Mandatory counselling for parenting after divorce and separation
An Australian copy-cat proposal to counsel parents after
separation emerges in Australia
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
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
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
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,
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
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 Queens 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
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."
Attorney and Law Professor
Justice Will Travel
International Commission of Jurists
Canada - Peter Gruber Justice Prize Won by Two
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
How about this
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
Personal Representative of the Chairman-in-Office, Amb. Daan Everts
· 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
Dr. Juliane Wetzel, Center for Research on Antisemitism, Technische
· Nils Muinieks, 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:
University of Leicester
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
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
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
Abella simply asserted what she knew to be true: her fellow Canadians
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.)
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
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
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.
Deputy Registered Officer
Non-Custodial Parents Party.
"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
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?"
Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth,
by Angry Harry (Off-Site)
Back to Index for FAQs
The White Rose
Thoughts are Free
Posted 2004 11 13
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College
2007 12 21 (re-formated)