Tuesday

Children Are Harmed By Newspapers That Print Drivel

Sometimes, the media just touches your heart in such a way that you are compelled to respond....LMAO.
Children harmed by sole custody, report says
Canadian judges rarely use voluntary arrangements in which kids live with each parent roughly equally
April 3, 2009

Susan Pigg
LIVING REPORTER
Family court judges are misguidedly harming children by granting sole custody to one parent – usually the mother – in bitter divorce battles, says a comprehensive new report.
So, if the parents are electing for sole custody to the mother, are they guidedly harming their children? Or, if it is not a bitter divorce, or a battle, and sole custody goes to the mother, is it still harming the children?

What's so comprehensive about this new report?
Too many children are being "robbed of the love of one parent" by a legal system that is out of touch with the needs of children and treats them like property to be won or lost, says Edward Kruk, an expert on child custody issues.
You either love or you don't. You either express that love in ways that the recipient can understand it, or you don't. There is no robbery.

I agree that the legal system is out of touch with the needs of children, that's why children shouldn't be a part of it: Ask the child his/her preference, and/or let the child spend his/her time with the parent who was the primary caretaker.
"The system is set up to polarize parents, to make them enemies, to set up fights over custody and exacerbate conflict rather than reduce it," says Kruk, an associate professor of social work at the University of British Columbia, whose three-year study is now in the hands of Canada's justice minister.
You know what? I've heard this statement so many times, I'm starting to think it is drivel. In a "high-conflict" divorce, aren't the parents already "polarized" and possibly "enemies"? This fighting over custody is because parents, usually men, refuse to realize that they should continue to function in their pre-divorcing roles: caretaker, money-maker, care-taker/money-maker, absent parent, etc. Consistency is the best interest of the children.
He calls what's happening in Canada's divorce courts "a national shame" that leaves families bankrupt from legal fees and pushing parents, especially fathers, to suicide.
Legal fees are a bitch and family lawyers are rich. But there's nothing like paying thousands of dollars in legal fees while insisting that the child support award is just too much for you to afford.

Pushing fathers to suicide? Are they pushing them to murder, too? Shifting the focus, again.
Especially devastating are the long-term effects of court orders that essentially cut one parent out of children's lives – usually the dad – in a misguided effort to foster peace between warring parents, the report says.
What are they talking about? The only ones that should be getting cut from their children's lives, are abusers. And it is known that when a father "fights" for custody, 70% of them (abusers included) get it. And that doesn't foster peace because the abuser then manipulates the relationship between the child and mother through maternal deprivation. It is a control mechanism.

See Father Absence Harms Children?
Citing a host of North American studies, Kruk's report points to the long-term dangers: Some 85 per cent of youth in prison are fatherless; 71 per cent of high school dropouts grew up without fathers, as did 90 per cent of runaway children. Fatherless youth are also more prone to depression, suicide, delinquency, promiscuity, drug abuse, behavioural problems and teen pregnancy, warns the 84-page report, a compilation of dozens of studies around divorce and custody, including some of his own research over the past 20 years.
Oh, bam! Here is it. REAL drivel. Most fatherless studies are propaganda put out by fathers supremacy supporters. These "hosts of studies" are the same ol shit that has been refuted repeatedly.

See Father Absence and Incarceration

See Teens, Sex, and Fatherlessness

See Fatherless Children and Substance Abuse

See Children do better in schools when their fathers are involved

See High Father Contact Equals Less Self Hate?

Has anyone ever considered that runaway children may have runaway from their fathers?

"Including some of his own research," eh? Okay Dr. Gardner!

Matter-of-fact, just read The Making of Fatherlessness Propaganda because I'm tired of copying and pasting!
"Parent-child bonds are formed through daily routines – preparing breakfast, taking the child to school, having dinner, getting ready for bed. Without that, it's very difficult for parents to have any real connection with their kids," Kruk said in a telephone interview from B.C. "It's so destructive for children to have a loving parent removed from their lives."
Any bond can be formed through repetition, familial and non-familial, positive and negative. If you cannot have a "real connection" without having participated in the aforementioned activities, perhaps you should have considered that pre-divorce. What is a "real connection" anyway? And why is it defined by those activities?

It is so destructive for children to have a primary caregiver removed from their lives.
The effects of divorce on kids are now so well documented, significantly more couples separating today are opting for "equal shared parenting" – voluntary custody arrangements in which the children live with each parent roughly half the time, says Kruk. While a landmark federal study, For the Sake of the Children, recommended that approach back in 1998 and it has since been adopted by other countries, including Australia, it's still rarely used by Canadian judges and needs to be made law, except where there are extenuating circumstances, such as domestic violence or mental health issues that make one parent unfit, says Kruk.
What is significantly more? And there you have the key word: VOLUNTARY.

Did this author not get the memo? Shared parenting has been a major fail in Australia! I would like for parents to try living 50% in one place, 50% in another. The idea is preposterous!

