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
Showing posts with label Department of Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Justice. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
N.B. family court procedural snarls cause lengthy delays: report
Last Updated: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 4:46 PM AT Comments3Recommend8CBC News
A task force report on New Brunswick's family courts says the system is in disarray, as workers are bogged down with paperwork and the interests of children have become secondary to procedural requirements.
Justice Raymond Guerette, the chairman of the Access to Family Justice Task Force, released the report on Tuesday, which states the family court system has been suffering for years.
"For some time, now, perhaps going back 15 years, the court has steadily deteriorated in giving appropriate and expeditious service to the public."
The report says the court system has worsened because of a variety of factors, including an almost 50 per cent jump in people without lawyers, an escalation in the number and complexity of hearings in child protection cases, and "perceived procedural requirements."
"In the last few years, especially, the lack of money, resources and attention has resulted in reduced service to the public," the report says.
"This situation has arisen from inordinate delays in obtaining a hearing date, far too numerous adjournments, the inability to provide expeditious and proportionate resolution to relatively minor problems and the failure to keep up with progressive changes in other jurisdictions."
Justice Minister T.J. Burke said overhauling the system will be his most important task as minister, but it won't be quick or easy.
He has appointed a committee to look at how to implement the report's recommendations and to launch a pilot program this fall.
Ordinary motions can take months
Even a routine motion for interim relief can take four to six months to be heard, according to the report.
Last year, the provincial government spent $900,000 to hire 20 assistants to help social workers clear a backlog of paperwork.
The report says that the interests of children are now secondary to "excessive procedural demands."
It also recommends replacing the "adversarial system" with one that lets families break up with dignity and respect.
It suggests adopting a triage system that would quickly assess new cases and route them toward appropriate services such as mediation.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/06/02/nb-family-court-task-force-404.html
A task force report on New Brunswick's family courts says the system is in disarray, as workers are bogged down with paperwork and the interests of children have become secondary to procedural requirements.
Justice Raymond Guerette, the chairman of the Access to Family Justice Task Force, released the report on Tuesday, which states the family court system has been suffering for years.
"For some time, now, perhaps going back 15 years, the court has steadily deteriorated in giving appropriate and expeditious service to the public."
The report says the court system has worsened because of a variety of factors, including an almost 50 per cent jump in people without lawyers, an escalation in the number and complexity of hearings in child protection cases, and "perceived procedural requirements."
"In the last few years, especially, the lack of money, resources and attention has resulted in reduced service to the public," the report says.
"This situation has arisen from inordinate delays in obtaining a hearing date, far too numerous adjournments, the inability to provide expeditious and proportionate resolution to relatively minor problems and the failure to keep up with progressive changes in other jurisdictions."
Justice Minister T.J. Burke said overhauling the system will be his most important task as minister, but it won't be quick or easy.
He has appointed a committee to look at how to implement the report's recommendations and to launch a pilot program this fall.
Ordinary motions can take months
Even a routine motion for interim relief can take four to six months to be heard, according to the report.
Last year, the provincial government spent $900,000 to hire 20 assistants to help social workers clear a backlog of paperwork.
The report says that the interests of children are now secondary to "excessive procedural demands."
It also recommends replacing the "adversarial system" with one that lets families break up with dignity and respect.
It suggests adopting a triage system that would quickly assess new cases and route them toward appropriate services such as mediation.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/06/02/nb-family-court-task-force-404.html
Burke accepts report on N.B. family court system, promises action
Burke accepts report on N.B. family court system, promises action
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:01 AM AT Comments4Recommend4CBC News
Justice Minister T.J. Burke said he accepts the findings of a scathing report that says the family court system is dysfunctional — and he is promising action.
'I have no doubt in my mind that we are make our best efforts to adopt as many of them as we possibly can over the next 24 to 48 months.'
— T.J. Burke, justice ministerThe Access to Family Justice Task Force report said families are facing unacceptable delays in seeing their cases resolved because the system is overwhelmed by paperwork and by procedure.
Burke said he is striking a committee which will look at how to implement the recommendations from the report. As well, a pilot project will start this fall intended to ease the pressure on the family court division.
"I have no doubt in my mind that we are make our best efforts to adopt as many of them as we possibly can over the next 24 to 48 months," Burke said.
Burke said he accepts the report's main point that spending a bit more on alternatives at the outset will cost the system less overall.
Justice Raymond Guerette, the task force's chairman, said in the report —which was released Tuesday and includes 50 recommendations — that the family justice system has deteriorated over the last 15 years.
The report attributed the worsening state of the system to a variety of factors, including an almost 50 per cent jump in people without lawyers, an escalation in the number and complexity of hearings in child protection cases, and "perceived procedural requirements."
"The object is to keep the case moving through the system, because right now it takes too long to get anything done," Guerette told reporters.
Court workers spend too much time on paperwork
The report said court workers, including social workers, spend most of their time on paperwork, rather than resolving family disputes.
'Being a single parent is bad enough as it is, without this family court adding to their problems.'
— Judge Raymond GueretteThe best interests of children are secondary to what the report calls "excessive procedural demands."
The report proposed a triage model that would divert some cases to mediation or to other services to lower the court's caseload.
Guerette said that recommendation will save money in the long run.
"Our finding is that the longer a case remains in the judicial system, the more it costs," he said.
However, the province recently cut some of the very services in the recent budget that the task force report says are needed, such as mediators.
With the problems facing the court process, Guerette said the system is insensitive to what families are going through.
"It's insensitive, because it doesn't take into account the anguish and the anxiety of single parents who have to go through the system to obtain a remedy or some relief. Being a single parent is bad enough as it is, without this family court adding to their problems."
