BILL C-422 Equal Parenting - Original Document

Section Home


2nd Session, 40th Parliament,
2e session, 40e législature,

57-58 Elizabeth II, 2009
57-58 Elizabeth II, 2009

house of commons of canada
chambre des communes du canada

BILL C-422
PROJET DE LOI C-422

An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that amendments to the Divorce Act are necessary in order to
(a) clarify the purpose and underlying principles of the Act,
(b) encourage divorcing spouses to assume more responsibility for their affairs, with less reliance on adversarial processes,
(c) promote joint responsibility and joint decision-making by spouses in respect of ongoing child care, nurturing, and development,
(d) establish that the interests of the child are best served through maximal ongoing pa- rental involvement with the child, and that the rebuttable presumption of equal parenting is the starting point for judicial deliberations,
(e) clarify relocation considerations by plac- ing the onus on the relocating parent to maintain continuity of relationship, and
(f) provide for consistent collection of court statistics;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur le divorce (partage égal du rôle parental) et d'autres lois en conséquence
Attendu :
que le Parlement du Canada reconnaît la nécessité de modifier la Loi sur le divorce afin :
a) d’en préciser l’objet et les principes fondamentaux,
b) d’inciter les époux en instance de divorce à assumer davantage leurs responsabilités et à recourir dans une moins grande mesure aux procédures contradictoires,
c) de promouvoir le partage entre époux de la responsabilité et de la prise de décision en ce qui concerne les soins, le soutien et le développement continus de l’enfant,
d) de déterminer que les intérêts de l’enfant sont mieux servis par l’engagement maximal continu des parents auprès de lui, et que la présomption réfutable de partage égal du rôle parental constitue le point de départ de l’examen judiciaire,
e) de simplifier les questions relatives au déménagement en imposant au père ou à la mère qui déménage le fardeau de maintenir la continuité de la relation,
f) de prévoir la collecte systématique de statistiques judiciaires,

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Sa Majesté, sur l’avis et avec le consentement du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada, édicte :


R.S., c. 3 (2nd Supp.)

DIVORCE ACT
LOI SUR LE DIVORCE L.R., ch. 3 (2e suppl.)



1. (1) The definitions “custody” and “custody order” in subsection 2(1) of the Act are repealed.
1. (1) Les définitions de « garde » et « ordonnance de garde », au paragraphe 2(1) de la même loi, sont abrogées.

(2) The definitions “corollary relief proceeding” and “divorce proceeding” in subsection 2(1) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(2) Les définitions de « action en divorce » et « action en mesures accessoires », au paragraphe 2(1) de la même loi, sont respectivement remplacées par ce qui suit :

“corollary relief proceeding”
« action en mesures accessoires »

“corollary relief proceeding” means a proceeding in a court in which either or both former spouses seek a child support order, a spousal support order or a parenting order;
“divorce proceeding”
« action en divorce »

“divorce proceeding” means a proceeding in a court in which either or both spouses seek a divorce alone or together with a child support order, a spousal support order or a parenting order;
« action en divorce » Action exercée devant un tribunal par l’un des époux ou conjointement par eux en vue d’obtenir un divorce assorti ou non d’une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un enfant, d’une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un époux ou d’une ordonnance parentale. « action en divorce »
“divorce proceeding”


« action en mesures accessoires » Action exercée devant un tribunal par l’un des ex-époux ou conjointement par eux en vue d’obtenir une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un enfant, une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un époux ou une ordonnance parentale. « action en mesures accessoires »
“corollary relief proceeding”



(3) Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
(3) Le paragraphe 2(1) de la même loi est modifié par adjonction, selon l’ordre alphabétique, de ce qui suit :

“parenting”
« rôle parental »

“parenting” means the act of assuming the role of a parent to a child, including custody and all of the rights and responsibilities commonly and historically associated with the role of a parent;
“parenting order”
« ordonnance parentale »

“parenting order” means an interim order or a final order made under subsection 16(1) and includes a custody order made under this Act before the coming into force of this definition;
“relative”
« membre de la famille »

“relative” means, in relation to a child,

(a) a brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, stepbrother or stepsister,

(b) a grandparent,

(c) the spouse or common-law partner of either parent,

(d) an uncle or aunt,

(e) a nephew, niece, or cousin, and

(f) any other person who has the status of any of the persons referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) according to the cultural norms of either parent;
« membre de la famille » À l’égard d’un enfant : « membre de la famille »
“relative”


a) son frère, sa soeur, son demi-frère, sa demi-soeur ou son frère ou sa soeur par mariage ou union de fait;

b) son grand-père ou sa grand-mère;

c) l’époux ou le conjoint de fait de son père ou de sa mère;

d) son oncle ou sa tante;

e) son neveu, sa nièce, son cousin ou sa cousine;

f) quiconque a le statut d’une personne visée à l'un des alinéas a) à e) selon les normes culturelles du père ou de la mère de l’enfant.

« ordonnance parentale » Ordonnance provisoire ou définitive rendue en vertu du paragraphe 16(1). S’entend en outre d’une ordonnance de garde rendue sous le régime de la présente loi avant l’entrée en vigueur de la présente définition. « ordonnance parentale »
“parenting order”


« rôle parental » Le fait d’agir à titre de père ou de mère d’un enfant, y compris la garde de celui-ci ainsi que les droits et les responsabilités communément et traditionnellement associés au rôle de père ou de mère. « rôle parental »
“parenting”



2. The Divorce Act is amended by adding the following after section 2:
2. La Loi sur le divorce est modifiée par adjonction, après l’article 2, de ce qui suit :


PURPOSE
OBJET

Purpose

2.1 (1) The purpose of this Act is to provide for the expeditious and equitable dissolution of a marriage and to provide for the care of the children of the marriage.
2.1 (1) La présente loi a pour objet d’assurer la dissolution expéditive et équitable du mariage et de pourvoir aux soins des enfants à charge. Objet



Principles

(2) The following principles are to be taken into account in the interpretation and application of this Act:

(a) spouses who are undergoing a divorce should be encouraged to seek their own solutions with reduced reliance on court intervention; and

(b) every child has the right

(i) to know and be cared for by both parents,

(ii) to know his or her relatives and enjoy his or her culture, and

(iii) to spend time and communicate with both parents on a regular basis, and to maintain continuity of relationships with relatives.
(2) Pour l’interprétation et l’application de la présente loi, les principes ci-après doivent être pris en compte : Principes


a) les époux en instance de divorce devraient être incités à trouver leurs propres solutions en recourant aux tribunaux dans une moins grande mesure;

b) tout enfant a le droit :

(i) de connaître ses deux parents et de recevoir des soins de chacun d’eux,

(ii) de connaître les membres de sa famille et de jouir de sa culture,

(iii) de passer du temps avec ses deux parents et de communiquer avec eux de façon régulière et de maintenir des relations continues avec les membres de sa famille.


3. Subsection 6(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
3. Le paragraphe 6(3) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :

Transfer of variation proceeding

(3) Where an application for a variation order in respect of a parenting order is made in a variation proceeding to a court in a province and is opposed and the child of the marriage in respect of whom the variation order is sought is most substantially connected with another province, the court may, on application by a former spouse or on its own motion, transfer the variation proceeding to a court in that other province.
(3) Le tribunal d’une province saisi d’une demande d’ordonnance modificative concernant une ordonnance parentale peut, sur demande d’un ex-époux ou d’office, renvoyer l’affaire au tribunal d’une autre province dans le cas où la demande est contestée et où l’enfant à charge concerné par l’ordonnance modificative a ses principales attaches dans cette province. Renvoi de l’action en modification



4. Subsection 9(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
4. Le paragraphe 9(2) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :

Duty of legal adviser

(2) It is the duty of every barrister, solicitor, lawyer or advocate who undertakes to act on behalf of a spouse in a divorce proceeding

(a) to discuss with the spouse the advisability of negotiating the matters that may be the subject of a support order or a parenting order;

(b) to inform the spouse of the available resources for counselling, mediation, parental coordination and family arbitration that might be able to assist the spouses in co-parenting in the best interests of the child; and

(c) to discuss with the spouse the advisability of providing for the use of the resources referred to in paragraph (b) in a parenting order.
(2) Il incombe également à l’avocat : Devoirs de l'avocat


a) de discuter avec son client de l’opportunité de négocier les points qui peuvent faire l’objet d’une ordonnance alimentaire ou d’une ordonnance parentale;

b) de renseigner son client sur les ressources disponibles en matière de consultation, de médiation, de coordination parentale et d’arbitrage familial qui sont susceptibles d’aider les époux à exercer conjointement leur rôle parental dans l’intérêt de l’enfant;

c) de discuter avec son client de l’opportunité de prévoir dans une ordonnance parentale l’utilisation des ressources mentionnées à l’alinéa b).


