A top psychiatrists in Toronto at the CAMH is very familiar with the dangers of feminism. He feels it. He is unable to treat his female patients properly due to draconian laws.  Although psychiatry is more isolated than being a Teacher when it comes to being with a number of females, it is a... access page ...

A top psychiatrists in Toronto at the CAMH is very familiar with the dangers of feminism. He feels it. He is unable to treat his female patients properly due to draconian laws.  Although psychiatry is more isolated than being a Teacher when it comes to being with a number of females, it is a real problem none-the-less.

He said because of the political climate feminism has created, you can not  treat some females. They get away with so much and won't change.

He has one patient that is a real menace to her husband. They are presently separated and she has custody of the children and yet, threatened to pour gasoline and light a match to him. Worse yet, she went into his work  with gas container in hand! Security took the container and told her to leave but no one called the police and she was never arrested for threatening hr husbands life.

Then his boss said he can't have this happening at work, putting employees in danger so told him he had to leave!

This father lost his job so her plan in threatening for more money back fired, putting him at risk and his children at risk of poverty. Her 16 year old fled to live with Dad but he could not take her because he knew once he did, his wife would constantly come to the house and cause trouble. The psychiatrist also said that this is not an isolated case. It is common! 

Many women he sees are truly like this and they get away with it. He has tried to counsel her as to her behaviour and she nods ad says yes, but just goes back right at it ! The psychiatrist said that the laws protecting women from stupidity is out of control and  so many professions are controlled by it. Having women rule in so many sectors of life is not helping.

There are too many in positions they should not be in, building policies that are not logical for future growth and well being  over all. They are taking mens jobs, and their mentoring of other women is ineffective. Yet, society supported the ideology created  that educated past generations  and continues to support it , to everyones detriment.

This feminist  ideology and VAWA  changes policy and builds laws that ruin lives. The psychiatrist we talked to has been in the field many years and he sees it clearly.  We are run by "an ideology", not common sense and logic.

This is in the schools, the universities, the courts and the professions and it is simply not going to work. It is in peoples "thinking" Truly is is brainwashing, the way they set women up and support them to take jobs they should not be taking. Worse, paying them $100,000.00 a year (or more)  40 years of this and look at the results. 

This does not mean women can not work in jobs that are held in respect.  It just means they should not be demanding laws to protect them when they are foolish. It means they also must take instruction and criticisms from men who are trying to lead. This is a dangerous set up for all society and it is breaking down specifically because of this very problem that feminism created. 

It has a domino effect and the dominoes will fall. 

All of us will feel it.  Men will drop out because they are pushed out and loose their children because the courts support it. Women will loose in the end because men simply won't support stupidity. Why should they?  Children will loose their right to having fathers lead and nurture their own children. Wives will loose their husbands to false allegations, women, their boyfriends, their brothers. 

What is left ? Women leading and eating each other for lunch as society disintegrates.

Thanks feminism, for nothing. Many see it. Many feel it. Thank goodness for that at least. We are wasting such a good resource we have in men!

Feminists, don't bother trying to fix it please. You will just make it worse.

Just go way or at least admit you were wrong.

If top professionals are now looking at this and saying this problem is dangerous and systemic, it is. 

Here is the web link to the summary judgement child welfare case part 1

complexfamilylaw.com/

Here is the web link to the summary judgement child welfare case part 1

complexfamilylaw.com/

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND CHILD WELFARE CASES - Gene C. Colman of Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre posted in Child Custody on Friday, June 28, 2013.

Has a "Summary Judgment" motion in an... access page ...

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND CHILD WELFARE CASES - Gene C. Colman of Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre posted in Child Custody on Friday, June 28, 2013.

Has a "Summary Judgment" motion in an Ontario family court resulted in you losing your child to the Children's Aid? Are you now facing a summary judgment motion? The increasing frequency of using this draconian and patently unfair tool to deprive children of their parents in these sorts of child custody cases has long troubled me. It's gratifying to see that at least one Ontario Superior Court Judge seems to agree with me.

