Four homosexual parents for one boy

September 15, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Today I came across a story about an Australian judge having awarded child-visitation rights to two gay men who took turns donating sperm to two lesbians.

The story appeared on the German-language blog http://www.in-australien.com, apparently a gay-rights-oriented blog, at http://www.in-australien.com/baby-mit-4-homosexuellen-eltern-das-gericht-fallt-ein-urteil_103692

The story is dated Sept. 15, 2010 and mentions that the court decision involves a lesbian couple in Melbourne, with no identification of where the two gay men hail from.  The judge in the case is ostensibly Linda Dessau, but I have no clue as to which court she resides at.

Although I spent a considerable amount of time searching for English-language verification of the story, I have not been able to find any such thing.  Do any of you know anything about this?

Here is a translation of the German-language article into English (it is an edited version of one produced by Babel Fish, but I did not spend very much time in correcting grammar, wording and syntax):

Baby with 4 homosexual parents: The court delivers a decision

In Australia, a lesbian and a gay pair were transformed into four homosexual parents of a cute baby. The Australian court responsible was able to deliver a verdict in this case that awards  rights to all parents  enabling them to be allowed to care for the baby. Originally, the two lesbian life-partners  simply wanted to have a child of their own. A gay couple made itself available as sperm donors, with both men alternating  with their sperm donations. The project was successful, and thereby, approximately two years ago, a small boy came into the world. That evoked such great parental emotions in all four parents who had been involved that now none of them can do without the little tyke and, accordingly, wished to spend as much time as possible with the newly-born.

For that reason, with the passing of time ever more disputes developed  between the two pairs of parents, so that now a court had to decide in the situation. The four tried to find common grounds on parental responsibility and visitation arrangements, in order to do justice to themselves and to the small baby. However, they could find no agreement that would satisfy all parties. Justice Linda Dessau was therefore to decide what was to be the best for the now already 2-year-old child. Because all four persons love the small one dearly and deal responsibly with him, she decided that all participants should be awarded the right  to be allowed to spend time with the boy. The child is to have the possibility in each case of becoming acquainted with all four parents in order to experience their parental love.

The court hands down a clear verdict

 The baby was born in Melbourne and lives until today together with his two mothers here. The two men  had moved to Melbourne already before the birth of the child, in order to have regularly contact with it. After two years all parents had developed such strong feelings that everyone wanted to spend equal time with the infant. Since the baby had  so far lived with the two women and these thus more were involved in its life, the mothers pleaded that the small boy was to live further with them. The judge said, however, that the two men are not just simply sperm donors, but that both feel true feelings for the boy.  On the basis of those facts the judge decided that the boy may live further with the women, although the two men should receive regular visitation rights, to see their offspring grow up and to be able to provide him with their paternal support.

Well, I am not an expert in matters of such a confoundedly confusing parental situation in which a judge declares the physically-impossible, that there can be two mothers and two fathers of one child.  All I have to go by is my many years of experience with raising sheep.  Furthermore, tit-for-tat, I would like to, just as homosexual-rights-activists are fond of doing, project from the parental practices in the animal world to  those that come into play in civilization.

Even King Solomon found parental disputes by mothers in such issues extremely confusing but devised a practical solution that enabled him to rule which of two competing “mothers” was the natural one who truly deserved to be the one mother whom the boy in that case was to be assigned to, so as to preserve the standards that made society work well.  Judge Linda Dessau appears to have assumed powers of judgment that vastly exceed the wisdom possessed by King Solomon.  Nevertheless, my experience in such matters with the sheep that we raised over the years will almost certainly lead to the situation in this case where reality will bite all the participants in the butt.

The hormone oxytocin exerts a powerful influence in such cases, powerful enough to evoke parental influences and feelings for all ostensible parents involved.  However, within a relatively short time the confoundedly confusing parent-child relationships always and without fail lead to disastrous outcomes that are often even fatal (most definitely in the case of sheep and especially in regard to “child abuse” by sheep as a result of maternal confusion).

The experimentation with human standards in such matters must come to an end.  Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end, most definitely in the animal world in the wild and in husbandry.

Aside from that, I wonder why I can’t find any references to this particular case of  the confusion of homosexual-rights with normalcy in civil society.  Should one not think that this case should have made the news where it took place?

Can anyone help out with some more information on this case?  Is the whole story perhaps just the creation of a new urban myth in the making?

–Walter

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, Maternal Rights, Child Abuse, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Gay issues, Child-Custody Awards, Health, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

Custodial mother needs help

September 12, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The names (except mine) shown in the following are not the real names of the parties, to protect the innocent and the guilty.

Hello Mary,

You raised a number of points that call into question Canadian rules and practices pertaining to child support due to someone like you, someone who appears to be a citizen or resident of Canada.

Firstly, I don’t know whether you are in fact residing in Quebec.  That makes it impossible for me to direct you to an organization that may be able to help you or to direct you to someone else who can do so.

If you wish to spare yourself the reading of all I stated, the most important aspect of your complaints is that you did not specify what you need help with.  The unmentioned solution to all of your problems is quite simple and obvious: apply in the court to have it grant fully shared custody to the father of your children.  In addition, you should perhaps objectively examine whether there was an equitable sharing of all of the marital assets in your case and determine whether some of the assets you received should not in all honesty be transferred to your ex.

You raised many concerns.  It will be easier for me to answer each of those by inserting my responses between the lines of your message — which I will now do.

On 11/09/2010 6:27 AM, Mary More wrote:

Subject: deadbeat dads.

The header of your e-mail messages identified the subject as being that you need my help, but, as your message shows, that is not truly what your message is all about.

I am writing to you for assistance in a matter that relates to my children.  I am a single mother of two teenage daughters that I am in custody of.   I have been separated form my husband for the past 5 years and am now divorced.  During this time I have not received any financial support from him in order to help provide for his two girls.

I am not able to direct you to a source of help because you did not tell me which Province you are located in.  I could look that up but would have no guarantee that I would be right.  You are in a better position to determine and identify that.

Why is Canada letting dead beat dads walk freely without having any consequences for their actions.

Perhaps the father of your children is a dead-beat dad, but I would leave the determining of that to the courts.  Even the worst judge would make at least a pretense of listening to both sides of a dispute before he decides where between the two sides the truth may is.  I have not heard anything from the other side in the argument.

The fact that you label your ex-husband a dead-beat dad does not look well.  Did he leave on his own volition, or did you kick him out?

That you allege that Canada has a policy of “letting dead beat dads walk freely without having any consequences for their actions” does not look good either.  The reality of that is that your accusation is not founded on facts.  The statistics on that do not support your accusation.  Moreover, my experiences as someone who has been active for decades in the field of child-support issues don’t support your accusation either.

The reality of those circumstances is that non-custodial fathers are more like than separated non-custodial mothers to pay child support, to pay much more child support and far less likely to default on such payments.  Furthermore, such fathers who default on child-support payments are far more likely than defaulting mothers to be prosecuted and to have to cope with and suffer from draconian enforcement measures.

Is it fair that one parent can walkout without taking any responsibilities providing for his kids?  Is it fair that all the burden of raising kids falls on one parent?