5. Subsection 11(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
5. Le paragraphe 11(4) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :

Definition of “collusion”

(4) In this section, “collusion” means an agreement or conspiracy to which an applicant for a divorce is either directly or indirectly a party for the purpose of subverting the administration of justice, and includes any agreement, understanding or arrangement to fabricate or suppress evidence or to deceive the court, but does not include an agreement to the extent that it provides for the separation of the parties or for financial support, division of property or the parenting of any child of the marriage.
(4) Au présent article, « collusion » s’entend d’une entente ou d’un complot auxquels le demandeur est partie — directement ou indirectement — en vue de déjouer l’administration de la justice, ainsi que de tout accord, entente ou autre arrangement visant à fabriquer ou à supprimer des éléments de preuve ou à tromper le tribunal, à l’exclusion de toute entente prévoyant la séparation de fait des parties, l’aide financière, le partage des biens ou l’exercice du rôle parental à l’égard des enfants à charge. Définition de « collusion »



6. The heading before section 16 of the Act is replaced by the following:
6. L’intertitre précédant l’article 16 de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :

PARENTING ORDERS
ORDONNANCES PARENTALES

7. (1) Subsections 16(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:
7. (1) Les paragraphes 16(1) et (2) de la même loi sont remplacés par ce qui suit :

Parenting order

16. (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an order respecting the parenting of any or all children of the marriage.
16. (1) Le tribunal compétent peut, sur demande des époux ou de l’un d’eux ou de toute autre personne, rendre une ordonnance relative au rôle parental à l’égard des enfants à charge ou de l’un d’eux. Ordonnance parentale



Interim order for parenting

(2) Where an application is made under subsection (1), the court may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an interim order respecting the parenting of any or all children of the marriage pending determination of the application under subsection (1). In making an interim order, the court shall take into consideration the same factors that it is required to consider when making a final order.
(2) Le tribunal peut, sur demande des époux ou de l’un d’eux ou de toute autre personne, rendre une ordonnance provisoire relative au rôle parental à l’égard des enfants à charge ou de l’un d’eux, dans l’attente d’une décision sur la demande visée au paragraphe (1). Lorsqu'il rend une telle ordonnance, le tribunal tient compte des mêmes facteurs qu'il considère lorsqu’il rend une ordonnance définitive. Ordonnance parentale provisoire



(2) Subsections 16(4) to (10) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(2) Les paragraphes 16(4) à (10) de la même loi sont remplacés par ce qui suit :

Making parenting orders

(4) Subject to subsection (5), in making a parenting order, including an interim order, the court shall:

(a) apply the presumption that allocating parenting time equally between the spouses is in the best interests of a child of the marriage; and

(b) apply the presumption that equal parental responsibility is in the best interests of a child of the marriage.
(4) Sous réserve du paragraphe (5), lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance parentale, y compris une ordonnance provisoire, le tribunal : Ordonnances parentales


a) applique la présomption selon laquelle le partage égal du temps parental entre les époux est dans l’intérêt de l'enfant à charge;

b) applique la présomption selon laquelle le partage égal de la responsabilité parentale est dans l’intérêt de l'enfant à charge.


Non-application of presumptions

(5) The presumptions referred to in subsection (4) are rebutted if it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parenting time or parental responsibility other than equally.
(5) Les présomptions prévues au paragraphe (4) sont réfutées s’il est établi que l’intérêt de l’enfant serait considérablement mieux servi par un partage inégal du temps parental ou de la responsabilité parentale. Non-application des présomptions



Maximum practicable contact

(6) If the presumptions referred to in subsection (4) are rebutted in accordance with subsection (5), the court shall, in making an order under this section, nevertheless give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have the maximum practicable contact with each spouse that is compatible with the best interests of the child.
(6) Dans les cas où les présomptions prévues au paragraphe (4) sont réfutées par application du paragraphe (5), le tribunal, lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance conformément au présent article, applique néanmoins le principe selon lequel l’enfant à charge devrait avoir avec chaque époux le plus de contact possible compatible avec son propre intérêt. Contact maximum possible



Factors to consider

(7) In making an order under this section in a case where subsection (6) applies, the court shall have regard to

(a) the capacity of the spouses to arrange for parenting time given the distance between their respective residences;

(b) the willingness of the spouses to communicate and utilize appropriate services to resolve disputes;

(c) the working schedules of the spouses and availability of caretakers; and

(d) the effect of any arrangement on the well-being of a child of the marriage.
(7) Dans les cas visés au paragraphe (6), lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance conformément au présent article, le tribunal tient compte : Facteurs


a) de l’aptitude des époux de conclure des arrangements concernant le temps parental étant donné la distance entre leurs résidences respectives;

b) de la volonté des époux à communiquer et à utiliser les services indiqués pour résoudre les différends;

c) de l’horaire de travail des époux et de la disponibilité de services de garde d’enfants;

d) de l’incidence de tout arrangement sur le bien-être de l’enfant à charge.


Assistance to spouses

(8) With the consent of the spouses, the court may appoint a counsellor, advisor, mediator or parental coordinator, with or without arbitral powers, to assist the spouses in co-parenting in the best interests of the child.
(8) Avec le consentement des époux, le tribunal peut nommer un conseiller, un médiateur ou un coordonnateur parental, avec ou sans pouvoirs d’arbitrage, pour aider les époux à exercer conjointement leur rôle parental dans l’intérêt de l’enfant. Aide aux époux



Information

(9) Unless the court orders otherwise, each spouse may make inquiries regarding the health, education and welfare of a child of the marriage and is entitled to be provided with all relevant information in response to those inquiries. The court may make a multi-directional parenting order under this section that directs a person, organization or entity to provide any such information to a spouse.
(9) Sauf ordonnance contraire du tribunal, chaque époux peut demander des renseignements relatifs à la santé, à l’éducation et au bien-être de l’enfant à charge et a le droit de recevoir tous les renseignements pertinents en réponse à cette demande. Le tribunal peut rendre une ordonnance parentale à portée élargie, conformément au présent article, dans laquelle il oblige une personne, un organisme ou une entité à fournir de tels renseignements à l’un des époux. Renseignements



Terms and conditions

(10) The court may make an order under this section for a definite or indefinite period or until the happening of a specified event and may impose any other terms, conditions or restrictions that are compatible with sections 16 and 16.1 as it thinks fit and just.
(10) La durée de validité de l’ordonnance rendue par le tribunal conformément au présent article peut être déterminée ou indéterminée ou dépendre d’un événement précis; l’ordonnance peut être assujettie aux modalités ou restrictions,— compatibles avec les articles 16 et 16.1 — que le tribunal estime justes et appropriées. Modalités de l’ordonnance



Order respecting change of residence

(11) Without limiting the generality of subsections (4) and (6), the court may include in an order under this section a term requiring any person who has parental responsibility in respect of a child of the marriage and who intends to change the place of residence of the child to notify, at least 30 days before the change or within such other period before the change as the court may specify, the other spouse of the change, the date on which the change will be made and the new place of residence of the child, as well as the telephone numbers, email address and other contact information for the child.
(11) Sans préjudice de la portée générale des paragraphes (4) et (6), le tribunal peut inclure dans l’ordonnance qu’il rend au titre du présent article une disposition obligeant la personne qui a une responsabilité parentale à l’égard d’un enfant à charge et qui a l’intention de changer le lieu de résidence de celui-ci d’informer au moins trente jours à l’avance, ou dans le délai antérieur au changement que lui impartit le tribunal, l’autre époux de la date du changement et du nouveau lieu de résidence de l’enfant, ainsi que des numéros de téléphone, adresse électronique et autres coordonnées de l’enfant. Ordonnance relative au changement de résidence



Prohibition against change of residence

(12) Despite subsection (11) and without limiting the generality of subsections (4) and (6), if changing a place of residence of a child of the marriage would make compliance with a parenting order impractical or unreasonable, the court shall include in an order under this section a term prohibiting a change in a place of residence of the child without the written consent of both spouses.
(12) Malgré le paragraphe (11) et sans préjudice de la portée générale des paragraphes (4) et (6), dans le cas où le changement de résidence d’un enfant à charge rendrait le respect d’une ordonnance parentale difficilement réalisable ou déraisonnable, le tribunal inclut dans l’ordonnance qu’il rend au titre du présent article une disposition interdisant le changement de résidence de l’enfant sans le consentement écrit des deux époux. Changement de résidence interdit



Duty to pay expenses

(13) Unless otherwise agreed by the spouses, the court may order a spouse who changes the place of residence of a child of the marriage to pay any additional reasonable expenses that are necessary in order to maintain, to the greatest extent practicable, the parenting arrangements that were in place before the change.
(13) Sauf entente contraire entre les époux, le tribunal peut ordonner à un époux qui change le lieu de résidence d’un enfant à charge de payer les frais additionnels raisonnables qui sont nécessaires au maintien, dans toute la mesure du possible, du partage du rôle parental antérieur au changement. Obligation de payer les frais



Matters to be considered in making parenting orders

(14) In making a parenting order under this section, the court shall regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration, while taking into account the following:

(a) the presumptions set out in subsection (4), as applicable;

(b) the principle of maximum practicable contact, as described in subsection (6); and

(c) the considerations set out in subsections (15) and (16), with more weight being given to the considerations in subsection (15) than those in subsection (16).
(14) Lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance parentale conformément au présent article, le tribunal accorde une importance primordiale à l’intérêt de l’enfant tout en tenant compte des facteurs suivants : Facteurs à considérer


a) les présomptions prévues au paragraphe (4), dans la mesure où elles sont applicables;

b) le principe de contact maximum possible, énoncé au paragraphe (6);

c) les critères énoncés au paragraphe (15) et ceux énoncés au paragraphe (16), en accordant une importance plus grande aux premiers.


