logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

Table of Contents for Eeva Sodhi's Web pages at Fathers for Life
Eeva Sodhi's Website (Archived)
 
 

Letter-to-the-editor


This letter by Eeva Sodhi addresses the issues driving men to kill their children and themselves. 
    The letter was written in response to an article in the Sun, reporting on a the case of a man who had shot himself and his three children, in Throckmorton, Texas.
    Considering that millions of men become affected by these issues, it is surprising that not more do these things.


----- Original Message -----

From: R&E Sodhi
To: editor@sunpub.com
Sent: February 25, 2002 8:13 AM
Subject: Divorced dad kills 3 kids, himself (Feb. 25, 2002)

Here is yet another reminder how the biased family laws, not only in Canada but across the world, are pushing fathers to commit the unthinkable.

It is noteworthy that when fathers kill their children, they almost invariably commit suicide as well. Suicide, as we all know, or should know, is the final act of desperation. It is rare for a mother to take her own life after she has killed her children, who often die as a result of long abuse.

Yet, the courts determine, almost without an exception, that it is in the children's best interest to grant the sole custody to the mothers, while ordering fathers to pay even if the mother has moved away with the children in order to thwart their access to their father.

Only shared physical custody and financial responsibility by both parents can prevent these tragedies. The assumption that both parents are financially responsible for the upkeep of the children is already written in the law.

However, only the non-custodial parents, usually the fathers, are ordered to provide support. The following exchange during the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee  on Social Affairs tells it all:

Senator LeBreton: "When the courts decide these issues, how does the mother's income factor into this? Who determines what amount the mother will contribute?" --- Ms Brazeau (Dept. of Justice Canada): "The amount that the mother is required to pay is presumed. There is a presumption that she will pay what she can at her income level. If she earns more, she will be pay more." [In:Social Affairs, Issue 3, Evidence. Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology Issue 3 – Evidence. OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 16, 1997]

For the irony of ironies, the father is usually ordered to pay alimony as well so that the mother can then be seen to contribute to the financial support. As Justice Rosalie Abella (Ontario Court of Appeal) put it:

"There is a clear statutory attempt to equalize the standard of living between the payor’s household and that of his or her children so that there is as little financial disadvantage to children from the parent’s separation as necessary ...Households tend to function as integrated economic and social units. This makes it more reasonable to determine what standard of living the household as a whole is entitled to enjoy"

In short, Madame Justice Abella advocates that the non-custodial parent is not only responsible for his child(ren) but for his ex-partner’s new partner, and his/her dependants also. Justice L’Heureux-Dupe elaborates on this concept also:

"The purpose of the guidelines is to enhance the child’s post-separation standard of living to approximate, as far as possible, what that standard would have been had the parents not separated".

Personally, I cannot find any statute that stipulates that an outsider has to support the family of a stranger who has robbed him of his children and then uses them as pawns to extort money.

In 1999, Renu Mandhane, representing the Ontario Women’s Justice Network, wrote:

"...Unfortunately, this bias (towards joint custody) can have a detrimental impact on women and children by promoting the rights of the father at the expense of the mother and weakening the mother’s financial situation post-divorce." [in:"The Trend Towards Mandatory Mediation: A Critical Feminist Legal Perspective Executive Summary" by Renu Mandhane, a University of Toronto law student, who worked with METRAC/OWJN for the summer of 1999 as a Pro Bono Fellowship Student] http://www.web.net/~owjn/mediation.htm

So, there you have it from the horse's mouth: the support is for the mother, not for the children. Ms  Mandhane ignores the fact that sole custody promotes the rights of the mother at the expense of the children and their father.

The only equitable way to deal with this dilemma and save lives is, of course, shared physical custody, or sole custody by the parent who is able to provide the pre-divorce standard of living to the children. By ordering the transfer of wealth from the payor parent to the receiving parent, who need not be accountable, further reinforces the master-slave relationship between the parents.

Yet, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is on record for having said that he wants to shelve the Child Custody and Access laws, while pursuing fathers who find it difficult to pay support to the mothers of their children.

How many more victims do we need until justice will prevail? Let us lay these four bodies to where they belong: at the feet of the politicians and law makers.

Sincerely,

Eeva Sodhi

RR 1 McDonald's Corners
Ontario, K0G 1M0


Back to Men Who Broke

Back to the index of Eeva Sodhi's pages


White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2002 02 05