Court hearings ostensibly determine what is fair in such matters.  Unfortunately, such court hearings are seldom fair to fathers.  In the vast majority of divorces the courts grant women the kids, car, cash and castle and send the father packing, often with nothing more than a set of underwear, a toothbrush and a razor.

In the United States many deadbeat dads have their passport revoked, have their driver’s license suspended……. Why doesn’t Canada take drastic measures when it comes to deadbeat dads.

You correctly deem the common practice of depriving fathers who default on child support to be drastic, which of course it is.  How do you figure anyone is more likely to be able to make child-support payments when his constitutional right to free movement has been restricted?  Someone without a driver’s licence is not likely to be able to acquire any jobs that require a valid driver’s licence.  Moreover, he quite likely will be severely handicapped in travelling to a job for which he does not even require a driver’s licence but cannot travel to when no public transportation is available to help him get there.

Moreover, it is not only driver’s licences and passports of fathers defaulting with child support payments that are suspended,  All government-issued licences of defaulting fathers are suspended, which of course severely curtails their ability to earn a living.  Do you feel that those suspensions can possibly be any good for the affected children?

Jake Eke is in a new relationship with a divorced woman Liz Tryhard that has two kids, he is leading a normal life and supports her  kids and helps her renovate the house…..Doesn’t his own kids deserve a dad? Why can’t he help support his own kids? Doesn’t his kids have rights? Is it fair that he has neglected his own kids?

I assume, although you do not directly or indirectly state so, that Jake Eke is the father of the children you had with him.

You sure checked him out good, right?  Is it a criminal offence for him to have entered a relationship with a divorced woman who has children?

I wonder whether he thinks that he is living a normal life.  Is it normal for all men to form relationships with divorced women who have children by other men, after their ex-wives most likely kicked them out?

You told me that he can’t support his own kids because he is considered to be disabled.  If you feel that to be a false and fraudulent claim, telling me about it will not do you or anyone else much good.  Tell the judge in your case.  As they say, you will have to prove that in a court of law.

1) Mr. Eke has declared that he is sick and unable to provide.  If that is the case why isn’t he forced to fill up disability papers and get help from the government .

It is a little inconsistent on your part to call him first a dead beat dad and then to call him Mr.  Do you always do that so as to make sure that the recipients of your complaints about him are first put into the right frame of mind?

I do not know where Mr. Eke lives or whether it is possible for him to make false claims where he lives about disabilities that prevent him from earning a living.  If you are sure that he has engaged in an act of defrauding his government, you should perhaps consider pursuing criminal charges.

2) I am well aware that Mr. Eke is working in the renovation business and gets paid cash.  He keeps claiming that he is building his cliental slowly and that business is slow……….why isn’t he forced to get another job and provide for his kids?????

It amazes me to read how much you know about the man.  Yet you fail to consider the realities of the current state of the economy.  Canada is suffering under the same depression that has the US in its grips.  There is little money available for housing construction.  There is much competition for jobs in the construction trade, and money for home renovations is even harder to come by than is the case with money for new construction jobs.

Getting paid cash for work done is what many men do who have been driven into the underground economy to be able to eke out a living.

Did you not know any of those things before you decided to kick him out?

His daughter who is 17 of age has a job as a bus girl and makes minimum wage, why can’t he work?????

Nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong with this picture??????

I don’t know. You tell me.

I am a kindergarten teacher in a private school, my pay cheque is not enough so after I am done my job at 3 everyday I continue to my second job from 4-7 and than work on weekends, if I can be responsible why can’t he????????

Is being a kindergarten teacher a well-paying job?  If not, do you have a low-paying job because you chose to have it for convenience and not for economic considerations?  Were you forced into taking your job?

If you need a better-paying job, why don’t you get one?  If you expect that the father of your children be forced into getting another job to be able to pay for his kids, why does that not apply to you?

I have to do 3 jobs, get a line of credit, take a loan from the bank refinance my mortgage, seek help from my mom who is living on her pension and be the sole provider for those girls.

So, you indicate that you like to do low-paying jobs, live on credit, and have even your mother support you.  Has your mother not done enough for you yet?

Was being the sole provider for “those girls” your choice?

You have without a doubt some serious problems with matching your income to your expenses.  From what you explained, it appears that your debts are steadily and perhaps even quickly increasing.  The first and most important objective for successful debt management is to have a lot of income left at the end of the month, rather than having a lot of month left at the end of the money.

One way by which you can make a start with that is to cut back on a few things, such as those that you expect your ex-husband to cut back on.  Cancel your subscription to cable TV, cancel your cell phone and cut out all other things that are not absolutely necessary to survival, including the use of your car (sell it) and other such luxuries.

If that is not sufficient to bring your expenses into affordable limits, consider what capital assets you can sell.  If it is cheaper to rent an apartment than to make mortgage payments, you should go for the cheaper alternative.  You have a great advantage in that respect.  No one will expect you to live in a cardboard box under a bridge.  Our society does not expect that from women, while that expectation is at times the only one left for men who have all of their licences revoked.

I did not bring these children to the world by myself,

I hope not.  That would have been a miracle.

On the other hand, it is not difficult to become a father or a mother, while to be a father or a mother is a much more difficult task.  The burden of that is much lightened by sharing it.

It is about time that the government takes action and goes after those dead beat dads who are basically getting away with murder.

The government has done quite a bit to help out women already.  Women live on average six more years (in the US) and 7.2 more years (in Canada) than men do.  Now you want to have your ex prosecuted for murder yet?

I am frustrated at the legal system in the pursuit of this basic right for child support.   I have exhausted my financial capabilities in hiring lawyers to pursue him and have contacted the child support office in Montreal who have indicated that they have no recourse because of his lack of declared income.  So far my experience has been a series of “road blocks” and I am entirely exhausted.

Sorry, but that is pretty much the way it is.  If there is no income, then there is nothing to declare or to confiscate.

It will be up to you to prove in court that his claim to be disabled is fraudulent.  However, even if you should be able to prove that, what do you expect will happen?  Should he go to jail?  Do you think that will ensure that his child support payments can be made?

My ex-spouse is a home renovator and thus much of his work is paid in cash.  The amount of declared income is unknown

You already stated all of that.

since he has not filed an income tax return in the past few years.  I am puzzled at how the governmental system has neglected to look into this case to allow a citizen to neglect his legal obligations toward his family and government.  Why don’t we have any rights?

You told me that the government already looked into his case.  The problem is that you are not happy with what the government found.  However, if you want the father of your children to go to jail, and if you are absolutely sure of your allegations about doing work for cash under the table, then talk to the government and insist they they prosecute him for defrauding the government and for income-tax evasion.  Both are crimes that would warrant incarceration, but you have to prove them in court.  If you fail to prove your case, then you are potentially liable to be convicted of slander and libel.

However, the government has done a lot for women in that respect.  Women can commit the crimes of slander and libel with impunity.

Hoping to hear from you

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, I will keep trying until my voice his heard and things will change.  It is so unfair.

Mary More

I will post your help request and my responses to Dads & Things. It is our policy to not show the real names of the warring parties in such a case.