Primary considerations

(15) The primary considerations to be taken into account in determining the best interests of a child of the marriage, to be assessed in aggregate, are

(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship and as much contact as is practicable with each of his or her parents;

(b) the continuity of relationships with rel- atives;

(c) the willingness, and the effectiveness of the efforts, of each spouse to facilitate, encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other spouse; and

(d) the protection of the child from physical and psychological harm through abuse, neglect or alienation of parental affection.
(15) Les critères fondamentaux — à évaluer dans leur ensemble — dont il faut tenir compte pour déterminer l’intérêt de l’enfant à charge sont les suivants : Critères fondamentaux


a) l’avantage pour l’enfant de maintenir des relations significatives avec son père et sa mère et d’avoir le plus de contact possible avec chacun d’eux;

b) le maintien des relations avec les membres de la famille;

c) la volonté de chaque époux de faciliter, d’encourager et d’appuyer le maintien de la relation parent-enfant avec l’autre époux et l’efficacité des efforts de chacun;

d) la protection de l’enfant contre les sévices physiques et psychologiques du fait de mauvais traitements, de négligence ou d’aliénation de l’affection parentale.


Additional considerations

(16) The additional considerations to be taken into account in determining the best interests of a child of the marriage, to be assessed in the aggregate, are

(a) any views that are voluntarily expressed by the child free from influence by either spouse or by any other person, with due weight to be given by the court to these views in accordance with the maturity and comprehension level of the child;

(b) the benefits associated with maintaining a continuity of the culture and traditions of the child;

(c) family violence committed in the pres- ence of the child; and

(d) any event or circumstance since separation that indicates that the behaviour of either spouse is not compatible with the primary considerations set out in subsection (15).
(16) Les critères additionnels — à évaluer dans leur ensemble — dont il faut tenir compte pour déterminer l’intérêt de l’enfant à charge sont les suivants : Critères additionnels


a) l’opinion exprimée volontairement par l’enfant sans influence de la part de l’un ou l’autre époux ou de toute autre personne, le tribunal devant dûment prendre en considération le degré de maturité et de compréhension de l’enfant;

b) les bienfaits associés à la préservation de la culture et des traditions de l’enfant;

c) tout geste de violence familiale commis en présence de l’enfant;

d) tout événement ou toute situation ayant eu lieu depuis la séparation dénotant que le comportement de l’un ou l’autre des époux est incompatible avec les critères fondamentaux établis au paragraphe (15).


Allocation of parenting time

(17) The court shall apply the following principles in allocating parenting time between the spouses to the extent that they are compatible with the best interests of the child:

(a) weekend, vacation, school holiday, fam- ily birthday and religious and cultural holiday time shall be allocated equitably between the spouses, with a view to the spouse with lesser aggregate time having as much of his or her parenting time as possible at times when he or she can be present with the child;

(b) extra-curricular and educational programs and activities shall be scheduled so that they have an equitable impact on the parenting time allocated to each spouse; and

(c) if relatives of the child reside in other cities, the travel requirements of a spouse shall be taken into consideration.
(17) Pour répartir le temps parental entre les époux, le tribunal applique les principes ci-après dans la mesure où ils sont compatibles avec l’intérêt de l’enfant : Répartition du temps parental


a) les fins de semaine, les vacances, les congés scolaires, les anniversaires de la famille et les congés religieux et culturels sont répartis équitablement entre les époux, l’époux qui dispose de moins de temps dans l’ensemble se voyant attribuer autant de temps parental que possible aux moments où il peut être présent auprès de l’enfant;

b) les activités et les programmes parascolaires et éducatifs sont planifiés de manière à avoir un effet équitable sur le temps parental attribué à chaque époux;

c) dans le cas où des membres de la famille de l’enfant résident dans d’autres villes, les exigences relatives aux déplacements d’un époux sont prises en compte.


Reasons for decision

(18) If the court makes an order under this section that does not provide for equal parenting time or equal parenting responsibility, the court shall, in the reasons for its decision, explain in detail why such an order was made notwithstanding the principles for parenting orders set out in this section.
(18) Lorsque l’ordonnance qu’il rend conformément au présent article ne prévoit pas, malgré les principes applicables aux ordonnances parentales énoncés au présent article, le partage égal du temps parental ou de la responsabilité parentale, le tribunal explique de façon détaillée les motifs de sa décision. Motifs



Past conduct

(19) In making an order under this section, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of a spouse unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that spouse to act as a parent of a child of the marriage.
(19) Lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance conformément au présent article, le tribunal ne tient pas compte de la conduite antérieure d’un époux, sauf si celle-ci est liée à l’aptitude de l’époux à agir à titre de père ou de mère de l’enfant à charge. Conduite antérieure



8. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 16:
8. La même loi est modifiée par adjonction, après l'article 16, de ce qui suit :

Content of parenting order

16.1 Every order made under section 16 shall provide for

(a) the persons with whom a child of the marriage is to live;

(b) the allocation of parenting time between the spouses in accordance with the best interests of the child, as determined under that section;

(c) the allocation of parental responsibility for the child;

(d) the form of consultations that the spouses are to engage in before making decisions that will have a significant impact on the circumstances of the child;

(e) the form of communications that the child is to have with others and their modalities, such as letter mail, telephone or electronic means;

(f) the possession of the child’s records, and, if applicable, any restrictions that relate to sharing those records;

(g) the dispute resolution procedures that are to be followed when needed, including, if appropriate, the names of individuals who are to be consulted;

(h) rules applicable to change of residence, as set out in section 16;

(i) child support;

(j) the identification of any parts of the order that have been issued on consent; and

(k) the name of the judge.
16.1 Toute ordonnance rendue en vertu de l’article 16 prévoit : Contenu de l’ordonnance parentale


a) le nom des personnes avec lesquelles doit vivre l’enfant à charge;

b) le partage du temps parental entre les époux selon l’intérêt de l’enfant tel qu’il a été déterminé conformément à cet article;

c) le partage de la responsabilité parentale à l’égard de l’enfant;

d) le genre de consultations auxquelles doivent participer les époux avant de prendre des décisions qui auront une incidence importante sur la situation de l’enfant;

e) les moyens de communication — et leurs conditions d’utilisation — auxquels l’enfant aura accès, tels le courrier, le téléphone ou des moyens électroniques;

f) la personne ayant la possession des documents relatifs à l’enfant et, le cas échéant, les restrictions relatives à leur communication;

g) la procédure de résolution des différends à suivre en cas de besoin, y compris, s’il y a lieu, le nom des personnes à consulter;

h) les règles applicables au changement de résidence, selon ce que prévoit l’article 16;

i) les aliments de l’enfant;

j) la mention de tout passage de l’ordonnance rendu sur consentement;

k) le nom du juge.


Definitions

16.2 (1) The following definitions apply in sections 16 and 16.1.
“parental responsibility”
« responsabilité parentale »

“parental responsibility” means responsibility for

(a) making long-term decisions with respect to the health, education, welfare, development, religion, culture, name and changes to the living arrangements of a child;

(b) carrying out the everyday tasks that are associated with the care and activities of a child; and

(c) making emergency decisions in respect of a child.
“equal parenting responsibility”
« partage égal de la responsabilité parentale »

“equal parenting responsibility” includes joint responsibility for long-term decision-making and responsibility for daily care during allocated parenting time, but does not include major decisions made by one parent during an emergency situation.
“parenting time”
« temps parental »

“parenting time” means, with respect to a particular spouse and child, the days and times that the spouse is given primary care and responsibility for the daily needs of the child.
16.2 (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent aux articles 16 et 16.1. Définitions


« partage égal de la responsabilité parentale » S’entend notamment de la responsabilité conjointe pour la prise de décisions à long terme et de la responsabilité des soins quotidiens pendant le temps parental attribué. Sont exclues de la présente définition les décisions importantes prises par le père ou la mère en cas d’urgence. « partage égal de la responsabilité parentale »
“equal parenting responsibility”


« responsabilité parentale » S’entend de la responsabilité : « responsabilité parentale »
“parental responsibility”


a) de prendre des décisions à long terme relatives à la santé, à l’éducation, au bien-être, au développement, à la religion, à la culture, au nom et aux changements du mode de vie d’un enfant;

b) d’accomplir les tâches quotidiennes associées aux soins et aux activités d’un enfant;

c) de prendre des décisions en cas d’urgence à l’égard d’un enfant.

« temps parental » S’entend, relativement à chaque époux et à un enfant, des jours et des moments pendant lesquels l’époux se voit confier le principal soin de l’enfant et la responsabilité de veiller à ses besoins quotidiens. « temps parental »
“parenting time”



9. (1) Paragraph 17(1)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
9. (1) L’alinéa 17(1)b) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :

(b) a parenting order or any provision thereof on application by either or both former spouses or by any other person.
b) une ordonnance parentale ou telle de ses dispositions, sur demande des ex-époux ou de l’un d’eux ou de toute autre personne.

(2) Subsection 17(5) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) Le paragraphe 17(5) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :

Factors for parenting order

(5) Before the court makes a variation order in respect of a parenting order, the court shall satisfy itself that there has been a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of the child of the marriage occurring since the making of the parenting order or the last variation order made in respect of that order, as the case may be. The principles relating to parenting orders set out in section 16 apply to variation orders.
(5) Avant de rendre une ordonnance modificative de l’ordonnance parentale, le tribunal doit s’assurer qu’il est survenu un changement dans les ressources, les besoins ou, d’une façon générale, dans la situation de l’enfant à charge depuis le prononcé de l’ordonnance parentale ou de la dernière ordonnance modificative de celle-ci, le cas échéant. Les principes relatifs aux ordonnances parentales établis à l’article 16 s’appliquent aux ordonnances modificatives. Facteurs considérés pour l’ordonnance parentale



(3) Subsection 17(9) of the Act is repealed.
(3) Le paragraphe 17(9) de la même loi est abrogé.