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/06/03/nb-burke-family-justice-959.html
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:01 AM AT Comments4Recommend4CBC News
Justice Minister T.J. Burke said he accepts the findings of a scathing report that says the family court system is dysfunctional — and he is promising action.
'I have no doubt in my mind that we are make our best efforts to adopt as many of them as we possibly can over the next 24 to 48 months.'
— T.J. Burke, justice ministerThe Access to Family Justice Task Force report said families are facing unacceptable delays in seeing their cases resolved because the system is overwhelmed by paperwork and by procedure.
Burke said he is striking a committee which will look at how to implement the recommendations from the report. As well, a pilot project will start this fall intended to ease the pressure on the family court division.
"I have no doubt in my mind that we are make our best efforts to adopt as many of them as we possibly can over the next 24 to 48 months," Burke said.
Burke said he accepts the report's main point that spending a bit more on alternatives at the outset will cost the system less overall.
Justice Raymond Guerette, the task force's chairman, said in the report —which was released Tuesday and includes 50 recommendations — that the family justice system has deteriorated over the last 15 years.
The report attributed the worsening state of the system to a variety of factors, including an almost 50 per cent jump in people without lawyers, an escalation in the number and complexity of hearings in child protection cases, and "perceived procedural requirements."
"The object is to keep the case moving through the system, because right now it takes too long to get anything done," Guerette told reporters.
Court workers spend too much time on paperwork
The report said court workers, including social workers, spend most of their time on paperwork, rather than resolving family disputes.
'Being a single parent is bad enough as it is, without this family court adding to their problems.'
— Judge Raymond GueretteThe best interests of children are secondary to what the report calls "excessive procedural demands."
The report proposed a triage model that would divert some cases to mediation or to other services to lower the court's caseload.
Guerette said that recommendation will save money in the long run.
"Our finding is that the longer a case remains in the judicial system, the more it costs," he said.
However, the province recently cut some of the very services in the recent budget that the task force report says are needed, such as mediators.
With the problems facing the court process, Guerette said the system is insensitive to what families are going through.
"It's insensitive, because it doesn't take into account the anguish and the anxiety of single parents who have to go through the system to obtain a remedy or some relief. Being a single parent is bad enough as it is, without this family court adding to their problems."
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/06/03/nb-burke-family-justice-959.html
Friday, May 29, 2009
Taken Into Custody By Divorce
BY Jennifer Roback Morse
November 25 - December 1, 2007 Issue | Posted 11/19/07 at 3:13 PM
Most Americans have made their peace with no-fault divorce, believing easy divorce to be an enhancement of individual liberty. But a new book by Stephen Baskerville argues that permitting unilateral divorce allows an unprecedented scope for government intrusion into ordinary people’s lives. Taken Into Custody has several breakthrough insights.
First, no-fault divorce frequently means unilateral divorce: One party wants a divorce against the wishes of the other, who wants to stay married. This fact means that the divorce has to be enforced. The coercive machinery of the state is wheeled into action to separate the reluctantly divorced party from the joint assets of the marriage, typically the home and the children. Involving the family court in the minutiae of family life amounts to an unprecedented blurring of the boundaries between public and private life.
People under the jurisdiction of the family courts can have virtually all of their private lives subject to its scrutiny. If the courts are influenced by feminist ideology, that ideology can extend its reach into every bedroom and kitchen in America.
Thus, the social experiment of no-fault divorce, which was supposed to increase personal liberty has had the unintended consequence of empowering the state.
I had an unusual opportunity to see this first-hand last summer when I did a Continuing Legal Education workshop for judges. Most of the judges had significant experience with family courts, so they were unusually well-informed. My audiences are usually amazed when I point out that family courts perpetrate greater invasions of personal privacy than any other governmental agency. Not the judges. I had expected some resistance from them on this point. After all, they are the ones doing the intruding.
When I ran through my usual litany of courts telling fathers how much money they have to spend, how little time they get to spend with their kids and who gets to spend Christmas Day with the kids, the judges were all shaking their heads. I asked: “So, do you enjoy that part of your jobs?” The audible moaning said it all: They hate that part of their jobs.
Audiences are sometimes surprised to learn that women initiate most divorces. They are even more surprised when I tell them that women aren’t necessarily worse off economically after divorce. After all, “the most quoted demographic statistic of the 1980s” was the claim that women’s standard of living falls by 73% after divorce, while men’s rises by 42%.
I usually have to take some time to refute that claim. But the judges already knew that. They all started shaking their heads when I flashed those statistics on the screen for the purpose of refuting them.
One of the judges got exasperated. He stood up and said, with obvious disgust in his voice, “These women want me to throw their husbands out of the house, make him pay child support, while she keeps the kids to raise herself without interference from him.”
General nods of agreement all around the room.
No fathers’ rights advocate could have said it better.
But fathers’ rights advocate Stephen Baskerville has harsh words to say about the entire no-fault industry, including the judges. The court-appointed therapists, the domestic violence experts, the visitation supervisors, the teachers of parenting classes, all these experts seem to be there to help divorcing families. But on Baskerville’s telling, they simply extract additional payments from the family, and do nothing to save the marriage.
He reports that even mediators find that they are not allowed to try to preserve the marriage. Their role is simply to talk the reluctant party into acquiescing. Baskerville represents all these professionals, including the lawyers and judges, as having a self-interested motive in stoking the flames of personal resentments and maintaining the divorce industry.
What then, of my judges, who were obviously disgusted with the system and their role in it?
I have also talked to many family law attorneys who are fed up with narcissistic and myopic clients. How can it be that all these people are keeping the system going out of their own self-interest, and yet profess disdain for that same system?