Other than that, I tried to offer some advice where I deemed it possible and necessary to give advice.  Unfortunately, you did not actually ask for specific help, but you railed against your ex, you slandered him, you slandered the Government of the Province of Quebec, the Federal Government of Canada, all of Canadian non-custodial fathers, and you vented your frustration.

It seems that all the help you wanted was to have someone listen to you.  I have done that and hope it will make you feel better.

Regards,

Walter Schneider
Fathers for Life
Dads & Things

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Child Support, Maternal Rights, Violence by Proxy, Parental Alienation, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence, Shared Parenting, Men's Issues, Divorce, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

A very worthwhile Demo in London (U.K.)

September 11, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

“Bringing Families Together”

http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

A very worthwhile Demo in London (U.K.)

When: Sept.  30th, 2010, 11:30 a.m.

Where: London, England

Posted in Paternal Rights, Divorce, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Family | Print | No Comments »

FACTS EVERY ONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT DESERTION

September 7, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Guest post by Roger Eldridge, National Mens Council of Ireland

Note by F4L:  I am not a legal expert in such matters, but, having gone through the experience of being deserted, some years ago, I am quite confident that what Roger describes applies as well in Canada and perhaps also in other nations.

Roger has told it well, and it should be shown to as many people as possible. –Walter

It is very clear when discussing their difficulties with callers to our help-line that many - men in particular - are very confused about the difference between separation and desertion. This is not their fault as the legal profession have made it their business to eliminate the word and concept of “desertion” from all family law proceedings. I sat in with a member of our Family Integrity and Marriage Reconciliation (FIRM) Self-Help Group when he went to discuss with his solicitor what he could do. Despite the facts supporting it, whenever he described himself as being “deserted” his own solicitor got very cross with him and told him that the judge would be very angry if he ever said anything like that in court. When he tried to talk about it further his solicitor told him that she will not represent him if he ever used the word again!

Hopefully the information given below which has been taken directly from three different legal sources will clear people’s heads and stop them mistakenly believing they are “separated” when really they are “deserted”.

The reason why solicitors create this confusion is because they have been assisting spouses who are the deserters to profit at the expense of the actual deserted spouse for the past thirty years. They tell the deserted spouse that the other spouse - the actual deserter - is entitled to separate and tell them that they should just accept that they are now “separated” and deal with it. By doing this the deserted spouse loses everything and especially is seen to be going along with the breakdown of the marriage instead of getting help to reconcile it.

Some of the most important aspects of family law are the provisions for maintenance. It is a duty of spouses to maintain the family home and the other spouse and children living there. If one of the spouses deserts the family they are still held to this duty and are forced to pay money for the maintenance of the deserted household. Logically and in the statute there is a bar to a deserter receiving such maintenance.

However the law is being operated by solicitors so that the husband is always the one ordered to pay maintenance to his wife regardless of who is guilty of desertion. This creates an ever lengthening queue of wives outside solicitors’ offices who are led to believe that they can just walk out on their marriage and still be kept in the style (or better!) they were when they were acting as a wife in the home. They are told to ensure they keep the kids with them and refuse to let them stay at home even though the law presumes that the children should be at home. This has been used for many years as a sort of “gray area” which is used to justify the “legitimise” the deserter and get money from the deserted spouse for the maintenance of the children. Solicitors advise their deserted clients to pay this money even though it is against their best interests and those of the children in the long run.

In all of this confusion and corruption of the law any chance of a reconciliation of the family is buried in anger and injustice. This has to stop.

Please pass the information below to anyone you know who is having problems in their family (i.e. by now almost everyone!) and let them know that we are available to talk to them and assist them to resist the worst practices of the courts. This is the necessary first step before moving on to the more important one of helping them to reconcile their marriage. When leaving a marriage doesn’t bring instant rewards it gives people a chance to rethink their plans. It is this critical period of time that needs to be seized upon if we are ever to stop the wanton dismemberment of families and destruction of society.

God bless,  Roger Eldridge

Chairman, National Mens Council of Ireland

Executive Director, Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland

National Office: Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon

Website: www.family-men.com Email: familymen@eircom.net

Telephones: 00353 (0) 7196-67138, 00353 (0) 83-3330256

******

http://www.the-divorce-directory.com/article_desertion.html

DESERTION

Desertion, known in some states as abandonment, is considered grounds for divorce in states that have fault divorces. There are two types of desertion, actual desertion and constructive desertion. Both types of desertion must be continuous and uninterrupted for a specific period of time between one and five years depending on the state.

The most obvious situation which would constitute desertion is when one spouse leaves without a trace, never comes back and never again makes contact. However, there are other situations which constitute desertion.

Desertion vs. separation: Desertion is not the same as separation. In a separation both spouses consent to living apart. Desertion only occurs when one spouse does not consent to the separation.

The necessary elements to establish desertion include:

• No longer living in the same residence

• No longer having sexual relations

• Deserting spouse intends to end the marriage

• Deserting spouse was not justified in leaving the residence

• Deserted spouse did not consent to the desertion • Desertion has been continuous and uninterrupted for the amount of time designated by law in your state

Actual desertion vs. constructive desertion

In actual desertion the deserting spouse leave the home. Constructive desertion occurs when the deserted spouse leaves due to unbearable conditions at home caused by the other spouse. Combined with the above elements of desertion, depending on the state, conditions for constructive desertion can include:

• Physical abuse

• Mental cruelty

• Adultery

• Nonsupport

• Unjustified refusal to have sexual relations for a significant period of time

• Knowing transmission of a venereal disease

Couples contemplating divorce should be cautious about moving out of the residence in a manner which can be claimed as desertion. To avoid a claim of desertion both parties must agree to the separation and should provide each other with contact information.

The desertion period must be continuous and uninterrupted. One night spent under the same roof or one meeting for sexual relations can be considered an interruption in the desertion period, and the required length of time would start over after that date.

Exceptions

Unintentional abandonment is not considered desertion. If a spouse goes missing for a specified period of time, and efforts to find the spouse are unfruitful, the abandoned spouse may obtain a divorce. However, situations such as military personnel missing in action do not constitute desertion.

If you are facing or contemplating divorce, have been forced out of your home or have been abandoned by your spouse, contact an experienced divorce attorney today.

******

Desertion Grounds

Desertion must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.  There are two main elements to prove to establish abandonment/desertion grounds for divorce; (1) the actual breaking off of the matrimonial cohabitation (abandoning the usual marital duties, not just sexual intercourse must be established), and (2) the intent to desert the marriage.

The breaking off of matrimonial cohabitation means that the couple must actually have separate addresses, and not just maintain separate sleeping arrangements.  Ceasing to engage in sexual intercourse, even without just cause, does not constitute desertion.  But where there is a significant abandonment of marital duties, which results in practical destruction of home life, a party may be guilty of desertion.

The second element to establish abandonment/desertion is the intent to desert the marriage. The desire to separate is not necessarily synonymous with the intent to desert the marriage. Where the parties separate by “mutual consent,” neither party has established grounds for desertion.  If the person deserting cannot legally justify the desertion, then proof of the actual breaking off of the matrimonial relationship with the intent to desert entitles the other spouse to a divorce.

