Stretching the Meaning of Sexual Harassment.

[blackice]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
VAWA was a law passed in the USA that gave female victims of violence the right to sue in federal courts. The law was blatantly unconstitutional and so was struck down by the supreme court...

Anyway, can a provinical legislature in Canada make its bills survive scrutiny notwithstanding the Charter of Rights? Or could the national legislature void Bill 117?

Great points! "female" I should point out not "male" men get abused as often as females yet? Nothing...Reason no voice until we started to speak up about misandry. Now your point yes it is possible but it will take the challenges on going. I do believe it will be struck down it is blatent much to Taki's ****rin He hates males misses the point offers no proof and keeps going like the demonic bunny Genearlly it takes a constitutional challenge as I have done and others on section 122.6 of the ITA. Major constitutional challenges are on going as we speak against such blatent abuse of the law. Tell me more about the VAWA and why it was stuck down...

[blackice]

Originally posted by Tingkai


In theory, yes. The province have the right to invoke a "notwithstanding" clause to exempt a law from the Charter of Rights. The exempture last, I think, five years.[/q]
No not in theory they have the right as do I and anyone willing to challenge it.

Politically, it is unlikely. It is considered a measure of last resort.

Yes weak as*ed politicians looking for votes may never do it, but we the people can....

But why would this Act require the notwithstanding clause?

Because stupid people like you would be abused by it and as Cools pointed out it goes beyond civil law. It gives one party the right to lie and gain from it. It is abusive and unconstutional WAKE UP.

The federal parliament does not have the right to void provincial legislation.

The feds are working as I pointed out on a law that would null and void this sham...Remeber it can be superceeded by other laws binding "it is written"

[q]There seems to be some argument about whether the Domestic Violence Protection Act cross the line into criminal code (which is the jurisdiction of Parliment). It could be struck by the courts for that reason, assuming the courts agreed that the Act crossed the line.

Assuming if you read like that for all things how did you ever get connected to the internet a friend? Everyone agrees it crosses the line for go*s sake man read it. To take possession of someone's goods is civil not criminal. To be accused of a crime is innocent until you are proven guilty not the other way around you are simply in denial....

[MrFun]

Based on the number of long posts in this thread, why not compile this into an e-book format??

[blackice]

http://pcaccanada.tripod.com/abuse_stats.html

This Child advocacy Site has been established to provide a National Resource for all groups in Canada who are advocating for a child's right not to be abused, manipulated, alienated, or denied the emotional and physical contact or support from their fathers or mothers. To provide information to other Canadian advocacy groups, grandparents, fathers, children, mothers, and non-custodial parent on custody, divorce, child abuse, shared parenting, visitation, access, family law, child support, parental alienation syndrome, family law reform, children rights, counseling, and child abduction, To hold, lawyers, judges, politicians, and persons in authority accountable for allowing the rights of Canadian Children and Parent's to be ignored because of ignorance or political pressure. Working with and uniting all Canadian children's and Parent advocacy groups by eliminating divisionary politics and reform of the divorce law in Canada to provide shared parenting and access / visitation by non-custodial parent, fathers, and grandparents.

Do you know how many groups like this there are? What a friggin mess. Misandry has caused this until now most men just said..."until it comes knocking on my door" Well the door was kicked in a long time ago. When has it ever been legal to go to jail for a debt? Debters prison? When has it ever been legal to accuse someone of something and they "prove" thier innocence? I mean really...Come on Taki show some proof of your claims you have nothing to date just opinions. What about the X why did she lose her kid(s)...Nothing I will continue to post more endless streams of information,,, YOU?

[blackice]

Repeal the Divorce Act
(IMPACT! Spring 2001)

A woman, who was found guilty of attempted murder because she shot her separated husband in the head with a gun, is out of jail on parole. She is now suing her husband for support payments.

This case highlights the serious pitfalls of the country's divorce laws. There is an Ontario Family Law Act, however, the federal Divorce Act, which supersedes the provincial act, says: "The court shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse." In other words, a husband or wife responsible for breaking up a marriage, whether through adultery, alcoholism, abusive behaviour or even attempted murder, could be rewarded with financial support from the victim.