I think the answer lies in what economists call perverse incentives.
No one likes the actual outcome of the system, but no one has an incentive or the ability to change it. So people go along, following the rules as laid down, trying to make marginal improvements to the best of their ability, and still being sickened by the whole sight. The incentives are so perverse that it is as if everyone were motivated by a desire to create as many divorces as possible.
Baskerville has done a great service in laying out these twisted incentives in detail. I hope that family law practitioners will read this book with an open mind, and not take it personally when Baskerville accuses them of bad faith. He may be over the top about people’s motivations. But his analysis is essentially correct.
The public is getting past the “happy talk” about “good divorces,” because the children of divorce are finally telling their stories. We desperately need to get past our fatalism about the inevitability of divorce.
Taken Into Custody makes it crystal clear that the law has created incentives to divorce. Therefore, the law can be changed to reduce those incentives. The publication of Taken Into Custody could be the turning point in restoring some balance to family law. If you care about the condition of marriage in America, read this book.
Jennifer Roback Morse is the senior research fellow in Economics at the Action Institute and the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World. Action Institute
Source: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/7342
November 25 - December 1, 2007 Issue | Posted 11/19/07 at 3:13 PM
Most Americans have made their peace with no-fault divorce, believing easy divorce to be an enhancement of individual liberty. But a new book by Stephen Baskerville argues that permitting unilateral divorce allows an unprecedented scope for government intrusion into ordinary people’s lives. Taken Into Custody has several breakthrough insights.
First, no-fault divorce frequently means unilateral divorce: One party wants a divorce against the wishes of the other, who wants to stay married. This fact means that the divorce has to be enforced. The coercive machinery of the state is wheeled into action to separate the reluctantly divorced party from the joint assets of the marriage, typically the home and the children. Involving the family court in the minutiae of family life amounts to an unprecedented blurring of the boundaries between public and private life.
People under the jurisdiction of the family courts can have virtually all of their private lives subject to its scrutiny. If the courts are influenced by feminist ideology, that ideology can extend its reach into every bedroom and kitchen in America.
Thus, the social experiment of no-fault divorce, which was supposed to increase personal liberty has had the unintended consequence of empowering the state.
I had an unusual opportunity to see this first-hand last summer when I did a Continuing Legal Education workshop for judges. Most of the judges had significant experience with family courts, so they were unusually well-informed. My audiences are usually amazed when I point out that family courts perpetrate greater invasions of personal privacy than any other governmental agency. Not the judges. I had expected some resistance from them on this point. After all, they are the ones doing the intruding.
When I ran through my usual litany of courts telling fathers how much money they have to spend, how little time they get to spend with their kids and who gets to spend Christmas Day with the kids, the judges were all shaking their heads. I asked: “So, do you enjoy that part of your jobs?” The audible moaning said it all: They hate that part of their jobs.
Audiences are sometimes surprised to learn that women initiate most divorces. They are even more surprised when I tell them that women aren’t necessarily worse off economically after divorce. After all, “the most quoted demographic statistic of the 1980s” was the claim that women’s standard of living falls by 73% after divorce, while men’s rises by 42%.
I usually have to take some time to refute that claim. But the judges already knew that. They all started shaking their heads when I flashed those statistics on the screen for the purpose of refuting them.
One of the judges got exasperated. He stood up and said, with obvious disgust in his voice, “These women want me to throw their husbands out of the house, make him pay child support, while she keeps the kids to raise herself without interference from him.”
General nods of agreement all around the room.
No fathers’ rights advocate could have said it better.
But fathers’ rights advocate Stephen Baskerville has harsh words to say about the entire no-fault industry, including the judges. The court-appointed therapists, the domestic violence experts, the visitation supervisors, the teachers of parenting classes, all these experts seem to be there to help divorcing families. But on Baskerville’s telling, they simply extract additional payments from the family, and do nothing to save the marriage.
He reports that even mediators find that they are not allowed to try to preserve the marriage. Their role is simply to talk the reluctant party into acquiescing. Baskerville represents all these professionals, including the lawyers and judges, as having a self-interested motive in stoking the flames of personal resentments and maintaining the divorce industry.
What then, of my judges, who were obviously disgusted with the system and their role in it?
I have also talked to many family law attorneys who are fed up with narcissistic and myopic clients. How can it be that all these people are keeping the system going out of their own self-interest, and yet profess disdain for that same system?
I think the answer lies in what economists call perverse incentives.
No one likes the actual outcome of the system, but no one has an incentive or the ability to change it. So people go along, following the rules as laid down, trying to make marginal improvements to the best of their ability, and still being sickened by the whole sight. The incentives are so perverse that it is as if everyone were motivated by a desire to create as many divorces as possible.
Baskerville has done a great service in laying out these twisted incentives in detail. I hope that family law practitioners will read this book with an open mind, and not take it personally when Baskerville accuses them of bad faith. He may be over the top about people’s motivations. But his analysis is essentially correct.
The public is getting past the “happy talk” about “good divorces,” because the children of divorce are finally telling their stories. We desperately need to get past our fatalism about the inevitability of divorce.
Taken Into Custody makes it crystal clear that the law has created incentives to divorce. Therefore, the law can be changed to reduce those incentives. The publication of Taken Into Custody could be the turning point in restoring some balance to family law. If you care about the condition of marriage in America, read this book.
Jennifer Roback Morse is the senior research fellow in Economics at the Action Institute and the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World. Action Institute
Source: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/7342
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
DATA & STUDIES SUPPORTING THE NEED FOR EQUAL PARENTING
For Kids' Sake is a recently formed, rapidly growing, non-profit group, organized out of frustration with the existing family court system, and its lack of true concern for the children of divorce and paternity cases. We have been studying family court guidelines, rulings, and legislative proposals pertaining to the family court guidelines for a few years now, and see a desperate need for real changes.