“Constructive desertion” involves actions or conduct resulting in the other spouse’s forced separation.  To prove constructive desertion, the spouse leaving the home must prove that the misconduct by the spouse remaining in the home constitutes grounds for divorce. Traditionally, this spouse must show that the remaining spouse conducted himself/herself in such a manner as to provoke the leaving.

It should be noted that excessive alcohol consumption not sufficient, standing alone, to constitute constructive desertion, nor is demanding that a spouse leave is not constructive desertion. Generally speaking, a spouse is not justified in leaving the other just because there has been a gradual breakdown in the marital relationship or because the parties are unable to live together in peace and harmony. The party claiming justification for leaving has the burden of proving it, unless the justification appears from the testimony given by the other party.

Defenses to desertion include (1) agreement, (2) recrimination, (3) justification, (4) pending divorce case, or (5) relocation of spouse.

Agreement:  When the separation is by consent or agreement, or is acquiesced to by the other spouse, there is a presumption that the separation by consent continues until a spouse withdraws the consent and offers to resume the cohabitation.  Refusal without justification will give rise to desertion.

Recrimination:  Where the deserted party as well as the deserting party is guilty of a fault ground, the deserted party is barred from a divorce on the grounds of the desertion.

Justification:  Where there is violence, even though the acts do not amount to cruelty, there may be a sufficient basis to constitute a fault ground for divorce.

Pending divorce case:  A spouse is not guilty of desertion where the leaving takes place after the divorce case has been instituted and during the pendency of the case.

Relocation of spouse:  A spouse is no longer expected to follow the other spouse’s change of abode, and the refusal to follow to relocate is not desertion.

******

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/desertion

DESERTION

The act by which a person abandons and forsakes, without justification, a condition of public, social, or family life, renouncing its responsibilities and evading its duties. A willful Abandonment of an employment or duty in violation of a legal or moral obligation.

Criminal desertion is a husband’s or wife’s abandonment or willful failure without Just Cause to provide for the care, protection, or support of a spouse who is in ill health or necessitous circumstances.

Desertion, which is called abandonment in some statutes, is a divorce ground in a majority of states. Most statutes mandate that the abandonment continue for a certain period of time before a divorce action may be commenced. The length of this period varies between one and five years; it is most commonly one year. The period of separation must be continuous and uninterrupted. In addition, proof that the departed spouse left without the consent of the other spouse is required in most states.

Ordinarily, proof of desertion is a clear-cut factual matter. Courts generally require evidence that the departure was voluntary and that the deserted husband or wife in no way provoked or agreed to the abandonment. Constructive desertion occurs when one party makes life so intolerable for his or her spouse that the spouse has no real choice but to leave the marital home. For an individual to have legal justification for departing, it is often required that the spouse act so wrongfully as to constitute grounds for divorce. For example, a wife might leave her husband if she finds that he is guilty of Adultery.

In desertion cases, it is not necessary to prove the emotional state of the abandoning spouse, but only the intent to break off matrimonial ties with no animus revertendi, the intention to return.

Mere separation does not constitute desertion if a husband and wife agree that they cannot cohabit harmoniously. Sexual relations between the parties must be totally severed during the period of separation. If two people live apart from one another but meet on a regular basis for sex, this does not constitute desertion. State law dictates whether or not an infrequent meeting for sexual relations amounts to an interruption of the period required for desertion. Some statutes provide that an occasional act of sexual intercourse terminates the period only if the husband and wife are attempting reconciliation.

Unintentional abandonment is not desertion. For example, if a man is missing in action while serving in the Armed Services, his wife may not obtain a divorce on desertion grounds since her spouse did not intend to leave his family and flee the marital relationship. The common law allows an individual to presume that a spouse is dead if the spouse is unexplainably absent for a seven-year period. If the spouse returns at any time, the marriage remains intact under common law.

Laws that embody the Enoch Arden Doctrine grant a divorce if evidence establishes that an individual’s spouse has vanished and cannot be found through diligent efforts. A particular period of time must elapse. Sometimes, if conditions evidencing death can be exhibited, a divorce may be granted prior to the expiration of the time specified by law.

In some jurisdictions, the law is stringent regarding divorce grounds. In such instances, an Enoch Arden decree might be labeled a dissolution of the marriage rather than a divorce.

Upon the granting of an Enoch Arden decree, the marriage is terminated regardless of whether or not the absent spouse returns. Generally, the court provides that the plaintiff must show precisely what has been done to locate the missing person. Efforts to find the absent spouse might include inquiries made to friends or relatives to determine if they have had contact with the missing spouse, or checking public records for such documents as a marriage license, death certificate, tax returns, or application for Social Security in locations where the individual is known to have resided.

Desertion is frequently coupled with non-support, which is a failure to provide monetary resources for those to whom such an obligation is due. Nonsupport is a crime in a majority of states but prosecutions are uncommon.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.
Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.
All rights reserved.

desertion n. the act of abandoning, particularly leaving one’s spouse and/or children without an intent to return. In desertion cases it is often expected that a deserter who is the family breadwinner may not intend to support the family he/she left. Such conduct is less significant legally in the present era of no-fault divorce and standardized rights to child support and alimony (spousal support). Desertion can influence a court in determining visitation, custody and other post-marital issues.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill.
All Right reserved.

desertion noun abandonment, abandonment of allegiance, abjuration, absence without leave, act of forsaking, apostasy, AWOL, defection, departure, derelictio, disloyalty, flight, forsaking, forswearing, leaving, mutiny,quitting, recreancy, renouncement, renunciation, repudiation, resignation, secession, unlawful departure, willful abandonment

Associated concepts: constructive desertion, willful desertion

See also: absence, dereliction, disloyalty, flight, infidelity, revolt, schism, sedition

Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E.
Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton.
Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

DESERTION, torts. The act by which a man abandons his wife and children, or either of them.
2. On proof of desertion, the courts possess the power to grant the ‘Wife, or such children as have been deserted, alimony (q.v.)

DESERTION, MALICIOUS. The act of a husband or wife, in leaving a consort, without just cause, for the purpose of causing a perpetual separation. Vide Abandonment, malicious.

A Law Dictionary,
Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

******

“It might be said that it is perverse for a divorce lawyer and family court judge to be espousing laws and policies which will reduce family breakdown, and with it the need for such services. Like most family lawyers, I have seen at first hand too many of the consequences of family breakdown and too many consequences of the impact on children. If one result of these proposed reforms is less need for divorce lawyers then most in society will rejoice!”

CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD

David Hodson,
Chairman of the Family Law Review,
Centre for Social Justice

Posted in Civil Rights, Child Support, Maternal Rights, Parental Alienation, Paternal Rights, Divorce, Family, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »

Judge dismisses Lloyd EPO

September 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Judge dismisses Lloyd emergency protective order (EPO), due to the ex-wife having made false allegations, but as of now no decision has been made as to which of the two parents will have custody of the child at the core of the dispute.  That, according to the judge in Fleming County District Court, is up to the circuit court to decide.

The Ledger Independent
2 September 2010

Judge dismisses Lloyd EPO
By Misty Maynard, Staff Writer Ledger Independent

FLEMINGSBURG - Questions concerning custody of a daughter linger, but an emergency protective order secured by Fleming County Hospital Chief Executive Officer Davie Lloyd against ex-husband Brett Lloyd was dismissed during a hearing Thursday in Fleming County District Court….

