Can the Equal Custody Movement become truly gender-neutral?

When I first got involved in child custody reform it became clear to me that the Equal Custody/Equal Parents Movement was overshadowed by the Fathers' Rights Movement and/or Men's Movement. Not only is the Equal Custody Movement just a tiny part of the larger movement, but many saw it as a sell-out. Some still do.

I felt alone, floating on a raft in The Sea of Testosterone. Not only were there very few women activists, but most of us were received with suspicion. So many of these men who had been wronged in the worst possible way by the partners they loved, simply no longer trusted women.

During the last three years I have seen noticable changes. For one, there are many women involved now. Also, leaders in the Equal Custody Movement have made headway into the mainstream media, (Ned Holstein of the MA group Fathers & Families was recently interviewed for the NPR show The Tug Of War Over Children). Activists have networked across the globe, (this blog is read in over three dozen countries), shared resources and become a stronger political force.

Some in the Fathers' and Men's Movement don't accept the work being done by Equal Custody activists. They see bandaids being requested when what they want is full-scale surgery on the status of family in society. After reading what they have to say about the causes of the destruction of the nuclear family I can't say I disagree with them, at least for the most part.

But this is where we part ways. I disagree that we should reject new Equal Custody laws, instead pushing for a larger transformation to a more conservative political landscape, one where the 2-parent heterosexual family is the only accepted option. I'm an egalitarian, but that's beside the point. I'm not passing judgement on those who hold different opinions, not at all. I'm just impatient.

The way I see it, it will be a lot easier to get the Equal Custody that we want, by itself, as one simple issue. We don't need to change everyone's political affiliations and beliefs. We only need to unify all those who know that every child deserves both parents equally active in their lives. This includes liberals, democrats, and women.

My wish is that the Fathers' and Men's Movement will support the Equal Custody Movement. Many participants are in both after all. I'm asking them to help us to get the justice our children and grandchildren deserve. In doing so they will be getting more supporters for their movement.

I also think not only do we need to take the focus off of fathers, but off all parents. We're really fighting for children's rights. I know when it comes to law, we're talking about parents' rights. What I mean is when we talk about this issue, when we write about this issue, we need to focus on the children. The Fathers' Movement has always been criticized for being selfish, for putting men's desires above that of their children. I know it's not true, but many do not.

I've been criticized for trying to change men. This is simply not true. In the last three years I've come to know, understand and honor men more than any other time in my life. I know exactly how much men can love their children, how responsible they can feel for them, and how raped they feel by not being able to raise them. My goal all along has been to change the public's opinion of fathers. That hasn't changed.

~!~

Listen to this new National Public Radio show

The Tug of War Over Children

If moved to archives, look HERE.
~!~

New Hampshire Scandal

Friend and fellow activist Marc Snider has made the headlines. In this Concord Monitor article opposing lobbyists are said to feel "threatened" by his video camera. Threatened? These people have no problem saying they speak on behalf of New Hampshire families. Why then are they afraid these same families will see exactly what they're saying to legislators?

From the article:

"If you're going to throw it, you've got to be able to receive it. And if they're on the receiving end, they don't like it," said Rep. Karen McRae, vice chairwoman of the committee and a Goffstown Republican. Any lobbyist afraid to be videotaped "should get out of politics right now," she said.

Rep. David Bickford, a committee member who has sponsored several bills that Snider supports, called the complaints about discomfort a last-ditch tactic used by lobbyists to divert attention from the merits of legislation. "They're trying to play that they're the victims," said Bickford, a New Durham Republican. "I find that underhanded. I don't believe for a minute they're intimidated."~!~

And in a letter to the writer of this article Snider adds:

The public surely needs more exposure to the actuality of the legislative process as it relates to family law.

It is very important to draw the parallel between the lack of accountability for false assertions being made at the Statehouse by special interest lobbyists with the lack of accountability for false assertions being made in the family courts to gain advantage in child custody proceedings.