We are here to proclaim that the judicial system, with its sweeping discretion, is grossly failing Wisconsin's children.
The family court system, operating under the "best interest of the child standard", has become a forum for tug-o-war, where the children are the financial and emotional trophy to be "won". Consequently, thousands of children are unnecessarily deprived the opportunity to maintain a full relationship with each parent.
Many legislators, and much of the public, are unaware of the magnitude of the problems arising from the discretionary decisions being made by the judiciary, operating under the "best interest of the child" standard of the current family court guidelines.
In today's troubled world, when children of divorce, or paternity cases, have two fit parents who want to remain significantly involved in their children's lives, we should be delighted! Such children should be considered, very fortunate; however, they are generally not, as a result of family court discretion.
In a deluded attempt to reduce conflict, the courts are overwhelmingly reducing one parent, usually the father, to the role of an occasional visitor/baby sitter; as if empowering one parent as the superior, supposedly will cease conflict. Yes, one parent will have the upper hand to finalize disputes, however, in reality, such arrangements actually increase conflict, as they merely cause the problems to fester.
Part of the tragedy is that, in reality, these courts have neither the time, nor the expertise to determine which parent is the truly "better parent". Yet the role of one parent is officially deemed to be of little significance, and their main parental role is only permitted to be financial. The frequent, and logical, result of this arrangement is that the "non-custodial parent" (typically the father) tends to have progressively decreasing involvement with the child, as time goes on, until that parent ends up being nothing but a paycheck and a periodic baby sitter.
The following data outlines the clear predominance of sole custody awards, and some of the many resulting harmful effects. As the data reveals, this inflicts significant, harmful, long term effects on these children which could, and should, be prevented in thousands of cases, through the enactment of a presumption of equal-parenting laws.
The courts, media, and legislature must start to understand that a child's best interest is a whole lot more than financial. We need our elected officials to take a stand to stop this tragedy that is affecting our society as a whole. There needs to be legal recognition of both parents equal rights, equal value placed on their respective roles, and equal opportunity to develop in those roles.
Mutual respect and cooperation between parents is best accomplished when both parties are acknowledged for their status as equals. The evidence reveals, the true "best interest of the child" in family court, is to take children out of their current position as financial and emotional trophies, and to presume that both parents, providing they are fit, should have maximum/equal opportunity to parent them. The courts need to stop declaring a "winner" and a "loser" with regard to child placement decisions. They need to take away the incentive, and the ability, for parents to battle over the children.
Furthermore, children need the opportunity to benefit from, and internalize both parents methods, input, and morals. And this all requires significant parenting time. Each parent needs the autonomy to develop a personal style and method of child rearing, with minimal interference from the other parent or the state.
We ask - who are judges, court commissioners, you, or I, to involuntarily deny a fit parent from an equal opportunity to care for, and nurture, their child?
And more importantly who are we to deny that child that opportunity of equal access to that parent?
When children have two fit, interested parents, they deserve the opportunity for a full/equal relationship with both parents. We are calling for the enactment a presumption of equal-parenting laws (eg. LRB1834, ready for introduction) to limit the discretion of the judiciary to cases that exhibit evidence of abuse or neglect. Opposing such a presumption, condones that children are of tokens to be fought over, and is truly child abuse at the hand of the legislature.
Note: Take into serious consideration that attorneys, court commissioners, and others employed by the system, who object to a presumption of equal parenting opportunities, have a vested interest in the status quo. (i.e. their criticism is often voice out of concern for personal job security).
PREVALENCE OF SOLE (AND MATERNAL) CUSTODY
1. The proportion of children living with just one parent rose from 9% in 1960 to 25% in 1990.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Family Life Today...And How it has Changed" SB/92-13 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office: November 1992)
2. In 1993, 27% of children under 18 years old lived with only one parent, up from 12% in 1970.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Gap Narrows Between Children Living with a Divorced or Single Parent, Census Bureau Finds," by Arlene Saluter (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, July 20, 1994)
3. More than 90% of litigated divorces result in an award of sole custody to the mother.
Source: 1991 Census Bureau
4. The number of children living only with mother grew from 8% (5.1 million) in 1960 to 23.3% (15.6 million) in 1993. Source: U.S. Congress, Committee on Ways and Means, "The Green Book" (Washington D.C., 1993); see also U.S. department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1993", by Arlene Saluter, Current Population Reports: Population Characteristics P20-478 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1994).
5. The chances that a child born around 1980 will not be living with both biological parents at age 17 have increased to over 50%.
Source: Donald J. Hernandez, "America's Children: Resources from Family, Government, and the Economy (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1993).
6. About 40% of the children who live in fatherless households haven't seen their fathers in at least a year. Of the remaining 60%, only 20% sleep even one night per month in the father's home. Only one in six sees their father an average of once or more per week.
Source: Frank F. Furstenberg Jr. and Christing Winquist Nord, "Parenting Apart: Patterns of Child Rearing After Marital Disruption," Journal of Marriage and the Family (November 1985), p.896.
7. In disrupted families, only one child in six, on average, saw his or her father as often as once a week in the past year. Close to half did not see their father at all in the past year. As time goes on, contact becomes even more infrequent. Ten years after a marriage breaks up, more than two- thirds of children report not having seen their father for a year.
Source: National Commission on Children, "Speaking of Kids: A National Survey of Children and Parents" (Washington, D.C., 1991).
8. With increasing numbers of children living with only their mothers, many children have tenuous or nonexistent relationships with their fathers. In a 1990 survey, only one-third of children in female-headed families reported seeing their fathers at least once a week. Nearly one in five children in female-headed families had not seen their fathers for five years.
