a heroine to these men, a cross between a public-policy advocate and the mother-in-law ideal.​

Picture: MESA’s Sleiman: Charges of abuse were false.​

Almost every father present had a horror story to relate about a biased and uncaring legal system. Gus Sleiman is president of the Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA) in Calgary. When his four-year- old marriage broke up in 1994, his wife took their nine-month-old son Philip back to her parents’ home in Ottawa. She then applied to a Calgary court to transfer the custody hearing to Ottawa. Such cases are supposed to be heard in the jurisdiction where the couple lived with the child and custodial parents may not move without consent. But she alleged her husband was physically abusive, which held up the hearing for six months. When it was finally held, the judge ruled that by then Philip had spent so long in Ottawa, it was “in the best interest of the child” to transfer the case there.​

Mr. Sleiman did not see Philip between 1994 and 1997. A judge granted three supervised visits last spring, but he has been denied unsupervised access because his wife alleged, without evidence, that he will abduct Philip to his native Lebanon if given the chance. His legal costs, not including travel, exceed $ 50,000.​

Also attending the hearing was Paul, a Calgary father of three who married in 1982. He left the marriage with the kids in 1987 after his wife physically attacked him. The next year he discovered his oldest daughter, who was five at the time, had contracted a sexually transmitted disease. Paul suspects she got it while visiting her mother, who had a boyfriend, and a history of mental illness. Paul was awarded custody in a 1990 trial.​

Two years later, however, the decision was overturned on appeal. “children should be with their mother,” said the judge. “If the sexes were reversed, you can’t believe the same thing would have happened,” says Paul, who still sounds shell-shocked. The court now garnishees $1,700 per month of his $2,800 net income for child support.​

Jay Charland of the Men’s Education Network was telling how his ex-wife has not let him see his daughter for three years. Though his manner seemed slightly hysterical, his frustration became understandable when he described how a judge flatly refused to enforce an access order. “Perhaps you should get some counseling,” she told him.​

The custody committee is co-chaired by Sen. Landon Pearson and MP Roger Gallaway, both Liberals from Ontario. Besides Sen. Cools, other members include Reform MP Paul Forseth and Tory Sen. Duncan Jessiman. They were told that slugging out custody, access and support issues in court is failing miserably. The fathers complained that false allegations of abuse are common and that courts do not recognize the contribution fathers make to parenting.​

Picture: CSWAC’s Black: Not all family breakups are tragedies​

Many believe child support often becomes defacto alimony, supporting their ex-wives and, in some cases, their new partners. Few men seek custody because they are told that, if the mother contest it, the ensuing legal battle will cost a minimum of $20,000.​

The fathers also pointed out women have no incentive to negotiate out-of-court settlements because they know judges will likely give them custody and generous levels of support. That prompted Sen. Jessiman to acidly observe that “the entire coercive power of the state is directed to the enforcement of child support payments, but the coercive power of the state dissolves into a weeping coward when it comes to the enforcement of court-awarded access.”​

Two grandparents’ rights associations also appeared before the committee to argue that when their sons lose access, so do they. However, it is the kids who are the real victims of divorce, said Alberta Children’s Advocate Michael Day. “It is not easy for us to admit that divorce has more to do with our own self-fulfillment than the good of our children,” added Hermina Dykxhoorn, executive director of the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families.​

Conversely, the two representatives of the Calgary Status of Women Action Committee (CSWAC) claimed the real cause of divorce is family violence. “We don’t believe all family breakups are tragedies,” stated CSWAC coordinator Julie Black. “We have seen no widespread problem of women unjustly denying access,” added board member Laurie Anderson. Lots of men abuse their wives, she said, “[so] we ought only to be surprised at how rarely abused women deny access.” When Sen. Cools pressed them for statistics however, the CSWAC representatives became defensive and were unable to say how many of their clients are divorced or involved in access disputes, or even how many clients they serve.​

