The Lasso of Truth

To: She who shall not be named

Via Kathy, comes an entreaty to nobody I know, who never thinks twice about lying or cheating, if it's in her interest, and who will use and manipulate everyone around her -- even her own children -- out of self-centered spite or greed...

In love, treat men how you want to be treated.  Know that his needs are just as important as yours.  Don’t treat your relationships as if you are the only prize.    It astounds me how many women think that somehow they are the only one that matters in a relationship.  Its called a RELATIONSHIP for a reason.  Remember that.  Why do you think that when you yell, and berate and marginalize a man, he will love you?  Yes, we know you are strong and capable, but so is he.  So let him be it. 

[..]

  Being a good daughter, a good wife, and a good friend is just as important as getting into a good school, making good money, or getting a good job. 

Don’t treat your friends or children like they are just another entry on your To Do List.  (Trust, I’ve learned the hard way.)

The power-hungry, race-to-the-top strategy for corporate success just doesn’t translate well in the world of real human beings.    The selfish, conniving, cold-blooded, back-stabber only thrives in Hollywood movies.  Generally, they end up bitter and alone.  Perhaps bitter and alone in a fantastic house, but bitter and alone nonetheless.

No matter how accomplished you are, what people will remember is how you treated them.  No one will recall how many degrees you had or what type of car you drove or that you had a fireplace in every room.  But they will remember is how you made them feel and what you brought to their lives and that you made them a better person for having known you. 

When your interests break the hearts of your children, unnecessarily, it is the first sign that you have lost sight of what is truly important -- assuming you ever knew what that was to begin with.

Mommie Dearest

It's such a typical story.  The narcissistic jerk follows his wandering prick to the greener pastures of a younger woman and saddles his beleaguered wife with a house full of children and a mittful of bills to pay while he lives out his midlife crisis.  We all do the pitying head-tilt, share a tear or two and trust in our heart of hearts that the family courts will eventually do something to even the score.

Thus explaining the sad popularity of The First Wive's Club and various similar hagiographies.

But what if the beleaguered wife is a wretched life-sucking harpy, with an entitlement complex, a control fetish and no shame?

Enter Kate Gosselin.  The latest personification of the spiteful divorce spectacle that has become a cornerstone in the family court system.

It's not to say that John Gosselin is a sympathetic figure by any measure, but any self-respecting soul (man or woman) can only be expected to take so much before packing it in and calling it quits.  And judging by the latest conduct of his estranged spouse, can he really be blamed for bailing out before the inevitable train wreck of his marriage hit?

Meanwhile, mommie dearest makes the round of talk shows to publicly humiliate herself and her children and tap into the stereotypical pity pool of jilted wife.  What is most sickening about this spectacle is how well it works for her, and every other manipulative bitch who pulls it.

A classic example of the tactic is the "bait and switch" with the kids in the middle, as described here...

When asked about Jon’s request to stop filming during the divorce, Kate claimed she ran it by the children and “there was eight times wailing and sobbing. They love the crew! They love all the events! They love the interaction! They got very angry about that thought.” As any reasonable parent knows, you do not ask the children whether they want the horrible thing. You set it up to trick them into believing that the right thing to do is what they actually want. And if that fails, you disappoint them.

And it's all daddy's fault.  And she's just trying to get by.  And for God's sake, won't somebody think of the children?!

But the only adult in this situation who seems to genuinely be thinking of the children, is the wandering prick with the new twinkie.  How can this be?

Well, maybe everything you've been told by the feminists, child psychologists, courts, lawyers and hollywood nimrods, about women being the underdogs in family law, is egregiously false.  From personal experience I can say I've seen some women pull -- and get away with -- spiteful stunts that would get their children's father arrested and his custody rights ripped away.  Some women could strangle their children in their beds and still get away with being cast as the victims of insensitive men.

Kate just gets to do it all with the cameras rolling.

Shame on her.  And shame on all of us for letting it get this bad.  Justice should be gender blind and sometimes the abusive, controlling psychopath is the weeping woman who uses her children as a commodity to be traded. 

Do unto others...