(4) Subsection 17(11) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) Le paragraphe 17(11) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :

Copy of order

(11) Where a court makes a variation order in respect of a support order or a parenting order made by another court, it shall send a copy of the variation order, certified by a judge or officer of the court, to that other court.
(11) Le tribunal qui rend une ordonnance modificative d’une ordonnance alimentaire ou parentale rendue par un autre tribunal envoie à celui-ci une copie, certifiée conforme par un de ses juges ou fonctionnaires, de l’ordonnance modificative. Copie de l’ordonnance



10. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 17.1:
10. La même loi est modifiée par adjonction, après l’article 17.1, de ce qui suit :

Variation of existing parenting order

17.2 (1) Where an application is made for a variation order in respect of a parenting order that was made before the coming into force of this section, the court shall determine the application in accordance with the provisions of this Act as they exist at the time the application is before the court.
17.2 (1) Lorsqu’une demande est présentée devant le tribunal en vue d’obtenir une ordonnance modificative d’une ordonnance parentale rendue avant l’entrée en vigueur du présent article, le tribunal statue sur la demande conformément aux dispositions de la présente loi dans leur version à la date d’audition de la demande. Modification d’une ordonnance parentale



Change of circumstances

(2) The coming into force of subsection 17(5), as enacted by subsection 9(2) of this Act, constitutes a change of circumstances within the meaning of subsection 17(5).
(2) L’entrée en vigueur du paragraphe 17(5), dans sa version édictée par le paragraphe 9(2) de la présente loi, constitue un changement de situation au sens du paragraphe 17(5). Changement de situation



Compilation of statistics on parenting orders

17.3 (1) The Minister of Justice may make any arrangements the Minister considers expedient between the provinces, as administrators of the Superior Courts, and any department of the Government of Canada, for the collection, transmission and exchange of any information or statistics concerning parenting orders.
17.3 (1) Le ministre de la Justice peut prendre les dispositions qu’il juge indiquées en vue de la collecte, de la transmission et de l’échange d’informations ou de statistiques relatives aux ordonnances parentales entre les provinces — à titre d’administratrices des cours supérieures — et tout ministère fédéral. Statistiques sur les ordonnances parentales



Regulations concerning the collection of statistics

(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations that provide for the collection, compilation and publication of statistics regarding parenting orders. These statistics may include the allocation of parenting time between spouses, the extent of decision-making by each spouse, and the number and ages of the children to which these statistics relate.
(2) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, prévoir la collecte, la compilation et la publication de statistiques concernant les ordonnances parentales. Ces statistiques peuvent porter notamment sur la répartition du temps parental entre les époux, l’étendue de la prise de décisions par chaque époux ainsi que le nombre et l’âge des enfants qu’elles visent. Règlements portant sur la collecte de statistiques



11. Paragraph 34(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
11. L’alinéa 34(1)a) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :

(a) the order were a support order or parenting order, as the case may be; and
a) s’il s’agissait d’une ordonnance alimentaire ou parentale, selon le cas;


CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
MODIFICATIONS CORRÉLATIVES


R.S., c. C-46

Criminal Code
Code criminel L.R., ch. C-46



12. Section 282 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
12. L’article 282 du Code criminel est modifié par adjonction, après le paragraphe (2), de ce qui suit :

Definitions

(3) The following definitions apply in this section and section 283.
“custody order”
« ordonnance de garde »

“custody order” includes a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act.
“custody provision”
« disposition d'une ordonnance »

“custody provision” includes a provision relating to the parenting of a child included in a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act.
(3) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent article et à l’article 283. Définitions


« disposition d’une ordonnance » S’entend notamment d’une disposition relative à l’exercice du rôle parental à l’égard d’un enfant que comporte une ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « disposition d’une ordonnance »
“custody provision”


« ordonnance de garde » S’entend notamment de l’ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « ordonnance de garde »
“custody order”




R.S., c. 4 (2nd Supp.)

Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act
Loi d’aide à l’exécution des ordonnances et des ententes familiales L.R., ch. 4 (2e suppl.)



13. The definitions “custody provision” and “order” in section 2 of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act are replaced by the following:
13. Les définitions de « disposition de garde » et « ordonnance », à l’article 2 de la Loi d’aide à l’exécution des ordonnances et des ententes familiales, sont respectivement remplacées par ce qui suit :

“custody provision”
« disposition de garde »

“custody provision” means a provision of an order or agreement awarding custody of a child, and includes a provision relating to the parenting of a child included in a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act;
“order”
« ordonnance »

“order” means any order or judgment, or interim order or judgment, relating to family support, custody or access that is enforceable in a province, and includes a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act;
« disposition de garde » Disposition d’une ordonnance ou d’une entente accordant la garde d’un enfant. S’entend notamment d’une disposition relative à l’exercice du rôle parental à l’égard d’un enfant que comporte une ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « disposition de garde »
“custody provision”


« ordonnance » Ordonnance ou autre décision, définitive ou provisoire, en matière alimentaire, de garde ou d’accès, exécutoire dans une province. S’entend en outre d’une ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « ordonnance »
“order”



Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available from:
Publishing and Depository Services
Public Works and Government Services Canada Publié avec l'autorisation du président de la Chambre des communes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disponible auprès de :
Les Éditions et Services de dépôt
Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada

Maurice Vellacott Bill # C-422 ~ Intro Statement – Equal Shared Parenting ~ June 16, 2009

Mr. Maurice Vellacott introduced a Private Member’s Bill this morning that would require a presumption of equal parenting. This is a BILL, not a MOTION. It’s # is C-422. Don’t refer to it as M-483 if contacting others such as politicians or media about this bill because M-483 as an equal parenting measure was terminated with the last election call, as most of you already know, so nobody will know what you are talking about if you refer to it incorrectly. Mr. Vellacott’s introductory statement in introducing this bill this morning was as follows (Thanks Mike)


Intro Statement:


Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be introducing a Private Member’s Bill today which would direct courts in regard to divorce, to make equal shared parenting the presumptive arrangement in the best interests of the child, except in proven cases of abuse or neglect.


Over 10 years ago, a Joint House-Senate committee presented to Parliament a report entitled “For the Sake of the Children.” That report urged Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to make equal shared parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children. This non-partisan recommendation from that Joint House-Senate was based on compelling research made available to the committee members.
Over the past ten years, the best research has continued to demonstrate the far superior outcomes for children, in general, when both parents – mom AND dad – are actively involved in their children's lives, even if the parents divorce or separate.


Polling from the past two years demonstrates overwhelming support from Canadians for equal shared parenting. There is, in fact, slightly more support among women than men for equal parenting. This strong support from almost 80% of Canadians exists across the country, with the strongest regional support coming from Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

Canadians claiming to be Liberal and Bloc supporters, expressed the strongest endorsement for equal shared parenting, at 80.6% among Liberals and 82.9% among Bloc Quebecois supporters.

A variety of countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Australia, and various U.S. states, have implemented equal parenting, joint custody or shared parenting presumptive legislation, which has resulted in lowered court costs, less conflict and improved social outcomes for the children of divorce.

This bill is one of the most a-political, non-partisan pieces of legislation introduced in this current Parliament. I look forward to strong support for this important piece of legislation from all Members of Parliament who are committed to the best interests of our Canadian children.

Introduction of Private Members' Bills - Equal Parenting June 12, 2009

Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) has put forth an Introduction of Private Members' Bills to amend the Divorce Act to include equal parenting. PC Member of Parliment, Mr. Vellacott, has worked hard to place this bill on the political agenda. Let us continue to support him and the bill. If this bill passes it will be a victory for children and parents who love them. Send your support to Mr. Vellacott by contacting him and call your own MP and let him/her know that you have the voting power. (Thanks to Mike Murphy for the post)

Notice Paper
No. 75
Monday, June 15, 2009
11:00 a.m.

Introduction of Government Bills

June 12, 2009 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.

Former Member of Parliament, Roger Galloway, tells public audience how the Parliamentary process in Canada is sick...

Former Member of Parliament, Roger Galloway, tells public audience how the Parliamentary process in Canada is sick and that laws are getting passed by special interest groups using mischief and slight of hand!

Note: Roger Galloway was chair of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, For the Sake of the Children. Listen to what he has to say as to why the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, For the Sake of the Children is collecting dust in Ottawa.

(March 8, 2008) See never before seen video footage from the archives of Court Watch of Former Canadian Member of Parliament, Roger Galloway taken at a public conference in Whitby, Ontario in March of 2003. Mr. Galloway reveals some of the problems that Canadians are facing having a Justice Department that is unresponsive to the wishes of the majority of Canadians. As Mr. Galloway points out in his presentation, Canadians are going one way on the issue of justice but that the Department of Justice is going in an opposite direction and as a result, Canadians are losing respect for the Justice System in Canada. Mr. Galloway gives some good advice as to how Canadians can change the system for the better.

Feminist mischief within Canada's Justice System - Former Parliamentarian Roger Galloway speaks out - Never before seen footage! from Canada Court Watch on Vimeo.

Conrad Black’s problems no more significant compared to those facing fathers in Canada’s divorce courts

THE CANADIAN FAMILY FORUM

Open forum by Canadians about legal and social issues affecting Canadian families
Published by Canada Court Watch: http://www.canadacourtwatch.com

By Grant Brown, DPhil (Oxon) LLB
January 20, 2007.

