BRIDGET Marks says her nasty custody battle with a philandering ex-lover has transformed her from a buxom nude model into a full-blown political activist.
read more | digg story
Monday, April 6, 2009
UN Commission Ends with Delegations Saying No to Abortion
UN Commission Ends with Delegations Saying No to Abortion
By Samantha Singson(NEW YORK – C-FAM) As the sun rose on the last day of negotiations at the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) at the United Nations (UN) today, delegations were still embroiled in a contentious debate over language concerning “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which some radical NGOs and UN committees have interpreted and used to promote abortion. As UN member states came together at the closing meeting to adopt the document, delegations took the floor to define abortion out of the document.
Up until the eleventh hour, the contentious term “sexual and reproductive health and rights” remained in the draft document. Just prior to adoption, Iran took the floor to object to the phrase which has never before been included in any negotiated UN document. Iran stressed that the term remained problematic for a number of delegations and urged the Commission to revert back to previously agreed upon and carefully negotiated language from the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Program of Action, which is understood not to create any right to abortion.
In an attempt to get consensus, the chairwoman from Mexico suspended the meeting and after twenty minutes, returned to the room and announced that Iran’s proposal would be accepted and that the term “sexual and reproductive health and rights” would be removed from the text. The document was then adopted by consensus.
Several delegations, however, went further and made statements to explicitly define abortion out of the CPD document and to reiterate that the document created no new rights. Comoros, Peru, Poland, Ireland, Chile, the Holy See, Malta, and Saint Lucia spoke out against the other remaining reproductive health-related terms such as “reproductive rights,” “reproductive health services” and “sexual and reproductive health” and emphasized that these could not be construed to “support, endorse or promote” abortion.
Malta’s ambassador stated that his delegation was finding it more difficult in accepting the resolutions of UN bodies like the CPD where there were consistent attempts to expand “reproductive health” to include abortion.
Saint Lucia made an explicit objection to the term “safe abortion” because the term could “give the impression that abortion was a procedure completely free of medical and psychological risks.” Saint Lucia also highlighted a provision in the CPD document which called on states where abortion was legal to “train and equip health service providers and should take such measures to ensure that such abortion is safe and accessible.” The Saint Lucian representative stressed that her delegation understood this provision did not impact the right of healthcare providers to refuse to perform or be complicit in abortions as a matter of conscience, stating, “Again, no new rights are created or acknowledged in this document, and the universal right to conscience can in no way be overridden or weakened.”
Only the representative of Norway expressed regret that the term “sexual and reproductive rights” was not accepted in the text, saying that his country had widespread access to abortion and virtually no negative effects on women.
The CPD will next meet in April 2010.
Editor in Chief – Austin Ruse
Managing Editor – Piero Tozzi
Assistant Managing Editor – Hannah Russo
Chief Correspondent – Samantha Singson
Contributors� – Susan Yoshihara / Katharina Rothweiler
Managing Editor – Piero Tozzi
Assistant Managing Editor – Hannah Russo
Chief Correspondent – Samantha Singson
Contributors� – Susan Yoshihara / Katharina Rothweiler
© Copyright 2009 Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 495, New York, NY 10017
www.c-fam.org
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Mother hit hard in custody case
Mother hit hard in custody case
Judge concludes she ignored court rulings
Apr 03, 2009
Tracey Tyler
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER
A Toronto judge has taken the drastic step of finding a mother of three in contempt of court for flagrantly violating court orders during her relentless campaign to alienate her children from their father.
The woman, known as K.D., lost custody of her daughters in January, but this latest ruling takes the case to a new level, with the 42-year-old chiropodist finding herself on the losing side of a power struggle with the court.
The mother intentionally acted against the best interests of her children by cutting off telephone calls and visits with their father and walking out of counselling sessions, Justice Faye McWatt said in a decision released earlier but withheld from publication until today so K.D., who is self-represented, could read it first.
She has been ordered to pay $35,000 in penalties and legal costs to her ex-husband, 56, a vascular surgeon known as A.L., who was also granted permission to take the girls to a U.S. therapy program designed to undo damage caused by parents who poison children against another parent.
K.D. consented to the calls, visits and counselling sessions ordered by a series of Superior Court judges over eight years beginning in 2000, but “once she left this building, she ignored the orders believing that she could escape scrutiny,” McWatt said.
The mother’s defence was she did not intentionally contravene the orders and it was her children who refused to spend time with their 56-year-old father.
