MESA

Author: admin

  • FATHER’S DAY Tradition 2009

    FATHER’S DAY Tradition 2009

    Jim Whinston

    Father’s Day​​​
    Relationship Talk Show, Family Issues, Public Affairs
    Homepage URL:
    http://www.kidsneedbothparents.org
    ​
    We promote fairness, equality, family and, most important, the best interests of the children. We also encourage the involvement of both parents in the lives of children, promote mutual respect and cooperation between the genders, and are dedicated to making divorce less adversarial and encouraging all of the parties to work together. These then provide the best role models for the children. We greatly encourage parents to step forward and assume responsibility for their children, improve themselves, and be the very best they can be.
    Fathers, mothers, parents, children, and families … and Rockin’ Robbin, too. Jeff Fossum, PSU alumni, original and senior producer and cohost.
    ​
    Please contact Jim Whinston at JPWhinston@aol.com or (personal) office 503-224-9477 503-224-9477 for comments, criticisms, articles for the show, or potential guests for the show. We present both sides, all sides, every side. All opinions honored and respected. We also have public affairs programming and candidate/election shows that go past the sound bites. All good ideas are welcome. And Nathan Jimenez with balanced, ongoing political analysis and perspective. Thank you very much.
    June 18, 2009:
    ​
    Gus Sleiman and Mel Feit celebrate Father’s Day, encouraging shared parenting, an equal partnership between men and women, and an end to the gender war.

  • Father's Day Tradition 2010

    Father's Day Tradition 2010

    Jim Whinston​

    Father’s Day​​
    ​Relationship Talk Show, Family Issues, Public Affairs
    ​​    ​Homepage URL:
    ​    ​​http://www.kidsneedbothparents.org

    We promote fairness, equality, family and, most important, the best interests of the children. We also encourage the involvement of both parents in the lives of children, promote mutual respect and cooperation between the genders, and are dedicated to making divorce less adversarial and encouraging all of the parties to work together. These then provide the best role models for the children. We greatly encourage parents to step forward and assume responsibility for their children, improve themselves, and be the very best they can be.

    Fathers, mothers, parents, children, and families … and Rockin’ Robbin, too. Jeff Fossum, PSU alumni, original and senior producer and cohost.​

    Please contact Jim Whinston at JPWhinston@aol.com or (personal) office 503-224-9477 503-224-9477 for comments, criticisms, articles for the show, or potential guests for the show. We present both sides, all sides, every side. All opinions honored and respected. We also have public affairs programming and candidate/election shows that go past the sound bites. All good ideas are welcome. And Nathan Jimenez with balanced, ongoing political analysis and perspective. Thank you very much.​

    We welcome all guests who would like to present a plan or solution as to how to stabilize Iraq so that our boys and girls can get out of harm’s way, and eventually leave Iraq.

    ​June 17, 2010:
    ​Gus Sleiman and Mel Feit celebrate Father’s Day, encouraging shared parenting, an equal partnership between men and women, and an end to the gender war.​​

  • Family Law Specialist Speaks Out on Proposed Amendments to the Divorce Act

    Family Law Specialist Speaks Out on Proposed Amendments to the Divorce Act

    Ottawa: Family Law Specialist Speaks Out on Proposed Amendments to the Divorce Act​​​​​​​

    “There will be no need for the Family Responsibility Office. The Family Responsibility Office is an insensitive behemoth of little value.”
    Leonard Levencrown
    Mackinnon & Phillips
    Counsel: Leonard Levencrown
    802-200 Elgin Street
    Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 1L5
    ​
    Tel: (613) 236-0662
    Fax: (613) 236-8906
    ​
    August 26, 2002
    ​
    The Ottawa Citizen
    1101 Baxter Road
    Ottawa, Ontario
    K2C 3Z3
    ​
    Dear Editor:
    The Federal Government’s proposal amendment to the Divorce Act to change the definition of custody is inherently flawed. Changing the definition to shared responsibility and leaving the ability of one parent to get sole custody will not effect any improvement. It is a weak sop to fathers and an affirmation to mothers that they will continue to be awarded sole custody in the majority of custody cases regardless of the best interests of the children. Children require a mother and a father. The Government should make joint custody the rule and only in exceptional cases one parent should have sole custody.