While there has been a lot of recent press surrounding the problems facing
Conrad Black in court, nobody should think that the legal travails of this business mogul are anything out of the ordinary.

As a former professor of business and professional ethics, an author of peerreviewed research in the field, and a current practitioner of family law, I can say without fear of contradiction that the common man frequently receives treatment much worse than Lord Black's from our dysfunctional
family-dispute system.

There is no "presumption of innocence" for men. They are routinely evicted from their own homes by ex parte restraining orders, on the basis of false or completely uncorroborated allegations of abuse or even merely the "fear" of abuse.

They are consequently denied access to their assets, especially the equity in their homes, while paying the mortgage and credit cards for the benefit of the estranged partners and their alienated children.They may have to spend thousands of
dollars to defend themselves against criminal charges of assault, over ridiculously minor incidents in which the woman was equally a participant, if not a
deliberate provocateur.

They may have to spend thousands more to have a home study done to prove their innocence and their competence as a parent.

Rarely is a woman legally sanctioned in any way for false or exaggerated allegations of abuse, or self-serving slander of fathers.

Private lawyers in family disputes often behave no better than the public prosecutor in Lord Black's case.

They encourage clients to take uncompromising positions, to swear questionable affidavits, and to rebuff
reasonable settlement offers.

They speak out of turn and tell judges
irrelevant and misleading half-truths in Court, to slant the proceedings in their
client's favour and put the other side off their message.

They delay, play procedural games,obstruct the other side from getting at the information they are entitled to, and run up the cost of litigation until it becomes unaffordable to continue. They do all this with the blessing of the Courts and the Law Societies.

Lord Black can fend for himself, with the able assistance of Eddie Greenspan.

The common man is the more to be pitied.

Grant A. Brown, DPhil (Oxon), LL.B is a lawyer who practices law in Edmonton, Aberta, He may be reached by phone at (780) 433-1505

Source: http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/CanFamForumFiles/CFF-2007Jan20-ConradBlacksProblemsNoWorseComparedToDivorcedDads.pdf

Canada's child support guidelines - first decade of fiction

Did you know that: (1) our child support guidelines rely on a formula to calculate all the levels of child support? (2) that the child support formula assumes that the paying parent has NO access, when the access parent's actual access can be up to 40%? (3) that the assumption of no access result in more than doubling all the levels of child support for the average access parent? (4) that the assumption was labelled as "legislative fiction” by a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada on November 10, 2005? (5) that even a paying parent with an access of 40% or more is treated unfairly by our child support guidelines?

If you want to know more about these and other problems with our child support guidelines, read "Child Support Guidelines, 1997 to 2007, First decade of fiction"

Link to free copy of on line book

Courts From Hell: Family InJustice In Canada

Courts From Hell: Family InJustice In Canada
by Frank Simons

Mr. Simmons is yet another Canadian Author to join the ranks of hard working Canadians who want to expose the corruption and incompetence in the family court system which is making a mockery of justice in Canada and destroying family after family.

From Back Cover

IF ROSA PARKS WAS A DIVORCED FATHER IN CANADA, SHE'D STILL BE RIDING AT THE BACK OF THE BUS.

• 
  What gives a judge the right to discriminate against families and without cause to take away God's given right to be equal parents.
• 
  Canadian Courts and the Family Justice System....For an institution that represents a country committed to a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" whose leaders preach human rights to other nations, what I've seen and learned in 12 years of HELL is reprehensible and the destruction to families unimaginable.
• 
  I expected help so my family could have a new beginning....Instead I found a dysfunctional Justice System with fractured and indequate laws, corrupt lawyers, biased judges and an overall costly, adversarial, ineffective and inefficient, self serving Family Court.
• 
  To this environment we entrust 50% of our families who unfortunately fall victim to divorce and separation.
• 
  It's time to do everything possible to get families out of court.

The Canadian Family

"It's About Time"

Frank Simons

Free Download here of the book

Ontario doctor speaks up about court corruption and cover-up in Ontario's justice system

(Dec 21, 2008) Recently, one well respected Ontario doctor offered to be interviewed on videotape about his horrible experience with Ontario's justice system. Based on his experience, he believes that too many bad people within the "legal fraternity" have corrupted the system to the point where the citizens of Ontario can no longer consider themselves to be safe in Ontario if they happen to get tangled in the web of Ontario's justice system. So tragic but so true. Canada claims to the rest of the world how it is one of the safest countries in the world in which to live, yet behind the scenes, Canadians themselves are being destroyed by a justice system which has grown into an out of control monster, fuelled by money, greed and profit for the "legal fraternity" which at one time was a reputable profession.

This doctor is one of the growing number of citizens in Ontario coming forth to get the truth out about Ontario's morally corrupt justice system.

Just as we are now seeing some of the most powerful economies of the world come crashing down because of greed and corruption, it will be only a matter of time until the greed and corruption within Canada's system of justice, brings the entire system crashing down upon itself. The good people of Canada have had enough.

Ontario doctor describes corruption within Ontario's justice system from Canada Court Watch on Vimeo.

Report shows that Canada's child support guidelines fueling court conflict, unfairness and throwing child support payers into poverty while support

(April 12, 2009) A new report just released by the Family Justice Review Committee shows the financial figures behind why so many non custodial parents are being forced into poverty and made into deadbeat parents. All readers are urged to spread copies of this report around to members of the public so that the public will begin to understand that in many cases, deadbeat parents are created by Canada's oppressive and unconstitutional child support guidelines. Non custodial parents are in many cases, thrown into poverty and simply are unable to pay because the guidelines are grossly unfair and one sided. The figures show that in Canada, there is no equality, fairness or justice when it comes to the way that child support payers are treated. Australia has adopted a much more fair child support formula while Canada lags behind the rest of the world and allows its children and families to be persecuted and destroyed under the guise of "child support".

Link to report in pdf format only

Source: http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/

Dr. Jayne Major Ph.D. speaks about the morally corrupt family court system

(April 22, 2009) During her visit to Toronto as a guest speaker at the Canadian International Symposium on Parental Alienation Syndrome in March of 2009, internationally recognized, Dr. Jayne Major, spoke to Court Watch about the issue of the family court system.

Dr. Major has been helping children and families involved in the family court system for over 25 years. Her experience supports claims that the family court system is a very dysfunctional system and is doing more harm to children and families than good. Dr. Major is one of the growing number of professionals coming forward to boldly speak the truth.

This video is dedicated to M.S., who at the age of 10 years, was ripped from her loving father and older siblings and forced her into the sole custody of her sociopath mother by Justice Craig Perkins of the Superior Court of Justice in Newmarket, Ontario. Justice Perkins never even asked what the girl's wishes were before handing down his terribly flawed decision. The citizens of Court Watch have not forgotten about the terrible work that Justice Perkins did in this case and then how he attempted to impose silence by issuing a publication ban on the case, including the names of the professionals involved. Court Watch has videotaped complaints from other children complaining about the same professionals used in this case. One day when M.S. is older, she will speak out about what Justice Perkins did to her and her family and and one day the truth will get out. Hopefully in the meantime, Justice Perkins will have some time to think about the terrible harm he has done to this child and her family

Dr. Jayne Major Ph.D. speaks about the family court system from Canada Court Watch on Vimeo.

Documented Account Of Parental Alienation Syndrome

Cordell & Cordell Attorney Angelyn Mitchell talks to Minister Ron Smith, author of Cheated: A Documented Account Of Parental Alienation Syndrome

How divorce affects children

This is a slideshow I put together to show the affects divorce has on children. This is a teen's first video on how divorce affects children.

"It is horrible to be forced to choose who are you going to live with, but it is worse when the decison depends on a court. The ugliest thing."

Father's Day: a challenge to absentee fathers

by Betty Sims
Go to Betty's Home Page
Atlanta Christianity Examiner

On Sunday, June 21, people all over the world will commemorate Father’s Day, a day set aside to honor men who have sacrificed to raise offspring. But, I often wonder about how children that don’t have fathers really feel. In the twenty-first century with our modern-day ideologies about responsible parenting, a lot of men fail to “father” their children. Not unlike males in the animal kingdom, they “hit that,” and go on to the next victim of unbridled passion and unprotected sex. Many men may never know the woman has conceived; and sadly, some women couldn’t identify their baby’s daddy without a paternity test! Anonymous absentee dads have become more the norm than the exception, far removed from the Biblical genealogies that recorded who begot whom with accuracy and aplomb.

While we honor those fathers that elected to honorably marry and rear children, my heart aches for children that don’t know their dads. That missing link can make the difference between a child that is self-assured and feels secure and one that fails to connect emotionally and spiritually to those that offer love. A mother or grandmother, uncle, cousin, or older brother can never replace a birth father’s love, given freely, self-sacrificially, and without reservation. Mothers are not meant to be both Mom and Dad. Grandparents are not meant to raise children when they ought to be retired and rocking in their favorite easy chair. As a people—saved or unsaved – we must stop the madness of childhood abandonment, emotional and physical abuse, and alienation absentee fatherhood causes. As responsible adults, we must begin teaching our children the Biblical way to become parents: waiting until marriage and waiting until maturity before bringing innocent babies into the world.