A father in a NH family court confronted with a similar allegation from his child's mother (or her attorney) will find himself ejected from his home and separated from his children in most all cases. When and if the allegation is proven to be unfounded, no action is *ever* taken to hold the perjuror [leading to a separation, perhaps prolonged for months or years, of child and father] responsible for such heinous and serious allegations.

The lack of accountability in such cases has led to a statewide pandemic of false allegations in the context of divorce and child custody.

The special interest lobbyists refuse to debate the bills in question on their merits, instead slinging mud to discredit reform supporters, because their arguments on behalf of retaining the dysfunctional status quo truly are *meritless*.

No incorrect information is given at NHCUSTODY.ORG, as NHCADSV Executive Director Grace Mattern claimed in the article. This is about full disclosure, and Ms. Mattern and her organization don't like such transparency.

Rep. Mary Gile was quoted as saying the public needs to be patient.

The public has been waiting patiently for reform for far too long. Patience is expired. It is time *now* to do the right thing, or for the Committee members to reasonably explain *why* they are not passing reform legislation. To date, no reasonable explanations are being, nor have been, provided.

The public and media have a right to these explanations.

Have a look at bills HB1580, HB1583, HB1585, and HB1586 for the details of desperately needed reforms that have been rejected by the legislature for years now. These are the same 4 bills that the lobbyists refused to testify about on Tuesday the 17th, despite being in attendence to monitor the public hearings prior to alleging their hollow cries of 'fear' when the public was not present 2 days later.

Not a single individual showed up to testify against the above bills during the public hearings for them.

Why, you may ask...?

Because the public support for these reforms is overwhelming.

And because the only individuals opposed are those representing professional special interest groups that profiteer off of separating children from their fit parents at the time of divorce. These groups do not want to explain in the public light why it is that they oppose such clear reforms for fairness, equity, and the real best interests of NH's children.

Sincerely,

Marc Snider
3 Ellie Drive
Merrimack, NH 03054
(603) 801-2008
WWW.NHCUSTODY.ORG

~!~

Krights Radio

Krights Radio is looking for state representatives to call in and report on family law reform efforts. If you're interested, write to direct@krightsradio.com. Be sure to listen to their Fathers4Justice special. Now LIVE HERE.

~!~

Problems with FOC of Michigan?

Need to file a complaint against the Friend of the Court (FOC) in Michigan? Lary Holland of Stand Up Today describes the steps you need to take HERE.

~!~

California Ballot Initiative

The organizers of the California Ballot Initiative have about a month left to collect petition signatures. They're willing to pay. For more information visit Child's Right.

~!~

Fathers & Families - MA

I'd like to congratulate Dan Hogan for taking over the Presidential position from Ned Holstein at Fathers & Families. If I lived in MA I'd already have my resume submitted for the vacant Assistant Director of Operations position.

~!~

"To Have Your Child Taken...Rips The Soul Out"

Fathers4Justice members and supporters include parents who exist in a living nightmare. Many of the UK members were fathers who for no good reason had their children completely removed from their lives. Some of them are my friends.

I know fathers who had been stay-at-home parents while their wives worked, until they visited family court. There are fathers who have been jailed for waving at their children. One father watched as his children passed in front of his house on their way to school each day, yet he couldn't talk to them or even wave through his window.

Other fathers are professionally licensed to provide care or education to children, but can not see their own. These parents love their children greatly and are devoted to them. They feel raped of their responsibility to raise their own flesh and blood. It's not natural to lose your children this way.

We've read that one of these UK parents, a member or supporter of F4J, may have said something along the lines of wondering what the Prime Minister would do if he had to feel their pain. If this was said, and that is yet to be determined, I wholeheartedly believe it would simply have been pain erupting from a broken heart.