Source: National Commission on Children, "Speaking of Kids: A National Survey of Children and Parents (Washington, 1991).
9. The United States is now the world's leader in fatherless families. In 1986, the United States took over first place, when 24% of America's families were headed by a single parent, and today nearly 30% of families in the United States are headed by a single parent.
Source: Alisa Burns, "Mother Headed Families: An International Perspective and the Case of Australia," Social Policy Report 6 (Spring 1992).
10. America has the highest divorce rate in the world. At present rates, approximately half of all U.S. marriages can be expected to end in divorce.
Source: National Commission on Children, "Just the Facts: A Summary of Recent Information on America's Children and Their Families" (Washington D.C., 1993).
11. 55% of all white children, and 75% of all black children born in the last two decades are likely to live some portion of their childhood with an absent father.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Divorce, Child Custody, and Child Support," Current Population Reports Ser p-23 No. 84 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979); and L.L Bumpass and J.A. Sweet, "Children's Experience in Single-Parent Families: Implications of Cohabitation and Marital Transitions," Family Planning Perspectives 21 (1989), pp.256-260.
12. During the last three decades, the percentage of children living with a step-parent has climbed from 6.7% to 11.3%. More than 9 out of 10 step-children live with their biological mother and a stepfather.
Source: David Popenoe, "The Evolution of Marriage and the Problem of Stepfamilies: A Biosocial Perspective," paper presented at the National Symposium on Stepfamilies at the Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA, October 14, 1993.
EMOTIONAL/BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH SOLE CUSTODY
1. The continued involvement of the non-custodial parent in the child's life appears crucial in preventing an intense sense of loss in the child... The importance of the relationship with the non-custodial parent may also have implications for the legal issues of custodial arrangements and visitation. The results of this study indicate that arrangements where both parents are equally involved with the child are optimal. When this type of arrangement is not possible, the child's continued relationship with the non-custodial parent remains essential.
Source: Young Adult Children of Divorced Parents: Depression and the Perception of Loss, Rebecca L. Drill, P.h.D., Harvard University. Journal of Divorce, V.10, #1/2, Fall/Winter 1986.
2. "Parental divorce and father loss has been associated with difficulties in school adjustment (e.g. Felner, Ginter, Boike, & CowenJ), social adjustment (e.g. Fry & Grover) and personal adjustment (e.g. Covell & Turnbull)..." "The results of the present study suggest that father loss through divorce is associated with diminished self-concepts in children...at least for this sample from the midwestern United States."
Source: Children's Self Concepts: Are They Affected by Parental Divorce and Remarriage; Thomas S. Parish, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1987, V.2, #4, 559-562.
3. "It is ironic, and of some interest, that we have subjected joint custody to a level and intensity of scrutiny that was never directed towards the traditional post-divorce arrangement (sole legal and physical custody to the mother and two weekends each month of visiting to the father). Developmental and relationship theory should have alerted the mental health field to the potential immediate and long range consequences for the child of only seeing a parent for four days each month. And yet until recently, there was no particular challenge to this traditional post-divorce parenting arrangement, despite growing evidence that such post-divorce relationships were not sufficiently nurturing or stabilizing for many children and parents."
4. "There is some evidence that in our well-meaning efforts to save children in the immediate post-separation period from anxiety, confusion, and the normative divorce-engendered conflict, we have set the stage in the longer run for the more ominous symptoms of anger, depression, and a deep sense of loss by depriving the child of the opportunity to maintain a full relationship with each parent."
Source: Examining Resistance to Joint Custody, Monograph by Joan Kelly, P.h.D. (associate of Judith Wallerstein, P.h.D.) From the 1991 Book Joint Custody and Shared Parenting, second edition, Guilford Press, 1991.
5. Nunan compared 20 joint custody children (ages 7-11) with 20 age-matched children in sole maternal custody. All families were at least two years after separation or divorce. Joint custody children were found to have higher ego strengths, superego strengths and self-esteem than the single custody children. The joint custody children were also found to be less excitable and less impatient than their sole custody counterparts.
Source: S.A. Nunan, "Joint Custody vs. Single Custody Effects on Child Development", Doctoral thesis 1980. California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley, UMI No. 81-10142
6. Welsh-Osga compared children intact families with joint custody and single custody families. Age range 4.5 to 10 years old. Children from joint custody were found to be more satisfied with the time spent with both parents. Parents in joint custody were found to be more involved with their children. (Joint custody parents found to be less overburdened by parenting responsibilities than sole custody parents).
Source: B. Welsh-Osga, "The Effects of Custody Arrangements on Children of Divorce." Doctoral thesis, 1981. University of South Dakota, UMI No.82-6914.
7. Cowan compared 20 joint custody and 20 sole (maternal) custody families. Children in joint custody were rated as better adjusted by their mothers compared with children of sole custody mothers. The children's perceptions in sole custody situations correlated with the amount of time spent with their father! The more time children from sole maternal custody spent with their fathers, the more accepting BOTH parents were perceived to be, and the more well-adjusted were the children.
Source: D.B. Cowan, "Mother Custody vs. Joint Custody: Children's Parental Relationship and Adjustment." Doctoral Thesis, 1982. University of Washington. UMI No. 82-18213
8. Pojman compared children in the age range 5 to 13 years old. Boys in joint custody were significantly better adjusted than boys in sole maternal custody. Comparing boys in all groups, boys in joint custody compared very similarly to boys from happy families.
