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)

 
 
 
 

Mandatory counselling for parenting after divorce and separation

An Australian copy-cat proposal to counsel parents after separation emerges in Australia


Dear John,

Although I did not read the discussion paper, the family "counselling" proposal in the discussion paper by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and Family and Community Services Minister Kay Patterson described in your message and in the article you forwarded is suspiciously similar to that proposed by Canada's Madam Justice Trussler and installed a few years ago by the Alberta government in Canada. 

The nature of the connection between Alberta's counselling scheme and the Australian proposal is perhaps no coincidence.

The Australian proposal is almost identical with respect to the number of hours of counselling (a total of eight hours of counselling in two separate, four-hour sessions, in Alberta), with the requirement shared by both schemes to making counselling a prerequisite to being allowed to file a divorce application. Still, you are quite correct. It is not possible to achieve much with counselling that lasts no more than the proposed three hours or even the eight hours required in Alberta, when one considers that to be able to see any results from counselling one would have to spend about 300 hours in administering it to a given individual.

The Australian proposal is also identical with respect to the erroneous claim that it will reduce the divorce rate. An identically false claim had been made for the results of Justice Trussler's pilot project for the government-sponsored counselling scheme in Alberta. Contrary to the false claim of the counselling scheme reducing it, the Alberta divorce rate — already quite high then — predictably increased after the program had been implemented.

Should it surprise us to see that people being taught how to drive automobiles become involved in car accidents? Do children whom we supply with condoms engage in sexual activities? Is the Pope Catholic? Should it surprise anyone that people counselled on how to operate the divorce system and its spin-off industries are more likely to become divorced?

It should not surprise anyone that the Australian proposal is so eerily similar to the one implemented in Alberta, right down to the false claim of its ostensible benevolence. There could well be an ideologically incestuous relationship between the Australian judiciary activists' intentions and the hare-brained Alberta counselling scheme promoted by Justice Trussler. After all, it was just a few years ago and about at the time of the implementation of Justice Trussler's counselling scheme that she and her husband vacationed in Australia, during which time she met with activists in the Australian judiciary and in the law-sector of Australia's academe.

Australia is not the only place where Justice Trussler's counselling scheme got peddled. In November of 2003 I had an inquiry from Belgium about the government-sponsored program in Alberta. Therefore it should not surprise us if we were to see the Trussler counselling scheme emerge in other places in the world.

For more information on the Alberta program of counselling before divorce, see:
 

Mandatory counselling for parenting after divorce in Alberta

The mandatory course that divorcing couples must attend consists of two four-hour sessions. The course does nothing more than to familiarize divorcing couples with the consequences of a divorce, mainly with respect to government rules and regulations regarding legal activities, visitation rights, child custody awards, etc.

Not much more detail is accessible at a web page at the website of the Alberta Government.

We have not had the misfortune to become indoctrinated with the divorce culture to the extent that we had to avail ourselves of what it being offered in the program. From the outside it looks as if the counselling program serves a similar purpose as does an orientation course that a new prisoner receives after he has undergone the intake routines in prison.
 

Canada's judiciary activists do network internationally. It should concern us all when judiciary activists from various countries meet behind the backs and out of sight of our elected representatives, but meet and scheme they do. That is mentioned in the Canadian Judicial Council's 1999-2000 Annual Report:
 

Each year representatives of courts from other countries visit Canada to observe court operations and court administration. In 1999-2000, the Executive Director met with judges and court administrators from Australia, China, New Zealand, Ireland, France, Uganda, Zambia, the Philippines and Japan who were interested in learning of the work and activities of the Council. (p. 2)

Update 2006 07 22: "...the Japanese legal system cannot (or will not) protect this investment [by fathers in bonding with their children] when a marriage fails (or when there is no marriage to start with -- fathers have virtually no rights to children born out of marriage). Family courts will almost always award custody to mothers. A 2002 manual written for family court personnel includes a chapter on custody decisions that gives "mothers should get custody" as the only clearly articulated guideline." (Parents' rights a demographic issue, by COLIN P.A. JONES, Special to The Japan Times, Tuesday, July 18, 2006)

Are these trips, seeing that they involve the business of the law, being paid for by us, the taxpayers for whom the destruction of their families is being streamlined by these judiciary activists? The visits are being returned in kind. Take, for instance, the trip by Justice Trussler and her husband to Australia, or take the trips (see examples) that Justice Rosalie Abella — recently appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada — made to Austria, the U.K. and Morocco.

