Bill C-560 Divorce Law reform Equal Parenting, give equal parenting a fair hearing in committee: vote yes on May 27th for C-560

On May 27th, Bill C-560 will likely be presented in Parliament for a second reading vote. Opponents of this bill, many who profit from the suffering of parents and children, have been spreading misinformation about the content and aims of the bill, as they fear a fair hearing in the Justice Committee.

A group of lawyers sympathetic to the needs of parents and children have produced a document showing the facts which contradict the myths spread about this bill. Parents and advocates for children have sent this to each member of parliament, including yourself. Some MPs, regretfully, have not yet read this, or their staff have not forwarded it. We urge you to base your vote on facts, not myths spread by monopoly vested interests opposing the bill.

Here is a link if you have not yet read this important 19 page paper: www.canadian ... attachment

In our opinion, no MP should vote without listening to both sides of this important issue.

Please let me know if you feel that the bill should get a proper hearing, i.e. in the Justice Committee so that the evidence for the need for outcome-based changes can be tested.

The current broken family law system focuses on parent rights, as it most often opts for the right of one parent to control or marginalize the child’s right to parenting by the other parent. C-560 is about the equal responsibility of both parents to respect the child’s interest in parenting by the other parent.

Social science shows clearly that equal parenting approaches reduce child poverty. If you vote against C-560, you are voting for more child poverty and suffering.

The Supreme Court Justice Cromwell-led study of family law calls for “consensual decision making” by parents. It says that the current system is dysfunctional and largely inaccessible by middle class parents. If you vote against C-560, you have betrayed middle class parents and children for the profits of an elite.

Opponents of C-560 have claimed that equal parenting was reversed in Australia (based on a study by Jennifer McIntosh). Not true. Researcher McIntosh herself has recently announced that her study cannot be used to claim sole custody is in the “best interests” of children. To her credit, she has joined the 110 other internationally-recognized social scientists in the main stream, which conclude that the evidence is overwhelming that parenting by both mother and father, assuming fitness and absence of domestic violence, is in children’s best interest. Myths and misunderstandings of this study had been promoted by CBA and sole custody advocates in Australia to block joint custody, but now increased equal parenting is benefiting Australian children and parents. Would you deny the same benefits to Canadian children based on myths by vested interests?

The CBA promotes the myth that courts, without ever seeing or listening to the children, with less than 5% of cases actually having court-tested facts adjudicated (as over 95% of parents cannot afford it), with no judicial training in tested social science of valid custody determinations, that the system somehow acts in “children’s best interest” but they never explain exactly how.

Even Justice Minister Peter MacKay, who so far has met only with the legal profession and not with our side, i.e. parents, agrees in a letter that parent negotiated agreements are vastly more in children’s interest than judicial orders. But lining the pockets of the legal community appears more important to Justice Canada staff lawyers than the needs of children and parents.

Let me close with a promise: parents will continue to demand equal parenting. 80% of the Canadian public supports these reforms. We will track the votes of parliamentarians and show publicly who votes for parents and children and who votes for the dysfunctional status quo.

I am confident that you have the courage to do what is right and vote for change, or, at least a fair hearing for change in the Justice Committee.

I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Glenn Cheriton

address censored


Source: Send your participation letter now here: Re Bill C-560
advocacycana ... attachment