Mortality used to be a consideration in spousal entitlement. In the past, adultery was used to disentitle spouses from claiming support. Then, a provision passed, claiming that conduct is not relevant, only the need and ability to pay arising out of the marital relationship matters. Lawmakers decided their overriding social goal is to give an income to ex-spouses (usually women), regardless of how they behaved during their marriage.

Eliminating spousal conduct in marriage made it easier to reward women financially. But this is one-sided. Neither men nor women with conduct so serious as to cause damage to the family, whether through cheating, crime or abuse, should be rewarded.

They shouldn't get custody and they shouldn't get money.

The Divorce Act is a typical case of duplication between federal and provincial responsibilities, interference by the federal government in provincial matters and waste of taxpayers' money, to say the least.

Of course the Divorce Act was originally introduced by Trudeau, against his own principle to stay out of the bedrooms of the nation and not to impose his moral views on the rest of us. How consistent!

Since then we had less marriages and more divorces. Only 62 percent of working-class adults reported being married in the 1994-98 period, down from 80 percent in the 1972-77 period. About half of children now live in a household with their original parents, down from nearly three-quarters in 1972.

Meanwhile, the traditional nuclear families - married couples with children - were 26 percent of households in 1998. That is down from 45 percent in 1972.

At the time Trudeau introduced the Divorce Act, the number of divorces in Canada was 10,000 per year. Today there are about 80,000 divorces per year or an effective rate of over 40%. However, there are also about one million common law couples and their breakdown rate is about 60% (That's 50% higher than for married couples). So in reality the numbers are much worse!

The Liberals should admit the damage divorce continues to inflict on Canadian families and repeal the Act. Our party is ready to take care of the legislation at the provincial level, as many of the States in the United States are currently doing.

What Federal Divorce act no way Taki It ain't so....
What the USA is tossin this Chit out hand over foot...get real It ain't so...
A duplication between federal and provincial responsibilities, interference by the federal government in provincial matters and waste of taxpayers' money, to say the least. Now way come on this can not be true is it Taki...

Give me a break If you had even one iota of knowlegde you could be dangerous,,, respectfully at least in this field of study.
Look I have yet to even post the realities just the fringe grab a grip and understand Misandry is alive and kicking and making your son's life miserable let alone your daughters...This is a social problem marriages are down families are becoming a "single" act. The problem is far more reching than these simple examples. Social engineering by whom and for what reason?

[Tingkai]

Blackice: You can throw around all the incorrect insults that you want. It doesn't make you right. You still have not answered the specific questions that I have asked. Until you do so, there is no point continuing this discussion. You clearly only want to talk, but not listen.

You're like a guy who points to Donald Marshall and says we must abolish the law against murder because Marshall was wrongfully imprision because one man lied and falsely accused him of murder. With one phone call you can be thrown in jail. Yup, and that's why we have checks and balances in the legal system..

Why don't you simply admit that the reason why you continue to insult me is because the facts that I have presented have destroyed your feeble arguments.

I don't expect that you will or even are able to admit that you are wrong. You're clearly in fanaticland and deaf to the realities. You're simply having a conversation with yourself.

So go ahead and have the last words. Post all the ramblings that you want, but don't expect anyone to pay attention.

[blackice]

You can throw around all the incorrect insults that you want. It doesn't make you right. You still have not answered the specific questions that I have asked. Until you do so, there is no point continuing this discussion. You clearly only want to talk, but not listen.

Incorrect no not at all, what I have stated and shown be it a little is right. You have not answered a thing nor have you PROVED a thing. You have posted nothing to back your diatribe nothing at all why? Having a hard time finding facts to back what you say for sure is my bet. If you have not noticed until this post I have ignored you of late because you are all air PROVE anything you say and I am all ears. Until then you argue for the sake of it. The DVA (Canada's version of the WAVA known as the WAVA in most if not all circles) is provincial and federal. You know nothing of the effects of either.