The Canadian Judicial Council's 1999-2000 Annual Report mentions as well Justice Trussler and her scheme, the scheme that Australian judiciary activists now wish to implement at their end of the world.

At the University of Alberta, Madam Justice Marguerite Trussler of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta was guest lecturer in family law, alternate dispute resolution and judicial remedies. Throughout her leave she was engaged in an interdisciplinary project on issues relating to children in divorce situations, and she worked on two other projects — a counselling model on custody and access assessments, and the production of videos for the Alberta Parenting After Separation seminar. She prepared a comprehensive report for her court on Family Court Structures and Services. (p. 10)

_______________________
Canadian Judicial Council
Catalogue Number JU10-2000
ISBN 0-662-65189-8
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/CJC1999-2000_E.pdf

Even though they are not our elected representatives, these people comprise our real governments. They no longer merely administer or interpret the law, they invent and make it; and they have the power, the will and the means whereby to twist the law into a pretzel. They plan the strategies and tactics required for the implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."

Catherine MacKinnon
Attorney and Law Professor

Fraternally,

Walter Schneider

__________________________________

Justice Will Travel

International Commission of Jurists

Canada - Peter Gruber Justice Prize Won by Two Canadian Jurists

http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=3214&lang=en

8th October 2003

On October 8, in Marrakech, Morocco, at a ceremony under the patronage of His Majesty Mohammad VI, the King of Morocco, the 2003 Justice Prize of the Peter Gruber Foundation was awarded to two distinguished Canadian judges who are also long-time members and supporters of ICJ Canada. The Hon. Rosalie Abella of the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Hon. Bertha Wilson, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada share this prestigious award in recognition of their commitment to and passion for social justice, equality, and human rights.

Who paid for that junket?  And who paid for this one?

"Litigating the Values of a Nation", an international Canada-Israel legal conference held by TAU's Prof. Dr. Raphael Taubenschlag Institute of Criminal Law and the Canada-Israel Legal Cooperation Program in commemoration of the 50th anniversaries of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the State of Israel; and the Supreme Court of Israel, was organized by Dr. Asher Maoz, Head of the Institute and co-sponsored by TAU's Buchmann Faculty of Law; the Faculty of Law, McGill University; InterAmicus-International Human Rights Center, McGill University; Faculty of Law, University of Toronto; Center for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta; and TAU's Alain Poher Chair in Labor Law. Speakers at the opening session were Prof. Irwin Cotler of McGill University, Canada; President of the Supreme Court of Israel, Prof. Aharon Barak; and Justice Rosalie Abella of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Awards for the "Pursuit of Justice" were presented to Justice Moshe Laundau, former President of the Supreme Court of Israel, and Justice Haim H. Cohn, former Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Israel.
(Source: http://www.tau.ac.il/webflash/wf-9805.html)

How about this one?

Organization for Security and Co -operation in Europe
OSCE CONFERENCE ON ANTI-SEMITISM
Vienna, 19 and 20 June 2003
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS, INTRODUCERS, MODERATORS
OPENING SESSION
Personal Representative of the Chairman-in-Office, Amb. Daan Everts
Keynote Addresses:
· H.E. Solomon Passy, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria
· Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland
 

SESSION 1: LEGISLATIVE, INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS AND GOVERNMENTAL ACTION, INCLUDING LAW ENFORCEMENT

Moderator:
Dr. Juliane Wetzel, Center for Research on Antisemitism, Technische Universität Berlin
Introducer:
· Nils Muižnieks, Minister for Special Assignments for Society Integration Affairs, Latvia
· Michel Voisin, President of the French Delegation to the OSCE PA
· Judge Rosalia Abella, Ontario Court of Appeals....

Or perhaps this one:

Bulletin
University of Leicester
April 2001

http://www.le.ac.uk/bulletin/bulletinapril2001.pdf

HUMAN RIGHTS CONFERENCE
A HUMAN rights conference held in London attracted a distinguished list of delegates, ....