Source: E.G. Pojman. "Emotional Adjustment of Boys in Sole and Joint Custody Compared with Adjustment of Boys in Happy and Unhappy Marriages." Doctoral thesis 1982. California Graduate Institute. UMI No. ? Source of similar finding: V. Shiller. "Joint and Maternal Custody: The Outcome for Boys aged 6-11 and Their Parents." Doctoral thesis 1984. University of Deleware. UMI No. 85-11219. Source of similar finding: J. Schaub, "Joint Custody After Divorce: Views and Attitudes of Mental Health Professionals and Writers." Rutgers University,Doctoral Thesis, 1986. No. 86-14559
9. 90 fathers were questioned regarding how unequal recognition of parental rights might encourage conflict. Joint legal custody was found to encourage parental cooperation and discourage self-interest. Sole custody in both custodial AND non-custodial status encouraged punishment-oriented persuasion strategies. Unequal custody power was perceived as inhibiting parental cooperation by BOTH parents.
Source: M.R. Patrician. "The Effects of Legal Child-Custody Status on Persuasion Strategy Choices and Communication Goals of Fathers." Doctoral thesis 1984. University of San Francisco. UMI No. 85-14995.
10. Self Esteem found higher in children of joint custody. Children in joint custody report significantly more positive experiences than children of sole maternal custody.
Source: S.A. Wolchik, S.L. Braver and I.N. Sandler. J. of Clinical Child Psychology. Vol. 14, p.5-10, 1985.
11. Age range of children 5 to 12 years, studying early period of separation or divorce. Boys and girls in sole custody situation had more negative involvement with their parents than in joint custody situations. There was an increase reported in sibling rivalry reported for sole custody children when visiting their father (non-custodial parent). Girls in joint custody reported to have significantly higher self-esteem than girls in sole custody.
Source: E.B. Karp. Children's Adjustment in Joint and Single Custody: An Empirical Study. Doctoral thesis 1982. California school of professional psychology, Berkeley. UMI No. 83-6977.
12. Comparative study of children in mother sole custody, father sole custody, joint custody with mother primary, joint custody with father primary. Children in joint custody situations were found to be better adjusted than children in sole custody situations.
Source: J.A. Livingston. "Children After Divorce: A Psychosocial Analysis of the Effects of Custody on Self-esteem." Doctoral thesis 1983. University of Vermont. UMI No. 83-26981.
13. Nationally, 19.1% of children from 3 to 17 years old, living only with their biological mother, and 23.6% of those living with their biological mother and stepfather, exhibit a significant emotional or behavioral problem. This compares to only 8.3% of children living with both biological parents.
Source: N. Zill and C. Schoenborn, "Developmental, Learning, and Emotional Problems: Health of our Nation's Children", National Center for Health Statistics, Advance Data, 190 (November 16, 1990).
14. Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent. Source: Jean Bethke Elshtain, "Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children", The Christian Century (July 1993), pp. 14-21.
15. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teenage pregnancy and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, "Survey on Child Health" (Washington, D.C., 1993).
16. Children who live apart from their fathers are 4.3 times more likely to smoke cigarettes as teenagers than children growing up with their fathers in the home:
Source: Warren R. Stanton, Tian P.S. Oci, and Phil A. Silva, "Sociodemographic Characteristics of Adolescent Smokers," The International Journal of the Addictions (1994), pp.913-925.
SOLE CUSTODY AND CRIME
1. A 1988 study found that the proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community's poverty level does not.
Source: Douglas A. Smith and G. Roger Jarjoura, "Social Structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25 (February 1988), pp.27-52.
2. "If you look at the one factor that most closely correlates with crime, it's not poverty, it's not unemployment, it's not education. It's the absence of the father in the family."
Source: Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, 1994 30. "Children are the fastest growing segment of the criminal population in the United States." Source: U.S. Department of Justice, 1992
3. 87% of Wisconsin juvenile delinquents are a product of father-absent homes.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, 1994
4. 72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers.
Source: Dewey Cornell, et. al., "Characteristics of Adolescents Charged with Homicide," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 5 (1987), pp.11-23. Source: U.S. Department of Justice data, 1991
5. 60% of America's rapists grew up in homes without fathers.
Source: Nicholas Davidson, "Life Without Father," Policy Review (1990); see also Karl Zinsmeister, "Crime is Terrorizing Our Nation's Kids," Citizen (Pamona, CA: Focus on the Family, Aug. 20, 1990), p.12 Source: U.S. Department of Justice data, 1991
6. The relationship (between family structure and crime) is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature."
Source: Elaine Kamarack and William Galston, "Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990's" (Washington D.C.: Progressive Policy Institute, September 1990).
7. 70% of the juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations.
Source: Allen Beck, Susan Kline, and Lawrence Greenfield, "Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987", U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 1988.
8. 70% of long-term prisoners grew up in father-absent homes.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice data, 1991
GENERAL PROBLEMS RELATED TO SOLE CUSTODY
1. Almost half of all mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children following separation or divorce, and up to 40% of mothers interfere with the dad's relationship with his kids.
Source: Sanford Braver, a University of Arizona psychologist
2. Only half of divorced mothers value the absent father's continued contact with his children. One-fifth saw no value in continued contact whatsoever, and "...actively tried to sabotage the meetings by sending the children away just before the father's arrival, by insisting that the child was ill or had pressing homework to do, by making a scene, or by leaving the children with the husband and disappearing."
Source: Judith S. Wallerstein and Joan Berlin Kelly P.h.D., "Surviving the Breakup:How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce" (New York: Basic Books, 1990), p.125.
3. Williams studied high-conflict, high-risk situations. He found that children in sole custody (typically but not exclusively maternal) much more likely to be subject to parental kidnapping and/or physical harm. He found that high-conflict families do better and are more likely to learn cooperative behavior when given highly detailed orders from the judge.