Why don't you simply admit that the reason why you continue to insult me is because the facts that I have presented have destroyed your feeble arguments.

What facts that is "feeble" you have offered no facts at all just guess work and opinions. Facts are not opinions... prove anything you say, you have yet proved anything. I have and could go on forever proving the FACTS I present here. You have proved nothing and just destroyed only your image...

I don't expect that you will or even are able to admit that you are wrong. You're clearly in fanaticland and deaf to the realities. You're simply having a conversation with yourself.

Heh if you can PROVE me wrong go for it not with opinions FACTS something you lack so far. As for REALITIES what I present is the reality of the situation backed up with facts you? It would appear so, as you at least have nothing to say so far.

So go ahead and have the last words. Post all the ramblings that you want, but don't expect anyone to pay attention.

In other words I finally read what you posted and agree with you so rather than admit you are wrong you back away Go find a subject you know something about and have fun I wish you well...

[blackice]

‘Judge takes a stand against flawed domestic violence system’

Link: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawac.../story.asp?id={C722C247-9EED-47AB-A774-753FC2FED427}

We congratulate you on your article and Judge Jean-François Gosselin for his courage to return ‘impartiality’ to the bench. It takes strong moral ethics today to stand up in public and challenge Urban Legends we have been brainwashed to believe as truth.

Domestic violence is not an exclusive women only issue. Ignoring the plight of men diminishes the legitimacy of funding and encouraging help exclusively for only one of the sexes. Sadly this is a description of both our Provincial and Federal governments.

Sheila Copps has transformed Heritage Canada into a ‘for women and children only club’.

Millions of dollars go to programs for ‘battered’ women. ZERO publicly funded anything for men. Our politicians shamelessly stay silent.

We have seen new media efforts to expose and end this gender bigotry.

Recently papers like The Ottawa Citizen and the Montreal Gazette (with noted columnist Tommy Schnurmacher) have vocalized their dissatisfaction with blatant sex discrimination and gender bigotry.

Our un-sponsored Rights Rally on Parliament (licensed) May 12 in Ottawa, is planned to raise the awareness of everyone about ‘Rights’ including honest discussions on DV and gender bigotry.

We need all Canadians of good will like yourself and media like the Ottawa Citizen to join us.

A hats off to both Dave Brown and the Ottawa Citizen on your fine work.

William Levy - Ethics Committee

Presenter at the first and only legitimate Senate Hearing Committee Consultations on Child Custody and Access

He, one of thousands of living Canadian men murdered out of their children’s lives by the Canadian Judicial System for the crime of ‘change of marital status’

[blackice]

Judge takes a stand against flawed domestic violence system

Dave Brown
The Ottawa Citizen

Saturday, March 02, 2002

A judge made a tough personal decision recently and stepped away from a domestic violence case, saying the definition of violence is too wide and "the world is upside down."

Judge Jean-François Gosselin of the Quebec Court said he didn't want to say "words that would haunt me" so he cut short his statement. With a reputation as fair and outspoken, the Gatineau judge said the Crown had a tendency to lay charges in family violence cases when there was often no need to do so.

By voicing those views, the judge said he felt "no longer at ease" and stepping down, or recusing, was the proper thing to do.

Although he didn't use the words zero tolerance, that's at the heart of the issue that is giving Judge Gosselin problems. The violence against women movement has grown to exert so much power within the legal industry that it has demanded, and won, a zero-tolerance policy.

What it boils down to is that violence against a woman is anything she says it is. If she calls police and claims she was frightened by her partner's behaviour, she kickstarts a system that's all gears and no brakes. It starts with jail for the accused, a restraining order, and a slow and expensive tour of the court system.

If the call to police was made in anger because the caller wanted to win a quarrel, recanting is a difficult option. Domestic violence (DV) specialists say once a call is made only they know what's best. Women recant because they feel threatened, and only a thorough legal thrashing of the man will solve the problems.