As saint and sinner alike, we need to become bold enough to tell our young men to pull their pants up instead of down and put their genitals “on ice,” before risking ruining another young girl’s life and saddling her with an infant they have no intention of helping to support. We need to take a stance against premarital sex and teen pregnancy and teach our young ladies that they are of much value – both in the sight of God and in society. We’ve got to tell our girls that teen pregnancy is not a play thing, boosting a baby on your hip is not cool, and a welfare check can never replace a college education and a chance at a better life. Parents need to demand more discipline at home; teachers must demand more respect at school; and the pulpit must demand and more importantly, demonstrate sound Biblically-based family lifestyles that young people will want to emulate.

Instead of babies having babies and children trying to rear children, we who do know the way cannot afford to turn away and bury our heads in the sand as if the problem doesn’t exist, or whisper behind closed doors when it’s someone else’s child that’s “in trouble.” As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once stated, “It takes a village to raise a child;” and we, especially Christians, are that village that God is calling for to help our future generation realize the importance overcoming the throes of puberty without pregnancy. It’s our job, it is our divine commission, and it is our utmost duty, as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and clergymen to wage a serious and ongoing battle against teen parenting, absentee fatherhood, and premarital promiscuity. Can we do it? Yes, we can; and the challenge is before us. On June 21st, let us honor those who helped bring us into the world, for they are worthy of the sacrifices made and the unconditional love they shared. But let us not forget to teach, to admonish, and to exhort our young people to wait until they are fully mature, married, and mentally ready to become parents. I dare you to take the challenge, and have a Happy Father’s Day!


Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-7327-Atlanta-Christianity-Examiner~y2009m6d11-Fathers-Day-a-challenge-to-absentee-fathers

Minister Ronald Smith. Why do states/courts promote divorce and rip children apart from their parents?

Ronald Smith of Children Need BOTH Parents, Inc. on the importance of children having EQUAL time, love, guidance with BOTH fit parents.

Justice department playing "reindeer games"

Lawyers, lobbyist and liars make crazy, unfounded claims as to why men should not have their equal rights restored.

a call for grandparents

From Dr. Stephen Walker

Family justice reform urgently needed in N.B.

Published Tuesday June 9th, 2009

By Mary-Eileen Flanagan
The Access to Family Justice Task Force

There are few people in our province who have not experienced directly or indirectly the pain and confusion, rage, powerlessness and despair that accompanies the tragic breakdown of a family.

The disputes that arise at those times are complex, emotional and very personal; yet we as a society have historically used an adversarial, procedural and impersonal process to find solutions for these family disputes, a process which the participants do not understand and over which they have little or no control.

The rules of the process have been crudely adapted from rules of civil procedure which were created long before the modern family system and which were originally intended for commercial disputes, not disputes involving family members. The huge family justice system and its processes are applied to every situation no matter how big or small.

Our system is profoundly broken. We each have a story which illustrates the dilemma -- a parental alienation which was not given priority, adjournments, lack of mediation services, child protection matters take too long, no easy way to vary child support, wait times, large legal fees or inadequate legal aid services.

No one aspect of the system is to blame. The dysfunction and collateral damage suffered at the hands of this system is not solely due to lawyers or judges, or court staff or mediators. Each of these groups of professionals have attempted their own damage control but the reality is that only wholesale change -- a paradigm shift -- is going to alleviate the damage which the system does to families in crisis.

The problems in our family justice system were well known in February 2008 when our Minister of Justice, T. J. Burke, Q.C., struck the Access to Family Justice Task Force. Access to Family Justice is an unfortunate title because we all know that justice has precious little to do with how families reconfigure and heal following breakdowns.

Our group spent 10 months meeting, interviewing, studying, researching, reviewing, reading, collaborating, brainstorming, advocating and envisioning the best possible dispute resolution process for all families in our province -- be they big, small, rich, poor, urban, rural, sophisticated or not.

Sadly, in the course of our work, we have confirmed that the problems are as bad as we all feared. The stories were as compelling as we instinctively knew. The stakeholders and front line workers were as generous and as candid with their experience and advice as we could ever have imagined. We are indebted to every social worker, psychologist, court clerk, regional director, mediator, lawyer, judge, prosecutor, grandparent, and parent who gave us insight and advice.

The report has been tabled in the legislature (www.gnb.ca/justice). The Minister of Justice has set an incredibly ambitious agenda to revolutionize the way families in crisis in our province access solutions for their very particular situations. He and his staff cannot do this alone. We (the parents and grandparents, professionals and stakeholders) cannot stand back and passively or critically dare his success. We must all be active participants in delivering the family focused, empowering and efficient system our province deserves.

We are only 750,000 people, for goodness sake. There are only three degrees of separation between all of us. Surely we can have a system to support and educate our citizens and neighbours during the absolute worst time in their lives and surely we can do this in a way that restores hope and preserves dignity and protects children.

The cost of the existing system is too huge in time and money and children, whose innocence and relationships are irreparably damaged.

Undoubtedly there are situations that do absolutely require trials and individuals who are unable to participate in child focused and/or interest-based dispute resolution. For those individuals, our Family Courts must exist, but every other sacred cow must be challenged and must be available to be sacrificed and it has to happen immediately.

Modernizing, personalizing and revolutionizing our system of dispute resolution for families in crisis is not a spectator sport. Our province cannot ever be self-sufficient if our most vulnerable children and the most tragic family matters continue to be dealt with using the most adversarial, time consuming and expensive dispute resolution mechanism.

The system must change and our minister of justice is prepared to lead the change. He requires support from all MLAs, all judges, all lawyers, all families, all New Brunswickers. Each and every one of us has been and will be impacted directly or indirectly by the failure or success of our family court system.

Mary-Eileen Flanagan is one of the seven members of the Access to Family Justice Task Force. She practices law in Saint John and is the current chair of the Family Law Section for the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

Sources: http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/693342

Don’t exclude the grandparents

From The TimesJune 9, 2009

Don’t exclude the grandparents
Almost half of grandparents lose contact with their grandchildren after family break-up — but when Susannah Hickling lost her French partner, she found that she needed her in-laws’ help more than ever.
(SUZANNA HICKLING)

by Susannah Hickling

I had known about Richard’s death for all of one minute when his mother started to scream repeatedly: “She’ll go back to England and we’ll never see the baby again!” Submerged in an ocean of grief with an icy numbness already creeping over me, I can honestly say that the thought of taking our 15-day-old son from our home in France back to London had not even entered my head.

In the weeks and months that followed, my mother and sister urged me to do just that. I did eventually go back — but not for another four years and not before I was satisfied that my son had built a meaningful relationship with his father’s family.

Even amid the most terrible sorrow, something told me that it was important for Joshua to get to know his paternal grandparents, his aunt and uncle and his half-brother and half-sister — people I barely knew myself, as a relative newcomer to their small village in Provence. They were a close family in an area where blood ties are so strong that they often exclude friendships. Joshua would also need to speak French, as Richard’s relatives spoke no English. And, anyway, having lost my soulmate, who was shot accidentally by a game hunter on a hillside near our home, when our child was barely two weeks old, I reasoned that I would be unhappy wherever I was.

The Grandparents’ Association estimates that more than a million children in Britain are not allowed to see their grandparents because of divorce or family tragedy. And a recent report published by pressure groups including the Family Matters Institute and Families Need Fathers pointed out that, while the law grants an automatic right to step-parents who have lived as part of a family for three years to apply to the family courts for contact, the same right is not given to grandparents.

In contrast to the UK — where 42 per cent of grandparents lose contact with their grandchildren after a family break-up — grandparents’ rights are enshrined in French law. I never wanted it to come to that, not because I thought that Richard’s family would take me to court but because it seemed clear to me that a mother has to act in the best interests of her child.

But I’d be lying if I pretended that it was easy. There were big differences in our views on child-rearing and in our cultural attitudes. I was in a village that even locals from nearby towns derided as “backward”. The advice from friends, family and parenting books was in stark contrast to the accepted practices there. It is common for the wider family to help to bring up the children in Provence, and mine interfered as only a Mediterranean family could. I was often a lone dissenting voice against their collective belief system.

When they urged me to put sugar on Joshua’s dummy to stop him crying, I told them that it was bad for his teeth. “But he doesn’t have any,” said his grandmother. “They’re there in his gums,” I insisted politely. Later, I saw the tell-tale sugary sheen around his mouth and felt the stickiness on his dummy. “Who did this?” I asked. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law looked sheepish. “You don’t want him to have sugar on his dummy — you deal with it,” warned my sister-in-law when we took a bawling Joshua out in his buggy later. I will, I thought. He is, after all, my baby.

It infuriated me that I could be entrusted to manage a team of people and a six-figure budget in the job I gave up to move to Provence, yet apparently I was an incompetent mother. But I kept my usually big mouth shut. I was trying to build a relationship, not engage in active warfare. And I was well aware that my partner’s family, like me, were mad with grief.

They were adamant that the good old ways were the best. These dictated that, for example, you should never let a baby take a nap under a fig or walnut tree (I had both) for fear of toxins in the leaves, but that you should feed him lambs’ brains.

I realised that being undermined was par for the course, but some of their ideas were terrifying. Richard’s mother and sister told me that if Joshua misbehaved he would be punished with the martinet, a whip with leather lashes. This was kept for disciplining their dogs but Joshua’s halfsister had once been hit with it as a little girl. Only once, mind you, they said. “I think that’s barbaric,” I said.

At one stage I was too frightened to leave Joshua alone at his grandparents’ home for more than a few minutes in case he was naughty — yet soon I saw that, far from being strict disciplinarians, the family doted on my son and spoilt him rotten. It helped that he was the spitting image of Richard, right down to the fair hair and the little triangles under his eyes when he was tired. Richard’s mother and sister even enjoyed changing his messy nappies.

