 | |
| VIDEO UPDATED: 7 hour standoff over, home reduced to rubble | |
| Last Updated: Friday, May 18th, 2012 | 12:15pm PDT | Story by: Chad Harris |
Showing posts with label canadian divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canadian divorce. Show all posts
Friday, May 18, 2012
More turmoil over divorce
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Warning to Men: Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse– New Alimony Law
Warning to Men: Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse– New Alimony Law
You can’t quarrel with the fact that a stay-at-home mom, who has been married for 20 years, has three kids and has never worked, is a worthy recipient of spousal support. And, believe me…she needs it.
It took some time for Canadian men to accept that if they had income and their ex-wife did not, they were bound to pay some spousal support, even if their spouse left the marriage or worse even took up with another partner. Forty-years ago it was not too big a “hit”, as our Courts favored a “clean break” approach, meaning not much support, for not very long.
A few years later, as lawyers, legislators and judges encouraged and promoted support agreements, supported spouses who entered into separation agreements, but wanted or needed more support, had to prove their increased need was based on a “radical” change in their circumstances, causally related to the marriage. That too posed a challenge for women seeking support and carried on the pattern of low support orders for limited periods of time.
In the 1990’s the law changed rapidly and saw more women getting more support for longer periods of time, until 2006 when the federal government empowered law professors Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson to create “Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines”, which though never passed into law, were quickly adopted by all the Provinces.
This was real change. It became more difficult for a smooth-talking lawyer to convince a judge that the old rules still applied, namely that spousal support should be “short and not sweet”. The Guidelines provided schedules based on the payor’s income that introduced consistency in support awards across Canada and the new theme meant that men had to dig deeper and pay for a much longer period of time, even indefinitely.
Any hope of reprieve for long-time support payors was that when their financial circumstances changed due to illness, retirement or the vicissitudes of life, they could go back to court and apply for a reduction in spousal support, based on a “material change” in circumstances, theirs or their ex-spouse’s.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada gave short shrift to support payors’ “faint-hope”. What the majority of the Court said was because a separation “may result in dramatic life changes and emotional stress…these circumstances give rise to the possibility that the ability of separating spouses to realistically and objectively assess their current and future needs and preferences, can be impaired”.
In other words, don’t count on a separation agreement dealing with spousal support to be upheld in Canada. The Court held that the notion that separation agreements should be accorded “significant weight…is problematic”. Now they tell us?
Lawyers, who have been criticized for years, for “promoting” litigation, have just learned that Canada’s highest court eschews long-held contract principles of finality and certainty, comparing them to the condemned “clean break” approach of the 1970’s.
For what good it does, it must be noted that Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Cromwell took a different view, holding that a support agreement plays a central role in the variation of a support order. They voiced puzzlement at the logic employed by the majority of the court, saying their approach is at odds with the “basic purpose of agreements, namely to apportion the risks of future uncertain events in order to achieve finality and certainty.”
What is certain is that while there is a new wave of American lawmakers restricting long-term alimony, Canada is on the opposite track. If this is the Court’s way of discouraging divorce, they may be on to something.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Another good post
Here is another good post from one of my favorite bloggers, Check it out...
Sep
Even Divorce Lawyers Can’t Afford a Divorce Lawyer
Posted September 8, 2011 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law, Judges, Lawyers. Tagged: Family Court, in-person litigants, lay litigants, Queen's Bench, self-represented litigants, Supreme Court. 4 Comments
It should come as no surprise to anyone that most Canadians cannot afford a lawyer. In fact, lawyers often joke that if they had to pay a lawyer, they too couldn’t afford it. Nowhere is this dilemma more obvious than in family courts.
It is now commonplace to see self-represented litigants dueling with lawyers in most of our family courts in Canada. In British Columbia a parent or spouse can apply for custody and child and spousal support in the Provincial Court, which is purposely “user-friendly”. The Provincial Family Courts across Canada have successfully implemented reforms including plain-language court documents that are readily decipherable by lay litigants. The judges in Provincial Court are accustomed to hearing cases without lawyers and graciously assist those who act for themselves.
However, to obtain a divorce or property division, the only venue is each province’s Supreme Court, sometimes called “Queen’s Bench”, a most inhospitable environment for in-person litigants.
In a 2011 survey of Ontario divorce lawyers, conducted by Professor Nick Bala of Queen’s University Law School, he found that 48% of 167 responding lawyers indicated they were seeing many cases with at least one lay litigant and more cases where at some point in the litigation, neither party had counsel.
As family law becomes increasingly more complicated, despite the Canadian government’s sensible introduction of both Child Support Guidelines in 1997 and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in 2006, there are minefields enough for lawyers, never mind those who are forced to act as their own lawyer.
Will a lay litigant understand that in calculating their income for the payment of child support they must consider and understand complex nuances such as the possibility of the exclusion of non-recurring income; the need to include all of their capital gains income in their calculation and not just the portion they see on page two of their tax return; and their ability to deduct business expenses, union or professional dues and carrying costs? I doubt it. Not all lawyers have figured it out yet!
But affordability is not the only reason litigants refuse to retain counsel. There is another group of litigants who believe they can handle their divorce case just as well as a lawyer can. This smaller segment often become serial litigators who, because it costs them nothing, bring multiple frivolous applications, although some would say that lawyers do the same thing! Often when offered pro bono counsel, they decline.
Problems abound for all involved in the family justice system in the wake of the impact of lay litigants. Judges who must ensure that justice is both done, and seen to be done, are at the centre of the dilemma. If they provide too much help for an in-person litigant, that litigant’s spouse will see it as an unfair advantage and often, the court Rules that govern court procedures are less stringently enforced when it comes to litigants with no lawyer.
As well, litigants that pay for their own lawyer often become disenchanted with their counsel when they see their lawyer “helping” their estranged spouse who has no counsel. Lawyers are bound to treat participants in the justice system with courtesy and respect, traits that are frequently misconceived as their lawyer being “too friendly” with their opponent. Fee-paying litigants resent their lawyer telling their spouse what the law is or how the court process works.
For lawyers the problems are multiplied. They must walk a fine line in dealing with an unrepresented spouse and must ensure that all communication with an in-person litigant is documented in writing, with no exceptions. Of course, their clients are even more unhappy since it is their clients who pay the bills for the extra time and effort required to work with a lay litigant.
Lay litigants have also been known to send abusive communication to their spouse’s lawyer and from time to time, report their spouse’s lawyer to the Law Society, a complaint which can cost a lawyer hours of wasted time to respond to the often ill-founded allegations.
Is there a cure? They say that recognizing a problem is the first step to solving it. Certainly,the issue can no longer be avoided. It has taken centre stage as a result of lawyers, judges, court administrators, law professors,lawmakers, and the Canadian public decrying the slow demise of Canada’s family justice system.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Sep
Even Divorce Lawyers Can’t Afford a Divorce Lawyer
Posted September 8, 2011 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law, Judges, Lawyers. Tagged: Family Court, in-person litigants, lay litigants, Queen's Bench, self-represented litigants, Supreme Court. 4 Comments
It should come as no surprise to anyone that most Canadians cannot afford a lawyer. In fact, lawyers often joke that if they had to pay a lawyer, they too couldn’t afford it. Nowhere is this dilemma more obvious than in family courts.
It is now commonplace to see self-represented litigants dueling with lawyers in most of our family courts in Canada. In British Columbia a parent or spouse can apply for custody and child and spousal support in the Provincial Court, which is purposely “user-friendly”. The Provincial Family Courts across Canada have successfully implemented reforms including plain-language court documents that are readily decipherable by lay litigants. The judges in Provincial Court are accustomed to hearing cases without lawyers and graciously assist those who act for themselves.
However, to obtain a divorce or property division, the only venue is each province’s Supreme Court, sometimes called “Queen’s Bench”, a most inhospitable environment for in-person litigants.
In a 2011 survey of Ontario divorce lawyers, conducted by Professor Nick Bala of Queen’s University Law School, he found that 48% of 167 responding lawyers indicated they were seeing many cases with at least one lay litigant and more cases where at some point in the litigation, neither party had counsel.
As family law becomes increasingly more complicated, despite the Canadian government’s sensible introduction of both Child Support Guidelines in 1997 and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in 2006, there are minefields enough for lawyers, never mind those who are forced to act as their own lawyer.
Will a lay litigant understand that in calculating their income for the payment of child support they must consider and understand complex nuances such as the possibility of the exclusion of non-recurring income; the need to include all of their capital gains income in their calculation and not just the portion they see on page two of their tax return; and their ability to deduct business expenses, union or professional dues and carrying costs? I doubt it. Not all lawyers have figured it out yet!