~!~

Think something you write on an internet board won't be used against you? According to Lary Holland at Stand Up Today:

Melissa DeBoer...an employee of Kent County Sheriff's Department utilized a VPN (Virtual Private Network) connection through Grand Rapids based Calvary Church to attempt to gain access to a Family Rights Online Support Group. more...

~!~

Josef Cannon, Fathers4Justice member, spoke about his daughter's parental abduction on an Irish talk show about a month ago. You can view the Quicktime video HERE.

Hollywood Actor/Writer Josef Cannon describes how his ex-wife kidnapped his four-year-old daughter in 1998. In this shocking story of Parental Abduction, we learn how an Irish mother stole names and identities from gravestones to hide with her daughter as fugitives in England. Josef, a member of Team H.O.P.E in the USA had a law passed and named after his daughter Shelby in America.

In response to the Granada TV's Dad's Army: Inside Fathers 4 Justice he wrote:

To have your child taken or kept away from you rips the soul out of these men and it's ironic that a country that brags about how the men in England/UK don't show their emotions. How they keep them bottled up inside. Then why in heavens name can't they see that the actions of these blokes are not of one of TROUBLE MAKING DADS WITH AN AGENDA, but heartbroken fathers not knowing where to turn to express their anger!

The entire letter is on the Amberell Campaign website.

Please support Amberell Photography and Digital Imaging, for supporting fathers' and family rights. You can see some of their beautiful images HERE.

~!~

Listen to the
Krights Radio
Fathers4Justice Special
Wednesday January 25, 2006

~!~

Out Of The Ashes Comes the Equal Parenting Alliance, A New Political Party

Peter Molloy, former Fathers4Justice member from Liverpool, announced last night that he and several other men are starting a new political party: Equal Parenting Alliance (EPA). They've been in talks with the Manchester group Children First Party about a possible merger. As reported on IC Liverpool.co.uk Molloy said, "We're offering a lifeline to people who want to continue campaigning for equal access rights for fathers."

Daryl Irwin is the leader of Children First Party. He says the two groups will put pressure on the main political parties to change family law to "better serve" children.

Molloy is quoted as saying, "The issue that Fathers 4 Justice campaign for, is still very much alive, but the group itself has been in slow decline for the last 12 to 18 months. They were really successful at first but they needed to step up their game, but they have just been losing momentum. They had loads of public support at the beginning but the stunts kept on disrupting normal people so they have started to alienate people who used to sympathise with them."

Molloy, a 35-year-old plumber told IC Liverpool, "We decided that politics is the way to go now, and when we heard about Children First, we decided to meet them. Most of our policies are the same, so we are in talks to amalgamate the two groups."

I agree that politics are the way to go. The advances we've made here in California have mostly been through this advocacy group and father-friendly legislators. But I also believe we need to keep this subject in the public eye. How we'll do that in the future will be interesting to see.

Official Statement From Alleged Blair Kidnap Plotter

In any civil rights movement there will be good times and bad. In any large gathering of people there will be positive relationships and negative. Our equal child custody movement is no different. Most of us who report on these people we consider friends try to focus on the positive aspects, the positive advances we've made. I know I have avoided reporting things I felt would have a negative impact on our image. Those incidents do not reflect the love and devotion for their children of the parents we represent. They are a very small part of a large, and constantly growing, civil and human rights movement.

Matt O'Connor has stated he expelled 30 extremists last year. It just so happens that he said this was done at the same time that 30 members of Fathers4Justice walked out over poor management and started the Real F4J. Since that time both groups have gone on to do demonstrations in support of equal child custody.

There are Fathers4Justice organizations in several countries. A couple of them are O'Connor's sanctioned groups. The rest are run by individuals who refuse to be under his management. Without going into too much detail, I'll just say that for the last 3 years I have witnessed much frustration, disappointment and anger over O'Connor's management skills. [I should add there has always been great respect for his vision.]

I'm pretty sure we'll be hearing from more ex-members now that O'Connor has officially pulled the plug. For now I offer you the official statement by the alleged kidnap plotter:

I, Martin Matthews, would like to make a few things clear about the Sun newspaper article about kidnapping Leo Blair.