Groups such as CSWAC, which purport to speak for many women, have produced no one at the hearings except their spokesmen. The members of grassroots men’s groups, on the other hand, have more political legitimacy than any other committee hearings in recent years,” asserts Sen. Cools. One of the fathers’ rights groups, the Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society (ECMAS), has 1,700 Alberta members. Dozens of others have sprung up across the country in the past two years, which generated an enormous demand to speak at the hearings.​

ECMAS Calgary president Mike LaBerge recommended in his submission that Canadian law adopt mandatory mediation for divorcing parents, as well as “the presumption of shared parenting” to reduce the winner-loser atmosphere created by the custody system. He also urged that access denial and the filing of false allegations be made criminal offences.​

Sen. Cools says there is a strong likelihood the committee will produce a report that recognizes fathers’ grievances. But will the governing Liberals respond to the call for a more even-handed approach? “If we have a unanimous report,” says Liberal MP Gallaway, “it’s going to be difficult for the government to ignore it.” By Les Sillars​

Copyright, Alberta Report
E.Mail: ar@incentre.net
WEB: http://albertareport.com

By Chafer Parker Jr.
Men’s activists push for place at the government trough​

Over the past decade, public funding for the Federal Women’s Program has shrunk dramatically, from $13 million annually in 1987 to about $8.5 million. While a $4.5 million reduction is undoubtedly significant, it still buys a lot of friendship. Last year the federal government gave $21.500 to advocates for abused lesbians, $50.000 to a conference on women and the Internet, and $15.000 to help women become foresters in Alberta. Overall, $2.3 million went to 93 groups involved in issues related to violence, including $250.000 to five research centers in London, Ont. to “undertake regional and national activities required to develop a national framework for violence prevention and the girl-child for the next four years.”​

Those expenditures may explain why, three weeks ago, Manitoba Reform MP Inky Mark, the caucus heritage critic, suddenly blurted to Ottawa reporter Chris Cobb that getting an audit of the federal government’s spending on women’s advocacy programs will be his personal priority when Parliament resumes in the fall. Mr. Mark was careful to avoid calling for an end to the funding; he explained he merely thought operating costs were too high. But he also suggested men’s groups should have equal access to public funds. The fair-minded Mr. Mark has thereby succeeded in placing himself squarely in the line of fire between two camps: feminists who take umbrage at any critical assessment of their programs; and fellow Reformers who hold with official party policy demanding elimination of funding for all special interest groups.​

Curtailing all funding for women’s issues is unjustified, says Mr. Mark, because ” women have made a lot of progress in our society in the past 25 years and without those government-funded initiatives, it would have taken twice as long.” But he questions “whether existing organizations really represent women today,” and suggest that “a lot of men feel shortchanged in divorce cases.” The corollary, he says, proves programs should be funded according to need, not gender. “There are issues that need to be addressed for women and men,” he says. “You can’t always dismiss them as the pet peeves of a special interest group.”​

Mr. Mark’s call for men’s funding is given added impetus by Danny Guspie, founder of the Toronto-based Fathers Resources International. He is seeking to rally Canadian men’s groups behind a class-action suit against Ottawa. The suit, he told the Ottawa Citizen, will set out to prove that the federal judicial system and government spending programs are biased against men. “The government cannot show that it is funding any men’s programs,” Mr. Guspie said. “That is not acceptable under the law.” Mr. Guspie added that he was not saying funding should be taken away from women. “The rational and honest way is to make funding available to men also.”​

Gus Sleiman, a Calgary restaurateur and president of Men’s Educational and support Association (MESA), rejects lawsuits as “something we don’t like.” But he, too, quickly adds that while “we’re not saying stop funding women’s groups, we want to persuade government to support the groups that need it, including those like ours.”​

Mr. Sleiman says the combined efforts of the media and government-funded women’s groups have resulted in a national mindset that assumes only women can be abused. “But it’s our point of view that men are abused in every way women are,” he says, “physically, emotionally and financially.”​