Traditional women regarded it as the obligatory response to a lecherous advance.  Scarlett O'Hara made it glamourous.  But what would dear Scarlett have done, if Ashley or Rhett had countered her haughty slap with a stinger of their own?

The argument has always been that a gentleman never hits a lady -- and it's true, a gentleman never does.  However, it should also be true that a lady should never feel entitled to deal out a swing, without expecting to get one back.

Surprisingly, some people have trouble reconciling themselves with what seems to me to be a simple exercise in true gender equality -- of rights and consequences...

I have been married to a guy I have loved for the last 5 years. [..]

As much as I would like to understand him about this, it is really making me uncomfortable and completely distracting me from going forward. He has a nephew who is in his early 20's, who married a girl, who turns out to be a rage-aholic. She's 5' 2", and he's 6' 6". She sucker punched him, a few times, and hit him in places that are not the best on a man and he didn't defend himself by hitting her back. They agreed to get counseling, and then turns out, it happened again - so he divorced her, because he didn't think she would change. 

The problem for me is that my husband's response was he should have hit her back, and that would have been the end of it. He has told me this, he is proudly promoting his view on this to his older sisters. To me, he has eventually, without remorse, said his first wife hit him, and he hit her back and knocked her down, and they both ended up agreeing that they wouldn't hit each other anymore. He shows no remorse, or embarrassment, or an explanation of how he was "too upset" or "not thinking clearly" and it would never have happened again, etc...whatever you might say to explain how something like that he should never have done. 

I don't think women should hit men, believe me - and I don't see myself hitting him, but right now, I think of him so differently.

I'd look at him differently, too.  I'd be proud of his good sense and deference to an expectation of mutual respect.  That means he should not be expected to accept treatment that would be unacceptable if the roles were reversed.

The Advice Goddess holds a different view and likens the incident to the handling of a petulant child, but this ends up sounding even more condescending than the notion that women should not be expected to keep a rational hold on their temper and impulses for physical violence.

Having once been a victim of domestic violence, some may expect me to defend the notion that it is never acceptable to hit a woman but to the contrary, my experience taught me one thing:  Never lay back and just take it.  That is what truly makes a person a victim.  Don't start fights but make damned sure you finish them.

That is a rule which has served me well since.  It is an attitude that I have tried to instill in my children and I fail to see how it is even remotely fair, right or just to teach boys that violence of any kind is acceptable just because the one dealing out the sucker punches smells nice and is half your size.

I see a "Healing Circle" in your future

The Leader of the Opposition waxes poetic about the eponymous "us".

And a newborn baby turns blue, face-down in a Walmart toilet, under a pile of discarded tissue...

Halkett, 22, admits to having the baby during a 14-minute visit to the Wal-Mart store in Prince Albert on May 21, 2007. But she has pleaded not guilty to abandoning the child in the toilet.

Court has heard a shopper in the next stall heard grunts and saw a pool of blood on the floor. She told staff she thought a woman was having a baby and needed help.

Two other women later saw a tiny, purple arm poking out of the toilet bowl, which was filled with blood and bathroom tissue. The store's manager plucked the baby out of the toilet and paramedics arrived to help him start breathing. He survived.

Halkett repeatedly testified that she didn't know she was eight months' pregnant. When she saw the baby in the toilet and believed he was dead, she became "scared."

Halkett said she tried to clean up the bloody mess with toilet paper, then threw the paper into the toilet, on top of the baby. She washed her hands and left the store without talking to anyone.

She said she felt faint and had trouble walking to the parking lot where a group of friends and family were waiting for her in a vehicle.

Someone should ask Iggy why Liberals hate native children so much, that they are happy to continue letting them live and die this way.

No protection for the most vulnerable

To call it disgraceful or outrageous just doesn't seem to cover it anymore.

An 8-month-old baby girl is literally tossed, face down, into the concrete stairwell of an outdoor parking structure, in -14 degree temperatures, and left to die...

By what can only be a miracle, the baby is found before the elements take their toll, and committed to a loving foster home...

And where nature intervened to prevent tragedy, the Canadian justice system worked quickly to even the score...