During the EPO hearing, Hill pressed the judge for a ruling as to whether Brett Lloyd could secure the child, citing an order from the Montana First Judicial District Court that amended the parenting plan established at the time of the couple’s divorce. However, Probst said the issue of custody should be addressed in circuit court.

“Where it goes, I don’t control,” he said.

The original parenting plan established in 2004 allowed Brett Lloyd visitation every other weekend and for two weeks in the summer, as well as on alternating holidays. The new parenting plan, based on the new Montana ruling, established that the child should reside with Brett Lloyd, “subject to Davie’s parenting time, which shall be supervised and in the state of Montana.”

The new plan requires Davie Lloyd to have supervision during visitation because she “deliberately and maliciously” interfered with her ex-husband’s parental rights.

“Further, Davie is considered a ‘flight risk,’ having moved the minor child from one state to another and refusing to inform Brett of her physical location,” according to the plan….(Full Story)

Posted in Judiciary, Maternal Rights, False Allegations, Paternal Rights, Shared Parenting, Child Abduction, Child-Custody Awards, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

Women claim tribes won’t enforce child support

September 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Capitol Weekly (U.S.A.)
2 September 2010

Women claim tribes won’t enforce child support
By Malcolm Maclachlan

When Christina Brown got together with her soon-to-be ex-husband in the early 1990s, they were poor. But he’s a member of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. When the tribe’s casino opened up a few years later, the checks started rolling in, around $20,000 a month. They moved out of their mobile home into a big house. Nice cars and a 34-foot Fleetwood motor home followed.

After what she described as a worsening domestic situation, she left him in 2007. Brown, who noted that she once had a drug problem, said she’s been clean for years now.

But in other ways, her present looks a lot like her past. She’s on welfare and food stamps, living with her mother in a two-bedroom house, and running four payments behind on her car.

And there’s another crucial difference: she’s responsible for the children.  She has five over all — one before her husband, three with him and one after. The three youngest live with her, including two from her husband, but she says he hasn’t paid child support in years, despite the fact that he still gets thousands of dollars a month from the tribe.

“The court ordered him to make all these payments,” Brown said. “But I couldn’t garnish them.”….

“I didn’t mean for it to happen this way,” Brown said. “Trust me. I would have never had kids if I knew I was going to go this way. I would have gone straight education.”….(Full Story)

__________

Given that being a welfare mom as a career choice did not work out well for Christina Brown,  why does she not just give custody of her children to their respective fathers?  It looks as if at least two of her children would certainly be substantially better off.

She can then still pursue a career in education.  She is still young enough for that.  People have done it when they were in their seventies.  Perhaps it will not even cost her a dime to do so if things are similar to the way they are in Canada in that respect.  Status natives in Canada can obtain university degrees for free, with the government footing the bill.  They will not be required to run up the sometimes horrendous debts in doing so that normal mortals must labour under.

Mind you, it takes work to obtain a degree, and then it takes more work to earn a living, but, if the “government” pays for the degree, why not?   It is good for the self-esteem.

Posted in Child Support, Maternal Rights, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Family | Print | No Comments »

Starving for Justice

July 29, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

STARVING FOR JUSTICE.

Guest story by George Rolph

Writing in the Independent Johann Hari reported on July 2nd 2010 how Goldman Sachs and “its swarm of Wall Street allies” had been causing massive starvation and riots around the world by trading contracts made between farmers and traders as futures on the stock exchange.  (You can read his excellent piece here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html  )

In the article referenced above you can read the story of Abiba Getaneh. She is an Ethiopian mother. Pay attention to what she had to say about her hunger: “I felt like battery acid had been poured into my stomach as I starved….” She goes on to talk about the effects on her children too. My readers will, I am sure. feel horrified that the acts of some powerfully greedy little men and women in the West can have such terrible effects on people all over the world as their starvation buys these disgusting dead-hearted people a new work of art to hang in their massive houses or perhaps, a nice diamond bracelet to impress associates with.

This week I spent over four days with a man who knows the terrible pain that Abiba Getaneh and her children went through. He is feeling it right now. Today. His pitifully thin body has began to eat into the muscles because there is no fat left to consume as a source of energy. In his hollowed out face his eyes burn with a revolutionary zeal. His lips are set in grim determination. His skin, burnt by the sun to the colour of dried tobacco, is stretched tightly over his weakening skeleton. Every now and again his head and body lurch to the side as he retches. All that leaves his stomach is the water he has been drinking. Today, his pain has lasted twenty seven days and no end to it is in sight.

The differences between this man and Abiba are many and varied. There are, however, some differences that are deeply tragic. Abiba’s pain has ended now and she can eat again. His pain has not ended. It is fashionable for many in the rich West to feign concern for the Abiba’s of this world and to discuss her plight and those of her countrymen and women around the table at their dinner parties. Others have a genuine concern and will work themselves into the floor trying to get food aid to the starving all around the world. Still more will pour their money into charities like Oxfam, Save The Children, Christian Aid and others, with the poor giving proportionately more than the rich and not trying to claim it back on their taxes. This mans pain does not qualify for aid and even donations have been thin on the ground for his supporters. Unlike the Woman’s Movement who receive millions of pounds in aid from the government, the police and the public every year, the Men’s Movement get nothing and that is a quite deliberate political decision.

It has been ever thus. When I was once starving hungry it was a poor man and his wife who fed me from their meagre food supply. The rich turned away, muttering that I should, “Get a b****y job” and then walking on. Happy that they had voiced the outrage of their ‘enlightened’ selves, their colleagues and political masters but never once asking me how I came to be in that mess. Talking to me was beyond their Pharisaical nature. It was easier to walk by on the other side.

This starving man is called Len Miskulin. He is 59 years old. A deeply wounded father. An ex hard working and successful BT engineer, he is on a hunger strike and he is one of those sitting opposite Parliament on the pavement. He too has suffered the insults shouted from passing cars that he should “Get a b****y job.” Insults resulting from feelings stirred up by irresponsible journalists and the many thieving politicians in Westminster who would rather forget their own version of benefit fraud. Len receives no benefits from the State but loudmouthed, self righteous fools in passing cars do not know that.

Originally from Croatia he has been in this country for thirty five years. It was this country that stamped all over him. It was this country that invented the system that ripped his heart out. It was the people of this country that, by their complicit silence in the face of staggering pain and injustice for thousands of fathers like Len, walked by on the other side. It is the people and the governors of those people who allow thousands of men like Len Miskulin to suffer unbearable pain because of their inflexibility and sheer naked, ideologically driven greed, that seems coupled with a staggering degree of misplaced hate. Unlike Abiba there is no fashionable concern for Len. He is homeless. He is starving because no one cares. He is starving because of a deeply held grief that will not leave his soul in peace. When that battery acid pain that Abiba felt tears into Len’s stomach lining it serves only to bring to mind his two children that he has not seen in ten years and to increase his determination to go another day without food.

At the State opening of Parliament Len watched as the Queen and her retinue drove past in the carriages of State. He wondered if she noticed him sitting outside of his tent in clear view of the road as she went by. A huge sign telling any who would look his way that he was starving himself because of her judges and her politicians.