Among the wide range of experts to discuss Human Rights issues, principal speakers included Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, Court of Appeal for Ontario; Professor Peter Russell, Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Toronto University; and Professor Brice Dickson, Chief Commissioner, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

See also: NATIONAL POST, Stacking the court with activists, Wednesday 25 August 2004, Page: A18

If you should harbour any doubts about Justice Abella's objectivity and fairness, maybe this will dispel them:

Towards a colour-blind citizenship

Martin Loney
http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/ukrainian_canadian/ucpbf/conferences/multiculturalism.html

Visible minorities are alleged to be underrepresented in a range of occupations, a function apparently of the systemic discrimination evidenced by a range of studies from Justice Rosalie Abella's 1984 Commission on Equality in Employment to today. Abella produced no empirical evidence of widespread race-based discrimination. One of the commission's researchers, Monica Townson, noted that lack of any agreed definition of "visible minority and other relevant data prevents any assessment of the social indicators of discrimination."9 Abella simply asserted what she knew to be true: her fellow Canadians were bigots.10

Subsequent analysis of 1986 census data by Monica Boyd, a supporter of preferential hiring, failed to find evidence to support such claims.11 You will no doubt be familiar with the widely reported double-disadvantage of so-called women of colour. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, an organisation whose success is largely due to Canadian Heritage funding, has widely popularised this claim which simultaneously embraces two untruths. If NAC was correct visible minority women should experience a significant earnings penalty. In fact when Canadian-born women are compared in 1985 (one year after Abella reported) visible minority women earned 13 percent more than their counterparts even accounting for such factors as CMAs, education, age, hours worked etc. they still enjoyed a slight advantage. There was little difference between visible minority men born in Canada and their counterparts. (A recent analysis of census data by University of Winnipeg economists Hum and Simpson showed no evidence of an earnings penalty for the native born.)

— WHS

john flanagan wrote:

Hi to Everyone 

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and Community Services Minister Kay Patterson have issued a discussion paper on 10 November 2004. It was suggested by the Ministers that 3 hours could be provided by the Government for people to sort out their family law problems upon separation.

The Government is seeking comments from the public. Submissions close on the 14 January 2005.

It is appreciated that Mr Ruddock and Mrs Patterson may be looking into the matter. However the Ministers have failed to realize that if the family law and child support system was equitable and fair in the first instance, less than 3 hours would be required. However as the system is now, 300 hours of counseling would not be enough!

Real reform needs to be first considered by the Government. This all requires legislative change on the part of the Government. The Family Court needs to be re-structured into mediation centres. A rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared parenting needs to be introduced through legislation as a starting after separation. Children are not the personal property of any one parent.

Any reform needs to be looked at as a complete package. In that respect, the Government’s Child Support Agency has to be abolished. Both parents have to be put back into control of supporting their children after separation. Property settlements and superannuation splitting need to be made fairer and equitable after separation. What is brought into the marriage should be taken out of the marriage.

These reforms will have the added benefit of reducing the divorce rate. There will be no monetary benefit for one parent to seek a divorce or a separation as it is now.

The present family system was created by people and can be changed by people. Success will come with vision, hope and determination. There are many separated parents throughout Australia seeking the path of social and legislative reform. Mr Ruddock and Mrs Patterson need to listen these people.

John Flanagan.
Deputy Registered Officer
Non-Custodial Parents Party.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
THE AGE
(http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/10/1100021878911.html?onfiltered=true)

"Three hours to solve family break-up"

By Brendan Nicholson
November 11, 2004

Couples facing divorce will be given three hours of free counselling to sort out ground rules for dealing with their children.
If that's not enough time, they will have to pay for further sessions themselves.

Details of the Government's proposals to take some of the pain out of family break-ups and ease the pressure on the Family Court system are contained in a discussion paper released yesterday by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and Family and Community Services Minister Kay Patterson. The paper details a package of family law changes promised in July by Prime Minister John Howard. The public has until January 14 to comment.

Mr Ruddock said the counselling sessions would not be compulsory but doctors, lawyers, child-care centres, schools and other agencies would be encouraged to refer couples to them.

Family relationships centres would help separating couples develop a parenting plan to keep the dispute out of the courts. The plan, which would not be legally binding, would cover questions such as the time children would spend with each parent, maintenance, holidays and ways of resolving disputes.

Shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon said the discussion paper was not enough. "The Government threw money at all sorts of people and projects during the recent election but families going through breakdown got no help from Mr Howard at all," she said. "Why have these families been left out?"


See also:

Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry (Off-Site)

Back to Index for FAQs

White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2004 11 13
Updates:
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)
2007 12 21 (re-formated)