Barbara Kay: After a divorce, equal parenting rights should be the norm

Submitted by fathers4fairness on Wed, 2014-03-19 19:10

Article published in the National Post and on her personal website. Excerpt:

'In 1999, an exhaustively researched Joint House-Senate committee report, entitled “For the Sake of the Children,” offered recommendations whose spirit is encapsulated in Bill C-560, which will move to second reading in Parliament on March 25.
...
The present adversarial system for high-conflict cases, whereby one parent (usually the mother) “wins” primary residence for the children, has produced injustice, heartbreak and financial ruin on a massive scale. That the family-law system is in serious need of fundamental reform is not in dispute, with report after report demanding action. The new model would replace the concepts of “custody” and “access” with “parenting responsibilities” and “parenting time” applicable to both parents.

Under the current Divorce Act (1985), judges have paid lip service to vague concepts such as the “best interests” of the child. But many have ignored persuasive evidence showing that the single most important “interest” of children is to continue to love and to be loved by both their parents. Relationships cannot flourish without significant time in each other’s presence.

Opposition to ESP arises mainly from two sources: family-law lawyers who are by far the greatest financial stakeholders in the adversarial system, and ideologues. The lawyers insist that a vague test is best, leaving the matter for endless litigation; and ideologues either claim outright that mothers are indispensable to children’s happiness, fathers inessential; or accuse fathers of demanding ESP merely to reduce their financial obligations (which, in practice, won’t happen).
...
Regarding the current primary parent/secondary parent model, Ludmer asks, “Why do this to children who are used to seeing both of their parents every day?” An excellent question. For while there is ample evidence that being marginalized from a parent harms children, there is no credible evidence that minimal time with a parent is good for them.

Bill C-560 is an intelligently designed bill that is just, balanced and respectful of today’s gender-convergent parenting realities. It has the strong support of Canadians and Parliament should enact it.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/20/tasha-kheiriddin-equal-shared-parenting-law-doesnt-put-kids-first/

Excerpt:

'Here in Canada, Bill C-560 would create a legal presumption that “allocating parenting time equally between the spouses is in the best interests of a child.” This could be “rebutted if it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating [time] other than equally.” Ms. Kay writes that this creates a “steep but not insurmountable hill” for those desiring “primary parent” status.

But why should a parent have to climb that hill, if he or she already is the primary parent in terms of hands-on care? The other parent may work more hours, not because he or she loves the children any less, but based on financial need, personal preference or parenting ability. To assume that this division of labour will, and should, suddenly be equally shared after divorce is absurd. The parent who has been at the office until 8 p.m. cannot suddenly be there for a 3:30 p.m. pick-up. The parent who does not enjoy caring for a toddler will not suddenly become Mary Poppins. And it is the kids who would suffer as a result.'

In other words, mom should always get the kid(s) and decide everything about their disposition. Their "biological other parent" or maybe just say "sperm donor" however still needs to keep those CS checks coming.

But I do like her idea of making the support recipient accountable for how SHE is spending "THE DONOR'S" money. However, I am not convinced that will get a lot of attention by the legal system, as it'd be an expense to them to track/audit all those reports and it wouldn't enhance the state's revenue but only increase its expenses. Like enforcing visitation rights, it's a very low priority for the courts since there's no money in it for them.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2014-03-20 04:17

She was a young Conservative - until she worked herself past marriage - then she got a sperm donor to realize her wish of motherhood. She is now a vocal Conservative Feminist due to her experience. Very sad.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fathers4fairness on Sat, 2014-03-22 05:31