Executive Summary

If you think you know the genesis of today’s Family Laws in Canada, then you’ve got another thought or two coming.

Canada’s Family Laws are different from laws elsewhere and after you read this ask your family lawyer to explain this to you (not your immigration lawyer because that immigration agent may not always tell you about all of the bad with all of the good).

Following enactment of No-fault Divorce in Canada in 1968, we saw plenty of faults attributed to one class of Canadians (men) when the federal Liberals’ enacted Bill C-41 in May 1997, significantly changing Canada’s Divorce Act.

Immediately prior to 1997, it appears that special interest groups, including known feminists, arrived within the Liberal Cabinet and convinced the leadership of Canada’s Liberal Government to push their Bill C-41 to cure declining political fortunes.

For example, former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s executive assistant and broad policy advisor inside the PMO (#7-Backroom Gang), Chaviva Hosek, was past chair and president of the 15-year-old NAC, an umbrella organization for up to 700 female action groups across Canada. [Backups of links: Broad Policy Advisor and Chaviva Hosek.]

In May 1997, the Federal Liberals enacted Bill C-41 with emphasis on Child Support (renamed from Spousal Support to Child Support for greater appeal–U of Calgary, 2000).

In June 1997, the federal Liberals called an election. Liberals survived narrowly with a majority government with the help from female voters informed by professional PR groups that this legislation would end female poverty caused by inadequate spousal support awards (quickly renamed to “child support” to improve general appeal. -“What Were They Thinking,” U of Calgary, 2000).

Having made made sweeping changes to Family Laws in Canada the Federal Government failed initially to foist their new law upon provinces. The Federal Liberal Government won after using millions of taxpayer dollars as inducements to Canada’s provinces to immediately adopt the same laws (despite their original objections).

Un-anticipated by the Federal Liberals in their haste, the Provinces railed against the additional caseload on their family courts because the new law was RETROACTIVE, making every settled divorce case open to “re-adjustment” in court. After the Feds budget $60 Million to $92 Million on the provinces to assuage their revolt, the provinces acquiesced (link or backup link). But provincial family courts found themselves understaffed with judges. To remedy that problem, hundreds of family lawyers were recruited to become new family court justices. The Feds spent even more millions of taxpayers’ dollars on those additional appointments to family court benches. [There you have it:

Federal Liberals’ stated aim was to reduce women’s poverty and focussed on single-parent females. One month later, the Liberals called a national election (June 2, 1997). But women did not get what they expected in turn for voting for the Liberal Party. In reviewing the cold, clear facts, one reads how women’s poverty persists. It remains unchanged from levels in 1997 to present day, a decade and a half after that promise made in 1997.

Families have been decimated by Canada’s Family Laws and Family Courts. Children, former spouses, plus other family members suffer under the force of so-called family justice (victims: e.g., grandparents, aunts and uncles, sisters and brothers of fathers now fighting for visitation).

Children have become increasingly implicated, used as “pawns” in contrived conflicts. The conflicts are set up by the laws, then aggravated by businesses (law firms, paralegals, counsellors), and then made real and permanent by family court justices. Some fathers are ordered by the court to never see their children or limit visits to two (2) times per month. Longitudinal studies indicate that some of these children made father-less suffer lifetime psychoses and drift into lives of addiction or crime.

Men who divorce are relegated to a second-rate class. These men are mistreated by courts similar to Black Americans of the 1960′s were treated by what was called “Southern Justice.” Absent fathers are hunted down and prosecuted as if they are serious and dangerous criminals, sentenced to a lifetime of servitude and monetary punishment, but without a jury by peers. Some say their life as they know it is finished, and some of those have been documented as having committing suicide as a way out. That act forever prevents a child from having a relationship with its father.

Since 1998, many experts have presented positive alternatives to the Government of the Day. These are experts in sociology, child psychology, family counseling, and pro-family legal experts, and included  a Special Parliamentary Joint Senate and House Committee (apparently that was merely a manipulation used upon the Senate so it would end meaningful debate and pass the Bill before Christmas Recess. The Joint Committee’s Report was dutifully produced but effectively ignored by the Liberal Government (given a short acknowledgement and dismissal) and so it was meaningless, feckless, as were subsequent self-assessments and glowing reports by Liberals.

To date, all of the meaningful recommendations presented to all governments of the day have been ignored. After ample time (more than a decade) to learn from the errors that were made at the outset, the status quo persists.

What does it means for men to be ensnared by Canada’s Family Laws and forced to live under Canada’s Provincial Family Court justice? ANSWER: click here.