1. At no time did anyone ever suggest anything of the sort.

2. The following people were present, Artur – a 58-year-old father who is ‘T–Total,’ Dyian - A photography teacher who also did not drink as he later went to work, Gary , Jolly, Graham, Eddie, and two women.

3. After speaking with the Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Mirror, I feel it necessary to point the following:

On the 18th of December 2005, I was feeling unwell and only had two glasses of Coke in the pub. I do not have the slightest idea from where these roomers of a kidnapping came from. I have noted in the tabloids that Jolly Sainsbury and Graham Manson are quoted as saying, that I may have suggested this as a joke. However, after speaking with Jolly and Graham it must be made clear that they have been miss-quoted.

4. I found yesterday exhausting, as I had made it clear to the tabloids exactly what the position was. However, I find that in today’s papers have reported that a conversation had taken place with fact or evidence to support this.

5. Late last night and early this morning I was approached by a 3rd party offering me £10,000 from the Sun Newspaper to lie and admit that the kidnapping plot was a Matt O’Conner idea and that he had asked me to look into it for the group.

6. I would like to thank Matt O’Conner for everything he has done for us and suggest that he should be included in the next honours list.

7. I did meet with Police Officers in Epsom on the 27th of December 2005. However, I find it particularly strange that if I did in fact suggest or take part in any kidnap plot on the 18th last, the police have not ever questioned me about this. In fact when I telephoned the Police Officer who spoke to me on the 27th last, about the Sun Newspaper article, and asked him directly who was involved he could not give me any information.

8. I am of the opinion that the entire saga is a complete fabrication by someone in power and ask most loudly that proof or evidence should be made available for public scrutiny.

9. As I am not a politician and have no experience with such matters all I can say is the only Party to benefit from this saga would be the Labour Party, by taking the heat of Ruth Kelly and off the front page of the newspapers.

Regards,
Martin Matthews

For the Channel Four interviews with Matt O'Connor and Graham Manson click HERE.

Thanks Matt, It Was One Hell Of A Ride

First we heard that Matt O'Connor had suspended operations of Fathers4Justice while he debated the future of the equal custody advocacy group. A BBC storyhad broken, saying that fringe extremist supporters of F4J had planned last month to kidnap Tony Blair's five-year-old son Leo. Police made O'Connor aware of the plan and he denied any knowledge of it . He had already expelled 30 members last year he considered too extremist. He said, "We were aware that there were more extremist elements and we acted within our organisation to clean the undesirable element out." UK members of F4J knew something was amiss when several were visited by SO13, the Metropolitan's anti-terrorist officers, awhile back. They were told if they did anything near Downing Street they would be shot.

Then the news broke that O'Connor had made his decision: he was closing shop, Fathers4Justice would be no more. He told Channel Four News, "Three years after starting the organisation, we're going to cease all operations and bring the campaign to a close...I want to get a good night's sleep. This is not what I wanted. I don't want to be associated with an organisation getting headlines like this...What these people are doing is undermining the very good work that people in this organization have done," he said, "We do peaceful direct action with a dash of humor. We're in the business of uniting dads with their kids, not separating them...I'm proud of the work we've done, but if we're going down this road with extremist elements then it's come to an end."

Advocates and activists worldwide are reacting with sadness, disappointment, and even relief. Many have been concerned with the extremists that harm the equal custody movement. It's a shame they tarnished the superhero idea. I thought Matt O'Connor's plan was great. I never saw terrorists on those buildings and bridges. I saw the loving, devoted daddies that they are.

Some people aren't willing to put the capes aside quite so quickly. Phil Davies of F4J-Wales said, "F4J Wales are not closing shop, we are fighting on...we wish to talk, but if they want to fight then let it be so," but he explained it's up to the members, they'll be voting on it. He added, "F4J-Wales has always focused on our children." You can hear Phill tonight on the Annie Armen Show.

