kidsnav.gif (4714 bytes)

Contact Us

Event Announcements - US, UK & Canada

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Webmaster (
Date: Mon Aug 05 2002 - 09:17:33 EDT

This is a message from a mailing list,
Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message.

Good People & People of Faith,

This message contains information on some announcements we have
received and would like to share with the list. Please contact the
people listed in the messages for more info:

1. Activity in the British Parliament.
2. Changing the laws in New York State.
3. Equal Parenting Campaign in Canada.
4. Worldwide Equal Parents Week (Sep 23 - Sep 29).
5. Steve Osborne v. Canadian Family Judge - okay to lie in Court?

[You are welcome to send us announcements
(  Please keep them to a few paragraphs
so that we do not have to edit.  Include email and web site.  We get a
lot of items, please limit to those related to shared parenting. - Ed]

1. Activity in the British Parliament.
--- Kenneth Lane (

> Please note...At the time of writing, 43 MP's have signed the 'Early Day Motion' 
> [EDM 1458] (below). Please encourage all interested parties to write to MPs 
> insisting that they sign this motion.
> EDM 1458 
> That this House believes that children are best brought up with the
> full involvement of both their natural parents and if possible,
> members of their wider family; further believes that all children of
> separated parents are entitled to the love, personal care and
> support of both their natural parents in their everyday lives unless
> reason is shown otherwise and that both parents have a duty to
> support the relationship of the children with the other parent;
> believes also that public and private institutions should recognize
> both parents of children with whom they deal and that all involved
> parties should seek to minimize any loss or damage caused by divorce
> or separation to children's relationship with either of their
> parents or with their wider family; further believes that the
> rewards of sacrifices of and resources devoted to parenting should
> be fairly shared between the parents; and calls for public policy to
> be adapted to remove obstacles to this objective.  

[Copied from (then go to 'EDM's/ search)]

2. Changing the laws in New York State.
--- David Friedman <>

> If you are spurred to action (whether positive or negative) by the
> following piece please turn your energy into something POSITIVE, by
> writing or calling Mr. Green's office and COURTEOUSLY THANKING HIM
> FOR HIS TIME AND CONCERNS. Please leave any impulse to divulge any
> further emotion, frustration or personal issues between yourself and
> your word processor. You probably will not reach him personally and
> therefore are best served by saying thanks and that you urge his
> continued efforts to make SHARED PARENTING the law in New York
> State.
> Please read my whole article. I've put Mr. Green's contact info at the bottom.

> Thanks to Hon. Roger Green, Chair, NYS Assembly standing committee
> on Children & Families for his address and support offered last
> Saturday at Medgar Evers College. Mr. Green spoke to an auditorium
> filled with concerned fathers, mothers, grandparents and siblings
> who have been beaten emotionally and financially by the ineffectual
> child custody, child support and matrimonial laws of NY State often
> dating back to the 1800's.

>  Mr. Green expressed sympathy for victims of what he admits are laws
> that are biased and in need of substantial change before they really
> further best interests of children and respect all parties' civil
> rights. He shared history of the Sidikman "Shared Parenting" bill
> A3673, insight into the legislative process and the opposition we
> face (Citizen's Committee for Children, Society for Prevention of
> Cruelty to Children, NOW) and personal experience with the system as
> a divorced father and second father to a man who has not seen his
> children for 11 months due to false allegations of abuse.

>  Mr. Green has introduced A11735 which makes much needed terminology
> changes (eliminates "visitation" in favor of "parenting time"),
> encourages Judges to order Joint Custody and Mediation. The primary
> deficiency in the bill is the failure to create a rebuttable
> presumption of Joint Custody/Shared Parenting if both parents are
> fit (there is no substance abuse, violence or other
> danger). Alternatively the bill enumerates a litany of criteria the
> court will utilize to determine whether Joint Custody or Sole
> Custody will be ordered. Unfortunately, many of these criteria
> directly parallel many of the rhetorical justifications that have
> been used over the years to solidify the unspoken doctrine that
> barring very unusual circumstances Mom gets the kids. 