    ​The issue of custody is a social economic one. While parents are married there is rarely (CAS situation aside) a situation where one parent says the other is unfit. It is only upon separation that one parent finds that the other parent is unfit. The tragedy is that the Courts are being taken in by this. Over my 28 years of practice in Family Law I have heard many allegations. The father makes the child eat dinner before watching television. The father makes the child drive his or her bicycle up a hill. The majority of the allegations are unfounded and made up to use in an economic war. I have had only one true child abuse case in 28 years and the abuse was by the mother.
    ​​

    Upon separation the mother is justifiably afraid to fall on welfare or experience a reduced standard of living as she realizes there is generally not sufficient money to maintain the standards of living that previously existed.
    ​
    The fathers’ insecurity is that after spousal and child support he will have very little to live on. The struggle begins. In order for the parties to improve their custody chances they make terrible allegations against each other. Some of these are conceived by self interest groups and other disgruntled separees. I have had many cases where the wife was told to go to Police and make abuse allegations. These generally lead to a charge against the father, which almost guarantees he cannot succeed in a custody case. His parenting ability never comes into play. What is guaranteed is that he will go through an expensive trial and even if innocent may be convicted and get permanent record. Putting a parent through a court proceeding is not in the best interests of the children. It ensures that the parents will not reconcile. It produces separation and if the parent is convicted and gets a record ensures they will have job related economic problems, which will ultimately affect the children.
    ​
    The current rhetoric in our Courts today is “the best interest of the children”. These are very noble words but taken in isolation prove to be detrimental to the children.​​

    The Courts have to realize that the best interests of the children can only be ensured if we ensure the best interests of the parents. False allegations against a father to have him removed from the home will only cause him to be angry and upset. He feels his only recourse is to try and react by not paying child support. The non payment of support does not help the children. The taking of the child away by restricting access is only going to produce children with future emotional problems. I have seen many mothers enter new relationships wanting to get rid of the father of the past. They try everything to cut him off of access to his child. Generally they succeed. In the future these children will suffer emotionally and in their own relationships. Fathers that commence bogus custody claims to reduce support force the wife to retaliate.
    ​
    We constantly hear the social science people and feminists refer to men needing anger management. Do they ever ask themselves why some men are angry? Do they ever look into the causation?​

    I make the following suggestions:​

    1. ​All spousal and child support should be determined in accordance with the Guidelines based on the income of the payor. Once determined the payment should be made by the Government on a monthly basis. The same day every month. This will allow the payee to count on receipt on a recurring day. It will also prevent the payor from delaying payment. The most important aspect of this regime is it will take away the confrontation between the husband and wife and the anger on both sides. The funding of the support will be via the income tax system, which can be adjusted yearly. The number of cases in the Courts will be reduced. A provision can still allow access to the Courts in very restricted circumstances. For example; if there is a blatant under declaration of income.
    2. There will be no need for the Family Responsibility Office. The Family Responsibility Office is an insensitive behemoth of little value. It has mandated the collection of support from salaried payors who are on a payroll. These are not the cases that require such large bureaucracy. In the old days when you could not get employees, civil servants or the military to pay support we got the payments by writing to their superiors. A company or a government department did not want the public embarrassment of having an employee who did not pay child or spousal support. Today the legislation has every payor in ongoing garnishee, which affects their credit rating. The cases requiring a Family Responsibility Office are the cash workers, self employed and other discretionary earners. The Family Responsibility Office is ineffectual in these cases.
    3. Judges today are overloaded on a daily basis with motions. It is not humanly possible to properly decide a child’s life on the basis of affidavits on a motion that may only take a few hours. The judges struggle to do their best as they are sincerely concerned about children but they are limited in the present system. Custody and access cases must be decided on vive voce evidence as is done in Quebec. The parties must be required to partake in a mini trial and justify their evidence. Finally, the representations of the children by inexperienced Children’s lawyers representing the child, has to end.

    ​In conclusion, the proposed amendments clearly indicate to me that the interests groups in government have made proposals for reform on the basis of political expediency and to appease pressure groups and are not in the best interests of children.

    ​Yours very truly,
    Leonard Levencrown

  • Family Law Statutes Amendment Act

    Family Law Statutes Amendment Act

    ​Government of Alberta News Release – April 11, 2000

    “The Family Law Statutes Amendment Act helps enforce child custody and access orders and protects the rights of non-custodial parents to spend time with their children.”

    – Dave Hancock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General
    Family Law Statutes Amendment Act comes into effect April 14
    Edmonton – The Family Law Statutes Amendment Act will come into force on April 14, 2000. The Act identifies the remedies and sanctions for breaking child access orders, and improves access to the judicial system for those seeking enforcement of child access orders.​

    This legislation protects the best interests of the children involved in child custody or access disputes,” said Justice Minister Dave Hancock. “It also helps enforce child access orders that allow parents and other individuals to have continuing involvement in a child’s life.

    Under the Act, failure to comply with child access orders can result in:


    ​

    • Another period of access to replace the access that has been denied
    • Bonds to ensure access is provided
    • Fines of up to $5,000
    • Mandatory counselling, education and mediation
    • Imprisonment of up to 90 days
    • Police assistance in gaining access.