But affordability is not the only reason litigants refuse to retain counsel. There is another group of litigants who believe they can handle their divorce case just as well as a lawyer can. This smaller segment often become serial litigators who, because it costs them nothing, bring multiple frivolous applications, although some would say that lawyers do the same thing! Often when offered pro bono counsel, they decline.
Problems abound for all involved in the family justice system in the wake of the impact of lay litigants. Judges who must ensure that justice is both done, and seen to be done, are at the centre of the dilemma. If they provide too much help for an in-person litigant, that litigant’s spouse will see it as an unfair advantage and often, the court Rules that govern court procedures are less stringently enforced when it comes to litigants with no lawyer.
As well, litigants that pay for their own lawyer often become disenchanted with their counsel when they see their lawyer “helping” their estranged spouse who has no counsel. Lawyers are bound to treat participants in the justice system with courtesy and respect, traits that are frequently misconceived as their lawyer being “too friendly” with their opponent. Fee-paying litigants resent their lawyer telling their spouse what the law is or how the court process works.
For lawyers the problems are multiplied. They must walk a fine line in dealing with an unrepresented spouse and must ensure that all communication with an in-person litigant is documented in writing, with no exceptions. Of course, their clients are even more unhappy since it is their clients who pay the bills for the extra time and effort required to work with a lay litigant.
Lay litigants have also been known to send abusive communication to their spouse’s lawyer and from time to time, report their spouse’s lawyer to the Law Society, a complaint which can cost a lawyer hours of wasted time to respond to the often ill-founded allegations.
Is there a cure? They say that recognizing a problem is the first step to solving it. Certainly,the issue can no longer be avoided. It has taken centre stage as a result of lawyers, judges, court administrators, law professors,lawmakers, and the Canadian public decrying the slow demise of Canada’s family justice system.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Another good website, I wonder if we can get Canadian issues...
Another good website, I wonder if we can get Canadian issues and maybe other countries as well involed with this site... It would be very helpful
http://www.mensrights.com/
http://www.mensrights.com/
Friday, August 26, 2011
Civil rights blog
I have just copied and pasted this from the front page of a great blog, I hope you go there and read it, I am only trying to give him more exposure... Things have got to change!!!!!
CIVIL RIGHTS BLOG
CRB
CANADA
Canadian Charter of Rights
Human rights experts have considered the cases of child support orders in Canada for "children of the marriage" and find that these cases are politically motivated, and another example of a growing trend of authorities using the law to silence inconvenient opposition.
Join our forum and speak out against the abuses against men in Canada by the Canadian Judical System. Why against men because statistics show that the orders are 97% against men.
Contact us by emailing
editor@civilrightsblog.org
Topics are illegal child support orders in the name of Children of the Marriage and unreasonable spousal support orders.
Nobody should pay child support for children of the marriage of for children that are not theirs biologically. This is a financial scam for women against men to collect extra money.
The Biological father should be the one forced to pay more if more child support money is required.
Paying child support in Canada for children of the marriage is illegal and immoral and should be outlawed. Just because the courts order it doesn't make it legal.
Stand up for your civil-rights and say NO!!!! I will not allow you to abuse my rights.
Unsubstantiated spousal support is an other illegal action by the BC-Canadian courts. All claims must be justified by documentation and not accepted by simple affidavits supplied by enraged a ex-spouse.
No one should be made to pay spousal support higher than ones substantiated income.
British Columbia and the Attorney General Wally Opal do nothing and allow polygamy and underage marriage in BC. 2008 (click here for article)
Manitoba AG goes overboard to have men jailed, reputations destroyed and all assets seized as well as outrageous fines for civil disobedience.
What does the Canadian Civil Liberties Association say about child support for children of the marriage. Nothing they won't respond. Does the CCLA not want to challenge any unpopular rulings that may affect their funding sources?.
If all men in Canada that have been ordered to pay child support for their non-biological children (Children of the Marriage) refused to pay then this atrocity of a law against men will go away. The prisons wouldn't be big enough to house them all. Men in Canada why don't you stand up for your civil rights? This is a nothing other than a government driven scam for women to collect money from men.
Child Support Billing Errors and/or Questionable Practices of Canadian Enforcement Agencies for the Canadian Children of the Marriage Law-Scam.
Would you please distribute this message widely to all interested individuals and groups: It is apparent from our correspondence with statistics Canada that there is no interest into disseminating this information. The Canadian law regarding children of the marriage is nothing other than a financial money grab for the benefit of women and supported by politicians and women's rights groups.
If you feel you have been ordered to pay child support that you believe you do not owe for reasons of Children of the Marriage Law, or you believe you have experienced a questionable practice by a enforcement agency in regard to child support payments, then civilrightsblog.org (CRB) wants to hear from you.
Civilrightsblog (www.civilrightsblog.org), a national nonprofit educational organization, is gathering nationwide information regarding child support billing errors and/or questionable practices of child support agencies in Canada.
Perhaps your credit report has been affected by the alleged child support arrearage or your driver's license or business license has been threatened with suspension. Perhaps your income tax refund has been intercepted or your bank account has been seized when you believe child support was not due. Or, perhaps you have been arrested or threatened with arrest due to what you believe is an error or questionable child support policy.
Maybe you believe your child support payment has been collected by the child support agency, is "stuck in the system," and has not been accurately distributed to the custodial parent.
If you are a custodial parent, perhaps you know that child support money has been paid into the child support agency by the noncustodial parent, but you believe that the collected child support is being held by the agency instead of being forwarded to the custodial parent and children.
There may be any number of scenarios in addition to the above. We want to hear your feedback.
If you have information that you feel would be of interest to civilrightsblog.org regarding child support (children of the marriage), we would like to hear from you also.
Would you please contact the editor by sending an e-mail to: editor@civilrightsblog.org
IMPORTANT: Would you please enclose in your e-mail message to civilrightsblog.org the following information? (All information will be kept confidential).
1. Your name (last name is optional), telephone number and e-mail address.
2. Your province and city in which you live.
3. The city, county, and province where your child support order is from, i.e., where you pay your child support to or your employer sends the garnishments to.
4. Description of your error or concern and the effect it has had on you and your family, including your extended family and your children.
5. Have you or someone you know been wrongfully arrested or threatened with arrest regarding child support? Please describe your experience.
6. Do you give civilrightsblog.org permission to contact you at the e-mail address or phone number you indicated so that we may gather more information from you? Yes? No?
Thank you in advance for your responses to this message. Your help is greatly appreciated. Please note that personal responses to all of your messages will not be possible due to time constraints and the anticipated volume of responses, but all of your responses will be read and appreciated.
Please note: Civilrightsblog.org (CRB) is an educational nonprofit organization. We do not offer legal advice.
No! Canada
Alimony or spousal support for more than one year and child support for non-paternal children is a unconstitutional servitude against men.
The national anthem of Canada – O Canada! – states “true patriot love in all thy sons command” and that citizens “stand on guard for thee.”
“True patriot love?” Hardly.
“Stand on guard?” Absolutely, but not necessarily for the reasons the patriot songwriter intended.
Based on Canada’s track record of abuse and injustice towards many of its populace, it’s more appropriate for Canadians to be shouting No! Canada … or for them to be on guard, looking over their shoulders to see what their often-misguided Government is up to next.
What’s behind these seemingly shocking statements? Canada, under the guise of democracy, is perpetrating International Sovereignty rights abuses against some of its male citizens by having child support orders placed against them … fully knowing that these men are not the paternal parents of the children.
Further, these child support orders can be turned on and off at the whim of a Judge or Master. Not only that, but more than one male can be made to pay child support – the paternal father and SEVERAL stepfathers as the case may be -- if any of the stepfathers decide to separate or divorce. This is a clear abuse of an individual’s civil rights … and for that matter, it is unconstitutional. To have more than one individual, other than the natural father, pay child support is nothing more than a government-backed racket for women.
How can this occur? Canada's Constitution is not a single document as in the United States. It is made up of acts of the British and Canadian Parliaments, as well as legislation, judicial decisions, and agreements between the federal and provincial governments. Therefore, with this multilateral judicial framework, the Canadian government easily can abuse the civil rights of its populace.
Share Your Struggles
This site is dedicated to fighting child support orders placed against no parental individuals and abusive alimony payments not in conformity with reasonable regard for an individual’s ability to pay. This website was created to discuss and take international legal action against countries that allow lawmakers to abuse their powers. The editor of this site believes the world should know how Canada’s laws abuse the civil and human rights of many individuals.
It is also the intent of this website to list rights abuses by corporations. In addition, individual cases will be listed on this web site if information is available.