>  This bill as drafted, while absolutely well intended and likely to
> pass the legislature does nothing to insure that the true best
> interests of children are protected as determined through myriad
> scientific studies nor does anything to restore the civil liberties
> of biological parents who bear no fault in divorce or

>  One of the major impediments to getting the rebuttable presumption
> needed to eliminate so much wasteful litigation, stress and acrimony
> (thus substantially decreasing the income of lawyers and "experts")
> is the position of Senator Saland of the Senate Children & Families
> Committee (a major Bar Association ally) and others that presumptions
> in the law are generally bad because the limit judge's
> discretion. 

> Despite findings of the United States Supreme Court & various state
> courts that the "best interest of the child" standard is repugnant
> to the U.S. Constitution. (In Zummo v. Zummo, 674 A.2d 1130, 1138
> (1990) it was held:

> "The statist notion that government may supercede parental authority
> in order to ensure bureaucracy or judicially determined "best
> interests" of children has been rejected as repugnant to American
> traditions. Judges and state officials are ill-equipped to
> second-guess parents and are precluded from intervening in absence
> of powerful countervailing interests". Citing Lehr v. Robertson, 463
> U.S. 248, 257-61 (1982).)

>  It was an honor and a pleasure to have Mr. Green's time and
> attention. He is a realist. He is trying to help us face facts. We
> will work with him to do what is needed. We will work with him to do
> what is right.

> greenr@assembly.state.ny.  55 Hanson Place Brooklyn, NY 11217
> 718-596-0100 LOB 622 Albany, NY 12248 518-455-5325

3. Equal Parenting Campaign in Canada.
--- Edward (

> The Equal Parenting Campaign in Canada is working on refining the following
> proposal. Your input would be welcome.
> A non-violent civil disobedience campaign:
> Children claim equal parenting time...
> The present system of the courts removing loving parents from the lives of
> their children is causing documented harm to those children.

> Our judiciary should be accountable to the people on this matter,
> but it has not been held accountable.

> Canada's child custody and child protection laws, and the practices
> of its judicial system, in disrespecting and causing documented harm
> to children and families, and in violating the human principles of
> protection from harm, equality and freedom, have lost their
> legitimacy in the eyes of those involved in this campaign.

> The children of Canada and their allies thus undertake to engage in
> a non-violent civil disobedience campaign directed toward providing
> us with equal parenting time with (each of) our parents, in an
> effort to reduce harm to ourselves, permit us to spend equal time
> with our parents, and allow us the freedom to determine our own best
> interests--as we define them.


> Whereas documented empirical research has found that:

> 1. children want to be in the shared/equal physical care of their
> parents (Fabricius, 2002);

> 2. children in shared/equal physical care arrangements adjust
> significantly better than those in sole custody arrangements
> (Blauserman, 2002);

> 3. shared/equal physical child care arrangements prevent conflict
> involving parents, and thus lessen the likelihood of children being
> exposed to their parents' conflict (Blauserman, 2002);

> And whereas the Department of Justice judicial system harms Canadian
> children through laws, policies and practices that:

> 1. deny children their stated wishes regarding their relationships
> with their parents;

> 2. ignore research evidence that shared/equal parenting arrangements
> are generally better for children than sole custody arrangements,
> especially when parents disagree about custodial arrangements;
> 3. promote continuing conflict involving parents and stress through
> the current "winner takes all" approach to resolve child custody and
> parenting matters;

> Those among us who meet the following three criteria will
> participate in the Equal Parenting Campaign:

> 1. I freely choose to remain in the care of my "non-custodial" parent(s)
> 50% of the time or greater;

> 2. my "non-custodial" parent(s) want me to remain in their care 50% of the
> time or greater;

> 3. my "non-custodial" parent(s) do not have any form of criminal conviction
> that has any bearing on their abilities as parents.