Although they wanted to look after him all the time, it always had to be at their house, the hub of the family. A few months after Richard’s death I decided to return to the local drama group — but it started at 9pm, and getting both of us fed and out of the house with all the baby paraphernalia took two hours. By the time I had dropped Joshua at his grandparents’ home, I was too exhausted to be theatrical in French. And after I had collected him at 11pm and driven him, tired and cranky, back home, I was a shell. After two sessions I gave up drama and the hope of a life outside my home and my partner’s family. This is my life now, I told myself grimly. But it won’t always be like this.

Gradually things got better. As time passed, Richard’s family and I came to understand each other. They realised that I could care for a baby despite all that had happened, and our total misery at Richard’s death mellowed into the dull pain of missing him. We all became a bit more sane and Joshua, now 5, grew into a sociable and well-balanced bilingual child.

By the time I moved back to London 18 months ago, I knew that I had done the right thing by staying so long. I had proved that it is possible to maintain a relationship with your partner’s family even when that partner is no longer there. That proof is in the birthday card that his sister sent me a few months before I left: “To a wonderful sister-in-law who came into our family like a gift.” I felt guilty for all the mean things I’d thought over the years and was glad that I’d left them unsaid.

“Grandparents act as a link with the past,” says the sociologist Clifford Hill, research director of the Family Matters Institute. “They are very important to a child’s identity and stability. The absence of grandparents is a major reason why so many children are unstable.”

The Family Matters Institute, Families Need Fathers and the Grandparents’ Association are campaigning for a simplification of the tortuous and costly legal process that grandparents in the UK have to endure to see estranged grandchildren. A letter-writing campaign is urging MPs to include the issue in their party manifestos.

My son adores his father’s family and particularly his grandmother, who has always had the time to play with him that I, as a lone working parent, have not. He goes to a Saturday school to keep up his French, we Skype the in-laws every Sunday and go to see them in Provence twice a year. They, in turn, make an annual pilgrimage to London. Thanks to their love for Joshua and my ability, for once, to see the bigger picture, we have created an unbreakable link to the father my son never knew.

Source:rom The TimesJune 9, 2009

Don’t exclude the grandparents
Almost half of grandparents lose contact with their grandchildren after family break-up — but when Susannah Hickling lost her French partner, she found that she needed her in-laws’ help more than ever
(SUZANNA HICKLING)

Susannah Hickling
I had known about Richard’s death for all of one minute when his mother started to scream repeatedly: “She’ll go back to England and we’ll never see the baby again!” Submerged in an ocean of grief with an icy numbness already creeping over me, I can honestly say that the thought of taking our 15-day-old son from our home in France back to London had not even entered my head.

In the weeks and months that followed, my mother and sister urged me to do just that. I did eventually go back — but not for another four years and not before I was satisfied that my son had built a meaningful relationship with his father’s family.

Even amid the most terrible sorrow, something told me that it was important for Joshua to get to know his paternal grandparents, his aunt and uncle and his half-brother and half-sister — people I barely knew myself, as a relative newcomer to their small village in Provence. They were a close family in an area where blood ties are so strong that they often exclude friendships. Joshua would also need to speak French, as Richard’s relatives spoke no English. And, anyway, having lost my soulmate, who was shot accidentally by a game hunter on a hillside near our home, when our child was barely two weeks old, I reasoned that I would be unhappy wherever I was.

The Grandparents’ Association estimates that more than a million children in Britain are not allowed to see their grandparents because of divorce or family tragedy. And a recent report published by pressure groups including the Family Matters Institute and Families Need Fathers pointed out that, while the law grants an automatic right to step-parents who have lived as part of a family for three years to apply to the family courts for contact, the same right is not given to grandparents.

In contrast to the UK — where 42 per cent of grandparents lose contact with their grandchildren after a family break-up — grandparents’ rights are enshrined in French law. I never wanted it to come to that, not because I thought that Richard’s family would take me to court but because it seemed clear to me that a mother has to act in the best interests of her child.

But I’d be lying if I pretended that it was easy. There were big differences in our views on child-rearing and in our cultural attitudes. I was in a village that even locals from nearby towns derided as “backward”. The advice from friends, family and parenting books was in stark contrast to the accepted practices there. It is common for the wider family to help to bring up the children in Provence, and mine interfered as only a Mediterranean family could. I was often a lone dissenting voice against their collective belief system.

When they urged me to put sugar on Joshua’s dummy to stop him crying, I told them that it was bad for his teeth. “But he doesn’t have any,” said his grandmother. “They’re there in his gums,” I insisted politely. Later, I saw the tell-tale sugary sheen around his mouth and felt the stickiness on his dummy. “Who did this?” I asked. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law looked sheepish. “You don’t want him to have sugar on his dummy — you deal with it,” warned my sister-in-law when we took a bawling Joshua out in his buggy later. I will, I thought. He is, after all, my baby.

It infuriated me that I could be entrusted to manage a team of people and a six-figure budget in the job I gave up to move to Provence, yet apparently I was an incompetent mother. But I kept my usually big mouth shut. I was trying to build a relationship, not engage in active warfare. And I was well aware that my partner’s family, like me, were mad with grief.

They were adamant that the good old ways were the best. These dictated that, for example, you should never let a baby take a nap under a fig or walnut tree (I had both) for fear of toxins in the leaves, but that you should feed him lambs’ brains.

I realised that being undermined was par for the course, but some of their ideas were terrifying. Richard’s mother and sister told me that if Joshua misbehaved he would be punished with the martinet, a whip with leather lashes. This was kept for disciplining their dogs but Joshua’s halfsister had once been hit with it as a little girl. Only once, mind you, they said. “I think that’s barbaric,” I said.

At one stage I was too frightened to leave Joshua alone at his grandparents’ home for more than a few minutes in case he was naughty — yet soon I saw that, far from being strict disciplinarians, the family doted on my son and spoilt him rotten. It helped that he was the spitting image of Richard, right down to the fair hair and the little triangles under his eyes when he was tired. Richard’s mother and sister even enjoyed changing his messy nappies.

Although they wanted to look after him all the time, it always had to be at their house, the hub of the family. A few months after Richard’s death I decided to return to the local drama group — but it started at 9pm, and getting both of us fed and out of the house with all the baby paraphernalia took two hours. By the time I had dropped Joshua at his grandparents’ home, I was too exhausted to be theatrical in French. And after I had collected him at 11pm and driven him, tired and cranky, back home, I was a shell. After two sessions I gave up drama and the hope of a life outside my home and my partner’s family. This is my life now, I told myself grimly. But it won’t always be like this.

Gradually things got better. As time passed, Richard’s family and I came to understand each other. They realised that I could care for a baby despite all that had happened, and our total misery at Richard’s death mellowed into the dull pain of missing him. We all became a bit more sane and Joshua, now 5, grew into a sociable and well-balanced bilingual child.

By the time I moved back to London 18 months ago, I knew that I had done the right thing by staying so long. I had proved that it is possible to maintain a relationship with your partner’s family even when that partner is no longer there. That proof is in the birthday card that his sister sent me a few months before I left: “To a wonderful sister-in-law who came into our family like a gift.” I felt guilty for all the mean things I’d thought over the years and was glad that I’d left them unsaid.

“Grandparents act as a link with the past,” says the sociologist Clifford Hill, research director of the Family Matters Institute. “They are very important to a child’s identity and stability. The absence of grandparents is a major reason why so many children are unstable.”

The Family Matters Institute, Families Need Fathers and the Grandparents’ Association are campaigning for a simplification of the tortuous and costly legal process that grandparents in the UK have to endure to see estranged grandchildren. A letter-writing campaign is urging MPs to include the issue in their party manifestos.

My son adores his father’s family and particularly his grandmother, who has always had the time to play with him that I, as a lone working parent, have not. He goes to a Saturday school to keep up his French, we Skype the in-laws every Sunday and go to see them in Provence twice a year. They, in turn, make an annual pilgrimage to London. Thanks to their love for Joshua and my ability, for once, to see the bigger picture, we have created an unbreakable link to the father my son never knew.

Source: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6457471.ece

'Pub law' on 50-50 access for dads debunked

Caroline Overington | June 08, 2009

Article from: The Australian

SHARED parenting laws introduced by the Howard government in 2006 do not guarantee divorced fathers the right to a 50-50 time split with their children because such an arrangement is not always in the best interests of the children.

Instead, the legislation requires the Family Court to "consider" whether equal time with both parents suits a particular child, and can decide that in some cases it does not.

The Australian last week reported that fathers are overwhelming staff at the new Family Relationship Centres, where all separating parents must now go before approaching the Family Court, demanding to know why they can't have a 50-50 time split with their children.

Staff at the centres say a "pub law" belief about a father's right to a 50-50 time split has taken hold in the community.

But retired Family Court judge Richard Chisholm says the shared parenting laws, introduced in 2006 and now under review, never guaranteed anybody a 50-50 time split. In a paper titled Shared Care and Children's Best Interests at the Legal Aid NSW family law conference, Professor Chisholm said there was "a lot of evidence to support the idea that children will generally benefit if they experience a loving and involved relationship with both parents" after separation.

"There is also evidence that children care a lot about their parents and generally want to remain closely involved with both of them."

Professor Chisholm said the Howard government amendment "envisaged the non-resident parent participating in various aspects of the child's life, for example being involved in the child's daily routine".