But her claims were contradicted by the children themselves during interviews at the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, McWatt said, noting one daughter said she loved and wanted to see her father, but later refused to get out of her mother’s car for a visit with A.L.
“There is really only one explanation for the children’s attitudes,” the judge said. “It is their mother’s consistent negative influence on them from their early childhood about A.L. and her persistence at excluding them from his children’s lives.”
While courts have been reluctant to make contempt findings against parents who violate court orders even out of spite towards another parent, what sets this case apart is the mother consented to the orders then adopted a “you can’t touch me” attitude, said Harold Niman, A.L.’s lawyer.
“What needs to be clear is that you can’t assume every case of access difficulties means there is alienation or even contempt,” Niman said in an interview. “But once a court gets to the stage of determining it is wilful disobedience of an order and … something is being done ... to hurt the children, I think this case makes it very clear a court will not hesitate to step in.”
A.L. told the court that K.D. insisted on setting rules for visits with his daughters, including her being in the car when he drove them to school. In 2005, he only spent time with them when K.D. decided he should pay to take her and the children on holidays.
Related:
Saturday, April 4, 2009
CYF are that dysfunctional they are dangerous to all children
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10563438
CYF apologises over handling of 'sex list'
Child, Youth and Family (CYF) has finally apologised to parents of girls targeted by two Whangarei brothers on a "sex list".
The pair, aged 11 and 13, outlined in the list what sexually explicit things they wanted to do to certain young girls.
The list was passed in August 2006 to a CYF social worker by the boys' mother, but nothing was done about it for over a year, the Northern Advocate reported.
A number of girls on the list were allegedly molested.
One man whose daughter was targeted told the paper at least 28 girls were allegedly abused or targeted by the boys whom he described as "sexual predators".
Police had at one stage said an allegation of the boys touching a girl through her underwear was "minor" offending and low priority.
"I'm thinking to myself, 28 girls? What is top priority then?"
When CYF did decide to act, it used a community meeting to let parents know what was happening.
Deputy CYF chief executive Ray Smith said this week the social worker in the first instance might not have taken the list seriously enough.
He agreed the department didn't act fast enough and had let down the girls and their families.
"I think the social worker...looked at a list and wasn't sure whether these were the acts of fantasy, a game of two boys," Mr Smith said.
He also said in hindsight a community meeting was not the right forum to report back on the case and that the families should have been personally contacted.
Mr Smith said he apologised over the handling of the situation and the length of time taken to address it.
"I've asked for a full review of this case by the chief social worker to identify where individual accountability should sit."
Police said the matter was still under investigation.
- NZPA
CYF apologises over handling of 'sex list'
Child, Youth and Family (CYF) has finally apologised to parents of girls targeted by two Whangarei brothers on a "sex list".
The pair, aged 11 and 13, outlined in the list what sexually explicit things they wanted to do to certain young girls.
The list was passed in August 2006 to a CYF social worker by the boys' mother, but nothing was done about it for over a year, the Northern Advocate reported.
A number of girls on the list were allegedly molested.
One man whose daughter was targeted told the paper at least 28 girls were allegedly abused or targeted by the boys whom he described as "sexual predators".
Police had at one stage said an allegation of the boys touching a girl through her underwear was "minor" offending and low priority.
"I'm thinking to myself, 28 girls? What is top priority then?"
When CYF did decide to act, it used a community meeting to let parents know what was happening.
Deputy CYF chief executive Ray Smith said this week the social worker in the first instance might not have taken the list seriously enough.
He agreed the department didn't act fast enough and had let down the girls and their families.
"I think the social worker...looked at a list and wasn't sure whether these were the acts of fantasy, a game of two boys," Mr Smith said.
He also said in hindsight a community meeting was not the right forum to report back on the case and that the families should have been personally contacted.
Mr Smith said he apologised over the handling of the situation and the length of time taken to address it.
"I've asked for a full review of this case by the chief social worker to identify where individual accountability should sit."
Police said the matter was still under investigation.
- NZPA
Friday, April 3, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Australia - Fathers praise access law
Quote: Wayne Butler of the Shared Parenting Council, which was established in 2002 to push for legislative change that would largely benefit fathers,said the law was quite clear: "that children are entitled to a relationship with their dad, and it's good to see the Family Court coming around to that".
Pity the low down Peter Boshier( NZ Principal Family Court Judge)could not give a stuff about the terrible plight of done over men. I wonder how many kiwi men involved in the gender bias - unfair Court of lies kill themselves this year? The New Zealand Family Court is a sinister sick machine of hatred!!!
http://www.theaustralian.news.