The parents of the abandoned infant dubbed "Baby Angelica" have pleaded guilty but will receive no jail time.

The father, who pleaded guilty to abandoning a child and three counts of failing to provide the necessities of life, was sentenced to time served. His actual time in jail was 11 months, but he received two-for-one credit, totalling 22 months, Toronto police confirmed yesterday.

The child's mother was found guilty under the Ontario Child and Family Services Act, provincial legislation that protects children from mistreatment by their parents.

The woman, who was not convicted criminally, was ordered to pay a $300 fine.

Just in case you had any question about the value of a baby's life in this city, if these people had tossed a bag of trash into the stairwell, the fine for illegal dumping in the City of Toronto is $360.

For the sake of the children: Chickens coming home to roost Edition

How have we got to a point where the system determines it as in a child’s best interest to deprive them of a loving and devoted parent?  That is the question being answered by a recently released report on the sorry state of the family justice system in this country...

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

It is a subject that Mikey and I are sadly, intimately familiar with.

In the current system the default position of most custody arrangements, in the event of divorce, assumes a primary residence (usually the mother’s) is the best place for the children and relegating the father to a position as “guest” or “visitor” serves the purpose of limiting disruption and conflict.  Most fathers get shepherded into this role by well-meaning officials who caution against expensive legal battles and the overwhelming odds they face under the jurisdiction of a sexist court.  For years, men have been told that taking a back seat in the lives of their children would be the best solution for everyone.

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

But what happens when even that meager role is usurped by a spiteful ex-spouse with no qualms about using the children to exact vengeance against their former partner?  Mikey and I have found, in our own personal experiences that negotiated agreements and court orders are hardly worth the paper they are written on; That violating them elicits hardly a raised eyebrow in the forum of the family court system and that very little is done – or even desired to be done – to ensure that both parties live up to their obligations to a productive working relationship.  Of course, this disparity is completely one-sided, meaning that a father who routinely violated court orders and agreement terms would be summarily stripped of all his parental rights, but a mother…?  She can engage in the most relentless campaign of egregious violations and alienation with virtual impunity.

What – aside from her bloated sense of self entitlement -- makes her think she can behave this way and get away with it?  The short answer is, the very system that is supposed to be protecting families from this kind of destructive behavior, is set up in a way that not only enables it but often encourages and rewards it.  And as a result, the children are the ones who truly suffer.

But all of that may be set to change.  It is with some encouragement and (dare I say) hope, that I read about new landmark cases where women are finally held to account for the selfish and destructive ways in which they seek to undermine the supportive and vital role of the father in the lives of their children.  Some of you may remember the case of K.D.  Well, as a follow up to the unusual step of revoking custody and access away from a mother who feverishly worked to alienate her children from their father, she is now faced with contempt of court charges, costs and fines, for continually violating court orders and agreements…

A 42-year-old Toronto mother has been fined more than $35,000 for systematically alienating her three daughters from their father after the couple's marriage broke down.

In making the unusually harsh ruling, Madam Justice Faye McWatt of the Ontario Superior Court said that the woman - a chiropodist identified only as K.D. - blithely flouted a series of court orders aimed at restoring her children's relationship with their father.

"The respondent came to this court time and time again and consented to orders in question," Judge McWatt said. "Once she left this building, she ignored the orders, believing that she could escape scrutiny. The evidence of her contempts is overwhelming."

[..]

"At the end of the day this was a case about a parent who did not care about what was best for her children," the father's lawyer, Harold Niman, said in an interview yesterday. "The contempt findings and penalties will hopefully make it clear to other like-minded parents that orders are to be taken seriously - and there are consequences to those parents who ignore them."

It is a tiny step, in a singular case, but under the rising tide of injustices coming to light, and study after study outlining the destructive consequences of the current family law prejudices, not to mention the recent epidemic of mothers who murder their children out of spite and fathers who commit suicide out of desperation, the circumstances are ripe for a sea change in our attitudes and the way the system handles families that break down.