But the provisions about equal time did not reflect what most expert researchers believed was important for children.

"What seems to matter most to children, and what seems most important for their healthy development, has more to do with what happens when they are with each parents, and in particular whether they feel loved and cared for," Professor Chisholm said.

"The idea of equal time makes a lot of sense in terms of adult entitlement.

"As far as I can tell, it does not reflect what research scholars believe is important for children's development."

He urged academics to do more research into the benefits of shared parenting, particularly in cases where parents are in conflict, saying: "We need to know much more about the nature of conflict, the extent to which children are being exposed to it, and the extent to which parents and the courts might be treating the legislation as requiring some form of shared parenting, even when it is damaging to the children."

The Australian Institute of Family Studies is conducting a review of the Howard government amendments, which have been the subject of mounting complaints from separated mothers and fathers.

If the review recommends changes, Professor Chisholm said: "I hope the focus will be on how it impacts on families, rather than how it impacts on voters and lobby groups."

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25602241-5013404,00.html

Lives torn asunder

Caroline Overington June 09, 2009

Article from: The Australian

MOST of what used to be called child custody cases are settled between divorcing parents well before the case gets to the Family Court. Those that aren't typically involve couples who loathe each other with such intensity that they cannot agree on even the smallest matters regarding their children.

They need a judge to decide where the kids will live after divorce, how often they should see the other parent, what surname the children should have and where they should go to school.

Then, too, there are the so-called relocation cases where one parent, usually the mother, wants to move and take the children with her. Sometimes it's because she escaping an abusive, violent marriage and wants a fresh start. Other times it's because she wants to move to be with her new partner. Sometimes she wants to be nearer to her own mother or to other family members who may be able to help her with the children; or to an area where there is cheaper housing; or where she's likelier to find work.

In almost every case, if she gets permission to go, it will mean her children will be able to spend much less time - sometimes hardly any time - with their father, who naturally enough will fight to stop the relocation.

Not for nothing, then, did former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm describe relocation cases as the "San Andreas fault" of family law. They are cases that lead to rupture and ruin in families.

There was some hope in 2006 that this might change. In July that year the Howard government introduced what is known as the shared parenting amendment to the Family Law Act. The idea behind the amendment was simple: it was in the best interests of children that they had a meaningful relationship with both parents after divorce and that usually meant spending significant time with both parents, during the week, on weekends and during the holidays. On the subject of relocation cases, the amendment was silent. It didn't say that mothers couldn't move with their children after divorce; it didn't say that they were still allowed to move after divorce.

There was a feeling, however, that the amendment would make it more difficult for mothers to relocate after divorce because it was difficult for a child to have a meaningful relationship with their father, if they lived in, say, Colorado, and he lived in Melbourne.

Three years on, it's clear that the law has made it more difficult for parents to relocate after divorce. Two academic studies have independently reached that conclusion, and both agree that an international relocation is harder still. As far as the Shared Parenting Council of Australia is concerned, that's a good thing.

After all, before the law came in, mothers were generally allowed to go wherever they wanted after divorce. They could meet someone on the internet who lived in the US, for example, and as long as they were the primary carer of the children there was a good chance the Family Court would let her leave the country to pursue that relationship, in the process rupturing whatever relationship they had with their real dad, who most likely loved them very much and was a critically important person in their lives.

That kind of thing is now less likely to happen but it's still not impossible for mothers to leave the country with their children, as fathers are finding out.

In one recent case, known as Bletch and Douglas, a mother was allowed to move with her nine-year-old son to the US after developing a "unique communications skill" that landed her a media profile, a $450,000 book advance and interest from talk shows. The father, who has fought for years for greater access to his son, was told that he could have access during the school holidays, and make use of emails and webcam. The father could not believe the shared parenting laws would support such an arrangement. He flew to the US and tried to see the boy there, landing himself in trouble with local police.

In another case, known as Bradley and Bradley, a mother was permitted to return to her native Sweden with her two children after her marriage ended. She alleged child abuse. It was never proven and the judge did not accept that it had occurred. He acknowledged the distress the relocation would cause the children's father, saying "communication with the children will be difficult" since they would be living on opposite sides of the world. But he thought the father could stay in touch by email. The judge said the mother would have access to superior child care and affordable acommodation in Sweden. She also would be close to her family. The children would fly out to visit or else the father could visit them in Europe.

Groups such as the Shared Parenting Council were stunned that such decisions were possible under the law.

As lawyer David Alexander told a seminar in March, the laws didn't introduce a specific presumption against relocation. Instead, Alexander explained, the starting point for the court was that a child's best interests were served by having parents who had equal shared parental responsibility after divorce.

But that didn't mean a 50-50 time split was the automatic outcome. It would sometimes mean that the mother was restrained from moving the children too far from the father, but not always. To illustrate, Alexander used several recent cases in which the mother wanted to move the children, but was restrained by the Family Court. In one such case, the mother had in mind a move from Sydney to the NSW Hunter Valley. She thought it would be better for the children to live a rural lifestyle and she'd be able to afford a larger home. The judge restrained her, saying such a move would make it "impractical for the father to spend substantial and significant time with the children".

In another case, two children aged six and three were living with their mother on the south coast of NSW. She moved to a town 144km from the children's father. The court ordered her to return the children, saying they were entitled to significant time with their father and that was best achieved by having them live nearby.

Alexander concluded that there was a "fresh approach to the involvement of both parents in the lives of their children" and it "seems likely that the court will find it easier to deny an application to relocate".

"It's now a relatively simple matter for the non-residential parent to claim that even a short-distance relocation will preclude substantial and significant time (with the child)."

It's not always the case that a mother won't be able to move overseas or interstate.

In Godfrey and Sanders, for example, the Family Court allowed a mother to move from Melbourne to Brisbane, over the objections of the father. The court said the shared parenting law promoted a child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents, but meaningful didn't mean optimal and while it obviously wasn't ideal for the children to be living in one state while their father lived in another, there was still opportunity for them to have a meaningful relationship on school holidays and by email.

That different judges in different states are making difficult decisions under the law is vexing for lawyers, who are finding it difficult to advise their clients. But the case that really has brought confusion about the law is that known as Rosa and Rosa, which came before the Family Court last month.

Mr and Mrs Rosa (pseudonyms) were married in Sydney in 2000 and had a daughter in 2002. In early 2007, when the child was five, the couple moved to a remote town in Queensland so the father could take up a job as a mining engineer. Six months later, the marriage ended. (Under law it's irrelevant for the purposes of child custody who ended the marriage, but for the record, the father told the mother it was over, packed up her things and put them out on the deck.)

The mother took their daughter back to Sydney, but the Family Court ordered her to return the child to the remote town where her former husband lived, while the parents fought over where their daughter should be reared. The mother wanted to move her back to Sydney, for good reason. In the remote town, where rents were high and men outnumbered women by a considerable degree, she could afford only to live in a caravan park. She had no family in the area and few friends.

The mother told the court she was isolated and broke, and wanted to go home to Sydney, where she would be able to find a job and would have the support of her own mother.

Federal magistrate John Coker, presiding over the initial hearing, asked the mother whether she would go to Sydney without her daughter. She said she would not, and in fact said she would never leave her daughter.

Coker asked the father if he would go to Sydney, if that was where his daughter was living. He said he would not because he wanted to keep working at his job. Asked whether he could find work elsewhere, the father said that yes, but he enjoyed this job in Queensland and wanted to keep it.

Given that the father would not leave Queensland and the mother would not leave her daughter, Coker decided that the only way the child could have a meaningful relationship with both parents was to have her live with her mother in far north Queensland in a week-about arrangement with her father.

The decision effectively ties the mother to the father's job, which itself presents an interesting condundrum for the future. What, for example, should happen if the father decides to take a new job in another mining town? Will he be allowed to take his daughter with him and, if so, must the mother follow? It seems likely that parliament did not intend to hobble women in this way.

Zoe Rathus is a senior lecturer in law at Griffith University. She is cautious about reading too much into the Rosa decision, saying it may not be precedent-setting.

"Playing the devil's advocate here, there are some cases that have gone the other way," she says.

"Whatever has been decided in this particular case, it doesn't mean that every parent in Australia who needs to relocate after a divorce should assume that they won't be able to do it. There is nothing in the (new) law that says that. And another judge might have made a completely different decision in this case." But, she says, the laws "create a complex set of ideas, and it's a set of ideas that crash into each other and there is a great deal of confusion at the coalface of family law about what the new law says and what it actually means, and how it is working, in practice, and it's usually not a good idea for confusion to reign".

The federal Attorney-General's Department is believed to have an appetite for change to the shared parenting law but is proceeding with caution. Before it does anything, it wants to see the results of a review of the law by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, a review that was built into the original law. That report is due in December. Attorney-General Robert McClelland has commissioned his own report, which is due by the end of the year.

The Australian has put questions about the shared parenting law, and the confusion it seems to be creating, to Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant.

Her office says there are three points for separating parents to keep in mind.

First, each case will be determined on its unique facts, and judges must consider the best interests of the individual children in each case.

Second, there is no particular pattern that can be relied on to predict a decision and, therefore, it makes no sense to go to court, believing that a particular outcome is certain.

Third, an appeal court may be comprised of judges who will have decided a matter differently at the first hearing and who may indeed believe that the lower court's decision is an awful one, but they can't overturn a decision unless there has been an error of law.

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25606681-17044,00.html