Did she look his way? I have no idea. What I do know is that she is not ignorant of what is being done to men like Len. Fathers4Justice campaigners who stormed her London palace in 2004 made sure of that. The contrast between her condition, described at the time by journalist Phillip Johnston writing in the Telegraph as, looking like “a picture of health” and the pitiful condition of Len Miskulin could not be greater.

Len Miskulin. Starving for Justice.

As I contemplated that contrast I amused myself with a fantasy to help break the depressing reality of Len’s condition threatening my mind. I imagined the impossible. The Queens carriage coming to a halt opposite the green at Westminster and her royal figure alighting from the carriage and walking — in all of her robes of state — over to the mess of tents. There she walked among some of her people who were, for a myriad of personal and political reasons, not enjoying life in her country. In my imagination I saw her leaning forwards to speak to Len who made no attempt to rise from his seat and saying, “And what do you do?”  Then I saw in my mind, Len push himself painfully from his folding chair and stand proudly before her on unsteady feet. I saw him fix his eyes upon hers with an unwavering and piercing gaze and tell her, respectfully, but forcefully, “I starve, your majesty, because your courts stole my children and stripped me of all my assets and my children’s inheritance.” I wondered if she would blush. I finally decided that she would not. Her mind would probably have wandered away from Len a split second after she had asked a question whose answer she had no interest in. Perhaps I do her an injustice. I doubt it. She has done nothing to show any support for the nations fathers since the feminist inspired war on them began. There is no capital to be gained for her, unlike during the war when her parents visited the bombed out buildings in the East End and announced that they could now look people in the eye. Somehow, between then and now the Royal family have lost their humanity and common touch. The Queens heart has hardened and she no longer cares except where she must pretend too care for reasons of diplomacy or publicity.

On Sunday evening I travelled from my home in Bromley to Len’s tent in Westminster to sit with him through the night in case the bailiffs came to turf him off the green so that Boris Johnson and those other stalwarts of humanity in the Houses of Commons and Lords would have a little less to complain about. I knew that the bailiffs would come with the police to back them up. I also knew that things might get nasty and if they did, the police would have their black uniformed thugs nearby at hand to stamp on those who resisted and possibly those who could not resist, like Len. I was determined to do what I could to passively protect him from any blows that might come his way. His health could not have stood a Tasering or kick to the belly from a psychopathic thug in armour. I wanted to try and see that such a thing did not happen to him. The bailiffs did not come that night. Instead, the police drove periodically around the green at four in the morning with the sirens screaming in an effort to make sure that no one slept. Coupled with the fact that they had made sure many of the toilets nearby were shut and, I am told, all water stand pipes had been shut off, who ever gave those orders to those unthinking robots who carried them out were like nasty children bullying the helpless for fun. This is what our country has come too and it is also the reason the camp on the green exists at all. Earlier in the day I had heard one of the peace camps inhabitants speaking to a foreign journalist who had said, with a nod towards the House of Commons, “Those people think you are nuts.” “Yes well.” The hippy replied. “Like attracts like so they could be right”

Today, Len is still there. He is enduring another day of self imposed agony because he has no other way to express his rage at what has been done to him. Unlike the feminists, the amorphous International Men’s movement has refrained from using violence to get its message across. Today, like every other day he has been there, the common tourists will come and speak to him and he will tell his tale for the thousandth time. They will photograph him and sympathise and hopefully, go home to tell their friends in their own country how the once most democratic country in the world is sliding into barbarism against its own fathers.

A few days ago, a male teacher led a sizable party of school children onto the green. They gathered around Len and began firing their questions at him in a polite and slightly bewildered way. Unable to raise his voice above the din of the traffic and weak from the sun and the corrosive acid eating at his stomach lining, I spoke up for him. As I told his story and answered their questions the teacher said nothing. He was letting the children experience the raw emotion of the situation for themselves. I was aware of the need not to frighten the children but also, not to shield them from the realities of life in the country they live in. I saw the shock in their eyes and knew they would talk about what they had heard to their parents and friends. Getting the message out to those who still have hearts that can feel compassion for their fellow man. Before they left I told them that their generation needed to find a better way than our incompetent generation had for dealing with the issues of family breakups. Len and I thanked them for asking their questions and being interested. Something we could not say to a single MP. One bright looking young girl replied, “No. Thank you both for being brave and telling us.” I was deeply moved. Both by the children’s natural concern for another and by the teachers amazing instincts for letting the children learn about life outside of their own realities. Something both politicians, the legal system and journalists are often reluctant to do when it comes to their own people.

Abiba Getaneh suffered her pain because of the impersonal and irresponsible greed of Goldman Sachs and others. Len is suffering his pain because of the closed minds of politicians and the greed of lawyers and judges who have devised a system steeped in astonishing cruelty and a secret process they can spin out for as long as they wish in order to keep the money rolling in. Tonight, somewhere in this country, a judge and lawyer will be dining out on money made from the misery of thousands of men like Len. All in the best interests of the child, of course. Most of those men will suffer in silence. Some will squeak out a weak protest online or by letters to their MP’s. Most will take pills for the depression they feel and try to go on living. Still more will kill themselves or drift into homelessness because their future has been stolen from them. Like those other victims of injustice, the men who are abused by their wives and partners in their homes everyday, they will look at people like David Cameron and Boris Johnson with undisguised disgust. They will do the same to our almost silent press who collude with MP’s, feminists and the police to walk past on the other side and to present misinformation to the public (See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKXVcUSBKH4  ) in a deliberate policy of propaganda and deception. And that is a further difference between Abiba Getaneh’s pain and Len Miskulin’s pain. Hers was caused by unthinking greed. Len’s is caused by greed and lies.

In his latest article for the Independent, brilliant journalist Johann Hari inadvertently mirrored the attitude of the establishment to fathers deprived of their very basic human right to have contact with their own children and be involved in their upbringing. He wrote about the Peace camps protesters and spoke eloquently and movingly about why their presence on the green was more important than Boris Johnsons aesthetic sensibilities, but he skimmed past Len Miskulin’s story with barely a nod in his direction.

He writes:

“As the months went on, the tent city developed and mutated each time I visited. More protesters arrived, with a more eclectic range of grievances. A man appeared announcing he was starving himself because the courts wouldn’t let him see his children: he hasn’t eaten for more than 20 days.”

This is the story behind the announcement Johann Hari so briefly reported. It is as moving and as sad as Abiba’s story and just as unnecessary. It is time we spoke out about these men like Len and let the world know that Britain does have a heart after all.

It does, doesn’t it?

Tomorrow is day twenty eight for Len’s pain. If you can pray and know how, please do.

George Rolph
Bromley. Kent

___________
Follow-up:

Video of Len Miskulin’s eviction from the Peace Camp, opposite from the Parliament, in London (video link provided by George Rolph).

I am sure that quite a few of us can say: There, but for the grace of God, goes I.