This newest report calls for legislation that makes equal time parenting the default position, making exceptions only to accommodate when the children's safety is in jeopardy.  For a number of years, my feeling has always been that this is the better way.  Starting from a position where neither parent holds the balance of power and an opportunity to wield it over the other, easily eliminates many of the natural aggravating factors that interfere with an already strained relationship.  When parents don't feel the need to constantly defend their already limited role in the lives of their children, they can devote more of their time to actually living with their kids.

How is that not better for everyone involved?  Let's just hope the law begins to agree.

Finally!

An Idea I can really get behind...

The Czech Republic has allowed at least 94 prisoners over the past decade to be surgically castrated. It is the only country in Europe that uses the procedure for sex offenders. Czech psychiatrists supervising the treatment — a one-hour operation that involves removal of the tissue that produces testosterone — insist that it is the most foolproof way to tame sexual urges in dangerous predators suffering from extreme sexual disorders.

[..]

Now, more countries in Europe are considering requiring or allowing chemical castration for violent sex offenders. There is intense debate over whose rights take precedence: those of sex offenders, who could be subjected to a punishment that many consider cruel, or those of society, which expects protection from sexual predators.

The only flaw to this plan, is making it voluntary.

For the sake of the children

For too long, the family law system in this country has given women the benefit of favored treatment and one-sided rulings in divorce situations.  In the campaign to even out some of the historical disparities of the old patriarchal system, they managed to lose sight of the middle ground and instead, sprinted straight to the other side of the field to a point where the role of a father in a divorce proceeding becomes reduced to little more than ATM and occasional babysitter.

Within this lopsided environment a woman's natural feelings of spite and bitterness toward the man who slighted her get a legally sanctioned outlet that enables her to use any means available to punish a former partner, with minimal risk of reprimand through legal channels. 

Unfortunately, the screaming tragedy of this manufactured morass is not limited to the plight of helpless fathers -- most of whom are decent, loving and dedicated -- it invariably extends it's leprous effects to the hapless children, stuck like pawns in the middle.  Because through what better mechanism can a bitter, vengeful woman inflict the maximum amount of retribution, than the children whom they both must share?  And what recourse does a man have, to protect his children and himself from such a vengeful and destructive onslaught?

I can tell you from experience, little to none.  But that may be changing...

In a stunning and unusual family law decision, a Toronto judge has stripped a mother of custody of her three children after the woman spent more than a decade trying to alienate them from their father.

The mother's "consistent and overwhelming" campaign to brainwash the children into thinking their father was a bad person was nothing short of emotional abuse, Justice Faye McWatt of the Superior Court of Justice wrote in her decision.

[..]

The judge said awarding A.L. sole custody was the children's only hope for having a relationship with their father, given their mother's long-running transgressions.

These include ignoring court orders, shutting the door in A.L.'s face when he came to collect the children and refusing to answer the phone when he called to say goodnight. (He was granted telephone access to say good night on Monday, Wednesday and Friday). At times, she also arranged for police to show up when her daughters had overnight visits with their father.

Eventually, K.D. cut off contact altogether, refusing to allow A.L. to see or speak with his daughters. He was reduced to shouting goodnight to them through the door of their home, often not knowing whether they were there.

[..]

The mother squandered several chances to change her behaviour and is unable to accept it is in her children's best interests to have a relationship with their father, the judge said.

A mother who would use and abuse her children this way will not see reason and will selfishly refuse to improve her behaviour unless she finds it in her own interest to do so, or unless the legal system makes it significantly to her detriment...

As far back as early 2000, a child psychologist, Barbara Fidler, flagged the concerns in a court-ordered assessment. Dr. Fidler said the mother did not comply with court orders (such as those setting out time for the children to spend with their father), and was unlikely to comply in future. She "remained closed to reason and to opinions that differ from hers."

Let's hope this serves as notice to the selfish and irresponsible among us, that if they cannot bring themselves to consider the well being of their children and act like a responsible adult, they should at least worry a little that they may end up losing the war for the sake of a few petty battles.

The Mythical Drunken Indian

There's nothing like living up to a stereotype.  It is my heartfelt opinion that the bitter prairie cold took the wrong lives that fateful night last year...