Justice J. deP. Wright has issued a brave appeal decision: R.(C) v. C.A.S. of the District of Thunder Bay (Jan. 30, 2013). He criticizes courts and agencies that run roughshod over the procedural rights of parents.

What is Summary Judgment? Under Rule 16 of Ontario's Family Law Rules, a party can bring a motion to essentially end the case prematurely. R. 16(6) says: "If there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or defence, the court shall make a final order accordingly." In other words, if the undisputed facts don't even get you to first base in terms of either getting your kids back or at least making out a possible claim for access, then the court can legally deprive you of the right to a trial even where it is sought to make the kids Crown Wards. It is therefore essential that when responding to such motions, you present affidavits that clearly demonstrate that you have something to offer your kids. But how do you get to cross-examine the CAS witnesses and show the court that the CAS evidence is less than accurate, biased or even false? There are procedures available but it is challenging, to say the least, for self-represented litigants and those with budget limited Legal Aid lawyers to mount an adequate defence to these motions.

Justice J. deP. Wright reminds us that we are dealing with an issue here that is tantamount to capital punishment. Yes, he likens the relief of Summary Judgment pursuit of Crown Wardship - No Access to executing a person. Really! Here are some telling quotes from this important case (emphasis added by GCC):

2 It has been said that a judge is never confronted with a more serious issue than when the state seeks to take a person's life, her children, or her liberty in that order of priority.

6 The judgment appealed from was granted on motion for summary judgment. It deprived parents of their children and denied the mother the right to present her claim for access in a trial of that issue.

7 The propriety of taking children from their parents through the use of a motion for summary judgment is questionable.

8 One cannot help but think that a stranger to our shores, aware of our legal history, would be appalled at the thought that parents could be deprived of their children simply upon paper filed with the court and without the court hearing from the parents directly.

9 In the days of capital punishment the courts would not accept a plea of guilty. No matter how "open and shut" the case might have appeared to be, oral evidence from witnesses had to be placed before a jury which would justify its verdict of guilty.

10 Similarly, when the state seeks to deprive a person of his liberty it cannot simply file affidavits indicating that there is no triable issue concerning the guilt of the accused and therefore the accused should not be entitled to a trial.

11 The taking of children is different. Goaded on by the demands of an overwhelmed judicial system and by notions of expediency we have taken a procedure that was originally created to speed commercial matters through the courts and applied it to one of the most profound issues to affect human beings.

I was at a conference a few months ago - Association of Family & Conciliation Courts. It's a great group of really dedicated lawyers, judges, social workers, psychologists, etc. who are truly committed to bringing improvements to the family law system. One judge who sits on the Ontario Court of Justice told the conference openly and proudly of how his court was expeditiously processing Crown Wardship Summary Judgment Motions and thus freeing these children up for adoption at an early stage. I went up to the judge during the next break and protested the lack of procedural fairness inherent within summary judgment motions and that some good parents could easily be caught up in the mill and lose their kids unfairly. The judge seemed to be genuinely offended with what I had said and he retorted that in fact he refused to grant the summary judgment remedy more than the other judges at his court location. Still, I would not want to have to defend a summary judgment motion in front of that particular judge. Justice J. deP Wright has one attitude to procedural fairness; the unnamed judge at the conference has quite another.

But even Justice J. deP. Wright, who certainly merits praise for his decision, finds legal grounds to deprive the father of his right to challenge the Crown Wardship order. The motions judge had allowed the father to raise only an access issue when he wished to challenge the Crown Wardship disposition as well. On appeal, Justice J. deP. Wright allowed the mother to raise the access issue. Therefore, the mother may have felt vindicated procedurally at the appeal but we must be sensitive to the fact that the father would likely perceive that the system had not treated him fairly.

I'll have more to say about this case in a subsequent blog post. Stay tuned.