> As a child who wants to live with his/her "non-custodial" parent(s)
> at least 50% of the time, whose parent(s) had their responsibilities
> as my parents removed by the state, and whose parents have no
> criminal conviction that has any bearing on their abilities as
> parents, and I resolve to undertake the following action:

> 1. With respect, I will inform my "custodial" parent/caregiver(s)
> and "non-custodial" parent(s) that I wish to have an "equal time"
> living arrangement with them, and will invite them to negotiate a
> new shared parenting arrangement;

> 2. I will remain with my "non-custodial" parent(s) on an equal time
> basis with those who have been granted legal custody (unless forced
> otherwise);

> 3. I will return to and remain with my legal "custodial" parents on
> an equal time basis with my "non-custodial" parents (unless forced
> otherwise).

> Edward Kruk, Ph.D.,
> Associate Professor
> The University of British Columbia,
> School of Social Work and Family Studies ,
> 2080 West Mall,
> Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z2
> tel UBC office (604) 822-2383
> tel home office (250) 335-3212
> fax (604) 822-8656

[our feedback on this - Ed]

It is an interesting proposal trying to get children involved, perhaps
the parents should be the ones who need to make the sacrifice?  Had
you considered focusing on individual MP's to get the actual laws

I see some studies are quoted, and I don't know if opponents will be
able to produce "studies" that show conflicting results.  But is this
about science?  If science was able to prove that in 80% of the
cases, children do not do as well under the care of bald headed,
bearded men (which is me):

When I appear in Court, do I still deserve a strong presumption that I
am a fit parent and deserving of equal time?

4. Equal Parents Week (Sep 23 - Sep 29).
--- From Patti Diroff (

September 23, 2002 - September 29, 2002

As International Sponsor, the Children's Rights Council ("CRC") based
in the United States invites people around the world to join in Equal
Parents' Week and unite our voices in making the message "The Best
Parent Is Both Parents" an international mandate. 


Equal Parents' Week is a movement which sends the message that
parental rights and responsibilities must be shared equally by both
parents. The purple ribbon is the symbol which sends this
message. People are urged to send this message by wearing purple
ribbons and tying them everywhere they can be seen.

Equal Parents' Week advocates that the right of both parents to
function as a parent, the right of children to be raised and nurtured
by both parents, and the right of families to exist and function as a
family, are civil and human rights inherent and inalienable to all
families. The Equal Parents' Week mandate for equal parent status is a
mandate for the time it takes to love, nurture, and teach our children
our values the only way we can...a mandate for the ability to be a
parent...and a mandate for justice.

This year, Equal Parent's Week ("EPW") takes place September 23, 2002
through September 29, 2002.  The CRC is soliciting participation in
EPW to create an international movement that will unite the voices of
people all over the world to raise public awareness and achieve
legislative reform to promote joint custody and shared parenting, and
address injustices that affect parents, children and family members
everywhere.  Although the simple act of tying a purple ribbon may seem
insignificant, the power of our message and the power of this message
being sent by purple ribbons all over the world will reach people
everywhere. If every family member throughout the world who cherishes
their love for their family unites their voices in sending this
message, we will send a message so powerful it cannot be ignored.

As a international event, we are asking organizations to hold as many
public candlelight vigils as possible throughout each country. ALL
Wednesday, September 25, 2002 at 7:30 p.m (as this time occurs in your
time zone, not adjusted for any other time zone) Please view the "Five
Candles Reading" at
for use at public candlelight vigils and "Home Vigils."

EPW advocates that a 2-parent focus be established as an
international priority, maximizing the involvement that both parents
are willing and able to contribute in raising their children, and
promoting the ability of both parents to meet all their children's
needs without compromising or imposing financial impediments to
nonfinancial forms of child support.  The CRC's campaign, JUST SAY
YES! to Joint Custody and Shared Parenting advocates that parents are
required to exercise their first responsibility as a parent, to "just
say yes" to making a commitment to doing what is truly in children's
best interests, to "just say yes" to unconditionally loving and
sacrificing for their children...and that means, "Just Say Yes!" to
joint custody and Shared Parenting.


Please contact the International Coordinator as soon as possible to
notify us if you will be participating in EPW, and by September 6,
2002 for inclusion in the international press release.  Please use the
link in the EPW website entitled "Sign Up: Candlelight Vigils, Purple
Ribbon Activities, etc." to notify us of your
participation.  Please understand that activity(ies) cannot be
included unless you provide ALL the information requested in the Sign
Up Link.