    The legislation also gives enforcement jurisdiction to the Provincial Court, which will complement the existing jurisdiction of the Court of Queen’s Bench. Approximately 38 of the 74 Provincial Court locations as well as the 13 Court of Queen’s Bench locations will be available to hear these matters. This will provide greater court access to non-custodial parents or other family members who are seeking enforcement of child access orders.
    ​
    The Act addresses recommendation 12 in the MLA Review of the Maintenance Enforcement Program and Child Access. Marlene Graham, Q.C., MLA Calgary-Lougheed led the review which addressed Albertans’ concerns about current remedies for breaches of child access available to parents and other family members.

    Justice Web Site: http://www.gov.ab.ca/just​

    Contacts:​

    • Honourable Dave Hancock – Minister of Justice and Attorney General – 427-2339​
    • Marlene Graham – MLA, Calgary-Lougheed – 415-0991​
    • Bob Scott – Director, Justice Communications – 427-8530
  • Demonstration and march to remove Cosgrove J. from office

    Demonstration and march to remove Cosgrove J. from office

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE​​​​

    Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA)
    CALGARY, TORONTO, March 2, 2009: Men’s and Father’s groups will hold a demonstration on March 6, 2009 at the Intercontinental Toronto Convention Centre, at 225 Front Street West followed by a march to the Ontario Legislative building (Queen’s Park) to demand the immediate dishonorable dismissal of Mr. Justice Paul Cosgrove of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

    A Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) inquiry committee found that the conduct of Justice Cosgrove constituted judicial misconduct, he has admitted to the misconduct. On December 4, 2008, in a 4-1 decision, the committee found grounds for recommending to the federal justice minister that Justice Cosgrove be removed from office. 

    ​​The misconduct of the judge in the context of the trial in R. v. Julia Elliott the case that sparked the complaint by the Attorney General of Ontario was in fact not isolated to that case.

    ​​Justice Cosgrove is unwavering he wan​ts to be reinstated to the bench, depending upon testimonies from numerous judges of his track record in family law cases. 
    ​
    ​W    e men, fathers and supporters condemn vehemently the track record of Justice Cosgrove as it is filled with abuse of judicial ​power and clear and direct bias against fathers and men, in some cases the abuse was described by other judges as irrational.
    ​​​
    ​The public confidence in the judiciary who preside upon family law cases has been eroded and now it is broken. Cosgrove, exit the judicial chamber of abuse and incite other judges like you who commit similar but undetected judicial abuse of power to follow, you are a disgrace to Canadian justice.” says Gus Sleiman, President of the Men’s Educational Support Association, (MESA). 

    ​​​​The demonstration is set for March 6, 2009 in front of the Intercontinental Toronto Convention Centre at 9:30 am, followed by a march to start at approx. 1:00 pm to City Hall, then to the Court of Appeal of Ontario, 130 Queen Street West, then to Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 393 University, and to end at Queen’s Park. 

    ​​For further information please contact:
    ​    ​    Gus Sleiman 
    ​    MESA 
    ​    (403) 228-6366 
    ​    “Preserving the Integrity of Fatherhood for the Sake of the Children” 
    www.mesacanada.com
    ​-30- 

  • Equal Parenting and Proposed Divorce Act Amendments

    Equal Parenting and Proposed Divorce Act Amendments

    Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA)
    Calgary, Alberta
    May 28, 2018
    The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
    Prime Minister of Canada
    The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould
    Minister of Justice​​

    RE: EQUAL PARENTING AND THE PROPOSED DIVORCE ACT AMENDMENTS
    Please allow me to congratulate you for your efforts to amend the Divorce Act (R.S.C., 1985). Your action succeeded many genuine unsuccessful attempts to bring equality of parenting and fairness to the Divorce Act that is overdue for a major overhaul.

    If Equal Parenting Isn’t Chosen Are Children Better Off?
    The majority of Canadian fathers including the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, mothers and grandparents desire to have Equal Parenting to play a central role in the process of the amendments to the Divorce Act. Due to raising of awareness about divorce issues and the negative impact on almost every member in the nation; individual attitudes have been changing to support a more balanced and equitable distribution of parental equality and responsibilities, with a large number of law makers providing full support for the concept of Equal Parenting.​

    MESA’s Role
    We at MESA provide support and information to parents who experience a domestic crisis. Our observations for the past two decades indicate a major shift in attitudes of parents and a judiciary leaning to ease their rigidity in awarding of custody to fathers. We also observed that a large number of mothers are placed on supervised access by court orders.