A Children's Aid Society CASE IN WHICH A TRIAL WAS IN “Q” BUT CAS WANTED TO CLOSE CASE NOTE : There was never a FINDING to prove it is was a child protection matter

In Court about 20 minutes

Judge (J) Ms__________, you have 2 kids with you. A teenage son ... access page ...

A Children's Aid Society CASE IN WHICH A TRIAL WAS IN “Q” BUT CAS WANTED TO CLOSE CASE NOTE : There was never a FINDING to prove it is was a child protection matter

In Court about 20 minutes

Judge (J) Ms__________, you have 2 kids with you. A teenage son and a daughter ? A millionaire's dream. Did you know that? The only issue is supervision, is that right ? There is a supervision order with the society, is that correct ?

MOM A home visit, a visitation once a month

J When was the last time in court ?– Assignment in April and another in August, here we are again today and this was justice _______ right?

Office of Children Lawyer (OCL) Motion in March in respect to the son who turned 15. (NOTE: CAS took Family to court becasue son could see the Fatehr alone when he turned 15 and CAS didn't want that but Judge did NOT grant CAS's request for more supervision. He said there was no need because CAS had not proven there was any finding at all or if kids were even at Risk)

J CAS position ?

CAS we just received letter from Psychiatrist where family has a history and there was a list of concerns the Society wanted addressed and they may be addressed by this letter so we will read the letter and consult with the Branch

J We will adjourn this

OCL My position is that I have to meet with my client and Ms________has advised that they don't want to meet with me but I can't have a position w/out meeting w/ them

NOTE : OCL had 2 yrs to build a relationship and was given 3 consents to visit school – all lapsed and she never called the School at all much less went to visit : She wanted to meet in school again and have a consent which granted irrevocable information granting too much info and not necessary. OCL has NO jurisdiction in schools anyway

MOM Your Honor, Judge________ has said there is no finding, that is why he ordered a trial and the position of my children is that they don't want representation of the OCL so I respected that. So we went to Mediation

J : We have the word of Justice __________ and the Letter from the Psychiatrist so I gather the concern is Mental Health issues?

CAS No , there is issue to respect to charges re: the Father

MOM This has nothing to do with my children

OCL There are sexual Assault allegations and it's going to trial, I believe in March is the understanding

(NOTE: Trial in March No one told parent this at all. )

J What is the psychiatric Letter for?

CAS With respect to the children that are in the home and whether or not the father poses a risk to those children and their uCAS Worker : nderstanding of healthy sexual boundaries in the home – The father is not in the home at this time your honor

J Does the supervision order end when the father comes home?

MOM There is no finding of Risk so the issue is not whether he is in the home or not , the issue is are the children safe or are they at risk (now, as criminal court conditions apply)

J The issue is not quite that simple Ms _________, the issue is : there is an interim supervision order that keeps him out of the house, am I understanding that correctly ?

MOM Yes and bail conditions

OCL as well as bail conditions

J so as soon as the trial happens in March and the bail conditions may well be gone ..there may well be no jail sentence

MOM The Criminal court has set the bail conditions which Judge__________ is satisfied with and they will continue

J until the trial

MOM Yes and they may continue after

J There won't be Bail conditions. If he is found guilty he could be charged and if he is not guilty then there will be no conditions

MOM Yes . CAS can't make a determination based on my future decision or the accused decision

J The CAS and the Court , is required to, to some extent are to Crystal Ball gaze . That's part of our job

MOM Right

J Part of our job, we have to look at the situation , we have to say, before we terminate the supervision, if there are no conditions from the criminal court will the man return to the Home? If your answer to that is yes,

MOM I can not answer that. That is between his Lawyer and him and I can't speak to the court on this and represent my husband here and bring that out because it is not a CAS matter

J Once the criminal charges are dealt with and there are if there are no conditions in place , would you, my only thought concerning , would you agree to letting him back into the House?