Australian Parents Shed Light On Shared Parenting Bill

When I wrote my post entitled "Australian Shared Parental Responsibility Bill" I may have inadvertently given the impression that Fathers4Equality and the Joint Parenting Association endorse the bill, when in fact they do not. To set the record straight I offer the following from my friend Yuri.

Recycled Failure Or An Equal Time Presumption

From the outset I would like to commend the authors of the Age editorial for underscoring the importance of equal parenting time on the well being of children following divorce.

However, several observations are in order.

First, let's shed light on the view that in Australia "The law on separating parents will alter significantly if the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005, introduced two weeks ago, is enacted"

Notwithstanding the spin of official media releases, the 2005 parental responsibility legislation recycles the 1995 changes that fuelled the 2003 Hull Committee post-mortem.

The Family Court got it wrong was the plain message by Minister Peter Duncan, as he moved the Keating Labor government's 1995 amendments.

In response to the Family Court's refusal to comply with the intent of the original Australian family law legislation, Minister Duncan stated that:

"As amended, the principles therefore establish a presumption of shared responsibility by parents for caring for their children.

The original intention of the late Senator Murphy was that the Family Law Act would create a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting, but over the years the Family Court has chosen to ignore that. It is hoped that these reforms will now call for much closer attention to this presumption and that the Family Court will give full and proper effect to the intention of
Parliament."

(Duncan P. Consideration of Senate Message, House of Reps Hansard 21 November 1995, p 3303)

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=374630&TABLE=HANSA

Yet, despite this legislative directive, the Family Court continued to snub its nose at the parliamentary intent and joint residence (joint physical custody) orders fell further from an already paltry 5%, to a further low of just 2.5%.

As to the observation that "The new law compels the court to consider making an order that the child spends equal time with both parents" and "If the court decides against equal time, it must consider substantial time. Both are subject to a history of child abuse, family violence and whether the making of such an order is practicable,"

This is no more than standard judicial practice because in fashioning orders judges must rule on all applications put to the court (including equal time applications).

Moreover, a resistant traditionalist judiciary can easily accommodate the proposed law's "substantial and significant" contact time definition that mirrors the Family Court's preferred two days a fortnight/ mid week visit/special days approach

Section 65DAA establishes that:

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2146&TABLE=BILLS

3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b), a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:

(a) the time the child spends with the parent includes both:

(i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and

(ii) days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and

(b) the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:

(i) the child's daily routine; and

(ii) occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and

(c) the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

Beyond official press release rhetoric, supporters of the failed two days a fortnight/midweek/special days status quo have nothing to fear from the proposed legislation and I intend to book my seat in advance for the next family law post mortem

John Hirst the well respected academic and social commentator, jn his telling "Kangaroo Court" critique highlighted the inability of Australian governments to fully grasp the extent of resistance to equal parenting initiatives from a Family Court with remarkably entrenched views.

Of the proposed Family Law changes, John Hirst stated:

"Late in 2003, the standing committee reported its findings. It is not clear why it baulked at recommending that joint custody be made law. The committee itself seemed committed to the change; the bulk of the evidence it heard was in favour; the Prime Minister had given them the cue. Although not prepared to recommend it as law, it remained sympathetic to joint custody and in appropriate cases it urged that it be encouraged. Judges in Australia were to consider equal time!"

"Consider it?

"The Court had made it abundantly clear to the committee that it was opposed to anything like equal time.

The only way to control the Court is to instruct it where the best interests of children lie."

Given, past judicial practice the same obstacles to anything resembling equal parenting time will be faced by this new legislation.

The view here is that it is pointless to ask the Family Court to 'consider'equal parenting time, when the whole culture of the Court is directed against such outcomes.

To repeat the words of John Hirst "The only way to control the Court is to instruct it where the best interests of children lie."