If you are experiencing or know of similar abuse, please contact the editor@civilrightsblog.org for possible posting of the information to this web site.
O Canada!: Violating the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
Every day since its signing, Canada violates the human rights treaty agreement it signed at the United Nations. You don't have to go to Nicaragua or Uganda to see civil rights abuses … they occur every day in Canada … in particular, denying passports to males who refuse to pay child support for children that are not their paternal children.
See what Canada violates by reviewing the highlighted sections of the “UN Declaration of Human Rights” link above. Summarized here, key items include:
· Passport Seizure for nonpayment of child support …even when the children aren't your own.
· Social Security seizure for nonpayment of child support … even when the children aren't your own.
Only in Canada is child support for non-parental children forced onto males.
No Help from Hague
The Hague Conference on Private International Law -- at one time a bastion of protection for human and civil rights abuses -- will not review child support and family maintenance abuses by countries. Neither will the Supreme Court of the United States. Is this because those revered institutions know the abuses exist and they don’t want to find countries and themselves in contempt of civil rights? The only thing the Hague is interested in is how countries can enforce each others’ maintenance obligations. Does the end, in this case, justify the means? You decide … visit the Hague website at The Hague.
Illegal, Abusive, Court-Directed Power in Canada
Described in the link above is a perfect example of illegal, abusive, court-directed power: Justice Canada’s abuse with the help of the British Columbia courts. Justice Canada has changed what once was a democracy to a prime example of socialism or communism. Just because the system makes it legal does not necessarily make it moral!
A perfect example of constitutionality and civil rights abuses against a male in Canada is the case of JOANNE GRACE HILTON aka JOANNE GRACE KEDDY of Prince George, British Columbia, Canada … with the help of the British Columbia Supreme Court. In this case, a non-paternal parent is being persecuted internationally to support another man's child. In addition, the non-paternal parent also has had alimony imposed at a rate equivalent to five times more than he earned at the time of the judgment!
O Canada!: A Throwback to Totalitarianism
Not since 1935 and the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler has a country created family laws in the name of justice that circumvent and give powers of Justice Canada to the provinces and then to government enforcement branches.
After creating these family laws, a Gestapo – also know as Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) unit -- is formed, with unlimited powers to seize assets of private individuals without further hearing. These individuals are men that are not the paternal father of children, either by birth or through adoption. The actual father may be paying child support – as perhaps he should -- but a Judge or Master also can order the stepfather, or event stepfathers, to pay … and pay more than the paternal father!
All of the fancy words of constitutionality contained in Canada’s United Nations human rights treaty mean nothing to Justice Canada and its enforcement branches. Even the indirect threat of death is used by the enforcement branches in an attempt to collect child support for non-parental children. If an individual does this to another individual, it is called extortion. In Canada, however, it is legal if the government does it!
O Canada!: Wake Up
O Canada, wake up before it is too late … you have screamed of human rights abuses in Africa but in your own country you turn a deaf ear to similar misbehavior.
Justice Canada says it’s being done for the children but it appears to be more like a play for ultimate power OVER the people – as opposed to the more democratic “power TO the people” -- and nothing else.
Protect Yourself: Know Who You Are!
Both the Supreme Court and the Provincial (Family) Court can -- one might say WILL -- make orders for child support under the Family Relations Act of divorced or separated stepparents … whether these individuals were married or living common-law.
Definitions play an important role in determining eligibility and responsibility (so says Justice Canada) for child support under the Family Relations Act, just as they do under the Divorce Act. Section 88 of the Family Relations Act states that each parent of a child is responsible for the support of that child, and s. 1(1) defines a "child" and a "parent" as follows:
-- "Child" means a person under the age of 19 years
-- "Parent" includes:
-- (a) a guardian or guardian of the person of a child, or
-- (b) a stepparent of a child if
-- (i) the stepparent contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for at least one year.
Legal Racketeers
In addition to the potential to receive child support from multiple males – spouses and who knows how many ex-spouses -- the pay-per-child racket seems to be catching on even more these days!
The most recently elected Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, successfully ran on a political platform that included a Canadian federal government payment of $100 a month per child to mothers of children six years old or less. With this kind of incentive, can a population boom be far behind? Let potential spouses beware!
How Idiotic is Canadian Parliament and Legal system or the new social security for women only. "O Canada" please wake up before its to late. Click here to see.
SPOUSAL SUPPORT OR ALIMONY IN CANADA (The new social security for women only or why we hate men.)
Stats Canada's official view on child support for children of the marriage-non biological parents.
Subject: Child support orders against non biological fathers.
Question:
To whom it may concern at Stats Canada.
As you are aware Canada as most countries have child support orders that are issued by various court in Canada.
We are trying to establish a breakdown of those #'s by how many child support orders have been issued in Canada against non-biological parents, eg: children of the marriage- stepparents versus biological parents.
If this information is not disseminated or available can you advise as to why it isn't.
Answer:
Thank you for contacting Statistics Canada.
In regard to your request on orders on children of the marriage-non biological fathers, we have contacted the division that oversees this subject matter and they have provided the following information:
"We have consulted our senior analyst for the Child Support and Maintenance Enforcement Survey and unfortunately, the our survey does not collect the variables - step parent, or biological parent. When a survey is being developed, consultations take place with all of our partners in the provinces and territories and set data requirements are established following these consultations. The step-parent or biological parent was not brought forth as a requirement in the provincial/territorial/federal consultations.
However, remains that some provinces might have a need for this type of info and will retain this variable and store the information while others may not have any need for this variable so it is not document nor stored electronically. Are you interested in a particular province, if so, we have the contact name of the Director of each provincial/territorial program which I can share with you. Please advise".
If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to contact us at info stats@statcan.ca or at 1 800 263 1136.
Regards,
Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
National Contact Centre | Centre national de contact
Client Services Division | Division des services à la clientèle
R.H. Coats Building 1 W | Immeuble R.-H.-Coats 1 O
100 Tunney's Pasture Driveway | 100, promenade du Pré Tunney | Ottawa, ON, K1A 0T6
613-951-8116 | toll free/sans frais 1-800-263-1136 (Canada and/et USA)
facsimile / télécopieur 613-951-0581 or/ou 1-877-267-4369
TTY / ATS 800-363-7629
infostats@statcan.gc.ca
www.statcan.ca
Government of Canada | Government du Canada
The names of individuals falsifying records and then perjuring themselves at FMEP of British Columbia are CATHI BASHI, Enforcement Manager, and DIANE COURSER, a commissioner for taking affidavits for the British Columbia FMEP. For the rest of the story, visit Illegal, Abusive, Court-Directed Power in Canada
Statistics Canada Child and Spousal Support:
Maintenance Enforcement Survey Statistics 2000-2005
This survey is so flawed and unrealistic that it only goes to show that a government such as Canada would create employment to prepare this type of report.
There are perhaps only a few interesting points that have come out of this survey and I will attempt to post them and some appropriate unanswered questions.
1) Of the 39,783 cases in British Columbia, 97% are male payers.
2) Of the 39,783 cases in British Columbia, only 3% are female payers.
3) Of the 39,783 cases in British Columbia, 1% are listed as “other”.
Unfortunately, after the above numbers, additional statistics mean less or are completely inaccurate in the report.
Of all the cases in British Columbia, 94% of the FMEP caseload involves children.
The question, then, is of all those cases how many are “children of the marriage” and not paternal children?
The next question is, how many males are paying child support for the same child?
There is also a major error Statistics Canada misreports. It states that British Columbia is an opt-in province for enforcement. This is incorrect. The truth is that if you receive any social assistance or the payer is in arrears, then you are automatically enrolled in FMEP enforcement cases in British Columbia.
Statistics Canada, as usual, produces useless and incorrect information.
Question: How many of the child support cases handled by FMEP are for children that have more than one order against a male for payment of child support? In Canada, many men have and will be court-ordered to pay child support for the same child whether the paternal parent or not. So again, the statistics are skewed. Naturally, Canada will not divulge this information for fear of having the United Nations review them for human rights abuses on the issue.
It is the Editor’s opinion that ordering a nonpaternal parent, as well as the paternal parent, to pay child support at the same time is illegal and a direct violation of civil and human rights.
Can this happen in the USA? Can Child support be ordered against a non-biological father in the US? Well click here to find out how this nightmare is starting to unravel even in the US.
Remember the intentions may be good but the fallout will eventually allow for child support scams against men in the US as is the case in Canada.
To contribute to or comment about the content of this site, contact the editor at editor@civilrightsblog.org.
http://civilrightsblog.org
CIVIL RIGHTS BLOG
CRB
CANADA
Canadian Charter of Rights
Human rights experts have considered the cases of child support orders in Canada for "children of the marriage" and find that these cases are politically motivated, and another example of a growing trend of authorities using the law to silence inconvenient opposition.