    The Prime Minister of Canada Support of Equal Parenting is at Odds With the Minister of Justice Omission
    The Prime Minister of Canada support for Equal Parenting as evidenced by the following transcribed excerpts:​​

    Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Papineau)
    2018-03-28 14:29 [p.18230]
    Mr. Speaker, with budget 2018, we are taking the next steps toward building an equal, competitive, sustainable, and fair Canada.
    Our budget plan means that we can continue to invest in ways that will strengthen and grow the middle class and lay a more solid foundation for our children’s future. By addressing the gender wage gap, supporting equal parenting, and introducing a new women entrepreneurship strategy, we are making important progress toward equality. This is a budget Canadians can be proud of.
    Video Link of the Statement on Equal Parenting: https://youtu.be/zlKhsqJhLL0

    Equal Parenting and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “The Charter” guarantees equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law, “The Charter” under affirmative action programs does not preclude any law program or activity relating to disadvantaged individuals or groups.

    Presumptive Equality of Parenting after separation or divorce is and should be at the heart of the Divorce Act when considering the proposed amendments.

    Parents, regardless of their gender, in intact families are not considered a disadvantaged individual or groups, this designation extends to and when the parents separate or divorce. To depart from the fundamental principles of equality in this case, Equality of Parenting becomes an affront to our values and our families.

    One Size Fits All
    Canada is made up of the Provinces and Territories that are not of the same size but have different qualities and contribute to Canada according to their abilities. Provinces and Territories may disagree and fight among each other about many competing factors but they remain not only presumptive but always equal in upholding Canada.

    Presumptive equality is a size that fits all Canadians; one example is Equal Parenting, otherwise, we descend into anarchy and disrespect to each other. There are numerous examples in the world about inequality and its effects on individuals, cultures and societies.

    Non Equality in Parenting is the destructive force behind most parents’ fights in courts and outside courts; of course, this fight is also fuelled by financial gains as a result of who is to ascertain the decision making authority over the child.

    Misinformation about Father’s and Men’s Groups
    Presumptive Equal Parenting as presented by Father’s and Men’s groups is a principle of our Canadian values, not to be confused with “Equally Shared Time” as a scarecrow to women’s groups.

    “Equal Parenting” is not a rigid interpretation meaning 50/50 time with a child; this is up to each individual parent to apportion the “parenting time” each according to their abilities and availability.

    Studies and Reports in Favor of Equal Parenting
    There are many studies and reports to enshrine and recommend Equal Parenting as the best available option to raise children after separation or divorce. One of those reports is: “For the Sake of the Children” Report that included 48 recommendations, was commissioned by the Canadian Government in December 1998 due to the work of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.

    A review of the proposed amendments to the Divorce Act indicates that some of the recommendations of the “For the Sake of the Children” Report are included or taken into consideration, however, the main recommendation No. 5 and 6 that calls for “Shared Parenting” which is at the heart of the changes is ignored in its totality.

    The Best Interest of the Child test is well defined in the Report’s recommendation No. 16, detailed by 14 different and encompassing factors, but its done in conjunction with the principle of Equal Parenting or as described in the report as “Shared Parenting”.

    Tweaking of the words from “Custody” or “Access” to “Parenting Order” or “Contact” in and by itself would not put to an end to the parent’s hostilities to defeat each other in court, and an appearance before a Dispute Resolution Officer can not eliminate this view. The terminology of Parenting Order or Contact is intertwined with the principle of Equal Parenting as without it the proposed amendments if enacted are hollow and will prove to be fatal to the Divorce Act.​

    Mediation and Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law
    While trying to keep feuding parents outside the court through the process of mediation and Dispute Resolution is a step in the right direction, this step can not succeed without a presumption of Equal Parenting, and bargaining in the shadow of the law would only produce the same results of winners and losers regardless of the terminology used, if and when equality is eliminated from the formula of the Divorce Act.

    False Allegations to Thrive if Family Violence Definition is Expanded
    Introducing family violence elements as proposed “any conduct whether or not the conduct constitute a criminal offence” will make the job of a Dispute Resolution Officer to resolve the dispute prior to an appearance before a judge next to impossible due to the factors relating to family violence that you are proposing will breed unprecedented false allegation by spouses against each other in order to gain control over the child. False accusations will reach their highest levels undertaken with impunity to the accuser if there are no proper safeguards to prosecute the offending accuser of this destructive phenomenon.

    Males are equally abused as Females
    There is a well known proverb called “Be Careful What You Wish For”, as it may surprise you to find out that fathers and men are abused by their female spouse not only at almost equal rates but it could be a lot higher than that of women claiming abuse, this is due to men abstaining from reporting abuse as opposed to women.

    While divorce cases may involve a rate of about 3-5% family violence matters, this rate contradicts with the propaganda spread by Family Violence advocates that the majority of divorce cases are plugged by family violence against women.

    Transfer of Wealth Disguised as Child Support
    Concentrating on strengthening the child support collection mechanism to include access to confidential information is a misguided step, it is aim as indicated is to help single poor mothers, this is a poor policy that ignores parents, mostly fathers ability to care for the child, instead, this policy gives emphasis to the transfer of wealth from fathers or men to support mothers or women who usually turn to government for protection and support.

