brainsyntax.com

Divorce

Register as Member

Invitation to register, explore non public content, add new and edit your pages.
Access the brainsyntax member application here

Brainsyntax Top Suggestions
	Equality - Parents - SupremeCourt - Truth - Oppressed - Rats - Transparency - Divorce - Contacts - CAS - Court - Fathers - Court - Lawyers - Mothers - Police - Real Mothers Tips - Alienated - PAS More Categories - Groups

The Thoughts of a alienated father in regards to Parental Alienation and indoctrination
Asking for his child voice - Part II of the Ontario Break up by Vincent Schiele

Christina Jane Olsen Interrogation Fabricates a fake rape story - no consequences for misleading police in Canada The Ontario Break up - Canada Ontario - Break up Part I

Brainsyntax Page Notes

Saturday, May 2, 2020 Public Outrage I'm scared that I'm going to be some a satistic of fathers that cant handle it anymore. My rent is 1.200 And m...

Saturday, May 2, 2020 Michaela attempts to talk with you were tailored to suit her story of being a victim from some sort of monster who beat...

Thursday, April 23, 2020 Staff Notes Just edited the title, unsure if it was meant that this [page is as well getting shared across the NT --- VS

Thursday, March 12, 2020 Public Outrage Mothers who claim domestic abuse usually gain sole custody of the child, this abuse has become legal and toler...

Your Notes - All Notes - Your Pages - Page Grid

Brainsyntax Schedule

New - Schedule

Beware this Lawyer Serving Owen Sound and Port Elgin

Tuesday, June 2, 2020 Public Raven

Please contact me if you have been victimized by this lawyer.

Open PDF attachment
access page ...

Category: Divorce

The Universal Rights of Children of Separation and Divorce

Tuesday, December 24, 2019 Public Vernon Beck

THE RIGHT to be treated as an important human being, with unique feelings, ideas and desires and not as a source of argument between parents.

2) THE RIGHT to a sense of security and belonging derived from being a part of a stable home, school and community environment.

3) THE RIGHT to flourish in an environment that is free of negative social influences such as drugs, alcohol, crime, disrespect, bigotry, exploitation and neglect.

4) THE RIGHT to a continuing relationship with both parents and their extended families, based on a fair and just arrangement that will provide the opportunity to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, which includes the freedom to receive and express love for both.

5) THE RIGHT to have “listening parents” who work cooperatively in the best interest of the child as well as all members of the family.

6) THE RIGHT to express love and affection for each parent without having to stifle that love because of fear of disapproval by the other parent.

7) THE RIGHT to know that their parents’ decision to separate or divorce is not their responsibility.

8) THE RIGHT to continuing care and guidance from both parents, where they can be educated in mind, nourished in spirit, developed in body and surrounded by unconditional love.

9) THE RIGHT to honest answers to questions about their changing family relationships.

10) THE RIGHT to know and appreciate what is good in each parent without one parent degrading the other.

11) THE RIGHT to a relaxed, secure relationship with both parents without being placed in a position to manipulate one parent against the other.

12) THE RIGHT to have parents who will not undermine the child’s time with the other parent by suggesting tempting alternatives or by threatening to withhold activities or parenting time as a punishment for the child’s wrongdoing.

13) THE RIGHT to be able to experience regular and consistent parental contact and the right to know the reason for not having regular contact.

14) THE RIGHT to be a child, to be insulated from parental conflicts and problems.

15) THE RIGHT to be taught, according to their developing levels, to understand values, to assume responsibility for their actions, and to cope with the consequences of their choices.

16) THE RIGHT to be able to participate in their own destiny and to be taught about their family’s culture and history.

17) THE RIGHT to be able to contact any parent or any member of either parent’s extended family without unreasonable objection or interference from either parent.

18) THE RIGHT to be listened to by legal authorities and to have their age appropriate wishes and preferences made known to any court of law.

19) The RIGHT to be supported and cared for, both financially and emotionally, by one’s own parents and extended family as the first option before the involvement of any government or other third party.

20) THE RIGHT to be assisted by competent third parties whose responsibility it is to protect or advocate for children and to be provided this assistance by the parties without prejudice or bias in favor of, or against, either of the parents.

Open PDF attachment

Category: Divorce

We Judges know that women lie and deceive in family court but we accept that as part of the process

Monday, December 10, 2018 Public Jeremy Swanson

Good God. I had no idea about this. Even though I am supposed to have come around to expecting-and thus be immune in terms of shock to these things-I still remain stunned and horrified when I see them in print. I say on the one hand “well thank God he did not spend time in prison” but yet I know he might easily well have done (as so many completely innocent Canadian men often have. And still do) This causes me to have awful nightmares almost every other night.