Join our forum and speak out against the abuses against men in Canada by the Canadian Judical System. Why against men because statistics show that the orders are 97% against men.
Contact us by emailing
editor@civilrightsblog.org
Topics are illegal child support orders in the name of Children of the Marriage and unreasonable spousal support orders.
Nobody should pay child support for children of the marriage of for children that are not theirs biologically. This is a financial scam for women against men to collect extra money.
The Biological father should be the one forced to pay more if more child support money is required.
Paying child support in Canada for children of the marriage is illegal and immoral and should be outlawed. Just because the courts order it doesn't make it legal.
Stand up for your civil-rights and say NO!!!! I will not allow you to abuse my rights.
Unsubstantiated spousal support is an other illegal action by the BC-Canadian courts. All claims must be justified by documentation and not accepted by simple affidavits supplied by enraged a ex-spouse.
No one should be made to pay spousal support higher than ones substantiated income.
British Columbia and the Attorney General Wally Opal do nothing and allow polygamy and underage marriage in BC. 2008 (click here for article)
Manitoba AG goes overboard to have men jailed, reputations destroyed and all assets seized as well as outrageous fines for civil disobedience.
What does the Canadian Civil Liberties Association say about child support for children of the marriage. Nothing they won't respond. Does the CCLA not want to challenge any unpopular rulings that may affect their funding sources?.
If all men in Canada that have been ordered to pay child support for their non-biological children (Children of the Marriage) refused to pay then this atrocity of a law against men will go away. The prisons wouldn't be big enough to house them all. Men in Canada why don't you stand up for your civil rights? This is a nothing other than a government driven scam for women to collect money from men.
Child Support Billing Errors and/or Questionable Practices of Canadian Enforcement Agencies for the Canadian Children of the Marriage Law-Scam.
Would you please distribute this message widely to all interested individuals and groups: It is apparent from our correspondence with statistics Canada that there is no interest into disseminating this information. The Canadian law regarding children of the marriage is nothing other than a financial money grab for the benefit of women and supported by politicians and women's rights groups.
If you feel you have been ordered to pay child support that you believe you do not owe for reasons of Children of the Marriage Law, or you believe you have experienced a questionable practice by a enforcement agency in regard to child support payments, then civilrightsblog.org (CRB) wants to hear from you.
Civilrightsblog (www.civilrightsblog.org), a national nonprofit educational organization, is gathering nationwide information regarding child support billing errors and/or questionable practices of child support agencies in Canada.
Perhaps your credit report has been affected by the alleged child support arrearage or your driver's license or business license has been threatened with suspension. Perhaps your income tax refund has been intercepted or your bank account has been seized when you believe child support was not due. Or, perhaps you have been arrested or threatened with arrest due to what you believe is an error or questionable child support policy.
Maybe you believe your child support payment has been collected by the child support agency, is "stuck in the system," and has not been accurately distributed to the custodial parent.
If you are a custodial parent, perhaps you know that child support money has been paid into the child support agency by the noncustodial parent, but you believe that the collected child support is being held by the agency instead of being forwarded to the custodial parent and children.
There may be any number of scenarios in addition to the above. We want to hear your feedback.
If you have information that you feel would be of interest to civilrightsblog.org regarding child support (children of the marriage), we would like to hear from you also.
Would you please contact the editor by sending an e-mail to: editor@civilrightsblog.org
IMPORTANT: Would you please enclose in your e-mail message to civilrightsblog.org the following information? (All information will be kept confidential).
1. Your name (last name is optional), telephone number and e-mail address.
2. Your province and city in which you live.
3. The city, county, and province where your child support order is from, i.e., where you pay your child support to or your employer sends the garnishments to.
4. Description of your error or concern and the effect it has had on you and your family, including your extended family and your children.
5. Have you or someone you know been wrongfully arrested or threatened with arrest regarding child support? Please describe your experience.
6. Do you give civilrightsblog.org permission to contact you at the e-mail address or phone number you indicated so that we may gather more information from you? Yes? No?
Thank you in advance for your responses to this message. Your help is greatly appreciated. Please note that personal responses to all of your messages will not be possible due to time constraints and the anticipated volume of responses, but all of your responses will be read and appreciated.
Please note: Civilrightsblog.org (CRB) is an educational nonprofit organization. We do not offer legal advice.
No! Canada
Alimony or spousal support for more than one year and child support for non-paternal children is a unconstitutional servitude against men.
The national anthem of Canada – O Canada! – states “true patriot love in all thy sons command” and that citizens “stand on guard for thee.”
“True patriot love?” Hardly.
“Stand on guard?” Absolutely, but not necessarily for the reasons the patriot songwriter intended.
Based on Canada’s track record of abuse and injustice towards many of its populace, it’s more appropriate for Canadians to be shouting No! Canada … or for them to be on guard, looking over their shoulders to see what their often-misguided Government is up to next.
What’s behind these seemingly shocking statements? Canada, under the guise of democracy, is perpetrating International Sovereignty rights abuses against some of its male citizens by having child support orders placed against them … fully knowing that these men are not the paternal parents of the children.
Further, these child support orders can be turned on and off at the whim of a Judge or Master. Not only that, but more than one male can be made to pay child support – the paternal father and SEVERAL stepfathers as the case may be -- if any of the stepfathers decide to separate or divorce. This is a clear abuse of an individual’s civil rights … and for that matter, it is unconstitutional. To have more than one individual, other than the natural father, pay child support is nothing more than a government-backed racket for women.
How can this occur? Canada's Constitution is not a single document as in the United States. It is made up of acts of the British and Canadian Parliaments, as well as legislation, judicial decisions, and agreements between the federal and provincial governments. Therefore, with this multilateral judicial framework, the Canadian government easily can abuse the civil rights of its populace.
Share Your Struggles
This site is dedicated to fighting child support orders placed against no parental individuals and abusive alimony payments not in conformity with reasonable regard for an individual’s ability to pay. This website was created to discuss and take international legal action against countries that allow lawmakers to abuse their powers. The editor of this site believes the world should know how Canada’s laws abuse the civil and human rights of many individuals.
It is also the intent of this website to list rights abuses by corporations. In addition, individual cases will be listed on this web site if information is available.
If you are experiencing or know of similar abuse, please contact the editor@civilrightsblog.org for possible posting of the information to this web site.
O Canada!: Violating the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
Every day since its signing, Canada violates the human rights treaty agreement it signed at the United Nations. You don't have to go to Nicaragua or Uganda to see civil rights abuses … they occur every day in Canada … in particular, denying passports to males who refuse to pay child support for children that are not their paternal children.
See what Canada violates by reviewing the highlighted sections of the “UN Declaration of Human Rights” link above. Summarized here, key items include:
· Passport Seizure for nonpayment of child support …even when the children aren't your own.
· Social Security seizure for nonpayment of child support … even when the children aren't your own.
Only in Canada is child support for non-parental children forced onto males.
No Help from Hague
The Hague Conference on Private International Law -- at one time a bastion of protection for human and civil rights abuses -- will not review child support and family maintenance abuses by countries. Neither will the Supreme Court of the United States. Is this because those revered institutions know the abuses exist and they don’t want to find countries and themselves in contempt of civil rights? The only thing the Hague is interested in is how countries can enforce each others’ maintenance obligations. Does the end, in this case, justify the means? You decide … visit the Hague website at The Hague.
Illegal, Abusive, Court-Directed Power in Canada
Described in the link above is a perfect example of illegal, abusive, court-directed power: Justice Canada’s abuse with the help of the British Columbia courts. Justice Canada has changed what once was a democracy to a prime example of socialism or communism. Just because the system makes it legal does not necessarily make it moral!
A perfect example of constitutionality and civil rights abuses against a male in Canada is the case of JOANNE GRACE HILTON aka JOANNE GRACE KEDDY of Prince George, British Columbia, Canada … with the help of the British Columbia Supreme Court. In this case, a non-paternal parent is being persecuted internationally to support another man's child. In addition, the non-paternal parent also has had alimony imposed at a rate equivalent to five times more than he earned at the time of the judgment!
O Canada!: A Throwback to Totalitarianism
Not since 1935 and the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler has a country created family laws in the name of justice that circumvent and give powers of Justice Canada to the provinces and then to government enforcement branches.
After creating these family laws, a Gestapo – also know as Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) unit -- is formed, with unlimited powers to seize assets of private individuals without further hearing. These individuals are men that are not the paternal father of children, either by birth or through adoption. The actual father may be paying child support – as perhaps he should -- but a Judge or Master also can order the stepfather, or event stepfathers, to pay … and pay more than the paternal father!