    Equal Parenting an Opportunity to Share Child Care
    What if women and women’s groups disregarded their fears and opposition to Equal Parenting and willingly share with fathers a chance to care for a child, would this not help those women to liberate themselves from the binding child care and give them time to better themselves financially by becoming a full contributing member of the labor force, rather than to claim poverty? There are a large number of mothers, who want to be liberated from the traditional role of the primary child nurturer and share this task with fathers. They just need the proper direction and education from responsible legislators, and Government agencies to achieve this transition.

    Invest In Fathers Not Child Support
    Father involvement is an underutilized resource in the family in the same way that female involvement has been an underutilized resource in the workplace; this situation provides you with an opportunity to put emphasis on involving fathers in the family rather than to concentrate on collecting child support.​

    You Can Not Hear What We Do Not Say
    Ms. Wilson-Raybould we do have a crisis in Canada it is called The Boy Crisis; boys who are deprived from dads, this crisis extends to girls who are also dad deprived.

    Dad depravation after divorce is a serious problem it entails negativity about fathers and feelings that a dad who is available purposely not making himself available, is incompetent and unreliable.

    Dad depravation is affecting every aspect of our lives, from school achievement, to school dropouts, school shootings, employment, suicide, drugs, homelessness, bullying, victimization, violent crime, rape, poverty, trust and empathy.

    Communication and understanding each other can and will resolve many of those issues.
    On behalf of fathers and parents in general I plead with you to reconsider your omission and introduce the Equal Parenting concept into the Divorce Act to safeguard the future of Canadians, and maintain a healthy and prosperous society.

    Thank you,
    Yours very truly
    Gus Sleiman
    President, Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA)
    www.mesacanada.com
    (403) 228-6366

  • Seizing of Health Care Benefits Prohibited

    Seizing of Health Care Benefits Prohibited

    For Immediate Release – Tuesday July 6th, 1999

    Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Director is prohibited from seizing debtors Health Care costs.

    Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA) – Calgary

    Paul Millar, Vice-President of the Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA) and a non-custodial father, won the right in the Calgary Court of Queen’s Bench to prohibit the Alberta Director Maintenance Enforcement from seizing health care benefits provided by employers. On Monday, The Honorable Justice V.P. Moshansky ruled that the Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Regulations permit parents under a wage attachment and their employers to deduct all Health Care costs in order to maintain the parent’s health and that of their children. Maintenance Enforcement can no longer require employers to apply garnishment to these benefits. The Director of Maintenance Enforcement had opposed the application by Mr. Millar. The Alberta Government introduced Bill 16 to amend the Maintenance Enforcement Act, to among other things, allow the Director of Maintenance Enforcement to seize property of the friends and relatives of those who owe child support. The Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA) vehemently opposes Bill 16 intrusive proposed measures. “In the alternative, we call upon the Alberta Government to consider a more balanced approach and to endorse the Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, “For the Sake of the Children.” Says, Mr. Gus Sleiman President of MESA.

  • Child Support Guidelines Less than Ideal

    Child Support Guidelines Less than Ideal

    A University of Calgary Study Finds Child Support Guidelines Are Based On False Assumptions And Contain Significant Amount Of Spousal Support

    Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA) – Calgary

    Calgary – A new study of the Canadian Child Support Guidelines suggests they are less than ideal. The research was undertaken at the University of Calgary and recently published in the Canadian Journal of Law and Society.

    The study, co-authored by Paul Millar a Ph.D. student in sociology at the University of Calgary and Professor Anne H. Gauthier, found that the guidelines are unlikely to make significant improvements in child poverty and are based on false assumptions. The guidelines produce awards that contain significant amounts of spousal support as well as child support. According to the study, the large amounts of uncollected child support, despite punitive collection methods, are related to problems built into the guidelines. The guidelines do not easily allow for changes in circumstance of the non-custodial parent, and can be inappropriate when ordered. The study contends that the guidelines produce too many inequities and unfairly target poor and working class families.

    The guidelines, as implemented, produce too many inequitable outcomes and don’t provide a way for these problems to easily be corrected. Canadians deserve better,” Mr. Millar says.

    The study traced the development of the Canadian Child Support Guidelines and found that mistaken beliefs and special interest groups led the government to ignore key research findings. The study shows that child support represents a major initiative by the government to privatize social benefits.

    The Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA) is alarmed at the unnecessary destruction of relationships important to children. The finding of the study should be a guide to the government to improve the child support guidelines to treat both parents fairly and to guarantee a positive outcome for their children,” says Gus Sleiman president of MESA.

    MESA Tel: (403) 228-6366, E-mail: info@mesacanada.com

    Note: The study is not available at MESA’s web site. A copy of the study can be obtained by purchasing the Journal of Law and Society. The Journal should be available at most libraries. Ask for it!!