In sum, rather than recycling failed legislation the enactment of a rebuttable presumption in favour of equal parenting time is urgently required.

Yuri Joakimidis
Joint Parenting Association
www.jointparenting.org.au

For more information:

Joint Parenting Association
Box 7115
West Lakes, South Australia 5021

Fathers4Equality Australia
Box 57

THIRROUL, NSW, 2515

~!~

Canadian Family Rights Activists Reach New Heights For Children

Across Canada Fathers4Justice* activists are donning superhero outfits, climbing bridges and overpasses, and unfurling huge banners. They told us this was coming, that they'd take their message to the voters before the upcoming election.

VICTORIA, BC-

Early Monday morning, January 9, several well-known fathers' and family rights activists climbed the Johnson Street Bridge in Victoria, British Columbia. Rob Robinson as Burnaby Batman, Kevin Christiaens as the BC Hulk and Stephen Hodges Whitaker as the Victoria Spiderman risked life, limb and liberty for "your right to see your kids." They hung two banners; one a huge 30'x40' Canadian flag and the other that was 18'x24' read, "LIBERALS DENY CHILDREN THEIR RIGHTS."

Traffic was slowed to one lane due to the emergency response and local media reported that motorists were most likely angry. To that Robinson replied, "What no one saw, except those who were there, was the gathering of public supporters who clapped and cheered for our bravery upon our descent. This was a touching moment I shall soon not forget."

Hal Legere, National Director of Fathers4Justice-Canada, stayed on the ground dressed as Robin QC to educate the media. He said, "The Liberal Government represented by it’s leader, Paul Martin have repeatedly, in this election campaign claimed that they are the protectors of the Constitutional rights of Canadians. This same Paul Martin and the Liberal Party of Canada have refused to take action to ensure that the rights of children, the most politically defenseless segment of our society, are protected. Paul Martin would allow the unelected judges to rule this country. These are the same judges who have consistently denied thousands of children their Constitutional right to 'freedom of association' with their own parents."

Robinson, Christiaens and Whitaker were arrested for mischief, and Legere was arrested and may be charged with obstruction. All have been released from custody. Robinson stated, "For myself, it was an honour to be in the company of such dedicated soldiers of equality." Legere added, "So why do we climb bridges and cranes and other tall structures? The answer is simple, we will go to great lengths (or heights) to fight for the rights of our children."

Bob Waters, dressed as the Victoria Green Lantern stated, "Once again, we showed them that we will not rest until changes occur. We know we have their attention, and they know we aren't afraid of the consequences. The next logical step is a trial, open to the media, where we engage the government (through their representative, the Crown) in a dialogue before the Courts, whereby we call upon higher authorities (UN Convention, Charter of Rights, etc.) to justify our actions. The trials should not be about "getting off"; they should be about reversing the process so that the system is put on trial in front of the media. That is how we should move to the next stage of dialogue with our civil disobedience. There is no other way."

Steven Hodges, the Victoria Spiderman agreed, "We have to get these cases into court to be heard, even if that means being punished by the system. Again, that's the tactics that both the Suffragettes and Gandhi used in order to get their message out."

"Truth is, it is crucial that we take every opportunity that presents itself to spread our message far and wide," said Robinson, "The best way I know of is through media. What is unfortunate is we must go to such lengths as to risk our lives and our liberty to deliver the message home." Then he added, "We superheroes are merely the messengers to raise our issues. What is equally important is that we the people also do our part and create dialogue with those elected powers to be to negotiate reform that will accurately convey the will of its families."

Robinson, also known as Canada's first Batman added, "Let us not forget all those families who are suffering with the loss of a family member at the hands of family law."

SCARBOROUGH, ON-

This morning Kris Titus, another well-known family rights activist, and Regional Coordinator for Fathers4Justice dressed as Wonder Woman and hung a large banner over commuters at Hwy 401 and Brimley Road in Scarborough, Ontario. Her 4'x12' message read, "VOTE EQUAL PARENTING." Emergency vehicles responded. After two hours Titus came down, and was not arrested.