Source: F.S. Williams. "Child Custody and Parental Cooperation." American Bar Association, Family Law, August 1987.
4. More than 50% of all children who don't live with their father have never been in their father's home.
Source: Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin, "Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part" (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).
5. Based on a national study following 13,000 14- to 21-year-olds beginning in 1975, it was found that, whereas 57% of unwed fathers with children no older than 2 years of age visited their children more than once a week, only 23% were in frequent contact with their children at age 2-1/2 years or older
Source: Robert Lerman and Theodora J. Ooms, "Young Unwed Fathers: Changing Roles and Emerging Policies" (Philadelphia: Temple, 1993), p.45.
6. When asked whether they felt their parents "really care" about them, 97% of children ages 10 to 17 living with both biological parents said "yes" for their fathers. Of children living in a stepfamily, only 71% said "yes" for their fathers. And of children living with only one parent, only 55% said "yes" for their fathers.
Source: The National Commission on Children, "Speaking of Kids: A National Survey of Children and Parents" (Washington, D.C.: 1991).
7. On average, single mothers spend roughly one-third less time each week than married mothers in primary child care activities such as dressing, feeding, chauffeuring,talking, playing or helping with homework.
Source: John P. Robinson, "How Americans Use Time: A Social Psychological Analysis of Everyday Behavior" (New York, Praeger, 1977), p.70; see also John P.Robinson, "Caring for Kids", American Demographics (July 1989).
8. Even for fathers who maintain regular contact, the pattern of father-child relationships changes. Fathers behave more like relatives than like parents. Instead of helping with homework or carrying out a project with their children, nonresidential fathers are likely to take the kids shopping, to the movies, or out to dinner. Insteadof providing steady advice and guidance, divorced fathers become "treat" dads.
Source: Frank Furstenberg, Jr. and Andrew Cherlin, "Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part" (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 10.
9. Between 1971 and 1981, Judith S. Wallerstein conducted a study of 60 families who experience divorce. Included in the study were 131 children and 60 adolescents. Interviews were conducted periodically between 1971 and 1981. Wallerstein reached the following conclusions:
10 years after the divorce, children of divorce felt "less protected, less cared for, less comforted... these children (had) vivid, gut-wrenching memories of their parents' separation."
Many five- to eight-year-old boys showed "an intense longing for theirfathers" after the divorce, that seemed physically painful.
Many fathers who moved out of the house found it difficult to sustain a close and loving relationship with their children, especially if one or both parents remarried. Yet, children tenaciously held onto an internal image, sometimes a fantasy image, of their absent or even visiting father.
Not only did the children's need for their father continue, it also tended to rise with new intensity at adolescence, especially when it was time for the children to leave home.
Source: Judith S. Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade After Divorce (New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1989)
10. The preponderance of research supports the presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of children.
Source: Children's Rights Council Report (CRC) R-103A. 1987 Synopses of Sole and Joint Custody Studies.
THE TRUTH ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE & CHILD ABUSE
1. 47. 55.5% of murder victims of domestic violence are male
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, "Murder in Families" July 1994
2. "One woman is battered every 15 seconds" is based on research by Strass and Gelles which indicate assaults by husbands or boyfriends on 1.8 million women every year. What is not generally mentioned is that the study further concluded "One man is battered every 14 seconds"
Source: Research by Murray Strauss and Richard Gelles as reported in "Women Are Responsible Too", Judith Shervin, Ph.D. and Jim Sniechowski, Ph.D., Los Angeles Times. June 21,1994.
3. "54% of all violence termed 'severe' was perpetrated by women."
Source: Research by Murray Strauss and Richard Gelles as reported in "Women Are Responsible Too", Judith Shervin, Ph.D. and Jim Sniechowski, Ph.D., Los Angeles Times. June 21, 1994.
4. "Since society does not define abuse of men by women as a problem, official police data reflects a much more frequent response to abuse of women by men than of men by women. Therefore it is not surprising to find over 90% of the calls to police or to hotlines coming from women, not men."
Source: "Spouse Abuse: A Two-Way Street", Warren Farrell, Ph.D., USAToday, June 29, 1994.
5. Data from the states' protective service agencies indicate that children have much more to fear from their mothers than from their fathers, with mothers abusing their children at a rate approaching or exceeding twice that of fathers. In New Jersey, for instance 70% of the confirmed parental child abuse is committed by mothers, not fathers, 66% in Alaska, 67% in Virginia, 68& in Texas, and 62% in Minnesota.
Source: A study of child abuse in Lansing, MI. Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay in Child Abuse and Neglect, Volume 8, 1984.
6. Preschoolers living without their biological father were 40 times more likely to be a victim of child abuse as compared to like-aged children living with their father.
Source: Wilson and Daley in Child Abuse and neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, 1987)
7. Premarital pregnancy, out-of-wedlock childbearing, and absent fathers are the most common predictors of child abuse.
Source: Smith, Hanson, and Noble, Child Abuse: Commission and Ommission, 1980.
8. 69% of victims of child sexual abuse came from homes where the biological father was absent.
Source: Gomes-Schwartz, Horowitz, and Cardarelli, Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment, 1988.
9. Children are at particular risk. A 125 lb. woman is just as dangerous to a small child as is a 150 lb. man and the failure to admit that women can be violent has resulted in an increasingly tragic epidemic of child abuse.
Source: A study of child abuse in Lansing, MI. Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay in "Child Abuse and Neglect", Volume 8, 1984.
10. Society's failure to address abuse by women has some rather tragic results:
The cycle of family violence will not end until we are willing to treat not only men who initiate violent acts, but the women also. No adequate treatment programs for abusive women exist.