  • Equal Parenting Not Supported

    Equal Parenting Not Supported

    Children of divorce are still losers, proposed limited changes to Divorce Act fail to provide equality of parenting and to address bias of legal system.

    Joint Press Release of Equal Parenting Supporters in Canada.

    Equal Parenting Supporters in Canada are deeply disappointed that the Minister of Justice Mr. Martin Cauchon remains unwilling to listen to the will of Canadians to implement the equal shared parenting concept into the Divorce Act and to act on the recommendations of the Report “For the Sake of the Children.”

    The proposed elimination of “custody” and “access” from the Divorce Act is a minuscule change that completely fails to address the genuine needs of Canadian children to be assured of meaningful time with both parents as well as their grandparents and extended families following Divorce.

    Canadians say that the courts are biased in favour of mothers when deciding where children are placed after a divorce, and how little access fathers are awarded.

    For years, we have repeatedly tried to inform the government, as individuals and as groups, in public consultations and by writings, of the horrible damage done by a policy of depriving children of one parent in virtually every divorce. The government does not listen. The government does not act for the good.

    Mr. James Hodgins chairman of the Committee for Fairness in Family Law says:

    “The majority of Canadians believe that both mothers and fathers should continue to enjoy the same equal parenting responsibilities they have during marriage. Equal parenting ensures both parents are able to adjust to new parenting arrangements, and children receive the maximum support.”

    Mr. Eric Tarkington moderator of EPOC_NEWS says:

    “Eliminating custody and access language from the Divorce Act will do precisely nothing to alleviate the suffering of countless thousands of Canadian children. We see clearly that Mr. Cauchon is trying to use a notion of “parental responsibility” to suppress consideration of the real needs of children and the indispensable rights of all parents.”

    Mr. Gus Sleiman president of the Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA) says:

    “Fathers deserve to be provided with equal opportunity to be able to provide their children with unconditional love and support especially after separation or divorce. The government should be supportive of the role of fathers in the life of their children by providing them with equality under the fundamental principles of our laws and protection of their human rights.”

    Ms. Yvonne Choquette founder of Mothers For Kids says:

    “The government needs to realize that the past 40 years of government “de-parenting” of father or mother from a child’s life is wrong and must be addressed.Tweaking the terminology without addressing the principles of government involvement is likely a strategy for cover up of the wrongs they have perpetrated on the children and families of divorce.”

    Mr. Martin d’Ajou of Entraide Pères-Enfants Séparés, Québec says:

    “Le terme “responsabilité parentale” doit être absolument rejeté et nous croyons que le terme “parentalité égale” est beaucoup simple à définir: partage égal du temps passé entre les parents et les enfants, et partage en conséquence des coûts réels basé sur un budget négocié entre les parents, tout comme cela se fait dans les familles unies. De plus, en écartant les tribunaux et les avocats des séparations et des divorces et en facilitant la négociation, la réconcilliation et l’égalité, la majorité des familles se porteront mieux financièrement et émotivement. Les familles unies sont le noyau de la société.”

    Mr. David Osterman vice president of Fathers Are Capable Too (FACT) says:

    “It appears that Mr. Cauchon will not even consider equality (shared parenting) as an option. Parenting is the most important job of our lives; yet fathers routinely face discrimination by the Canadian Justice system in retaining this most important of jobs. Children need the care and support of both parents.”

    Mr. Bill Flores founder of the Children’s Voice says:

    “Separating or divorcing families need society’s help and a system that will guaranty children of equal, permanent and meaningful relationships with each of their parents. Mr. Cauchon proposed changes do little towards that end since it does not dismantle the adversarial system that rips parents off money that belongs to their children.”

    We urge Mr. Cauchon and the Government of Canada to make balanced changes to the Divorce Act that will introduce equal shared parenting as the presumption following separation, then it is up to the parents to apportion parenting time between each other. Children can then be assured that both of their parents are available and responsible to support their growth and development.

    Equal Parenting Supporters in Canada is a group of organizations and individuals joined together to call on the Minister of Justice of the Government of Canada to provide Canadian parents with equality of parenting after separation or divorce.