Despite receiving some damages (not enough in my view) Steven Pagones also lost his wife and family and lost his job. I believe I know well the extent of the suffering he has endured. I have endured similar horrors right here even though I do not personally have domestic violence issues in my life. It ruins lives in a most terrible way I can assure you.

So, Brawley gets to pay Pagones $627 a month in “damages” but she still walks around free and people are still maintaining her victimhood. She herself is not even apologetic. And he is, by my observation lucky he is a prosecutor himself and he did not serve time. It’s just NOT good enough in my book. .

Now, ,I stand in opposition to this while thinking about Donald Marshall, David Milgaard, Steven Truscott and others wrongly convicted for murder and who all served time in awful conditions in plain unjust and unlawful circumstances. Just imagine how many men are in jail right now and who have served time for a crime they did not commit in terms of domestic violence?

In Ottawa–and I dare say other places in Canada- a man has only two options when accused of domestic violence. He can plead guilty and put in a guaranteed ‘no criminal record’ plea bargain which leaves him with no record but automatically adds his ‘admitted crime’ to the male on female domestic violence record. OR he can take his chances in criminal court with a 50-50 chance of going to jail for a crime he did not commit.. Not much choice there. I have not yet met a man who has taken option 2. It leaves me absolutely cold in realization of the possibilities. . And angry.

JS

Source: fathers_in_action

And always remember this when thinking about Canadian examples of this unjust and illegal madness.

“Luckily in Canada We Don’t Need Evidence to have a man charged with domestic violence”

(A statement to 50 assembled ‘domestic violence feminists’ 13 supporting men and this writer)

Ontario Judge Justice Judith Beeman

27th July 2008, Courtroom 32 Ottawa Court House

“We Judges know that women lie and deceive in family court about issues related to the Father in order to gain legal advantage but we accept that as part of the process“

Unnamed Canadian-Ontario Family Court judge
Courtroom 22 Ottawa Courthouse July 2006.

Category: Divorce

Read More - Reply to -

Re: We Judges know that women lie and deceive in family court but we accept that as part of the process : Follow-up by: Aaron Birch

Wednesday, June 14, 2017 Public

Dear Brooke your dad is stablely employed, working at bettering himself, stays in shape and hasn't gone anywhere and didn't emotional break down, lie and manipulate others for self gain and other neurotic reasons but due to your mothers lies and family courts propensity...

Read More - Reply to -

Re: We Judges know that women lie and deceive in family court but we accept that as part of the process : Follow-up by: Clint Tweedle

Sunday, October 7, 2018 Public

Regardless of the situation, divorce or accusations of any kind, when it comes to men vs. women, men are automatically assumed guilty in the court system. Instantly & without reasoning. It’s archaic.

Read More - Reply to -

Re We Judges know that women lie and deceive in family court but we accept that as part of the process : Follow-up by: Troy Smith

Sunday, October 7, 2018 Public

My ex, who works for a lawyer, attacked me with this during our divorce. My children were kept from me for about a month through Children’s Aid, and I was interrogated for about 1.5 hours by two male OPP detectives, while they video taped me in their police sta...

Read More - Reply to -

Re We Judges know that women lie and deceive in family court but we accept that as part of the process : Follow-up by: Faith Mills

Sunday, October 7, 2018 Public

I happen to know of ONE Canadian male that was charged with assault under the Domestic Violence Act and he opted to drag it all through the criminal court system in Alberta because he was actually INNOCENT of said criminal charges, wanted his day in court (in this ca...

Read More - Reply to -

Re: We Judges know that women lie and deceive in family court but we accept that as part of the process

Wednesday, October 31, 2018 Public

How sad as a female, awareness is important. I did not push for record of abuse in my case. Eventually was set up as unstable and lost child custody from community based harrassment. Again have jokes in rules...that do not have a process in place for the police to inves...

Read More - Reply to -

Re: We Judges know that women lie and deceive in family court but we accept that as part of the process : Follow-up by: Erdman Buhler

Sunday, December 16, 2018 Public

And women wonder where all the good men are? Well this is exactly why men are not interested in a relationship with women. I am not saying all women are like this but the ones who are, are ruining it for the ones who actually are not like this.

Read More - Reply to -

Re: We Judges know that women lie and deceive in family court but we accept that as part of the process : Follow-up by: Matt J Dubyk

Sunday, December 16, 2018 Public

Used to gain leverage, empowerment, control in the system. What ever happened to equal rights that was fought for. And they need to change the name to "we destroy families in court" because to me the word family is something u care for. Not try to destroy

Read More - Reply to -

Re: Real Woman respect Fathers Rights

Monday, October 1, 2018 Public Christina Heaman

Definitely fathers should have equal rights. Children need both parents in their life. It should be all about the children first. Personally I’m a mom who receives child support ( occasionally) I have my boys majority of the time but not because I have ever stopped my children from being wi... access page ...