The Australian
1 April 2009
Fathers praise access law
By Caroline Overington
The Family Court has undergone a radical change in direction since the Howard government's changes to the Family Law Act came into effect, and the emphasis is now firmly on the rights of fathers to have relationships with their children after separation and divorce.
Wayne Butler of the Shared Parenting Council, which was established in 2002 to push for legislative change that would largely benefit fathers, said the law was quite clear: "that children are entitled to a relationship with
their dad, and it's good to see the Family Court coming around to that".
Mr Butler was responding to a report in The Australian yesterday in which Family Court judge Robert Benjamin removed two children, aged nine and seven, from their mother in Tasmania, with whom they had lived since the couple separated in 2005, and sent them to live with their father in
Melbourne.
The mother had been the primary carer of the children since birth. The father left Tasmania for Melbourne in 2006. He had access to the children on holidays, but the "changeovers" had become fractious and his daughter was becoming estranged from him.
The judge said the mother had not encouraged her children to have a good relationship with their father.
Under changes to the Family Law Act (1975) introduced by the Howard government, the Family Court is required to apply the presumption that it is in the best interest of the child for the child's parents to have shared
and equal parenting responsibility, unless there is violence.
Solo Mums Australian convenor Elspeth McInnes said Justice Benjamin had not taken into account psychological damage to the children, who had lived solely with their mother since 2005.
"From the child development perspective, it seems extraordinary," Dr McInnes said.
"It seems the judge is saying that mothers must make their children happy to see their fathers, or else they will be punished. I don't think such punishment has any regard to the children's wellbeing."
Mr Butler said the changes to the act meant fathers were getting better outcomes than they had previously.
"You're better off now with a judge than you were before, and you're better off than you would be, if you just accept what your former partner gives you," he said.
Patricia Merkin, who advocates on behalf of women in Family Court disputes, said the changes were "nothing less than a social engineering experiment to respond to the so-called bias against fathers".
Barry Williams of the Lone Fathers Association said he dealt every week with fathers "attempting suicide ... because they can't see their children".
Pity the low down Peter Boshier( NZ Principal Family Court Judge)could not give a stuff about the terrible plight of done over men. I wonder how many kiwi men involved in the gender bias - unfair Court of lies kill themselves this year? The New Zealand Family Court is a sinister sick machine of hatred!!!
http://www.theaustralian.news.
The Australian
1 April 2009
Fathers praise access law
By Caroline Overington
The Family Court has undergone a radical change in direction since the Howard government's changes to the Family Law Act came into effect, and the emphasis is now firmly on the rights of fathers to have relationships with their children after separation and divorce.
Wayne Butler of the Shared Parenting Council, which was established in 2002 to push for legislative change that would largely benefit fathers, said the law was quite clear: "that children are entitled to a relationship with
their dad, and it's good to see the Family Court coming around to that".
Mr Butler was responding to a report in The Australian yesterday in which Family Court judge Robert Benjamin removed two children, aged nine and seven, from their mother in Tasmania, with whom they had lived since the couple separated in 2005, and sent them to live with their father in
Melbourne.
The mother had been the primary carer of the children since birth. The father left Tasmania for Melbourne in 2006. He had access to the children on holidays, but the "changeovers" had become fractious and his daughter was becoming estranged from him.
The judge said the mother had not encouraged her children to have a good relationship with their father.
Under changes to the Family Law Act (1975) introduced by the Howard government, the Family Court is required to apply the presumption that it is in the best interest of the child for the child's parents to have shared
and equal parenting responsibility, unless there is violence.
Solo Mums Australian convenor Elspeth McInnes said Justice Benjamin had not taken into account psychological damage to the children, who had lived solely with their mother since 2005.
"From the child development perspective, it seems extraordinary," Dr McInnes said.
"It seems the judge is saying that mothers must make their children happy to see their fathers, or else they will be punished. I don't think such punishment has any regard to the children's wellbeing."
Mr Butler said the changes to the act meant fathers were getting better outcomes than they had previously.
"You're better off now with a judge than you were before, and you're better off than you would be, if you just accept what your former partner gives you," he said.
Patricia Merkin, who advocates on behalf of women in Family Court disputes, said the changes were "nothing less than a social engineering experiment to respond to the so-called bias against fathers".
Barry Williams of the Lone Fathers Association said he dealt every week with fathers "attempting suicide ... because they can't see their children".