One of the DV camp's latest campaigns is for funding for video cameras for on-the-spot recording of complainants. Supporters claim such filming would make it impossible for most complainants to recant. The opposing view is that nobody should be required to give evidence while under the influence of rage or alcohol.

Opposition to the forces that drive the DV campaign is disorganized and weak. There's no funding for opponents.

In 1992, the federal government put up $10 million for a national "study" that resulted in a document many claim is groundless and flawed. Its supporters claim 29 per cent of women in relationships are in need of rescue from their violent partners. Such claims aren't supported by hospital
records and come mainly from women's shelters, which aren't open to overview or fact checking.

Many non-believers have been looking for a flaw in the DV campaign, or a safety valve that can protect families from overzealous police and Crown attorneys. Judge Gosselin may have shown the way.

In the case in front of him, the man was charged after police were called by his daughters. Preliminary evidence showed the man told his girls to clean up a mess they made in the home and, when they refused, he displayed anger. He has an acknowledged drinking problem and said medication he was taking exacerbated his anger. He shouted threats. His wife's reaction to the affair
was that her husband wasn't thinking straight.

Judge Gosselin pointed out that if both parents had shown anger, there would have been no case in front of him. He said as he understood the situation in the home at the time, he, too, would have been angry and insisted the girls clean up their mess. "This is not criminal."

The family's public airing of a stormy day at home stopped when Judge Gosselin stepped down. Jean Pierre Proulx, chief Crown attorney for Gatineau district, said no further action would be taken and, in future, Crown prosecutors would be expected to exercise greater discretion. He added that judge Gosselin's decision was wise.

Domestic violence courts, like family courts, don't offer the same
protections to the accused as do criminal courts. They are designed to get around the protections of the Criminal Code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed and there's no presumption of innocence. They are political in nature.

When DV specialists step into domestic disturbances, a restraining order is automatic. The man, and rarely a woman, can't go home or have contact to resolve issues until the order is removed, and that can take months. If the woman who made the call is willing to take him back, the accused can go home immediately by pleading guilty.

Ottawa's DV court processes an average 120 families a month. Such courts diminish respect for all judges on all benches. Judge Gosselin may have started a turnaround.

Dave Brown is the Citizen's senior editor. Send e-mail to
dbrown@thecitizen.southam.ca Read previous columns by Dave Brown at www.ottawacitizen.com

© Copyright 2002 The Ottawa Citizen

So far just news articles do I need to start posting cases and trials and real life stories Taki post just one thing one meassly thing to back your claims and I am all ears..Good luck you'll need it. misandry is alive and if these men haters get thier way sexual harrassment laws will be just like the DVA then we'll all need some luck....

[Flubber]

A couple of points from way back

1. yes I only acted in 9 custody cases and actually "won " the one where I disagreed with the result. I represented a hubby who wanted "joint custody" but I saw him with his kids and heard his attitude. For him it was all about "winning" and not letting his wife " get her way". Most fathers were caring and involved but this guy was not and if the judge saw what I had seen , the result would likely have been different.

Oh but I saw, discussed, settled or was involved in many more and while I accept that miscarriages of justice occurr, I still believe the right result is reached in the vast majority of cases. There is no way to "back this up" as there is no way to define the "right result"


2. I continue to go back to your most lucicrous example where you CONTINUE to maintain that the legislation could be used for some-one night stand to take your house and actually gain ownership. As I stated earlier, this concept of them taking possession is legally POSSIBLE but then again the Rules of Court in every province has provisions that allow pre-judgement seizure of assets for civil matters. I could file a bogus statement of claim and file a bogus affidavit and possibly dispossess you of assets or bank accounts on an ex parte hearing, in the same manner as these family protection legislation.

But judges don't like ex parte hearings and generally will do as little as is necessary to acieve the goal of the emergency application. Thats my understanding from my current family practitioner friends . . . The judges grant what is the minimum necessary to keep the applicant safe (presuming the allegations are true)

3. I still dispute that a one-night stand could ever gain title to your home through use of this legislation.

In the unlikely event that a judge barred you from your home on the " emergency application", this does not grant possession to the "other woman" since that can only be done at a contested hearing. If I EVER had had a client in that situation, the order would have been set aside inside of two days .