All of the fancy words of constitutionality contained in Canada’s United Nations human rights treaty mean nothing to Justice Canada and its enforcement branches. Even the indirect threat of death is used by the enforcement branches in an attempt to collect child support for non-parental children. If an individual does this to another individual, it is called extortion. In Canada, however, it is legal if the government does it!
O Canada!: Wake Up
O Canada, wake up before it is too late … you have screamed of human rights abuses in Africa but in your own country you turn a deaf ear to similar misbehavior.
Justice Canada says it’s being done for the children but it appears to be more like a play for ultimate power OVER the people – as opposed to the more democratic “power TO the people” -- and nothing else.
Protect Yourself: Know Who You Are!
Both the Supreme Court and the Provincial (Family) Court can -- one might say WILL -- make orders for child support under the Family Relations Act of divorced or separated stepparents … whether these individuals were married or living common-law.
Definitions play an important role in determining eligibility and responsibility (so says Justice Canada) for child support under the Family Relations Act, just as they do under the Divorce Act. Section 88 of the Family Relations Act states that each parent of a child is responsible for the support of that child, and s. 1(1) defines a "child" and a "parent" as follows:
-- "Child" means a person under the age of 19 years
-- "Parent" includes:
-- (a) a guardian or guardian of the person of a child, or
-- (b) a stepparent of a child if
-- (i) the stepparent contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for at least one year.
Legal Racketeers
In addition to the potential to receive child support from multiple males – spouses and who knows how many ex-spouses -- the pay-per-child racket seems to be catching on even more these days!
The most recently elected Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, successfully ran on a political platform that included a Canadian federal government payment of $100 a month per child to mothers of children six years old or less. With this kind of incentive, can a population boom be far behind? Let potential spouses beware!
How Idiotic is Canadian Parliament and Legal system or the new social security for women only. "O Canada" please wake up before its to late. Click here to see.
SPOUSAL SUPPORT OR ALIMONY IN CANADA (The new social security for women only or why we hate men.)
Stats Canada's official view on child support for children of the marriage-non biological parents.
Subject: Child support orders against non biological fathers.
Question:
To whom it may concern at Stats Canada.
As you are aware Canada as most countries have child support orders that are issued by various court in Canada.
We are trying to establish a breakdown of those #'s by how many child support orders have been issued in Canada against non-biological parents, eg: children of the marriage- stepparents versus biological parents.
If this information is not disseminated or available can you advise as to why it isn't.
Answer:
Thank you for contacting Statistics Canada.
In regard to your request on orders on children of the marriage-non biological fathers, we have contacted the division that oversees this subject matter and they have provided the following information:
"We have consulted our senior analyst for the Child Support and Maintenance Enforcement Survey and unfortunately, the our survey does not collect the variables - step parent, or biological parent. When a survey is being developed, consultations take place with all of our partners in the provinces and territories and set data requirements are established following these consultations. The step-parent or biological parent was not brought forth as a requirement in the provincial/territorial/federal consultations.
However, remains that some provinces might have a need for this type of info and will retain this variable and store the information while others may not have any need for this variable so it is not document nor stored electronically. Are you interested in a particular province, if so, we have the contact name of the Director of each provincial/territorial program which I can share with you. Please advise".
If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to contact us at info stats@statcan.ca or at 1 800 263 1136.
Regards,
Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
National Contact Centre | Centre national de contact
Client Services Division | Division des services à la clientèle
R.H. Coats Building 1 W | Immeuble R.-H.-Coats 1 O
100 Tunney's Pasture Driveway | 100, promenade du Pré Tunney | Ottawa, ON, K1A 0T6
613-951-8116 | toll free/sans frais 1-800-263-1136 (Canada and/et USA)
facsimile / télécopieur 613-951-0581 or/ou 1-877-267-4369
TTY / ATS 800-363-7629
infostats@statcan.gc.ca
www.statcan.ca
Government of Canada | Government du Canada
The names of individuals falsifying records and then perjuring themselves at FMEP of British Columbia are CATHI BASHI, Enforcement Manager, and DIANE COURSER, a commissioner for taking affidavits for the British Columbia FMEP. For the rest of the story, visit Illegal, Abusive, Court-Directed Power in Canada
Statistics Canada Child and Spousal Support:
Maintenance Enforcement Survey Statistics 2000-2005
This survey is so flawed and unrealistic that it only goes to show that a government such as Canada would create employment to prepare this type of report.
There are perhaps only a few interesting points that have come out of this survey and I will attempt to post them and some appropriate unanswered questions.
1) Of the 39,783 cases in British Columbia, 97% are male payers.
2) Of the 39,783 cases in British Columbia, only 3% are female payers.
3) Of the 39,783 cases in British Columbia, 1% are listed as “other”.
Unfortunately, after the above numbers, additional statistics mean less or are completely inaccurate in the report.
Of all the cases in British Columbia, 94% of the FMEP caseload involves children.
The question, then, is of all those cases how many are “children of the marriage” and not paternal children?
The next question is, how many males are paying child support for the same child?
There is also a major error Statistics Canada misreports. It states that British Columbia is an opt-in province for enforcement. This is incorrect. The truth is that if you receive any social assistance or the payer is in arrears, then you are automatically enrolled in FMEP enforcement cases in British Columbia.
Statistics Canada, as usual, produces useless and incorrect information.
Question: How many of the child support cases handled by FMEP are for children that have more than one order against a male for payment of child support? In Canada, many men have and will be court-ordered to pay child support for the same child whether the paternal parent or not. So again, the statistics are skewed. Naturally, Canada will not divulge this information for fear of having the United Nations review them for human rights abuses on the issue.
It is the Editor’s opinion that ordering a nonpaternal parent, as well as the paternal parent, to pay child support at the same time is illegal and a direct violation of civil and human rights.
Can this happen in the USA? Can Child support be ordered against a non-biological father in the US? Well click here to find out how this nightmare is starting to unravel even in the US.
Remember the intentions may be good but the fallout will eventually allow for child support scams against men in the US as is the case in Canada.
To contribute to or comment about the content of this site, contact the editor at editor@civilrightsblog.org.
http://civilrightsblog.org
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Ontario divore law takes bold new step... about time
..
Ontario to force couples seeking divorce to attend mediation session
.
.
By Chase Kell
Associate Editor
.Posts
Website
Email
.By Chase Kell | Daily Brew – Thu, 21 Jul, 2011.. .
.
tweet10
Email
Print
....
.
A two-year court battle, exacerbated by $15,000 in legal fees, brought Scott McLarty's 25-year marriage to a bitter end.
A decade later, McLarty finds himself in a familiar spot, up against his former wife as he attempts to restructure the terms of their settlement.
This time, however, McLarty and his ex-wife have been ordered to attend a two-hour mediation session - part of a provincial program aimed at finding an agreement to avoid bitter litigation.
After a couple formally files for divorce, each will be given a sheet pertaining to the mandatory session prior to court appearances. Attendance is confirmed with a stamp, a requirement that permits the divorce proceedings to move forward should the couple fail to reach an agreement.
"I think it would have been a catalyst for us to take a step back, take a deep breath, and see if there were things we could sort out on our own," said McLarty of his divorce, which was ultimately settled out of court, in a National Post story.
"When you're going through a divorce, you're angry, you're depressed, you're in an 'I want to win' mentality. The information session encourages you to try to work together and come to a solution."
Avoiding nasty court battles and saving thousands in legal fees are contributing factors, but reducing backlogs in court and limiting the effect on children played a substantial role in implementing the initiative.
An estimated 160,000 people make use of Ontario's family courts each year, creating scheduling conflicts and lengthy wait times.
"Some cases involve a long court fight," said Attorney-General Chris Bentley in the story. "This (mediation session) will give people a better sense of whether it's worthwhile having one."
When looking back at his divorce, hindsight suggests McLarty's two-year procedure was "probably not" worth it. And, in his opinion, the bulk of those he joined at his April session may come to the same realization.
"My impression, looking around at the room of 40 or so people, was that maybe 50 per cent of them could figure things out outside the courtroom," said McLarty in the story. "I'm hoping that this time we'll try to settle (the terms of our agreement) in mediation, but we'll see if (my ex-wife) agrees."
With the mandatory session, Ontario has joined an international effort to promote mediation and avoid lengthy, costly and often bitter litigation. The U.K. recently joined states such as Utah and Florida by enforcing these mandatory sessions.
Toronto-based divorce mediator, Deborah Mecklinger, practiced in Florida when mandatory mediation was implemented. After sharing her experience with couples wishing they had attempted mediation prior to court, Mecklinger explains not everyone is prepared for the amicable approach.
