Courts From Hell — Family InJustice in Canada
February 12th, 2008
In searching the web for some interesting and informative videos related to the subject of [tag-tec]divorce in Canada[/tag-tec], I found this one. It’s an interview with a man named [tag-tec]Frank Simons[/tag-tec] who has written a book called: “[tag-tec]Courts From Hell — Family InJustice in Canada[/tag-tec]“.
Now, here’s the thing: the title is highly inflammatory. It practically screams that the author is someone, probably a parent, who has been through a nasty divorce and didn’t like the results. After watching the interview my suspicion was confirmed. However, this is not just some sore loser. This man raises some interesting points that should be considered.
I have not read his book but from what he says he thinks that there should be a presumption of [tag-tec]joint custody[/tag-tec] of children following divorce. In responding to an interviewer’s question he incorrectly identifies joint custody with [tag-tec]shared custody[/tag-tec] but they are not the same at all.
Joint [tag-tec]custody[/tag-tec] refers to the right of both parents to continue to have an equal say in all major decisions effecting he children. It is often spoken of as if it were a right belonging to the parents but it is best thought of as a right belonging to the children. In other words, it recognizes the ongoing right of the children to the benefit of 2 adults contributing their best judgment to decisions made exclusively in the best interests if the children. It does not bestow a right but a responsibility on the parents – the responsibility to put aside petty squabbles and focus exclusively on how they can continue to cooperate in doing what is best for their children.
Shared custody is something else – it refers to sharing the actual time the children spend with each parent. If a child spends less than 40% of the time with a parent, that time is referred to as “[tag-tec]access[/tag-tec]” time. But if it reaches the 40% mark both parents are said to be sharing custody of the child.
Shared custody may be in the interests of the children or it may not be based on a whole range of considerations including how close the parents reside to one another and the extent to which transitioning between two homes will interfere with the children’s activities outside the home.
But I agree that joint custody, joint decision making, is always in the children’s best interests so long as both parents can get over their differences at least enough to allow them to work together for the children’s welfare. This isn’t always the case, but where it is, I agree that the courts should insist on it.
You can watch the interview by clicking below.
For a fast, low-cost, lawyer-free legal divorce visit www.DivorceOnline.ca.
Link to this page.
The present court system in matters of family law are weighed against women and children. I support Frank in what he is advocating. Fathers are vital in children’s lives unless they are in some way shown to be detrimental. Both parents must accept responsibility for raising children.
In over 25 years as a marriage and family therapist and with horror stories of my own I advocate an overhaul of our present system and one place to start is the bias of some judges.
Marilyn
I agree Marilyn. And at first it might appear that “overhauling” … “the bias of some judges” is an awfully tall order. However, if legislation created a presumption in favour of joint custody, like Frank Simons is suggesting, then judges would have to grant joint custody unless they could give reasons why it wouldn’t work in the case before them. If the reasons were not compelling they could be overturned on appeal – and judges hate when their decisions are overturned.
Hi I am looking to speak with Frank Simons . It would be imperative , if i can get in touch with him. I hope that i can get a responce as soon as possible .We are About to make a feature movie documentary that will be submited to film festival around the world ,and we would love to have his input and expertise on the subject .
SVP nous avons besoin d’avoir de ses nouvelles au plus tot .
Thank you
Jerry Michaud
Equal parenting activist
Being naive, I believed that telling the truth and being able to provide documented proof would outweigh all else. However, having watched first hand the theatrics that go on in a court room between lawyers, biased judges and actresses of an Academy Award caliber, it appears to be safe to say that the party whom can lie and act the best will come out the winner. After all what is the point of telling the truth and having all of the documents to back it up if the judges do not even open the portfolio.