If the woman just stays in the house, I would just call the cops and indicate that I had a tresspasser in my home and I wished her arrested or simply removed. For proof of her short stay, well the neighbors notice that kind of stuff LOL. Or I would simply call a locksmith and have all my locks changed


In all of this you have assumed that a judge will take the most absurd look at the law and exercise what is a discretionary remedy ina ridiculous manner. if that is your test, I would hate for you to consider the rules of civil procedure. If you assume that a judge will accept blatent lies with no available proof, there are a lot of provisions that would scare you


4. I found it interesting that you saw fit to insult me a little as I am one of the few people in this thread who agrees with a little of what you say.

I too am not happy with a situation in which the accusation is treated as fact from the beginning whether we are talking child abuse, domestic violence , rape or whatever. I am not particulary in love with these laws but they are an attampt to address a societal issue -- and these laws are drafted as gender neutral so it is not the law that may be biased against men as the people charged with applying it.

5. Oh I had to come back to this one. The presumption of "Primary caregiver" in the income tax act is relevant to that Act alone and has no bearing on provincial legislation at all unless specifically incorporated. With all your cutting and pasting, you must surely be aware that often times the same word can mean different things in different acts. The word "spouse " is one such word as it is defined in the income tax act in such a way as to give same tax treatment to certain cohabiting couples. But this would be irrelevant to a property division in Newfoundland where a "spouse" only relates to married persons. Therefore a couple can file their taxes as spouses but on a breakup, there is NO "matrimonial property" subject to automatic division . If anyone wants a share of the other partners assets, they have to show that they acted in some manner to maintain or increase the value of the asset or that the assets was treated as a common assets such that it would be inequitable for one party to take the asset alone. But I am sure you knew that and just chose to ignore it.


6. last comment-- the fact that you would not hire me as your lawyer pleases me. I have moved on the more rewarding and lucrative areas. The family law area is heart-wrenching , adversarial and often downright nasty. There is probably little that can be done about that.

[blackice]

Flubber Thank you for your patience with my additude in this thread. My apologies for the comment you have proven your information and knowledge.

I will say a judge alone is not the true arguemnet here as you are well aware. Many factors influnce his decission, priors real or not innocent or not as provided in the act, CAS involvement bias or not and they are one of the first on the scene, police involment factual or opinions influenced and motivated by CAS, witnesses true or misleading as it states in the act even if you are found not guilty of abuse a judgement for possessions can be made, on and on. So while the sterlized view may be real, reality on the other hand is not so Cut and Dried.

Lucicrous example I think not and while we talk about that to allow such lunacy in the first place based on false and misleading facts is beyond me. As the one Judge put it without causing himself grief it has gone beyond reason...

Ex parte with children involved? not likely. This goes above and beyond the point I am trying to make is it can and does happen period. That simply can not be dismissed as some have tried to do. I can for instance chat with a girl in a bar. Set up that in fact we will spend the next day together with my child and her after a night in the sack at her home, sleep over. If I have a bogus witness willing to take a cut and back me up (or not)I can legally set that person up to own their possesions. I bring clothes for my child and me, I change my address and claim we had agreed to the move in friend backs me up (or not ). I have clothes there I have drivers licence I have proof as I have all the time in the world to do that you are in jail do it on a Friday heh. The point is she has to prove that is false. Most provinces have special legislation that allows the custodial parent and children to continue possession of the family home no matter who owns it. In Ontario, incidence of violence is a factor in deciding these applications in favour of the victim-parent.

Tort remedies always exist above and beyond criminal or statutory law remedies. Assault and battery is a longstanding tort for which damages can be sought against the perpetrator. Note that while criminal remedies seek to address the perpetrator's conduct, civil remedies under tort seek to financially compensate the victim for damages suffered.
In Ontario not only can you be proved innocent but under the DVA you could still lose your possessions..Fact. As it takes just the mere fact they scared you or you feel threatened so you say.