"Mediation requires two people who are interested in a win-win solution," she explained in the story. "That's not true of all divorcing couples."
(CP Photo)
Ontario to force couples seeking divorce to attend mediation session
.
.
By Chase Kell
Associate Editor
.Posts
Website
.By Chase Kell | Daily Brew – Thu, 21 Jul, 2011.. .
.
tweet10
....
.
A two-year court battle, exacerbated by $15,000 in legal fees, brought Scott McLarty's 25-year marriage to a bitter end.
A decade later, McLarty finds himself in a familiar spot, up against his former wife as he attempts to restructure the terms of their settlement.
This time, however, McLarty and his ex-wife have been ordered to attend a two-hour mediation session - part of a provincial program aimed at finding an agreement to avoid bitter litigation.
After a couple formally files for divorce, each will be given a sheet pertaining to the mandatory session prior to court appearances. Attendance is confirmed with a stamp, a requirement that permits the divorce proceedings to move forward should the couple fail to reach an agreement.
"I think it would have been a catalyst for us to take a step back, take a deep breath, and see if there were things we could sort out on our own," said McLarty of his divorce, which was ultimately settled out of court, in a National Post story.
"When you're going through a divorce, you're angry, you're depressed, you're in an 'I want to win' mentality. The information session encourages you to try to work together and come to a solution."
Avoiding nasty court battles and saving thousands in legal fees are contributing factors, but reducing backlogs in court and limiting the effect on children played a substantial role in implementing the initiative.
An estimated 160,000 people make use of Ontario's family courts each year, creating scheduling conflicts and lengthy wait times.
"Some cases involve a long court fight," said Attorney-General Chris Bentley in the story. "This (mediation session) will give people a better sense of whether it's worthwhile having one."
When looking back at his divorce, hindsight suggests McLarty's two-year procedure was "probably not" worth it. And, in his opinion, the bulk of those he joined at his April session may come to the same realization.
"My impression, looking around at the room of 40 or so people, was that maybe 50 per cent of them could figure things out outside the courtroom," said McLarty in the story. "I'm hoping that this time we'll try to settle (the terms of our agreement) in mediation, but we'll see if (my ex-wife) agrees."
With the mandatory session, Ontario has joined an international effort to promote mediation and avoid lengthy, costly and often bitter litigation. The U.K. recently joined states such as Utah and Florida by enforcing these mandatory sessions.
Toronto-based divorce mediator, Deborah Mecklinger, practiced in Florida when mandatory mediation was implemented. After sharing her experience with couples wishing they had attempted mediation prior to court, Mecklinger explains not everyone is prepared for the amicable approach.
"Mediation requires two people who are interested in a win-win solution," she explained in the story. "That's not true of all divorcing couples."
(CP Photo)
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The Good Karma Divorce
Ok, I know I talked about it before but I just like to keep it fresh. I think its a great idea and should be seriously considered by all family leagal systems
Why this Book?
After many years as a divorce attorney and family court judge, Lowrance has pioneered a new strategy for getting through the divorce process intact. The premise of this book? The American court system was not built to house or process the violent emotions unleashed by divorce. Attorneys are not trained to reduce the attendant suffering of their divorcing clients and families, and judges have a limited toolkit of remedies. Divorcing couples embark on this frightful journey, believing that the court will deliver justice, and that justice will deliver peace. Most discover somewhere during the process that they are achingly, horribly, alone. This book is the insurance policy against having the kind of divorce you always feared, while showing you how to protect yourself, your children, your finances, your soul, and your psyche.
Why this Book?
After many years as a divorce attorney and family court judge, Lowrance has pioneered a new strategy for getting through the divorce process intact. The premise of this book? The American court system was not built to house or process the violent emotions unleashed by divorce. Attorneys are not trained to reduce the attendant suffering of their divorcing clients and families, and judges have a limited toolkit of remedies. Divorcing couples embark on this frightful journey, believing that the court will deliver justice, and that justice will deliver peace. Most discover somewhere during the process that they are achingly, horribly, alone. This book is the insurance policy against having the kind of divorce you always feared, while showing you how to protect yourself, your children, your finances, your soul, and your psyche.
Murder is cheaper and quicker than divorce...
Boy, can I understand this.. Thank you again LawDive for your thoughts...
"Apr 23
Murder is Cheaper and Quicker than Divorce
Posted by LawDiva in Criminal Law, Divorce, Family Law. 2 Comments
Rosa Hill had a plan to spend more time with her two year-old daughter Elizabeth. A handwritten note set out the steps: “Go to mass… Go to confession… Get tasers… Target practice…”
Her google searches in furtherance of her plan, dubbed “operation custody”, were similarly telling: “How to get away with murder…How to make a silencer….”
Rosa Hill, age 35 and her mother, Mei Li, 57, faced a California jury this week for the attempted murder of Rosa’s ex-husband Eric Hill and the murder of his 91 year-old mother, Selma Hill.
Despite her accusations that her ex-husband had molested Elizabeth, a court awarded custody of the child to Mr. Hill, who lived with his mother Selma Hill.
Rosa and her mother were aghast when the custody order was made in the face of their allegations of his history of mentally instability and psychiatric hospitalizations.
After months of planning, Rosa and her mother went to the Hill home and tasered Eric Hill and his mother. Eric’s mother did not survive the attack. Her battered body was discovered by police stuffed in a trash can. Both Rosa Hill and her mother were arrested at the scene. Rosa’s father was charged as an accessory to the crimes.
An unusual one-off event? Not at all. The number of murders and murder-sucides linked to divorce disputes is frightening.
This week alone the media highlighted several of these stories including the case of Allan Schonenborn who murdered his three young children in British Columbia in a vendetta against their mother, was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and recently sought escorted passes to visit the mall and have coffee.
Cardiologist Dr. Guy Turcotte’s trial for the murder of his children, ages 5 and 3, began in Montreal this week. He and his wife, another doctor, had separated shortly before the murders and his failed suicide attempt.
And finally, a husband in Ft. Lauderdale this week was so incensed with the court’s orders that he began beating his estranged wife right in the courtroom before he was tasered by authorities.
The last word, however, goes to grandfather David White in New Zealand whose daughter was murdered by her millionaire husband, Greg Meads. This week Mr. Meads was sentenced to 11 years in prison and ordered to pay $65,000 in compensation to Mr. White, who would now raise his grandchildren. White bitterly remarked: “It’s cheaper to murder your wife than to divorce her.”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang"
"Apr 23
Murder is Cheaper and Quicker than Divorce
Posted by LawDiva in Criminal Law, Divorce, Family Law. 2 Comments
Rosa Hill had a plan to spend more time with her two year-old daughter Elizabeth. A handwritten note set out the steps: “Go to mass… Go to confession… Get tasers… Target practice…”
Her google searches in furtherance of her plan, dubbed “operation custody”, were similarly telling: “How to get away with murder…How to make a silencer….”
Rosa Hill, age 35 and her mother, Mei Li, 57, faced a California jury this week for the attempted murder of Rosa’s ex-husband Eric Hill and the murder of his 91 year-old mother, Selma Hill.
Despite her accusations that her ex-husband had molested Elizabeth, a court awarded custody of the child to Mr. Hill, who lived with his mother Selma Hill.
Rosa and her mother were aghast when the custody order was made in the face of their allegations of his history of mentally instability and psychiatric hospitalizations.
After months of planning, Rosa and her mother went to the Hill home and tasered Eric Hill and his mother. Eric’s mother did not survive the attack. Her battered body was discovered by police stuffed in a trash can. Both Rosa Hill and her mother were arrested at the scene. Rosa’s father was charged as an accessory to the crimes.
An unusual one-off event? Not at all. The number of murders and murder-sucides linked to divorce disputes is frightening.
This week alone the media highlighted several of these stories including the case of Allan Schonenborn who murdered his three young children in British Columbia in a vendetta against their mother, was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and recently sought escorted passes to visit the mall and have coffee.
Cardiologist Dr. Guy Turcotte’s trial for the murder of his children, ages 5 and 3, began in Montreal this week. He and his wife, another doctor, had separated shortly before the murders and his failed suicide attempt.
And finally, a husband in Ft. Lauderdale this week was so incensed with the court’s orders that he began beating his estranged wife right in the courtroom before he was tasered by authorities.