Category: Divorce

Re Kids with Dads have better Grades and Communication scores on tests

Thursday, September 6, 2018 Public Daryl Sabourin

I have no idea how our justice system claims to have the best interest of the children, when someone has to spend their life savings on fighting for what was theirs in the first place. These aren’t items, they are children with emotions, feelings, questions. Children who one day had to pare... access page ...

Category: Divorce

Re: Re: The night dad went to Jail - Daddy doesnt live here anymore

Sunday, March 11, 2018 Public Anthony Nash

Didn't know we had children's books teaching about divorce. Even though many Walt Disney movies/books had many single father stories they didn't teach about divorce.

No fault divorce is a horrible law and makes marriage like eating candy. Don't like it spit it out, like the divorce la... access page ...

Category: Divorce

Re: Father Rights Canada / Direction needed on support and 5050 issues

Friday, October 27, 2017 Public Mark Simpson

I hope the best for you and always best to deal with things outside of court, maybe you can find a way to work it out. Courts and lawyers don't get payed to fix problems on prolong them access page ...

Category: Divorce

Re: I cant take what my sons mother is putting me through

Thursday, August 24, 2017 Public Aubrey Harper

Anything you sign is a contract or a form of payment...Including separation, custody, and maintenance agreements All of which can be vacated or modified without an attorney Your signature can be the difference between life and death. Stop signing things you don’t understand access page ...

Category: Divorce

New Study Speaking of what Is Best For Children Of Fractured Homes and Divorce

Tuesday, October 7, 2014 Public Leslie Loftis

What is the best custody arrangement for children after divorce? Most of us outside of family lawyers and courts don't think about that question until we are faced with it. And then adults tend to choose administrative stability, figuring the kids are as exhausted and spent as themselves. Childre... access page ...

Certainly our custody assumptions support this kind of stability. Typically, one parent gets primary custody, while the other gets Wednesday evenings, every other weekend, half the summer, and alternating holidays. This is so normalized that I was recently encouraged to host a women’s event on Wednesday night because that’s when the kids of divorce are with their dads. It is widespread and predictable.

But those custody norms are informed by old research. We have new research now. In fact, we have enough research that we have long-term studies of children of divorce and meta studies—studies of those studies, a few of which I covered here last summer.

Grant Children Their Rights, Too

What children want and what children need—what they see as stability—is open access to both parents. From a 2000 paper by William V. Fabricus and Jeffery Hall on young adult perspectives on living arrangements after a divorce, reporting on their follow-up in the late ’90s with children of divorce they had studied in the ’70s:

Earlier research on younger children’s perspectives on living arrangements has demonstrated that children desire free and frequent access to noncustodial parents. For example, Rosen (1979) found that 60% of children wanted unrestricted contact, regardless of whether the noncustodial parent was mother or father. Children repeatedly insisted that being able to see the noncustodial parents whenever they wished and being able to see that parent often made their parents’ divorces tolerable for them.

Kelly and Wallerstein (1977) reported that young children viewed the typical every-other-weekend visitation arrangement as severely inadequate. ‘The only younger children reasonably content with the visiting situation were those 7- and 8-year-olds visiting 2 or 3 times a week, most often by pedaling to their father’s apartment on a bicycle’ (p. 52).

…The perspectives of young children, although compelling, have not had much influence in public policy debates about custody and visitation. Young children’s feelings may be suspected of being relatively temporary, malleable, and ultimately not strongly connected to measurable outcomes. The public policy debate about custody and visitation has generally been framed in terms of parents’ (and, most recently, grandparents’) rights rather than children’s wishes (Mason, 1999). Thus, it is important that Wallerstein and Lewis (1998) have recently reported on the longitudinal follow-up of the perspectives of these children now that they are adults. Their report is based on a subsample of 25 respondents who were the youngest (now ages 27 to 32) in the longitudinal study.

Wallerstein and Lewis (1998) found that many of their respondents reported that their visitation schedules with their fathers had been too disruptive and too inflexible and that when this was true they got little enjoyment or benefit from visitation in the way of enhanced relationships with their fathers. As adults, they feel strongly now, as they did then, that their wishes should have been taken into account, and they remain angry and resentful that they were not.

But the children’s desires have had a hard time breaking through the conventional wisdom. Myths about single-adult attachment and simple routines persist. Considering the relative advantages for children of intact families, that children need both parents should not surprise us. Yet it does.