Neither Mr. Mark nor Mr. Guspie are likely to find support from Reformers, most of whom reject all funding for social cause-pleaders. Calgary Reform MP Jason Kenney argues, for instance, that government funding for any advocacy group is inherently anti-democratic. “It was Thomas Jefferson,” he says, “who first said, it is sinful and tyrannical to compel a man to finance the propagation of ideas he abhors.” by Shafer Parker Jr.​

Copyright, Alberta Report
E-Mail: ar@incentre.net
WEB: http://albertareport.com

By Les Sillars
Calgary police and prosecutors are slammed for ignoring an alibi​

Men accused of domestic violence have complained for years of being convicted on the unsupported say-so of their female spouses because of a pervasive anti-male bias in the legal system. There are some suggestions, however, that the tide may be turning slightly. This summer a Calgary man was acquitted of assaulting his wife after it emerged at trial he had an airtight alibi that neither police nor prosecutors had bothered to investigate. An irate Judge Bruce Fraser ordered the chief crown prosecutor to consider charges of perjury and mischief against the complainant.​

At about 10 p.m. on March 31, 1998, Calgary police received a call from Calgary resident Nawega Salem. She told the officer that about 8:30 her estranged husband, Nabil Ghanem, accosted her on the sidewalk, pushed her around, slapped her, swore at her, and tried to snatch her baby from her arms. The confrontation supposedly took 10 or 15 minutes.​

The officer, a Constable Dubar, took a statement from the complainant and then went to Mr. Ghanem’s residence. The accused told the officer that he had been home all evening and had a witness. Const. Dudar declined to investigate the alibi, arrested Mr. Ghanem, and charged him with assault.​

The case came to trial in June. In his written decision, Judge Fraser noted that the trial testimony of the complainant, Nawega Salem, and her mother, Fatima Salem, was vague and contradictory. When asked about the inconsistencies between her trial testimony and her written statement, Nawega replied, “If I wanted to, I could have read this before I came to court today.” Furthermore, three credible witnesses testified that Mr. Ghanem had been at his residence all evening. This alibi was disclosed to the Crown prior to the trial.​

The court also heard that an hour before the complaint was lodged, Mr. Ghanem had had his wife served with divorce papers and an order preventing her from leaving the province with their child. Judge Fraser found the evidence of the accusers was “quiet frankly, false,” and concocted to gain leverage in the anticipated custody battle.​

(picture) MESA’s Sleiman: Courts are becoming less credulous.
The shoddy investigation put an innocent man “through the agony of a criminal trial and the expense of having to defend himself. If that’s what police officers think ‘zero tolerance’ means, then their training is sadly lacking,” said Judge Fraser.​

The judge, Calgary’s former chief crown prosecutor, then ordered current chief prosecutor Jerry Selinger to consider charging the complainant and her mother, suggested that Mr. Selinger investigate why the Crown did not check the alibi, and instructed that a copy of his comments be forwarded to Calgary police Chief Christine Silverberg.​

Three weeks ago a police spokesman insisted that full investigations are standard policy. Mr. Selinger did not respond to an interview request. As for the Ghanem family, “well, you see, I’m back with her now, so I guess I wouldn’t be interested in [being interviewed] for the story,” Mr. Ghanem says. “It would only make things difficult.”​

Gus Sleiman, president of the Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA), believes that the courts are slowly becoming more cautious about the stories of some women who claim to be victims. Calgary criminal lawyer Don MacLeod says that it is difficult to say there is a trend. “What is rare, but not unheard of,” he says, “is a judge whose feelings about the credibility of a witness are strong that he orders the Crown to investigate perjury charges.” It is even more notable, Mr. MacLeod adds, that Judge Fraser saw fit to censure his former colleagues in the crown prosecutor’s office.​

Les Sillars
Copyright, Alberta Report
E.Mail: ar@incentre.net
WEB: http://albertareport.com