See Joint Custody and Parental Cooperation

There isn't a necessity to make shared parenting a law because you should share parenting within the intact household and those that want to, do so. If you didn't, don't act like you want to do it now. You can also "share" parenting without a child being cut into halves.
Instead, most judges still rely on a "winner takes all" approach in custody battles. In some three-quarters of cases, judges grant sole custody to mothers, believing that it's impossible for warring parents to make shared custody work, Kruk's report finds. That's despite a growing body of research that shows animosity and even physical violence can increase "significantly0" when one parent has sole control, says the report, Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard.
The winner, is supposed to be the child. And, the child should "take all" if you are concerned with giving your child the best.

"Judges grant sole custody to mothers in 3/4 cases"? Can you please add a qualifier to that? In what cases? The ones in which the mother wanted custody and the father didn't? Tricky, tricky.

It is impossible for warring parents to make this work, as it is impossible for them to make anything work--that's why they are getting a DIVORCE!
Even court-ordered "joint custody" is really a misnomer, Kruk's report shows. In fact, the non-custodial parent – usually the father – ends up with just a few days a month (typically every second weekend and every Wednesday) with the children. While research shows even that minimal sharing of time actually forces warring parents to lay down their arms and work together on "parenting plans" that work best for each of them and their kids, says Kruk, it makes it far more difficult for the non-custodial parent to develop a strong bond with their kids.
Look, either the bond already existed, or it didn't. The courts can't create it for you.
Research has shown that women and men work comparable amounts of time outside the home and now devote almost the exact amount of time – 11.1 hours a week and 10.5 hours a week respectively – to child care, with men playing a key role in their children's upbringing, says Kruk. Yet divorce lawyers openly tell fathers not to waste their time and money seeking equal custody, unless they can prove the mother is unfit.
First part, total bullshit.
All of which gives one parent a huge psychological advantage over the other, and incentive to fight to the death – in some cases actually alienating the kids from the other spouse – to win what comes to be seen as their "property," says Kruk.
A psychological advantage? Damn, now we're getting creative. I guess this is a lead to parental alienation, which is what this entire piece of drivel is about, by the way (in case you didn't know).

Fathers are the main ones that see their children as property.
But there are signs even mothers are at risk, Kruk warns. He's now studying 14 Vancouver-area women who have lost custody of their kids to their ex-husbands, in some cases because fathers argued that demanding careers kept the women away from home too much. Surprisingly, those women are now teaming up with fathers' right groups to push for legislation making equal, shared parenting the norm.
Anyone can be at risk of an abuser. Conveniently this paragraph was thrown into this article to present some semblance of balance. Fathers' groups are really "good" at doing this.

These women who are "teaming up" are going to get pimped by these men, just like the second wives' club.

Again, if you wanted shared parenting, you should have been sharing it all along.
"No court order can make people get along," says Justice Harvey Brownstone who wrote the book Tug of War on divorce in Canada. He has seen cases over the past 14 years in which courts imposed shared parenting, only to have one parent refuse to take the child to his hockey game or administer medication as a way to make their viewpoint known to the ex-spouse.
Exactly. Power and control.

See Research on Shared Parenting and Joint Custody
"Parents who are hell-bent on undermining each other's relationship with the child will inevitably find a way to create conflict, which most often results in further litigation, which in turn prolongs the child's exposure to a parental tug of war."
So, how long does everyone want to continue playing games, spouting this "children are resilient" nonsense, while family members in these "high conflict" divorces are dying?
Toronto Star
Is this a real newspaper? Ever since the Canadian Symposium, they've really been publishing some heavy drivel.



See Also: The Usual Suspects

4 advocates for peace:

Cold North Wind said...

Drivel. Oh yes. I think this was a Pigg production ? I suspect that those who are ignorant- just latch onto an idea that appeals to them- for whatever reason. It is rather like- trying to convince a believer, that God does not exist. Or a non-believer, that God does exist.Basically, these people just have no idea what they are talking about.The flavour of the moment seems to be: treat mothers and fathers the SAME- and the children be damned.Our version of child sacrifice.Sickening.At least 2 papers -National Post and now the Toronto Star- are fast being recognized as rags.

Cold North Wind said...

Just noticed that the blog author said- "touches your heart" well- the dangerous nonsense that Pigg writes- and Kruk- it touched me for sure- but it was NOT my heart - -How do these human wannabees explain all the murders ? of women and children- by - MEN. ? There are so many decent men- why do we hear about the indecent ones- because they squawk louder,I suppose-(like a stuck pig) and the decent men (majority) just shake their heads at these buffoons.The drivel touches me alright- like my x's hands around my throat when he tried to kill me.In front of a tiny child. Tell me that's pas- and I KNOW you are criminally wackos.Did I lose custody ? Yes- and everything else- "his" psychologist felt I suffered from pas- the children were afraid of dear old dad. Dear old dad had other criminal activities too-you call THAT pas- -you are criminally insane.Like the x.

Jinida said...

Thanks for ripping this article apart line by line. Pure propoganda! I cannot believe the editors let this drivel pass for news. No statistics. No sources quoted. Purely opinion disguised as 'news'. A waste of space at the least. Fuel for abusers at the very worst.

Rj said...

CNW--You are right about the religion comparison. How long has the Star been such a weak newspaper?

The decent men are chillin. Not writing articles, just living, handling their business.

Jinida--it appears that anyone can be a researcher, or journalist these days. So, I decided I'll just have to call the shots. LOL