Historical and Practical Ruts

Divorce wasn’t commonplace until the 1970’s. Before then, social scientists studied orphaned children and mother and young child attachment. Mothers were the primary caregivers of children, so studying them first made sense. Then, when the divorce rate spiked, courts didn’t have other information to advise them about the best custody arrangements for children. They granted primary mother care based on the only available research and the prevailing cultural practice. Then social science started to study the effects of a fractured family or father absence.

Courts should grant shared custody to divorcing parents unless presented with clear and convincing evidence this arrangement is not in the best interest of the child.

After about four decades of such studies, we have another answer to “What is best for the children?” (Or really we find another example of being led astray by partial data that our common sense should have warned us to be wary of back in the ’70s.) Absent extenuating circumstances such as abuse, children want and children need open access to both parents.

Advocacy groups for children of fractured homes are opening all over the world trying to break though the old myths with the new studies. They typically seek a presumption of shared parenting rather than the current unstated presumption of primary maternal custody, which covers for an epidemic of familial alienation when the sole-custody parent restricts visitation by other family members.

Simply, courts should grant shared custody, roughly 60 to 40 percent splits of time, to divorcing parents unless presented with clear and convincing evidence that this arrangement is not in the best interest of the child. Abuse, addiction, instability—evidence of each could prompt the court to grant custody to one parent. The court would simply start from the idea that the child should have time with each parent.

The Opposition: Lawyers and Feminists

As simple and logical as that presumption sounds, the two main groups actively resistant to shared parenting make for powerful opposition: lawyers and, paradoxically, feminists. That lawyers oppose shared parenting makes sense. Shared parenting arrangements tend to reduce parental conflict and therefore the continued need for lawyers and their fees. (See generally, the myths link above, page 3 and studies cited in footnotes 16-21.) But feminists, a group often heard demanding more domestic participation from fathers and who we might expect to vehemently object to the old legal assumptions that expect the mother to provide primary care for children, their opposition to shared parenting makes no sense.

In other contexts, feminists complain about the cultural assumptions of childrearing putting an unfair burden on women, but when the law tries to redress that burden and demand that parents share in childrearing, then feminists object. Why? Since courts have overwhelmingly awarded primary custody to mothers in the past, feminists see shared parenting as part of the men’s rights movement. They object to shared parenting as men trying to usurp women’s power by trying to assume the parental responsibility women normally assume, as an attempt to lower child support payments, and as society failing to protect women from abusive men. A particularly tight contortion in reasoning from a recommendation of the National Association of Women and the Law in Canada, where a shared parenting law was defeated back in May:

In fact, as long as women remain the primary caregivers of children, women’s equality is in the best interests of children, and law reform can and must simultaneously take into account and promote both the best interests of children and the equality interests of women.

So while the assumptions about mother care hold, then the assumptions should be followed? I thought feminism was, partially, about breaking assumptions about women’s roles. (Pause here for a moment to ponder that although non-feminists keep getting lectured about how feminism isn’t anti-men, their actions suggest otherwise. They turn their own goals inside-out for simple spite.)

Playing to type, in the North Dakota political battle over the “new and improved” Measure 6, the only active vote for a presumption for shared parenting in this U.S. election cycle, the group running the opposition campaign is all lawyers plus a male pastor and a female domestic violence advocate—and they seem to be using State Bar resources to oppose the legislation. The group that sponsored the measure, however, isn’t the stereotypical men’s rights groups. That group is all women.

Shared parenting is about family.

There are many fathers’ rights groups who support shared parenting, of course, but that is only because fathers are usually the alienated parent. I’m a member of Leading Women for Shared Parenting and the stories we receive in that organization are overwhelmingly from women. Some are mothers who hardly see their children. Others are grandmothers and aunts who cannot see their grandchildren, nieces, or nephews, because their son or brother is denied access to his children. The heartache strains other family relationships, like the distraught father who avoids talking to his mother so he can keep his angst from overflowing or the mortified sister who inadvertently posted a FB link that upset the alienating parent and ended the little contact her brother had with his children.

Shared parenting isn’t about fathers’ rights. It isn’t even just about children’s rights, although their hurts are certainly the deepest because they last a lifetime. Shared parenting is about family. Divorce is hard enough, severing the family’s spirit. Physically splitting the family as a matter of course means those spiritual wounds cannot heal for anyone, especially the children.

It is time to stop playing money and politics over children from fractured homes. They have enough to deal with. We should do what is best for them. And the four decades of studies really just tell us what we intuitively know: Children need their parents—both of them.

Source to original article by Leslie Loftis

Category: Divorce

Truth is in a man's actions, not in someone else's blind accusations.

Divorce

Register as Member

Brainsyntax Top Suggestions

Brainsyntax Page Notes

Brainsyntax Schedule

Grant Children Their Rights, Too

Historical and Practical Ruts

The Opposition: Lawyers and Feminists