    List of organizations and contacts:
    • L’Après-rupture, ateliers pour les liens père-enfants, Quebec, Gilbert Claes (866) 624-7272
    • Fathers for Equality, Victoria B.C., Keith Harris (250) 652-3205
    • Parent and Child Advocacy Coalition, Prince George, B.C., Todd Eckert (250) 554-1418
    • Parents of Broken Families, Kamloops, B.C., Mickey MacMillan (250) 374-3370
    • Mothers For Kids, Toronto, Yvonne Choquette (416)580-5442
    • Equal Parents of Canada News, Toronto, Eric Tarkington (416) 636-0772
    • Human Equality Action and Resource Team, Toronto, Butch Windsor (416) 698-3655
    • FatherCraft Canada, Ottawa, Glenn Cheriton (613) 260-2659
    • Committee for Fairness in Family Law, Toronto, James Hodgins (416)721-3913
    • Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA), Calgary, (403) 228-6366, Gus Sleiman (403) 541-1788
    • Freedom For Kids, Toronto, Nick Kovats (416) 990-2595
    • The Children’s Voice, Toronto, Bill Flores (905) 829-3639
    • Entraide Pères-Enfants Séparés de l’Outaouais Gatineau, Québec, Martin d’Ajou
    • The Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society, (ECMAS) Edmonton, Bob Bouvier (780) 468-6328
    • Grandparents Unlimited ,Edmonton, Elsie Cable (780) 454-8408
    • Fathers are Capable Too, Parenting Association (FACT), Toronto, David Osterman (416) 622-3450
    • Walter Fox, LL.B, Lawyer in Toronto, (416) 363-9238
    • Saskatchewan Coalition Against Family Violence, Saskatchewan, George Seitz (306) 584-8021
    • Parents’ Coalition of B.C. Hal Legere (604) 417-4045
    • Association To Reunite Grandparents & Families, Ontario, Betty Cornelius (613) 474-0035
    • The New Brunswick Children’s Equal Parenting Association, Saint John, NB, Edward Hoyt (506)674-0980
    • Alberta Federation Of Women United For Families (AFWUF), Calgary, Hermina Dykxhoor
    • Equal Parenting Group Society, North Vancouver, B.C., Manfred Weber (604) 874-0060
    • Conseil pour la Condition Masculine – Canada , Dorval, Québec, William Levy (514) 591-5553

    Note: Additional supporters to this document that were not able to provide their approval at the time of this release will be added at the following site; The press release will be available on the News&Announcemenst page of MESA’s web site: www.mesacanada.com

  • Open Letter to the Minister of Justice Mr. Martin Cauchon

    Open Letter to the Minister of Justice Mr. Martin Cauchon

    The following is an open letter to the Minister of Justice Mr. Martin Cauchon:

    We note the recent reports of your intention to make superficial changes to the Divorce Act, leaving in place the failed regime of the family courts. We wish to express to you our continuing dismay and disgust with the cruel use of family law and government policies that daily deprive Canadian children of an indispensable asset in life — the love and guidance of a father.

    Effects on Children of Living in Fatherless Homes (from various North American sources):

    • 63% of youth suicides
    • 80% of rapists motivated with anger
    • 71% of high school dropouts
    • 85% of all youth in prison
    • 85% of all children that exhibit behavioural disorders
    • 90% of all homeless and runaway children
    • 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centres

    Eliminating custody and access language from the Divorce Act will do precisely nothing to alleviate the suffering of countless thousands of Canadian children. Mr. Cauchon, we see clearly that you are trying to use a notion of “parental responsibility” to suppress consideration of the real needs of children and the indispensable rights of all parents.

    There can be no enforcement of parental responsibility without due respect for parental authority, but you and your government have shown yourselves completely lacking in respect.

    We believe that your political investment in hatred toward men has blinded you to the fact that you are destroying the fabric of society.You cannot act out a program of hate without practical cost and human cost that society will be unable to bear. In defaming and destroying fathers, you are punishing their children, their mothers, their fathers, their sisters, their brothers — in fact, everyone who loves them.

    What about the many thousands of mothers who are eliminated in one case out of ten by the same brutal instruments that were designed for the fathers of Canada? Do you imagine that Canadians want to see your style of blunt justice applied continually to them and their children?

    For years, we have repeatedly tried to inform your government, as individuals, as groups, in public consultations (when we have occasionally been allowed to speak), of the horrible damage done by your policy of depriving children of one parent in virtually every divorce. You do not listen. You do not act for the good. You provide funding to, and you solicit policy ideas from, people who hate and vilify men. You spurn and silence men and women who don’t share the hatred, or the politically correct victim mentality.

    Governments spend billions on a family court system that intentionally does something fundamentally unjust: declare one parent the loser in the division of a family. More than anything else, the child of divorce fears the loss of a parent, and the family court does all that it can to guarantee that the child will lose every time.

    We know that people who overcome family conflict and stay married are generally happier and more productive than people who give up, we know that children generally thrive best and avoid poverty in intact families, but you choose to facilitate family destruction by creating predictable winners and losers in family court.

    Mr. Cauchon, without any real thought or effort, you reject the simplest form of justice: Equal Parenting. Equal parenting is an equal division of parental time, rights, and responsibilities between both parents, particularly after separation and divorce. Equal parenting is the antidote to the perversion of a family court system that routinely takes parents out of the lives of their children, causing unbearable harm to children and society.

    Equal parenting eliminates the worst conflicts in divorce, by respecting the rights of both parents and the true interests of the children.