"Fathers-4-Justice is far more than a handful of angry men as stated by [Paul Martin's] office. In fact, members include many women and grandparents, all of whom support equality and are fed up with the Liberal's failure to act on the inequalities in family law," stated Titus.

She then added, "It is very interesting for me to hear Paul Martin vehemently purport to defend the Charter of Rights while systematically denying thousands of children their right to 'freedom of association' with their own parents. Mr. Martin's own Justice Minister has publicly stated that parents have no rights vis a vis their children. I can only ask, 'Who does have rights with respect to our children, and who is it who will defend the children's rights?' Mr. Martin's proposal to do away with the notwithstanding clause is no surprise to me, there is no need for it if you just ignore the rights of children anyway."

To support these brave activists, and to learn about family law reform visit Fathers4Justice-Canada or contact Hal Legere, National Director at (778) 837-1224.

*Fathers-4-Justice (Canada) is a non-violent direct action organization committed to the establishment of a fair and balanced family rebuilding system based on equality for all, the true rule of law, and the obvious premise that in the vast majority of cases children should never have a parent removed from them by state action.

~!~

Breaking News! Victoria BC: Passionate Papas Brave Bridge, Educate Electors

Canada's Fathers' and
Family Rights Advocates
Have Something To Say
About The Upcoming Election

Kevin Christiaens the BC Hulk, Stephen Hodges Whitaker the Victoria Spiderman and Robert Robinson the Burnaby Batman, three popular Canadian fathers' and family rights activists, have snuck atop the Johnson Street Bridge in Victoria BC early this morning and unfurled 2 large banners. One banner which reads "Liberal's Deny Children Their Rights" is 18 feet by 24 feet and the largest is a Canadian flag 30 feet by 40 feet.

These Fathers4Justice members and loving fathers, along with Hal Legere Robin QC, Doug Hanlan the Victoria Superman, Bob Waters the Green Lantern, the Victoria Spiderman, the Flash, Supergirl, Batgirl and supporters are hoping to influence voters in the January 23rd election with their nonviolent demonstration.

Fathers4Justice-Canada's message:

1. Children of divorce have a fundamental right to a meaningful relationship to both parents.

Family courts routinely relegate loving fathers to weekend visitors in their children's lives, and than fail to enforce the access orders made “in the best interests of the child".

2. The Governing Liberals have failed to act to protect these children for more than 7 years.

In November 1998, the Joint Senate and House of Commons Sub-Committee released their report entitled, "For the Sake of the Children", containing 48 recommendations to address the serious shortcomings in the current system. The governing Liberals have largely ignored the report.

3. Fatherlessness is reaching epidemic proportions in Canada, and it has a direct relationship to youth violence and crime.

Nearly 40% of our nation's children do not live with their biological father, and youth crime and violence is on the rise. In a 1990 article entitled A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s published by the Progressive Policy Institute, social scientists Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and William A. Galston addressed the enormous social consequences of fatherlessness. They said:

The economic consequences of a parent’s absence (almost always the father’s) are often accompanied by psychological consequences, which include higher than average levels of youth suicide, low intellectual and educational performance, and higher than average rates of mental illness, violence, and drug use. . . . Equally suggestive is the anecdotal evidence of the difficulties many young single mothers experience in raising their sons. The absence of fathers as models and co-disciplinarians is thought to contribute to the low self-esteem, anger, violence, and peer-bonding through gang membership of many fatherless boys.”

“Nowhere is this more evident than in the long-standing and strong relationship between crime and one-parent families. . . . The relationship is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and time again in the literature; poverty is far from the sole determinant of crime.”

FATHERS 4 JUSTICE

Victoria - Green Lantern - 250 - 920-7930

Vancouver – Hal Legere – 778-837-1224

Canada's Fathers4Justice The original UK Fathers4Justice