The man, generally being larger than the woman, is more likely to inflict physical injury when he responds to abuse from the woman, but the woman is more likely to overcome the size advantage by using a weapon.
Source: National Crime Survey, Census Bureau in "Spouse Abuse: A Two-Way Street", Warren Farrell, Ph.D., USA Today. June 29, 1994/
TEENAGE SEXUALITY AND SOLE CUSTODY/FATHER ABSENCE
1. Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 111% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages
Source: Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, "Single Mothers and Their Children" (Washington D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1986).
2. Teenage girls who grow up without their fathers tend to have sex earlier. A 15-year-old who has lived with her mother only, for example, is three times as likely to lose her virginity before her sixteenth birthday as one who lived with both parents.
Source: Lee Smith, "The New Wave of Illegitimacy", Fortune 18 (April 1994), pp. 81-94. Also see Susan Newcomer and J. Richard Udry, "Parental Marital Status Effects on Adolescent Sexual Behavior", Journal of Marriage and the Family (May 1987), pp.235-240.
3. Adolescent females between the ages of 15 and 19 years reared in homes without fathers are significantly more likely to engage in premarital sex than adolescent females reared in homes with both a mother and a father.
Source: John O. G. Billy, Karin L. Brewster, and William R. Grady,"Contextual Effects on the Sexual Behavior of Adolescent Women", Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994), pp. 381-404.
4. Girls from fatherless homes are 111% (over two times) more likely to have an unwed pregnancy.
Source: Warren Farrell presentation at NCMC conference, 1992; Hetherington, 1972
5. Girls from fatherless homes are 92% (nearly two times) more likely to divorce.
Source: Warren Farrell presentation at NCMC conference, 1992;Hetherington, 1972.
LOW ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND SOLE CUSTODY
1. "In Summary, 30% of the children in the present study experienced a marked decrease in their academic performance following parental separation, and this was evident three years later. Access to both parents seemed to be the most protective factor, in that it was associated with better academic adjustment... Moreover, data revealed that non-custodial parents (mostly fathers) were very influential in their children's development....These data also support the interpretation that the more time a child spends with the non-custodial parent, the better the overall adjustment of the child.
Source: Factors Associated with Academic Achievement in Children Following Separation, L. Bisnaire, P.h.D.; P. Firestone, P.h.D.; D. Rynard, MA Sc American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(1), January, 1990.
2. Children in single-parent families tend to score lower on standardized tests and receive lower grades in school. Children in single-parent families are nearly twice as likely to drop out of high school as children from two parent families.
Source: J.B. Stedman, L.H. Salganik, and C.A. Celebuski, "Dropping Out: The Educational Vulnerability of At-Risk Youth," Congressional Research Service Report No. 88-417 EPW Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Library of Congress, 1988).
3. Students without fathers or with stepfathers were less likely to have peers who thought it important to behave well in school.
Source: Nicholas Zill and Christine Winquist Nord, "Running in Place: How American Families are Faring in a Changing Economy and An Individualistic Society" (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Inc., 1994).
4. Children who exhibited violent misbehavior in school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers.
Source: Jonathan L. Sheline, Betty J. Skipper, and W. Eugene Broadhead, "Risk Factors for Violent Behavior in Elementary School Boys: Have You Hugged Your Child Today?" American Journal of Public Health 84 (1994), pp. 661-663.
5. Nationally, 15.3% of children living with a never married mother and 10.7% of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school ,compared with only 4.4% of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey," Journal of Marriage and Family 53 (1991). 67. Children who were living with both biological parents were nearly two to four times less likely than other children to have been expelled or suspended from school (4%vs. 9-15%)
Source: L. Remez, "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems," Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992).
CHILD SUPPORT
1. According to Census Bureau data, fathers with joint physical custody of their children, pay more of their child support - 90% - compared with 79% for fathers with visitation rights, and 44% for fathers with neither arrangement.
Source: Nicholas Zill, Analysis of Census Bureau Data, paper presented at the Children's Rights Council National Conference, Bethesda, MD, April 1993.
2. 90% of fathers with joint custody pay all of their child support on time and in full.
Source: Current Population Report, issued September 1991; Child Support & Alimony: 1989 Series P60, No 173, pages 6 & 7 of the 1989 Census.
3. Where there is visitation, almost 80% of fathers pay all their support on time, and in full.
Source: 1991 Census Bureau; see also Current Population Report, issued September 1991; Child Support & Alimony: 1989 Series P60, No 173, pages 6 & 7 of the 1989 Census.
4. 51% of fathers paying no child support had annual incomes of less than $12,310.
Source: 1995 report to the Wisconsin Governor's Commission on Families and Children.
5. 56% of fathers who owe support "cannot afford to pay the amount ordered".
Source: 1992: The General Accounting Office.
6. 14% of fathers who owe child support are dead.
Source: 1992: The General Accounting Office.
7. A significant portion of unpaid child support is owed by fathers who are imprisoned.
Source: Steward A. Miller, senior legislative analyst for American Fathers Coalition in Washington D.C.
8. Almost 80% of custodial mothers receive a child support award.
Source: 1991 Federal Office of Income Security Policy.
9. Less than 30% of custodial fathers receive a child support award
Source: 1991 Federal Office of Income Security Policy
10. About 47% of those mothers ordered to pay child support totally default on their obligation.
Source: Steward A. Miller, senior legislative analyst for American Fathers Coalition in Washington D.C.
compiled 8/1/96 by co-founders of For Kids' Sake
For Kids' Sake
Patrick & Lynn Kempen
compiled 8/1/96 by co-founders of For Kids' Sake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