It will take months, and longer to resolve this in the mean time I pay no rent, I sell possessions leagally... What other law do you know of where one can do this to someone? Even landlords have better protection possession is nine tenths of the law where do you keep you receipts in your car?..

Now if for some reason you you are able to prove your innocence as you have to do that again what other law do you know of where the onus is on you to prove you are innocent? Now if you do it I can still make the claim for your possessions under the act guilty or not. Now I have lived there for months years with the right lawyer. What judge would kick the kids out after that without compensation. You must see this and know the reality is it can and does happen leagaly now that simply is not right period.
Hell I claim I am scared to go outside the house for fear of my life especially now that I have reported them easy bait...especially for women as god knows we are satan himself (herself)right...I claim harassment because you changed the locks. I tell the officers that come to the home to evict me that this is a ruse by a mad person with whom I have and ongoing custody disput or have just made charges of abuse...my friend in the real world the cops back off they do not toss you and your kids on the street no they tell him to take it to court small claims or other wise. No in fact that action would go against you in a court of law, you know that...especially under this act...

In light of the fact that 60% so the stats go of accusations in a family court evironment are confirmed false. On top of that very rarely if at all do these so called none bias honest do good judges ever charge one for that serious offence of perjury...rarely. I have to question that first and fore most...Second the police and the court ignore Fabricating evidence even though the laws are clear in this matter:

137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.
Public mischief
140. (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by

(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;

(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;

(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or Perjury

131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.
All of the above it just does not happen rarely if at all. Police as they say do not enforce it, lawyers will warn men not women that if you take this line you will lose. You know that surely the man has to be none adversarial and the perfect dad period. The woman has soooooo much leyway it is rediculous.If she says he harrassed me game over does she have to prove it yes sooner or later you and I both know it is as later as possible. Then if you are the man you have to prove you did not, you can not attack her character it does not go over well and adds to the myths that exsist.

The rest I will comment on after I have...Yes copied and pasted the Federal DVA...

There is probably little that can be done about that.

No I disagree awareness and fairness and as much *****ing but more reality and truth than the hard core feminists that spread misandry did. That changes things that has started. "Shared parenting" is the way to go, a go between hired before a lawyer is also the way to go. One needs time to get over the hate, sadness, madness and other "normal" human emotions. In that time a go between not the adversarial court system is the best bet for the kids.

I do believe we are on somewhat of the same page my concerns are that this type of well I call it hate law is about to become the same for work place harassment. Bad news for all simply put BS... Again my apologies and thanks for your patience it looks good on you

[blackice]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_1008266
,00.html

Rocky Mountain News
March 04, 2002

"Speakout: Parenting bill aims to improve kids' lives"

By Susan P. Knight, Special to the News


A brave Colorado legislator, Rep. Bill Sinclair, R-El Paso, has introduced a
long overdue bill on the allocation of parental responsibilities (formerly
called custody and visitation) that elevates fathers to the same level of
importance as mothers.

House Bill 1190, which has been approved by a House committee, creates a
presumption that a child is best served with a shared parenting arrangement
in which both the mother and father spend substantially equal time with
their children. This might seem an obvious result when parties divorce but
it isn't.

To be sure, fathers have made progress on custody issues in the last few
years, but in family law matters there's big money to be made by lawyers,
therapists, child advocates and the parties themselves when mom and dad
fight over the children.

When a child is deprived of an important and necessary relationship with a
willing parent by the other parent, it is the child who inevitably suffers.
Statistically, it's still the mother of the child who is the odds-on
favorite to be awarded "custody" (about 93 percent of the cases in Colorado)
along with all the other goodies -- child support and day-to-day
decision-making authority -- that go with it.

Because of this inequity, organizations that focus on father's rights have
been created and are advancing the notion of equal access to the children.

