 |
| Att.Gen, Mike de Jong (Steve Bosch photo) |
I particularly want you to listen to some key phrases by Attorney General Mike de Jong as he explains the rationale for the significant changes being proposed in this historic reform of a thirty year old Family Relations Act. He said, “We have family law built around a very adversarial model and we think there is a better way — when a family changes or when a relationship comes apart — there is a better way to resolve some of those issues than rushing off to court,” said de Jong. Further to this he remarked, “We will always need the court, but we do not need a system that is primarily an adversarial system.”
I grant that the Family Relations Act and the Child, Family and Community Services Act address different issues, yet the latter is written with a similar adversarial model framework. Would you support, welcome and advocate for a rewrite of the CFCSA that would deliberately move from this adversarial model which predictably pits the Ministry of Children against parents? Would you wish that our Minister of Children would come out to say about the child protection component of her Ministry, “We do not need a system that is primarily an adversarial system. There is a better way to resolve the issues than rushing off to court.” Do you think that we need absolutely groundbreaking legislation in the area of child and family services?
I am interested in hearing you on this topic.
- To view the proposed changes to the Family Relations Act go here: Changes
- You can read more about the FRA story at this Vancouver Sun site: Family Relations
- Three Parents
- B.C. Proposes Sweeping new Changes to Family Relations law
"Sweeping changes" can often be seen as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I prefer "gradual" change.
ReplyDeleteThe white paper is 182 page document, it will take some time to get through.
Do this proposed changes mean the current system is so incredibly broken, and has been for so long that this degree of change is required? Now, WHERE have I heard THAT before?
Oh yes, it was the CFCSA before the last major update that we are struggling with now.
The only way "sweeping changes" CAN be introduced successfully is to describe them in glowing terms and use phrases like "best interests of the children."
For example, in the Vancouver Sun link, read this phrase:
"Tracy Porteous, executive director of the Ending Violence Association, said the government “is taking a big step today to increase the safety of women and children with respect to enforcement of protection orders and looking at the best interest of the child.”
She particularly liked the proposal to make the best interests of a child the “only” consideration in parenting disputes, and extending the definition of those interests to include factors such as the history of the child’s care, family violence and consideration of related civil or criminal proceedings.
Read down farther in a comment by a father: (search "best interest")
"Is this just a change in terminology or is it real change. The latter would involve having both parents remain in the lives of children and getting to the real stats on DV which are pretty much equal between genders with the female partner initiating it at a greater rate. The fact Tracy Porteous, executive director of the Ending Violence Association, likes it is worrisome as their main goal in life is to exclude dads from the lives of their children and paint a broad brush of all men as evil. That being the case then nothing will be changed by these proposals. The fact no dads groups are being quoted in this article, only women and lawyers is telling. Lawyers are in it for the money, not the best interest of children, and have a vested interest in ensuring they are continually involved. That means continued adversarial relationships as that is their job -the best deal for their client – not the children."
In my case, as a prelude to wresting our child from me, the ex wife's lawyer attempted to portray her as a beleaguered subject victim of family violence, which was no place to leave our child - ie. with me. She basically won on that basis, and my Appeal failed as well. So what I'm left with is continually filing "small" actions to try to get more time, and restore lost access with my child.
The degree and how easily it is to bias the family court system by the mere hint of impropriety, without evidence, if it just "sounds" bad, one would have to wonder if it is a plot to drive more business to the system generally, lawyers and judges.
One might assume that joint custody and guardianship is obviously the default choice where court action is not needed, since warring parents are now separated and the children will no longer be subject to that stress.
If one parent places anonymous calls to social services, and MCFD loves these calls, so bang, the kids are removed and while separation proceedings are in progress the "best interests of the children" are spoken to by your friendly neighborhood child protection social worker and lawyer, one parent is favoured over the other.
Another part of the problem is you have judges of advancing age that were born in the 50's, you simply do not change the mindset of these judges just by introducing new ways of doing things.
Women who admit to being victims of violence are not necessarily doing themselves a favour. Many of these women are then found to have not protected their child, and hence, their child is taken from them. Many women who go to women's shelters have their children taken from them. Women's shelters seem to work closely with the child protection industry, in order to get more clients for the child protection industry.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while men complain that women use violence as an excuse to take away father's rights, it is often the case that children are given to men who are in fact violent. This would appear to be even more proof that child protection agencies DO NOT care about the best interests of the child, as giving custody to an abusive parent, over the non-abusive one, is not in the best interests of the child.
Ron, you believe this: "If one parent places anonymous calls to social services, and MCFD loves these calls, so bang, the kids are removed and while separation proceedings are in progress the "best interests of the children" are spoken to by your friendly neighborhood child protection social worker and lawyer, one parent is favoured over the other."
ReplyDelete... To be an insightful comment?
In a crisp sentence I complimented a writer for a lengthy comment to my blog post called “There Is a Better Way.” I had said, “I appreciated reading your knowledgeable and insightful comment.” You quoted a sentence from that person's comment and in asking me whether I found it insightful, you left no doubt that you considered it less than valid. Fair enough. Rather than aiming my compliment at that one specific statement or any single idea, I was impressed that the writer had downloaded the white paper, bothered to peruse it, and was questioning the merit of sweeping changes as opposed to gradual changes. The writer had also read the news links I cited and interacted with them with an experienced if biased interpretation. You were correct to point out that particular statement by questioning me.
ReplyDeleteRon, I know you are trying to put forth a balanced web page re: criticism of MCFD. You would do well to lend credibility to yourself by being more specific in supporting or refuting some of the comments posted on this web page.
ReplyDeleteIe, this one now in which you provided sweeping/generalized support. If you were specific by stating (a) I support parts a-b-c of your post, and (b) I do not believe part D was accurate in your post.
If you were quicker to point out the inaccuracies in some commenter's remarks, you'd have more credibility in your attempts to achieve your ultimate goal of change within MCFD.
Specifics, my friend, not generalizations, will get you further.
Hello Anon 9:19 PM
ReplyDeleteYou may have written earlier and have now responded to my response. In any case, be assured that I understood what you have said above. Thanks for recognizing my purpose and to that end you make a valid point.
There is a new article regarding the Canadian Bar Association opposing the passing of a shared parenting bill:
ReplyDeleteCBA opposes equal parenting-time bill By Cristin Schmitz, Ottawa
The Lawyers Weekly, Vol. 30, No. 14
(August 20, 2010)
http://www.lawyersweekly-digital.com/lawyersweekly/3014?folio=1#pg2
A CBC story covers a father denied access to his daughter with whom he formerly had a close relationship.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/21/bc-accessdenied.html
So, the CBA opposes this attempt to reduce litigaton by making a equal parenting a default. One reason given is, passage of this bill would create a 'change in circumstance' and existing weekend fathers would be applying to change their existing orders.
Change is not easy.
What should be relevant for child protection advotes is the process by which such a a bill is created, promoted, and finally made into law.