MOM I would have to discuss that with my worker and anyone who is representing me which is myself now but also my husbands lawyer to determine what is best and what concerns the CAS would have about that and I would consider looking at what the concerns would be , certainly but I can not answer that question

J we will adjourn this until after the trial

MOM What I did want to request was , though we were having Mediation in this matter to deal with the issues , the concerns and the Supervisor did say they were willing to close but I would like a speedy trial so it is not dragging on and for the children it is not hanging over their head – that is the issue (She ignored question re: Moms right to trial)

J There is a criminal trial. Do you want this back in front of Justice ____________ with this letter, after the criminal trial, in April?

CAS Worker : Yes I think so

CAS ok April 12 10 am your honor ?

J yes

Outside Court

MOM Do we put the Letter before Judge ________?

CAS Now we have the Letter and maybe that Letter will make progress in the case

CAS Worker : That letter will be filed as evidence supporting the decision to close the file

OCL I am letting you know, it is unlikely that I will consent to a closure if I can't meet with the children

MOM I will deal with you later because we have a conflict. My conflict is not as much with CAS but with you because you are opposing the closure

OCL I did not say anything like that I have to meet with my clients to take a position

MOM My conflict is that they don't want to see you

OCL How does that solve things ?

MOM It could solve things We can deal with that

OCL I won't be able to close if she won't agree to meet

CAS Worker : Yes I have to have a face to face before we close

MOM Right and that is fine. We can talk about that . You have to bring what the children's wishes really are and this wasn't presented , there was the little bit of conflict . We can talk about that . My kids don't want to see you

CAS (Lawyer) Mrs______________we can't separate it - your kids seeing CAS and OCL

MOM Yes I understand . It is a conflict but not anything I am doing wrong

CAS No No nothing wrong , we just have to be on the same page at the same time

MOM Yes I don't mind . I feel there has been some break down and this had to do with the change of workers and other issues that were not presented properly and also breeches and false information that mucked things up. It's unfortunate

CAS Worker : Your children trust you. If you said to them, “OCL has to meet you , she needs to hear from your mouth what you want” and even with the Letter in place and CAS saying we want to close the file, they can't support that until OCL sees them so if you can use your influence to say, kids, you need to speak to OCL

OCL We have to know directly what their thoughts are

MOM They have already told OCL , and they have written you letters as well that they want the case closed

OCL I haven't heard anything from the kids since April and I wouldn't accept a Letter from them . That is not how we do our process

MOM That is not how I do it . We have a conflict and I will try to deal with it with the children but I also have to respect the children and I could get the Provincial Advocate.

(NOTE CAS seemed favourable to this but said it would stall things )

MOM That is another thing choice but they have to call. I can't for them. I am only trying to respect them as well . If they are uncomfortable, I am uncomfortable. That is the tension. I want them to be comfortable and if it means getting a Provincial Advocate , then so be it

CAS We are so close (to closing. CAS didn't want a trial. They wanted to close case)

MOM To me it's a no brainer. The Judge says there is no finding

OCL He didn't say there is no finding. He said there hasn't been a finding. There hasn't been a trial

MOM  That is the position (NOTE Judge said there is no finding , that is why he ordered a trial because CAS has not been able to convince him there was a finding at all to give him reason to grant CAS more supervision. That is WHY he ordered a trial)

OCL That is what it is

MOM That is fine. But I know the case more than you and I don't want to argue about it. There is a difference between what I know and what you know and what original CAS office has already set and I do not agree with it because I can not support false allegations so in this sense, I have to be firm because this is my family. It is not simple, cut and dry. This is my family so I have to say, No , you are wrong here, or you are wrong there and so on , not to belittle you. I don't mean to be that way

OCL But I haven't said anything to what you are referring to. I have to meet with my client

MOM Right, but when they did tell you what they wanted, you did not bring that before the court to Judge ___________ you only made remarks about us . That was all

OCL I don't recall specifically

MOM Well I have it in the notes I wrote it down

OCL We haven't been in court since March

MOM Doesn't matter . You had the chance before Judge _________ to say what the children did tell you but you didn't tell him. That is the issue. I am disappointed that you did not bring forth what they said