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Barbara Kay, Using kids as weapons
Using kids as weapons
Barbara Kay, National Post
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Last weekend, I attended the Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), Canada's first international conference on a form of child abuse that can be as bad as, or even worse than, sexual and physical abuse.
For the "show, don't tell" version of what the presentations added up to, read A Kidnapped Mind (Dundurn Press, 2006), by former model and journalist Pamela Richardson, who spoke at the symposium. Richardson wrote the book after her 16-year-old son, Dash Hart, neither drunk nor drugged, threw himself off Vancouver's Granville Street Bridge on New Year's Day, 2001.
Although Richardson was unaware there was such a syndrome until well into a 12-year custody ordeal as a "target parent," her detailed chronicle of a remorseless campaign to "disappear" her from Dash's life by his narcissistic father is the human face behind the evils described in the PAS literature.
The late psychologist and researcher Richard Gardner said of PAS, the term he coined in 1985, "I have introduced this term to refer to a disturbance in which children are obsessed with deprecation and criticism of a parent --denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated."
PAS goes far beyond the moderate alienation that frequently accompanies high-conflict divorce. The denigration of the target parent in PAS is not sporadic, impulsive and reality-based ("Your mother is such a flake"), but a vicious, consciously sustained and materially baseless campaign.
For example, in his presentation, Montreal psychologist Dr. Abe Worenklein, a specialist in PAS (he has testified at 600 trials), cited the case of a brainwashed boy who, witnessing in court, could no longer recall a single activity he'd ever done with his mother, but "knew" she'd given every man on their street a blow job. To the alienator, the child is a weapon. Hatred of the ex always trumps the child's rights and mental well-being.
PAS-level alienators -- whether male or female, the pattern of behaviour is identical -- are typically so pathologically consumed with anger triggered by rejection, that they are beyond the reach of reason or moral suasion. More than just punishing, they wish literally to wipe out the target parent's existence.
To this end, alienators will cut the target parent's face out of family photos, banish all mention of his name or refuse to speak of him as "dad" (soon the child "de-parents" this way, too). Alienators exhibit an overwhelming sense of entitlement with no fear of courts. In Richardson's case, her ex blithely ignored all access orders. During one year when she was supposed to have "joint custody," she saw Dash for exactly 24 hours.
Alienators show the children court documents (a divorce no-no) and enmesh them in the legal process ("Should we ask for sole custody?"). They intercept messages and gifts from the other parent, then deny they were sent. They shun the target parent at school and sports events. They isolate the child from extended family and friends of the target parent, imputing fictional sins to all and sundry associated with her.
Critics of PAS fret that the syndrome is being exploited by abusive parents as a ploy to enforce visitation or custody of justifiably resistant children.
However, abused children present a notably different affect from the alienated. An abused child is reluctant to discuss what has been done to him and must be coaxed to reveal his secret. Even then, he doesn't express hatred of the abusing parent, as he longs for a healed relationship.
By contrast, a PAS child exhibits classic symptoms of brainwashing, acting in robotic alignment with the alienator. (At 12, Dash wore his father's clothes to court.) He is eager to badmouth the target parent. But he uses locutions and accusations obviously uploaded into him by an adult. Dr. Worenklein recalled four alienated siblings who parroted the exact same words in their baseless denunciations of their target parent.
Removal of the child from the alienator for a period of time--even three months, ideally a year -- can effectively begin reversal of the brainwashing effect and restore a relationship with the target parent. Nevertheless, time does not heal the wounds left by the theft of the lost years. From the victimized parent's point of view, a child's death is -- in some sense -- kinder than permanent alienation, for death is beyond parents' control and brings closure to hope.
PAS is a crime of calculation and opportunity, but alienators need enablers in the legal and social service systems. And they get them, as Dash's father managed to do, time after time. Yet legal consequences for access order violation could be the single most effective deterrent to marginalization of the target parent. Since alienators will never compromise, custody should revert to the parent most willing to co-operate with the other parent on time spent with the child.
Happily, Canadian case law is trending toward acknowledgement of the syndrome. PAS has been part of the decisions in 74 court cases since 1987, 53 in the last eight years.
One PAS-responsive judge wisely noted: "Hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child. It has to be taught."
If teaching hatred of the other parent had been written into B. C. family law as grounds for a reversal of custodianship in 1987, Dash Hart would be alive today. His martyrdom should count for something. The sobering message I drew is that vigorous advocacy for alienators by legal and social service professionals in the divorce industry is complicity with child abuse. If the "best interests of the child" is not to remain an empty mantra in the family law system, it must stop.
For more information on PAS, visit: www.crckids.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)