Posted in Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Divorce, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards | Print | No Comments »

Fathers Day Protest in Bangalore, India

June 21, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Videos of Father’s day Protest in Bangalore, India

By Anil Kumar <newageindian@gmail.com>

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:35:08 +0530

Hello Ed and all,

…videos of Father’s day protest at downtown Bangalore. The men shouted slogans against judiciary and Government for denial of access to children and shared parenting. Some men and children dressed up as mythological heroes. This is the 3rd year of Father’s day protest. They also made many conservative women to join the protest to support men.

• News in TV (1:46 min):
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC8OT1j-blE
• Detailed Video (6:31 min):
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxudTMMVFZc

www.crisp-india.org is the father’s and children’s rights front of men’s rights movement in India.

Best Regards
Anil

Posted in Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards | Print | No Comments »

Fighting for child custody

June 9, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Time and again I receive requests for help and advice on issues such as those outlined in the following.  I replied on average about once or twice each day during the past two weeks to such requests.

I write the advice I provided over and over, time and again.  I wrote the articles on how to select a lawyer so as to prevent me from having to write up such advice over and over.  The worst thing is that no matter what I write, post or state, extremely few people take any of it to heart.

“Bill” and “Rose” (not their real names) will have 18 to about 25 years of misery and financial hardship ahead of themselves.  They are being forced to dig a financial hole for themselves that they will most likely never be able to get out of — and even if they do, they and their kids will be set back for life.

In spite of that, it is not likely that they will do what is necessary.  Very few people will look past today.  The vast majority of those who read my advice will think it is too much work, give up, stick their heads in the sand and then get their butts shot off.  The good thing about that is that, with their heads in the sand, they will never see it coming.

Excuse my pessimism, but I am 74-years old now and have seen too much of the same thing happening, over and over.

Do you think I am wrong about it all?  Well, the website of Fathers for Life has been in existence for about 20 years.  How come that people like Bill and Rose never visited the website until they ran into trouble?

How come that the stuff I am writing about is not being taught in the schools?
–Walter

Rose wrote:

Hi there..my friend Bill is newly seperated from his girlfriend…upon seperating she agreed to week on week off custody.  1 1/2 weeks later as he returned to the apartment from the funeral of his best friend and cousin, he was presented with a lawyers letter stating she would allow him access to the child IF he didnt have him around certain people (who have no criminal record, who have years of experience in childcare, have strong educational backgrounds - one is a psw, the other has numerous diplomas and a degree which included study in psychology, etc as well as years of military service.) These said people were also the same people she depended upon, on many occasions to watch this child for her…while she worked, got groceries, etc etc and she never had a problem with them watching him until they noted suspecious behaviour on her part and told Glen.  Both can come up with wonderful letters of recomendation, etc.

He refuses to sign this document, as she is STILL trying to controll him.  During the relationship she was controlling and abusive…and neglectful to their son as well.

Since the breakup Bill has had joey for the first whole week (during which these above people watched him while glen was at work..and she even came over to interact with joey during that week while these people had him outside playing…if she was that concerned with the care, why did she leave him there?

She has no denied ALL access of Bill to joey for a little over 3 weeks.

Bill has very little in the way of money to spend on a lawyer..so I have been compiling the documents he needs and filling them out fo rhim as best I can.  We heard of a mens group who will help you fight for custody…and then I found this website…I am hoping you can help lead me in the right direction to find help for him, and have this father and son re-united.

In the conversation he had with her tonight..she is now claiming that william isn’t even Bill’s..and became very hostile when he suggested a paternity test be done…

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rose

My response:

From: Walter H. SchneiderTo: Rose

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:08 PM

Subject: Re: fighting for custody

Hello Rose,

If you tell me where you are located, I may be able to direct you to an organization near you.

Regards,

Walter

Rose responded:

Sorry  I  Should have insluded that.  We are located in Fredericton New Brunswick.

I responded:

Rose,

The “you” in the following refers to you and Bill.

There are two organizations in New Brunswick whom you should try to contact:

New Brunswick Children’s Equal Parenting Association
New Brunswick Shared Parenting Association

Ask both of them for advice.  If either one of them has meetings of its membership, you should try to attend.  You will learn more from individuals who are at various stages of their legal fights than you can from any lawyer.
The website of Fathers for Life and its associated blog contain a number of articles on how to select a lawyer.  Read those articles (some of them are repetitions) and learn what you should do in selecting a lawyer.

I know, you stated that Bill has little money.  It is up to you to determine whether Bill qualifies for Legal Aid.  If so, let him apply (and keep in mind that if she applies before Bill does, Bill will not be given Legal Aid — Legal Aid will not present both sides in a case).  If not, consider what the alternatives are.  Bill will potentially be forced to hand over about $250,000 to $500,000 in child support over the years, until the boy is mature or until he has finished his education, whichever comes later.

Denial of access or visitation needs to be assessed with respect to the custody and visitation order.  Interference with that order is a criminal offence.  However, the number of such offences that were prosecuted and punished in Canada can probably be counted on one hand.  I only know about two of them that were.  In both of those cases the fathers fighting for their rights went into bankruptcy.  Interestingly, neither of those fathers made any headway in court until after they went bankrupt, could no longer afford to pay their lawyers and began to represent themselves.  Great stuff, right? Legal victory predicated by financial self-immolation.

You will not gain any legal ground by trying to establish guilt.  For one thing, guilt is not punishable, and neither will be anything else be she may have done you don’t like.

Concentrate on what you primarily wish to achieve.  That is, regular and equitably-shared parenting, right?  Therefore, concentrate on what is best for the child.  Make an appearance that you are bending over backwards to please the mother, and that all else is in the best interest of the child.  However, make sure that the custody and visitation order contains a statement that specifies that the police must assist Bill if the mother should interfere with the court order.  Without that statement it is extremely unlikely that Bill will ever get the police to help him enforce his visitation rights, if that should become necessary.

You will need to file a statement of claim.  Keep that as short as possible, about a page to a page-and-a-half.  Use reference pointers to any supporting documentation.  Attach copies of the documentation and use tabs for each document, with each tab to correspond to the reference identifying the document in the statement of claim.

Learn about the rules of the court. Visit the local law library.  Find case law, that is: evidence of judgments in similar cases.

Keep tabs on what your lawyer does.  He works for you.  You must be quite clear on what you want him to do.  Make sure he does the right thing at the right time and at the right place.  Keep in mind that the lawyer will get paid whether you win or lose your case.

Try to keep your case out of the family-court system.  The family-court system is ostensibly in place to help individuals with family issues.  The reality is somewhat different.

The family-court system was put into place for no other reason than to expedite the dissolution of marriages, when the liberation of the divorce laws and the establishment of the principle of “no-fault” divorce created an insurmountable backlog of divorce applications.  (Read more: Freedom, Equality, and Society’s Treatment of Men and Families )

A secondary result that evolved over the close to 40-years time of the family-court system’s existence was that family courts evolved into a system for putting men and especially fathers into their place, which place, according to feminist doctrine, is for fathers to be without and not within families.  That is being accomplished by having the rules of the court and the rules of evidence no longer apply in family court. (Read more: Family court to men - ‘Just shut up and pay’; Bias and injustice in our family court system the root cause of many murder- suicides; Note: you can find much more information on family-court issues by searching the website of Fathers for Life for “family court”. )

The best thing you can do to help Bill is to bring Bill’s case into regular court, were his chance to receive justice according to the law will be considerably better.  However, the chances that Bill will gain anything are slim, about one in ten.  Bill most likely will at best only obtain standard visitation (one weekend every two weeks, plus half of vacation and one out of every two holidays).