The last word, however, goes to grandfather David White in New Zealand whose daughter was murdered by her millionaire husband, Greg Meads. This week Mr. Meads was sentenced to 11 years in prison and ordered to pay $65,000 in compensation to Mr. White, who would now raise his grandchildren. White bitterly remarked: “It’s cheaper to murder your wife than to divorce her.”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang"
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Thank you Canada.com
I found this aricle on Sunday April 11th 2011 front page when I went to their website, can you imagine my surprise and happiness to see the media actually looking at such a story? here is what I saw;
" With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter. "
here is the link; http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/real-agenda/story.html?id=4585240
and here is the story copied and pasted "just in case it dissaperas"
http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/images/banner_real_agenda.jpg
Georgialee Lang: "Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse."
Canada’s system of family law is decimating us, one family at a time. With nearly 40 per cent of Canadian marriages ending in divorce, our next government needs to stop the bleeding, financial and emotional.
Our adversarial court system pits husband against wife in a dangerous game that all too often spirals out of control, taking whole families down and destroying children’s lives in the process.
Custody cases are among the worst. Separating parents, usually fathers, are caught in a black vortex, fighting for the ability to remain an active part of their children’s lives, sparring with mothers who too frequently use their hurt and anger to alienate their partners from their children.
To date, our governments have refused to make the changes that most jurisdictions in North America have already adopted: a move to a presumption of joint custody, in which parents continue to participate in their children’s lives on a level playing field. With a rebuttable presumption of joint custody as the law of the land, a significant group of potential family law litigants could bypass the court system.
Regrettably, our system does neither parent any favours. With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter.
Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse.
What Canadians face is a shortage of judges and court staff, who gamely try to administer an underfunded bureaucracy that cannot meet their needs, and a process where the battle lines are drawn before they get there — the beginning of their long wait for justice.
Legislators, law reformers, judges and lawyers have long recognized that court is no place to resolve family law disputes. Ontario’s Law Commission released a report last September entitled “Voices From a Broken Family Law Justice System” decrying longer trials and increasing court and legal fees that are crippling a system that cannot deal with the intense emotional fallout of personal disputes.
In a recent family law case, Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568, Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn of Ontario began his Reasons for Judgment with a feigned cry for help—“Paging Dr. Freud, Paging Dr. Freud”—a provocative introduction to a bizarre family law case that was ill-suited for court intervention. Justice Quinn referred to the “roulette of family law.”
The case took seven days of court time over a period of several months; not unusual since judges are routinely overbooked. Much of the evidence had nothing to do with the two legal issues: a claim to set aside a separation agreement and an allegation that Ms. Bruni had alienated the children from their father. The level of vitriol stunned Justice Quinn, who refused to set aside the agreement and admonished the parties for their childish, bordering on criminal, behaviour. Justice Quinn took the brave step of denying Ms. Bruni spousal support as a rebuke for the wedge she had driven between the children and their father.
My solution? Take family law out of court and move it to Family Centres with a one-stop shopping approach. Provide education, counsellors, child-development professionals, mediators, arbitrators, divorce coaches, parenting coordinators and financial experts. These services should not be free, but should be paid for by those who access the programs on a sliding scale commensurate with their family income. For the poor and working poor, legal aid should be provided.
For those cases that will never settle without judicial intervention, appoint highly experienced judges who want to be there, as opposed to judges who find family law work a grind they would rather avoid.
Is there a political party that will heed the cries of millions of Canadians?
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Share this Article
STORY TOOLS
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Comments (13)
Share this Article
Font:
RegisterLogin or
What Do You Think?
Want to rate posts and get your own personalized user name? Please register an account today!Questions? - Visit our FAQ
Post My Reply
14 comments
Sort:
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:56 AM on April 10, 2011
Thrusting divorce on children is the most common form of child abuse. Its the right of every child to have their parents around and taking care of them for their entire childhood. Have any divorced 'losers' asked their children how they felt? It should be illegal to divorce if there are children under 18. If you are unhappy or just want to start test driving again, wait until the children grow up. That is the sacrifice expected of every parent.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:32 AM on April 10, 2011
Wow! Another well thought-out, thoroughly researched and timely article by Ms. Lang. When will the politicians get it? As soon as we the electorate get energized ton make it Ana election issue. Ms. Lang is doing her part, do yours.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:16 AM on April 10, 2011
Family Centers make a lot of sense to ease the process of divorce - especially when custody of children is involved. But what about prevention? Could these Family Centers offer pre-marriage services? Is it possible to prevent the destruction of Canadian families by giving couples the tools they need to solve their issues? While I agree with the approach of taking this process out of court unless absolutely necessary, the generalizations provided by Me. Lang are tiresome and border on offensive. I agree that fathers are often the ones fighting for more time with their children. Mothers tend to be primary caregivers. But to paint mothers as embittered harridans who want nothing more than to punish their ex and their children is an over-used and inaccurate generalization that has no place in this process. Every woman I know who has faced a custody battle in her divorce has acted honourably with her children's best interests at heart.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:51 AM on April 10, 2011
this is a great idea, just make sure to charge the users for the expense....
start paying to take care of your own children, and I am certainly not paying for your failed relationship.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:32 AM on April 10, 2011
The lawyers (vultures) do not wish to change anything as it is very profitable to remove the assets of clients.
Questionable liens, writs, caveats, judgments and other tools these lawyers use are given to courthouse taxation officers for the purpose of removing the real estate assets of clients who have been bilked by their lawyers.
The divorce act is just another piece of laughable federal legislation being circumvented by lawyers and courts in every province in Canada.
Lawyers should not be able to participate in any real estate transactions and this should be left for other professionals far removed from the national lawyer gangs.
Lawyers govern themselves using Law Societies (self governance) and this is more of a protection racket than anything else.
Law Societies provide no value to Canadians and their self governing power needs to be removed from them.
There are many more courthouse liars than you think.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:25 AM on April 10, 2011
Harper can fix this. He can fix anything. Just ask. http://www.Canada-Elections.blogspot.com
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
9:26 AM on April 10, 2011
Unique among the authors in this series, this woman actually makes sense.
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:57 AM on April 10, 2011
Growing up Iwas kept from my father & & the stories were perpetuated to justify his absense to me. I was 27 before I saw him again. He mwas not perfect but he was my father. I carried resentment to my mothers death. I did not want this for either.
at 27 my waife decided to take advantage of the new divorce laws introducded in the mid 80's. she was stepping outside the marriage and wanted out. I came home to an empty two todlers that were everything to me gone. I was prepared to do anything not to put my children through what I had gone through.
3 years 10's of thousands bankruptcy and 5 lawyers later I found out thatthe system was not fair and I lost contact with my children for ten years.
My children are now grown with their own children. I do not speak poison, but I beg both my daughter and son and spouses not to repat my history again..
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:47 AM on April 10, 2011
The court system right now is very biased against men. I know of a man who is non custodial but tries to be very active in his children's lives. He pays an exorbidant amount of child maintenance every month. Yet another man I know has custody for a very good reason and has had to fight tooth and nail to get any child maintenance and when it did get ordered it was next to nothing. His ex has used the system to the hilt and gets away with it yet hurts the child because the child seens to have no rights in this matter! I was always told the good of the child is always uppermost in the minds of lawyers and judges. I have not seen it yet! What has been shown to be important is the money which would look so much better in the child's education account instead of some lawyer's bank account!
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
8:43 AM on April 10, 2011
You had my attention up until the part that said "let's create a monolithic tax-funded program to assist people in getting a divorce"
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:40 AM on April 10, 2011
What we need to do is to start letting the children have a voice. They know what they need and they also know when and who is using them in this terrible game. I am tired of seeing children hurt because of one vengeful parent!
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:33 AM on April 10, 2011
Long overdue.
thanks again canada.com
" With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter. "
here is the link; http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/real-agenda/story.html?id=4585240
and here is the story copied and pasted "just in case it dissaperas"
http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/images/banner_real_agenda.jpg
Georgialee Lang: "Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse."
Canada’s system of family law is decimating us, one family at a time. With nearly 40 per cent of Canadian marriages ending in divorce, our next government needs to stop the bleeding, financial and emotional.
Our adversarial court system pits husband against wife in a dangerous game that all too often spirals out of control, taking whole families down and destroying children’s lives in the process.
Custody cases are among the worst. Separating parents, usually fathers, are caught in a black vortex, fighting for the ability to remain an active part of their children’s lives, sparring with mothers who too frequently use their hurt and anger to alienate their partners from their children.
To date, our governments have refused to make the changes that most jurisdictions in North America have already adopted: a move to a presumption of joint custody, in which parents continue to participate in their children’s lives on a level playing field. With a rebuttable presumption of joint custody as the law of the land, a significant group of potential family law litigants could bypass the court system.
Regrettably, our system does neither parent any favours. With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter.
Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse.
