Well I'm sorry you feel that way. If a name of a internet forum bothers you so much, perhaps you have greater issues to attend to. My apologies that the new forum offends you. That was not my intention.
Oh, I'm neither offended or bothered. I
In your opening post, you asked for help (indeed, you prayed to God that someone would help you) to "start up a movement in Alberta to support fathers that are in the same boat as myself". That is all that I am trying to do.
To that end, I don't think that a forum named "parental rights" will successfully start a movement (or will start a successful movement) because the idea of parental rights is, for the most part, inconsistent with the law surrounding child custody and child access. Indeed, I think that many people will view the term "parental rights" with suspicion.
That is my contribution. You may, of course, take it or leave it.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
I don't think that a forum named "parental rights" will successfully start a movement (or will start a successful movement) because the idea of parental rights is, for the most part, inconsistent with the law surrounding child custody and child access. Indeed, I think that many people will view the term "parental rights" with suspicion.
Can you elaborate please? Thanks.
Having said that. I fail to see your point. The main idea of the forum is to do what is in the best interest of the child, by allowing both biological parents the right to be involved in their child's upbringing. The goal is to change the law to make it easier for non-custodial parents to have greater rights to visit and have access to the child, as nearly every study that has come out has indicated that this will ultimately benefit the child in the long run.
Having said that. I fail to see your point. The main idea of the forum is to do what is in the best interest of the child, by allowing both biological parents the right to be involved in their child's upbringing. The goal is to change the law to make it easier for non-custodial parents to have greater rights to visit and have access to the child, as nearly every study that has come out has indicated that this will ultimately benefit the child in the long run.
What exactly is suspicious about that?
You have suggested that the main idea of the forum is to do what is in the best interest of the child. That is a noble idea, one that is consistent with the law, and one that is likely to garner support and attract attention from the right type of people.
However, I am suggesting to you that the name "Alberta Parental Rights Forum" does not communicate that idea. It doesn't even mention children. There is no introduction or description of the forum anywhere that mentions children, children's right to have access to both parents, or the best interests of children. Therefore, someone like me, having not read your description of the main idea of the forum, might suspect that the main focus of the forum is in fact on disgruntled parents who think that they are entitled to spend more time with their children because they pay x amount of child support, etc.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
change the law to make it easier for non-custodial parents to have greater rights to visit and have access to the child
I think a better way to phrase it is "supporting the child's right to enjoy maximum contact with both parents (as is consistent with the child's best interests)".
The court should not give much attention to what a parent "wants". The rights of the child are paramount.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
I think a better way to phrase it is "supporting the child's right to enjoy maximum contact with both parents (as is consistent with the child's best interests)".
The court should not give much attention to what a parent "wants". The rights of the child are paramount.
This. 100%.
Sometimes the maximum contact for a parent with the child's best interest is 20% or 10% or in extreme cases 0%. There needs to be a respect that while the other parent might feel they are entitled to more time with the child because it is biologically theirs, it doesn't mean that this time is in the child's best interests. There are a number of factors that courts use to determine time with the child and while it might seem arbitrary to the parent that doesn't get the time they feel is fair to them, it isn't.
change the law to make it easier for non-custodial parents to have greater rights to visit and have access to the child
I think a better way to phrase it is "supporting the child's right to enjoy maximum contact with both parents (as is consistent with the child's best interests)".
.
With fancy word-smitthing like that you should be a lawyer.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JiriHrdina For This Useful Post:
Try not to get involved with the "Men's Rights" Guy in Edmonton. He ran for city council in my ward so I googled him. People feel he is more anti-feminist then pro-men. If you came up to Edmonton with Men's and Rights in the same sentence, you might get misrepresented by this guy. I know that is the first thing I thought of when I saw the Topic.
Looks like he just posted another blog but I am not going to read it. (I did click on the hate mail for a quick chuckle though.) http://www.mensrightsedmonton.com/
I like the idea of Child's Rights group.
Please do not let my post derail this thread. Maybe we should start an anti-feminist thread if you feel you need to reply.
__________________
life only grows outside the reach of the supernova
Last edited by Shaggin Wagon; 02-05-2014 at 04:04 PM.
Reason: Keep this thread about the kid's
I'm sick of kids getting all the rights these days while us parents continue to have ours eroded. You know who founded this country? It sure as hell wasn't kids, I can tell you that much.
I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be
I'm sorry. Maybe you can do a better job. Why don't you create a forum, call it what you think would be a better name, and tell us how it goes.
Besides, it does not matter what the name is. It's the objective of the forum that takes precedent. In this case, it is what is in the child's best interests.
You asked for help and suggestions, and then you crapped on a guy who gave you help and suggestions. He wasn't the one who wanted to start the forum, but he did point you in the direction of good advice, previously given by a member here.
If you were looking for information on children's rights, does it not seem odd that you would go to a place called parental rights? That's almost the opposite of what you are looking for. Even when you go to the website, there are three forums, one for each of fathers, mothers, and parents. The entire site looks like it is designed to protect and talk about the rights of the adults. At no point does any of it look like a children's advocacy forum.
Just because someone doesn't want to build a forum, doesn't mean they might not have ideas about how to go about it, or what they would look for if they were searching for advice. I don't know how to build a car, but if you built one and it didn't have an engine, I'd let you know you should put an engine in the car, even though I have no interest in building a car.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jesus this site these days
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
He just seemed like a very nice person. I loved Squiggy.
Seems to me Dave needs a new lawyer. If his income was drastically reduced, then that is an important change in circumstances, and the amount of on-going support should be re-set (assuming it is not possible for him to earn what he formerly did, and he is not deliberately under-employed).
There is also the Undue Hardship argument.
Last edited by troutman; 02-05-2014 at 04:46 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
I apologize for being testy. It is very stressful fighting for the right to be in your child's life. That is all I desire. To have a close relationship with my child.
Support Bill C-560. It is an amendment to the Divorce Act, which encourages Equal Parenting. This is what I am fighting for. Canada is way behind, in terms of our attitudes towards non-custodial parents. A child needs both parents, and it is in their best interest.
I made the mistake of wording it wrong, as I have been researching this. However, "Parental Rights" and "Equal Parenting" were one and the same, or so I thought. Calling it Child's Rights is to broad, and could potentially confuse people, as it would encompass everything from bullying in school, drug use, abuse, rec facilities for children in a community, etc.
My main concern is what is the best possible way to raise a child, and if two people are separated or divorced, nearly every single study shows the child will be healthier and better off mentally, if he/she gets to form close relationships with both parents.
The CBA Section believes that any discussion of “parental rights” is misguided when resolving arrangements for children. The sole focus must be what is best for children.
The best interests of the child are not always met by exactly equal ongoing parental involvement.
Last edited by troutman; 02-26-2014 at 10:24 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
Crime - A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were at higher risk of status, property and person delinquencies. Moreover, students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents are also at risk. A study of 13,986 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father. Forty-two percent grew up in a single-mother household and sixteen percent lived with neither parent
Child Abuse – Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect. The overall rate of child abuse and neglect in single-parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, whereas the rate of overall maltreatment in two-parent households is 15.5 per 1,000.
Daughters of single parents without a Father involved are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 711% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a pre-marital birth and 92% more likely to get divorced themselves.
Adolescent girls raised in a 2 parent home with involved Fathers are significantly less likely to be sexually active than girls raised without involved Fathers.
The CBA Section believes that any discussion of “parental rights” is misguided when resolving arrangements for children. The sole focus must be what is best for children.
Exactly. It should be judged case-by-case. No two people are alike, but I truly believe the majority of people make good parents.