In general, the only thing that Bill can be sure about is that he will be sentenced to pay for having become a father, that and that he will be ordered to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years.

Here now is the most important aspect of Bill’s whole case.

It is of course possible that Bill is the natural father of the young boy, but if I were in your position, I would make absolutely sure that the boy is Bill’s biological offspring.  The chances are on average one against two that the boy is not Bill’s child.

If Bill’s paternity has been established on the basis of DNA paternity testing, then it is reasonable for Bill to fight for regular access to the boy or perhaps even for fully shared custody.  Without proof of paternity, Bill should refuse to pay child support, and he should not bother to attempt to obtain visitation rights. (See also: Pregnant on the Sly; Table of Contents — Paternity Fraud)  Mind you, once there is a court order that sentences Bill to pay child support, then there is not much he can do (other than to try to have the court order overturned) than to pay, or else he will be breaking the law.

Regards,

Walter

Posted in Suicides, Divorce, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | 8 Comments »

On-going custody battle

April 5, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Today  a deserted and frustrated father wrote to me about his on-going attempts to follow his ex for thousands of miles, so as to be able to continue to play a role in his daughters’ life.

While the man was involved in custody hearings in a province in Central-Canada, his ex-common-law-wife had moved to a city in Western Canada.

Here is my response.

Hello Bill (not the real name),

As I read your account, the first thing that came to my mind is that you described a case of parental kidnapping.  Of course, I have no way of knowing whether a visitation agreement was in place then (you stated that you were fighting for one) and whether the visitation order included a provision for prohibiting one or the other parent from moving away from the other, beyond a specified distance or travelling time.

I am getting a bit too old for all of this (I am 73), but it appears that you are quite right, you need to get in touch with people in your locality.  There used to be about three organizations in Calgary that were active, but lately I have not heard much from or about them (MESA, Family of Men and ECMAS).

Here is the latest list I know that contains links to Alberta organizations, some of whom are located in Calgary.

http://www.canadianequalparentinggroups.ca/

From that:

Alberta
Fathers For Life (ours, near Edmonton)
Family of Men Support Society (Calgary)
Men’s Educational Support Association (M.E.S.A.) (Calgary)
Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality (M.E.R.G.E.) (Edmonton, but that organization focuses primarily on equitable “gender” rights for all seven “genders”)
Orphaned Grandparents Association Resource Centre (near Edmonton, as far as I know)
The Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society (E.C.M.A.S.) (Edmonton chapter; the founder was the same as that for MERGE; there was once a separate Calgary chapter that formed a separate organization under the same name after a rift with the Edmonton chapter had developed)

A few observations on Fathers Rights or Parenting Rights organizations

There are close to 50,000 active case files that are being held by Alberta Maintenance Enforcement.  Roughly one-third of those involves cases in the Calgary area, another third involves cases in the Edmonton area, and the remaining third involves the rest of the province.

I have been actively involved with fathers rights since about 1990, which led me in about 1994 to begin with the website Fathers for Life.

Right from the start I noticed that there was hardly ever more than about a dozen or a little more of truly active fathers rights activists in Alberta.  The largest public demonstrations that were ever held (in one case a picketing action in front of Anne McLellan’s constituency office) mustered no more than about 60 picketers from a large variety of organizations of whom some only remotely ever worried about fathers rights.

It can be argued that personal agendas and lack of charisma of the leaders led to low membership numbers of various Fathers Rights or Parenting Rights organizations, but it would be wrong to put too much blame in that respect on the leaders of such organizations.

The problem is universal.  It applies in all major Canadian cities and in all provinces across Canada.  The apathy exists as well in all of North America and throughout all of the developed nations.  Increasingly, the general apathy emerges in the developing nations.

It may be looked at as battle fatigue by people who wish to uphold family values in a culture that actively promotes an all-out war against the family; there is that and much more involved.  The website of Fathers for Life extensively explores the concept of the war against the family and related concepts that apply.

The fact remains that not only active participants and victims of judicial persecution such as you are largely apathetic, but that the general public is apathetic as well.  There is not a ground-swell of support for the family.  The lack of public support means that politicians do not have to give pro-family sentiments a great deal of attention, which is the major reason why for every dollar of funding for programs and actions in support of the family there are about a thousand dollars of funding to sponsor programs and actions that aim at dismantling and systematically deconstructing the institution of the traditional nuclear family.

Given the lack of concern by politicians, a plethora of government agencies has a free hand to pursue its family-hostile aims.  Those aims — let there be no mistake about it — strongly lean toward the extreme radical left.  Their leanings are strongly Marxist.  Marxism has throughout its existence been strongly anti-family.  That is not too surprising, as the historical roots of Marxism (an age-old yearning toward Paradise on Earth, that is, a socialist Utopia) have always been strongly anti-family.  Socialism, especially in totalitarian socialist regimes throughout history aimed at best at strong state-control of the family and at worst at the total abolition of the family.

Igor Shafarevich, a world-renowned mathematician and a contemporary of Alexander Solzhenitsyn expressed those ideas best, in his book The Socialist Phenomenon.

It would seem that socialist ideology has the ability to stamp widely separated or even historically unlinked socialist currents with indelible and stereotyped markings.

It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been indicated above. They are:

• Abolition of private property.
• Abolition of the family.
• Abolition of religion.
• Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.

The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently, by a clearly discernible overall thrust.

Our perspective on socialism takes into account only one of the dimensions in which this phenomenon unfolds. Socialism is not only an abstract ideological system but also the embodiment of that system in time and space. Therefore, having sketched in its outlines as an ideology, we now ought to be able to explain in what periods and within what civilization socialism arises, whether in the form of doctrine, popular movement or state structure. But here the answer turns out to be far less clear. While the ideology of socialism is sharply defined, the occurrence of socialism can hardly be linked to any definite time or civilization. If we consider the period in the history of mankind which followed the rise of the state as an institution, we find the manifestations of socialism, practically speaking, in all epochs and in all civilizations. It is possible, however, to identify epochs when socialist ideology manifests itself with particular intensity. This is usually at a turning point in history, a crisis such as the period of the Reformation or our own age. We could simply note that socialist states arise only in definite historical situations, or we could attempt to explain why it was that the socialist ideology appeared in virtually finished and complete form in Plato’s time. We shall return to these questions later. But in European history, we cannot point to a single period when socialist teachings were not extant in one form or another. It seems that socialism is a constant factor in human history, at least in the period following the rise of the state. Without attempting to evaluate it for the time being, we must recognize socialism as one of the most powerful and universal forces active in a field where history is played out.

[200]

Igor Shafarevich
The Socialist Phenomenon, [7] p. 200

All of that is a lot of information you did not ask for.  However, I feel that the best service I can provide for you is to put your personal experiences regarding the futility of your attempts to enforce your paternal “rights” into the context of the history of the social evolution and the apparent current decline of civilization.

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction | Print | 1 Comment »