    In conclusion, we urge you to reconsider the reckless insensitivity of your policy, and talk to us with a genuine openness to the idea of fundamental change for the better in family law, and in government attitudes toward fathers and marriage. Stop constructing an industry of courts, lawyers, social workers, and government-funded feminists. For the first time, listen earnestly to the overwhelming majority of Canadians that love and respect all parents equally.

    (Supported by the following, growing list of Canadian organizations.)
    • L’Après-rupture, ateliers pour les liens père-enfants, Québec, Gilbert Claes (866) 624-7272
    • Fathers for Equality, Victoria B.C., Keith Harris (250) 652-3205
    • Parent and Child Advocacy Coalition, Prince George, B.C., Todd Eckert (250) 554-1418
    • Parents of Broken Families, Kamloops, B.C., Mickey MacMillan (250) 374-3370
    • Mothers For Kids, Toronto, Yvonne Choquette (416)580-5442
    • Equal Parents of Canada News, Toronto, Eric Tarkington (416) 636-0772
    • Human Equality Action and Resource Team, Toronto, Butch Windsor (416) 698-3655
    • FatherCraft Canada, Ottawa, Glenn Cheriton (613) 260-2659
    • Committee for Fairness in Family Law, Toronto, James Hodgins (416)721-3913
    • Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA), Calgary, (403) 228-6366, Gus Sleiman (403) 541-1788
    • Freedom For Kids, Toronto, Nick Kovats (416) 990-2595
    • The Children’s Voice, Toronto, Bill Flores (905) 829-3639
    • Entraide Pères-Enfants Séparés de l’Outaouais Gatineau, Québec, Martin d’Ajou
    • The Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society, (ECMAS) Edmonton, Bob Bouvier (780) 468-6328
    • Grandparents Unlimited ,Edmonton, Elsie Cable (780) 454-8408
    • Fathers are Capable Too, Parenting Association (FACT), Toronto, David Osterman (416) 622-3450
    • Walter Fox, LL.B, Lawyer in Toronto, (416) 363-9238
    • Saskatchewan Coalition Against Family Violence, Saskatchewan, George Seitz (306) 584-8021
    • Parents’ Coalition of B.C. Hal Legere (604) 417-4045
    • Association To Reunite Grandparents & Families, Ontario, Betty Cornelius (613) 474-0035
    • The New Brunswick Children’s Equal Parenting Association, Saint John, NB, Edward Hoyt (506)674-0980
    • Alberta Federation Of Women United For Families (AFWUF), Calgary, Hermina Dykxhoorn (403) 228-2190
    • Equal Parenting Group Society, North Vancouver, B.C., Manfred Weber (604) 874-0060
    • Conseil pour la Condition Masculine – Canada , Dorval, Québec, William Levy (514) 591-5553
    • Putting Children and Families First (Durham Region, Ontario) Brenda Mignardi (905) 420-5205
    • National Shared Parenting Association, Regina (Saskatchewan Chapter) Blaine Collins (306) 586-1749
    • Grey-Bruce Non Custodial Parent’s Association, Owen Sound, Ontario (519)371-6552
    • Family Conflict Resolution Services, Ontario, Vernon Beck, (905) 829-0407
    • The Family Justice Review Committee, Toronto Prime Line, Ontario (416) 410-4115
    • The National Association for Public and Private Accountability, Ontario, The Rev. Dorian A. Baxter (905) 853-0316
    • Le comité aviseur sur la réforme du Code de procédure civil, droit de la famille, Québec, Guy Gauvin (418) 840-4459
    • La Table de concertation pour la condition paternelle, Québec, Jean-Claude Boucher (450) 772-6812
    • Dads & Kids National, Ontario, John C. Menear (705) 326-8291
    • Le comité des parents non-gardiens de Montréal, Québec, Serge Ferrand (514) 522-9810
    • L’Après-rupture de Rimouski, Québec, Jean-Marc Bessette (418) 725-0411
    • ALPE-Québec, Québec, Aurélien Lessard (418) 659-4213
    • Dr. Robert C. Wittes, MD, MSc, CCFP, FRCP, Richmond Hill, Ontario, (905-) 884-7000
    • Ex-fathers, Burlington, Ontario, Lloyd Gorling (905)-645-1169
    • Regina Shared Parenting Network, Regina, Saskatchewan, Brian Lee Johnson (306) 586-1211
    • In Search of Justice, Woodbridge, Ontario, Ross Virgin, (905) 850-3344
    • Canada Family Action Coalition, Alberta, Brian Rushfeldt, (403) 295-2159
    • Kids Need Both Parents, Hamilton, Ontario, Chuck Ferrauto, (905) 318-4204

    Note: Additional supporters to this document that were not able to provide their approval at the time of this release will be added at their request.