In Colorado, the Center for Children's Justice, is a proponent of equal
access legislation of the type now before the legislature. Unfortunately,
several special-interest groups that prosper under the present laws will
oppose this or any legislation which threatens the status quo.

For example, at the House committee hearing on HB 1190, the most vocal
opponents were the family bar section of the Colorado Bar Association, the
Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Rocky Mountain Children's
Law Center and other organizations which, historically, have dominated
discussion of children's issues.

As a family law attorney, I have seen firsthand many unfair, unreasonable
and unjust court rulings that awarded custody to the mother to the clear
detriment of the children. This arrangement arms women with a very powerful
weapon. No longer being wives, they lack any incentive to share parenting
responsibilities with their children's father. In nearly all of the cases
with which I am familiar, the primary reason for mothers asking for and
receiving custody is to boost their income.

Interestingly, in most of the post-decree disputes, the main conflict is
over child support. The father frequently complains that even though he has
sent the money, the children don't have shoes, clothes, food, etc. While
fathers must pay support, whether they can afford it or not, mothers are not
required to spend it directly for the benefit of the children.

Should HB 1190 become law, both parents will much more often have equal or
close to equal time with the children. These arrangements will significantly
reduce the amount of child support paid and, instead, each parent will pay
their own actual expenses for the children. This result, alone, could save
the state significant administrative expenses now incurred when support
orders are enforced, driver's licenses suspended, or contempt charges are
brought for non-payment of child support.

Sinclair's bill will require one parent to accept the important involvement
of the other in the lives of the children. That is not to say that such an
arrangement will work in every case. But the exceptions do not change the
rule that it's still best for the children when both parents are
substantially involved in their upbringing.

Courts today are too often asked to decide matters better left to the
divorcing parents. A presumption imbedded in the law can have the useful
effect of not only reallocating responsibility for those decisions but
improving the quality of the parenting arrangements which would truly be in
the best interests of the children.

Susan P. Knight is a resident of Denver.

March 4, 2002

Copyright 2002, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

===========
Robert Muchnick - Center for Children's Justice: Denver, CO *
http://www.childrensjustice.org/

I thought we were warped 92% of men lose custody of thier children in Colorado...Who was it that said USA had it better?

[Shi Huangdi]

Tingkai: I am certainly no expert on Canadian constitutional law, but if the Canadian Charter does not allow loss of property without due process, it seems as though it could be challenged under that.

blackice: VAWA is as I said, a law passed by congress that allowed women to sue for violence comitted against them in federal court, instead of just state court where most civil cases typically go where there is no Federal issue. The bill passed easily with bipartisan support- because after all who doesn't want to be seen as fighting against women being the victims of violence. The will was popular, but there was just one problem-- the Constitution did not in anyway give the Federal government any powers whatsoever to regulate this sort of thing, as in the USA states handle cases of murder, assault, etc. The bill was challenged and appealed to the Supreme Court(which is independent of the elected government), and the Supreme court ruled it unconstitutional.

Unfortunately the problem you describe is deeply rooted in society. In France, men who were beaten by their wives were traditionally treated by the village by being forced to dress up in women's clothing and ride backwards through the village on a donkey. A long time ago in the USA a women got away with murdering her parents because the jury assumed a woman would be incapabale of such a heinous crime. Hopefully as society evolves however, this problem can be dealt with and we will come to realize that women are as capable of evil as men are.

[blackice]

Yes a balance so true it usually follows an uprising. Here is a link by a woman writter that would agree with you. It is called "A Return of the Guy"...

http://www.iwf.org/pubs/twq/Winter2002d.shtml

Good post though the facts show as with the VAWA our laws will follow closely behind. It has started and constitutional challenges are on the way.

[blackice]

Ok victory My child is here after 7 months ofr lies, coverups and bs in general. Interesting to note the CAS has put a gag order on me. Meaning when my child tells me she has suffered more violence at the others house I can not talk to her about or report it...One it is against the law for me not to. Two it handcuffs my ability to be a parent. Three what are they covering up, we already know that part...Incredible isn't it...