What Canadians face is a shortage of judges and court staff, who gamely try to administer an underfunded bureaucracy that cannot meet their needs, and a process where the battle lines are drawn before they get there — the beginning of their long wait for justice.
Legislators, law reformers, judges and lawyers have long recognized that court is no place to resolve family law disputes. Ontario’s Law Commission released a report last September entitled “Voices From a Broken Family Law Justice System” decrying longer trials and increasing court and legal fees that are crippling a system that cannot deal with the intense emotional fallout of personal disputes.
In a recent family law case, Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568, Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn of Ontario began his Reasons for Judgment with a feigned cry for help—“Paging Dr. Freud, Paging Dr. Freud”—a provocative introduction to a bizarre family law case that was ill-suited for court intervention. Justice Quinn referred to the “roulette of family law.”
The case took seven days of court time over a period of several months; not unusual since judges are routinely overbooked. Much of the evidence had nothing to do with the two legal issues: a claim to set aside a separation agreement and an allegation that Ms. Bruni had alienated the children from their father. The level of vitriol stunned Justice Quinn, who refused to set aside the agreement and admonished the parties for their childish, bordering on criminal, behaviour. Justice Quinn took the brave step of denying Ms. Bruni spousal support as a rebuke for the wedge she had driven between the children and their father.
My solution? Take family law out of court and move it to Family Centres with a one-stop shopping approach. Provide education, counsellors, child-development professionals, mediators, arbitrators, divorce coaches, parenting coordinators and financial experts. These services should not be free, but should be paid for by those who access the programs on a sliding scale commensurate with their family income. For the poor and working poor, legal aid should be provided.
For those cases that will never settle without judicial intervention, appoint highly experienced judges who want to be there, as opposed to judges who find family law work a grind they would rather avoid.
Is there a political party that will heed the cries of millions of Canadians?
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Share this Article
STORY TOOLS
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Comments (13)
Share this Article
Font:
RegisterLogin or
What Do You Think?
Want to rate posts and get your own personalized user name? Please register an account today!Questions? - Visit our FAQ
Post My Reply
14 comments
Sort:
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:56 AM on April 10, 2011
Thrusting divorce on children is the most common form of child abuse. Its the right of every child to have their parents around and taking care of them for their entire childhood. Have any divorced 'losers' asked their children how they felt? It should be illegal to divorce if there are children under 18. If you are unhappy or just want to start test driving again, wait until the children grow up. That is the sacrifice expected of every parent.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:32 AM on April 10, 2011
Wow! Another well thought-out, thoroughly researched and timely article by Ms. Lang. When will the politicians get it? As soon as we the electorate get energized ton make it Ana election issue. Ms. Lang is doing her part, do yours.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:16 AM on April 10, 2011
Family Centers make a lot of sense to ease the process of divorce - especially when custody of children is involved. But what about prevention? Could these Family Centers offer pre-marriage services? Is it possible to prevent the destruction of Canadian families by giving couples the tools they need to solve their issues? While I agree with the approach of taking this process out of court unless absolutely necessary, the generalizations provided by Me. Lang are tiresome and border on offensive. I agree that fathers are often the ones fighting for more time with their children. Mothers tend to be primary caregivers. But to paint mothers as embittered harridans who want nothing more than to punish their ex and their children is an over-used and inaccurate generalization that has no place in this process. Every woman I know who has faced a custody battle in her divorce has acted honourably with her children's best interests at heart.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:51 AM on April 10, 2011
this is a great idea, just make sure to charge the users for the expense....
start paying to take care of your own children, and I am certainly not paying for your failed relationship.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:32 AM on April 10, 2011
The lawyers (vultures) do not wish to change anything as it is very profitable to remove the assets of clients.
Questionable liens, writs, caveats, judgments and other tools these lawyers use are given to courthouse taxation officers for the purpose of removing the real estate assets of clients who have been bilked by their lawyers.
The divorce act is just another piece of laughable federal legislation being circumvented by lawyers and courts in every province in Canada.
Lawyers should not be able to participate in any real estate transactions and this should be left for other professionals far removed from the national lawyer gangs.
Lawyers govern themselves using Law Societies (self governance) and this is more of a protection racket than anything else.
Law Societies provide no value to Canadians and their self governing power needs to be removed from them.
There are many more courthouse liars than you think.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:25 AM on April 10, 2011
Harper can fix this. He can fix anything. Just ask. http://www.Canada-Elections.blogspot.com
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
9:26 AM on April 10, 2011
Unique among the authors in this series, this woman actually makes sense.
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:57 AM on April 10, 2011
Growing up Iwas kept from my father & & the stories were perpetuated to justify his absense to me. I was 27 before I saw him again. He mwas not perfect but he was my father. I carried resentment to my mothers death. I did not want this for either.
at 27 my waife decided to take advantage of the new divorce laws introducded in the mid 80's. she was stepping outside the marriage and wanted out. I came home to an empty two todlers that were everything to me gone. I was prepared to do anything not to put my children through what I had gone through.
3 years 10's of thousands bankruptcy and 5 lawyers later I found out thatthe system was not fair and I lost contact with my children for ten years.
My children are now grown with their own children. I do not speak poison, but I beg both my daughter and son and spouses not to repat my history again..
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:47 AM on April 10, 2011
The court system right now is very biased against men. I know of a man who is non custodial but tries to be very active in his children's lives. He pays an exorbidant amount of child maintenance every month. Yet another man I know has custody for a very good reason and has had to fight tooth and nail to get any child maintenance and when it did get ordered it was next to nothing. His ex has used the system to the hilt and gets away with it yet hurts the child because the child seens to have no rights in this matter! I was always told the good of the child is always uppermost in the minds of lawyers and judges. I have not seen it yet! What has been shown to be important is the money which would look so much better in the child's education account instead of some lawyer's bank account!
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
8:43 AM on April 10, 2011
You had my attention up until the part that said "let's create a monolithic tax-funded program to assist people in getting a divorce"
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:40 AM on April 10, 2011
What we need to do is to start letting the children have a voice. They know what they need and they also know when and who is using them in this terrible game. I am tired of seeing children hurt because of one vengeful parent!
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:33 AM on April 10, 2011
Long overdue.
thanks again canada.com
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Two really informative books
I heard two interviews from these authors on satalite radio and web cast and I think they need special mentioning, I also really hope it is a new way the legal profession is looking at the issues of divorce and hopefully will follow up with some new laws and guidlines because things are way outta hand as they are in both Canada and the US.
This first book is from a sitting Judge in the US her name is Judge Michele Lowrance and it is called "The Good Karma Divorce". I have not had the oppertunity to read it through yet but I will, and maybe report on it, but it discusses what would seem to be a common sense way of dealing with divorce if all else fails, it is a positive unaggressive way to negotiate seperation on good terms leaving an amicable relationship in tact instead of adversarial. From what I have read and understood so far I think this book should be the first guideline or step in any divorce
http://thegoodkarmadivorce.com/
The second is a book by Wendy Jaffe, Esq. and while I have only seen an interview of her and her book "Divorce Lawyers' Guide to Staying Married" what I saw was impressive and I hope will become something for the legal system to serioulsy read and consider and get away from making the process so adversarial and diffucult when the situatio is difficult enough.
http://www.divorcelawyersguide.com/
There seems to be some big names giving good reviews of these books and authors and I hope to obtain a copy of both of these books so I can thoroughly read and share with friends in similar situations and get their opinions and share them as well. The divorce system in Canada and the US is broken and needs to be changed now, and like I mentioned before I hope these two are pioneers in what is a new phase of Family Law
This first book is from a sitting Judge in the US her name is Judge Michele Lowrance and it is called "The Good Karma Divorce". I have not had the oppertunity to read it through yet but I will, and maybe report on it, but it discusses what would seem to be a common sense way of dealing with divorce if all else fails, it is a positive unaggressive way to negotiate seperation on good terms leaving an amicable relationship in tact instead of adversarial. From what I have read and understood so far I think this book should be the first guideline or step in any divorce
http://thegoodkarmadivorce.com/
The second is a book by Wendy Jaffe, Esq. and while I have only seen an interview of her and her book "Divorce Lawyers' Guide to Staying Married" what I saw was impressive and I hope will become something for the legal system to serioulsy read and consider and get away from making the process so adversarial and diffucult when the situatio is difficult enough.
http://www.divorcelawyersguide.com/
There seems to be some big names giving good reviews of these books and authors and I hope to obtain a copy of both of these books so I can thoroughly read and share with friends in similar situations and get their opinions and share them as well. The divorce system in Canada and the US is broken and needs to be changed now, and like I mentioned before I hope these two are pioneers in what is a new phase of Family Law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)