A Saskatchewan man whose two daughters froze to death after he drunkenly dragged them out into a frigid winter night last year has again been arrested by police, according to the RCMP Wednesday.

Christopher Pauchay, 24, is awaiting a bail hearing in Melfort, Sask., on two counts of breach of undertaking when he allegedly broke his bail conditions.

The new charges stem from two occurrences on Dec. 14 and Jan. 8.

RCMP spokeswoman Sgt. Carole Raymond said Wednesday that Pauchay was arrested at a local drinking establishment. One of the conditions of his bail was to avoid alcohol.

This being the same drunken idiot who was blessed only last week with our Justice system's collective idiocy, entitling him to absolution for the deaths of his daughters through the racist policies of creative sentencing.

Judges take note...a drunken Indian has a hard time breaking his bail conditions, in prison.

h/t goes to NEO

Also known as "The Bizarro Defense"

If I was inclined to commit a crime in England, I know which judge I'd pray to get...

A yob accused of robbing a driving instructor walked free from court after a judge ruled his alleged victim was 'too believable' to give evidence.

Mother-of-two Denise Dawson, 36, was praised for being 'honest, utterly decent and brave' when she testified against Liam Perks, 20.

But the trial was stopped on the first day because Judge Jamie Tabor QC ruled her good character may unfairly sway the jury against the defendant.

It's interesting to note that this exercise in twisted logic is not a one-off for this particular *ahem* legal giant...

Judge Tabor gave Yvonne Godwin, from Cheltenham, a 12-month suspended sentence after she admitted trying to poison her husband after he cheated on her.

She put rat poison in a cake baked for him but the judge said she should not be jailed because she was not a 'criminal in any shape or form'.

Negligent Omnipotence

Finally, a call for some accountability from the bench…

Two weeks after Katelynn Sampson's tragic death, the NDP justice critic has filed a complaint against the judge who awarded custody of the girl to her accused killer.

Justice Debra Paulseth demonstrated a "cavalier and overly casual" attitude during all three custody hearings involving the 7-year-old, Peter Kormos said.

There were "signs, warning signals, alarm bells" the judge should have picked up on, he said, citing court transcripts from the hearings that transferred custody from Bernice Sampson to her friend Donna Irving, 29.

[..]

The judge "didn't follow the law as it's written," the MPP said, pointing to a section of the Children's Law Reform Act that compels judges to consider the best interests of a child.

When a judge is in a position where they are rarely called to account for their decisions and never held responsible for the ramifications of their rulings, what compels them to exercise any measure of due diligence?

Our most recent foray into the family justice system in this province, taught both Mikey and I a valuable lesson in the perversion of justice that is inherent in an overburdened system that relies on subjective reasoning and biased favoritism over law, reason, justice and sadly, the best interests of children.

When a demonstrably dishonest, abusive, manipulative wretch can retain custody of the children, despite hundreds of pages of documented evidence of lies, obfuscation, subversion and abuse; when a judge glosses over the clear and flagrant violation of a mediated divorce agreement and a ratified court order; when he openly suggests in a courtroom that though the law requires joint custody to be truly joint, he personally gives more weight to the wishes of the residential parent – even when that parent selfishly and callously disregards their children’s interests in favor of their own twisted wants and needs; when a perfectly loving, responsible parent who has never violated a single term in their agreement, who has never subverted the children’s interests and who has never neglected the responsibilities of caring for their children, loses what should have been an open and shut case, it becomes quite clear what the priorities really are in family court.

Katelynn Sampson is just the latest and most tragic victim of a system that cares not one whit for the best interests of children.  And when the only recourse in the wake of an unjust decision, is an extensive and costly appeals process, bad decisions stand and provide precedent for many more bad decisions, leaving good parents and long-suffering children out in the cold.

Frankly, until more judges are forced to account for their negligence, nothing will change.  It is a surprise to see a complaint of this sort, launched by an NDPer, but it is a movement that is a long time coming and should earn the support of every member of parliament who cares for more than lip service to justice for families, in this country.