CAS This is a new opportunity to do that

MOM yes I can encourage that. I am sorry we had that between us . It is also up to me to tell the kids, you have to tell them what you want

CAS In any event , the Judge would want to know what is updated because so much time has past

MOM I am working with 2 young teens. I can't tell them what to do . I am not allowed to manipulate them but I can say it is in your best interest to be clear to them about what they want and to not be manipulated. It is fair for me to advocate. It is just a process and I feel they haven't had that and it's been a long haul. They have been whacked by other workers, mostly by Original CAS before we moved

CAS Worker : We want to move towards closure

OCL If you want to have a meeting with me, I have no problem with this. We can meet at my office if you want , at your house , at the school, whatever but I am letting you know that I have to take a certain position depending on what the Society wants to do, I need to meet with my clients. Just so you know, I represent mainly 13, 15 16, 17, 18 yr olds and generally there isn't an issue meeting with them so if someone doesn't want to meet with me , they can tell me themselves. They are very nice kids, they re not rude at all so I don't have a problem with that but I can't take it by a letter. It has to be a face to face meeting. That is the way it works

We went to a cafe today and we started chatting with a person who had a university table with different pamphlets. As we got talking we discovered that he , like many other men are very afraid of the politics at the university campus ,mainlyaccess page ...

We went to a cafe today and we started chatting with a person who had a university table with different pamphlets. As we got talking we discovered that he , like many other men are very afraid of the politics at the university campus ,mainly feminism. Men are being shoved out of so many professions and they are scared because on the basis of one word, it is so easy for a woman to put a man in jail.

Men can't safely be teachers anymore. Men aren't safe. I said to him it is a joke to say that women in our society are not safe. He smiled because she knows women are safe. It was on the backs of men that this society has made so it safe for women to work.

As we discussed some of the issues, he knew exactly what we were talking about. This has happened before where men are silently wondering what is going on but not saying a word. They know what they are up against, being a male and are not sure what to do about it. It is so sad that the feminist  ideology has become so strong that it has disenfranchised so many men, taking away their jobs, even their family.

He was smiling but I knew that he was fearful for the future. He even admitted it.

I asked him if he had a girlfriend and he laughed and said no.

I responded by saying , well I guess I can't blame you. We encouraged him to start going to the men's group at the University. ( which women's groups tried to shove away from the Campus) He knows about it. 

I know there are many men who feel this way and yet are silent. I've run into this over and over again. If we don't speak to these people they will remain silent. What I find is that many people now share the same values on the same concerns. Both men and women. He confirmed to us that in the academic circle, people are just hush hush. They can't say anything. They have to accept the politically correct view or lose their position or have a difficult time.

He said there aren't as many full time professors anymore really. At least not for very long. Men are just not taking these positions or there are few hours and have to get additional jobs to survive. 

I walked away hoping he will rise to the occasion even knowing it is an uphill battle but I said to him things usually swing back when more people feel the consequences of what extreme feminism actually has done. Including immigration policy where a small amount of people are making bad decisions for so many others. 

He  said many people are aware of the gender dynamics and unfair treatment of men. He knows about the men's movement too. We were born here more than 50 years ago so we see the changes that happened. It was refreshing to see a young man, 20 years younger than us who gets it. It was refreshing to talk to him because it said to me, that so many more people are starting to look at the seriousness of what was implemented 30 to 50 years ago, that it is affecting so many generations now, on many levels. 

He said this too. I went back to the car and prayed over his life..for protection! It was great to meet an understanding male  who knew the issues and although he may be quiet,  we could tell he was a strong man who will rise.  It is good to talk to people all over in your travels, at cafe's , libraries, the grocery store, at school, at work , online, anywhere.

This way, there is discussion. We told him to check out CAFE' at U of T  and he said he would.  

THIS IS WHAT THE PARENTS SAID IN AN INTERVIEW TO CAS WORK...