Patti Diroff
International Coordinator, Equal Parents' Week
Children's Rights Council

5. Steve Osborne v. Canadian Family Judge - okay to lie in Court?
Just a brief summary on this.  Mr. Osborne (
lost contact with his children in a Canadian Court.  His spouse lied
about his conduct and he was able to show this in Court -- the Judge's
response to this was that "small lies are okay."

Steve kept a peaceful picket outside the local courthouse holding up
signs saying "Lies Okay here" and others accusing the Judge of
allowing perjury.  The Judge had him charged with "Libel" under
Canada's criminal code. Steve refused to "plea bargain" and the issue
is moving toward trial.

Steve can really use some help.  He has a web site, -- but no one to take care of it for him!
If you can help, please contact him at the email address above.  Below
is a message from Steve and from a supporter advising folks on how to

>  I'm off to the races again on Tuesday, August 6th, 2002.  Despite
> having been offered August 20th as the next date that the
> arraignment was possible at the Preliminary Inquiry it seems a time
> slot to Indict me has become available a bit sooner than expected.
> The case is on the docket and I've been given notice.

> I don't anticipate any trouble finding the place, getting parked
> downtown or being on time for my appearance.  I am to appear in the
> Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Division, in the
> Provincial Building here in Saint John-my old stomping grounds!  I
> am to be tried for allegedly defaming a member of that same Court in
> front of that very same Court as a result of decision made by that
> same Court.  I am allegedly defaming a member of the same Court,
> formerly of the Family Division, now of the Trails Division of the
> very same Court I am to be tried in, by a judge of the same Court.

> I expect the Crown will again make application for a ban on
> publication of material related the issue.  I'm prepared to argue my
> opposition.  If they succeed this may be my last opportunity to keep
> one and all informed of goings on here on the eastern front.
> I expect to be required to enter a plea despite provision in the
> Criminal Code of Canada allowing me time to plea and to have full
> knowledge of the particulars of the allegations before doing so.  I'm
> both ready to oppose and ready to enter my Plea of Justification if
> I am required to do so.
> I am ready to inform the Court that I see 2 possible Constitutional
> questions and several preliminary matters, and that I expect the
> process is likely to require the Court's intervention.
> Before what may be my last opportunity to spread cheer and good
> fortune may be lost there are a couple more things that should be
> out there in the public realm.
> I've long been looking at how to use this opportunity to demonstrate
> the cause and effect aspect of current family court practices, with
> a view to offering better solutions in the process as part of a
> defense.  To that end I have managed to persuade some of the people
> in this business, experts, to come and give evidence supporting my
> beliefs in court.  I am sure that everyone in our movement will
> recognize the potential of what is happening here when they learn
> that Warren Farrell, Ed Kruk and Martin Loney have agreed to support
> my little project down here with their expertise, knowledge and
> education in the form of direct testimony before a jury.
> I am open to any and all suggests or assistance anyone cares to
> offer on this one.  The matter of the ban on publication is another
> huge opening if it can be capitalized on.  The Criminal Code makes
> provision for interested parties to have standing at any hearing of
> an application for a ban on publication, and that means the media
> can join the fray to defend the principle of freedom of the press
> and an open public court.  If this comes to pass I'd very much
> appreciate if people could encourage these parties to take an
> interest and exercise their right of standing before the Court.
> Forward once more into the breach.

--- Zorro (

> Please, compose a letter written asking the Communication Media
> (newspapers, radio and TV) to help denounce the political
> persecution of a man at the hands of the divorce industry.

> For the new ones to the lists: Steve picketed the court house with a
> sign indicating that a judge condones lies (Judge said small lies
> from the ex are OK) and is being charged with criminal libel.

> Even a small blurb will help Steve Osborne.  At the bottom, write
> "Copy the the Media." Please, copy paste the e-mail addresses below
> to the appropriate slots.  Those who can, try sending faxes too.

> In addition, NB people should try to provide us with contacts that
> can influence the outcome of this kangaroo court trial in
> Newbrunswick. As I have been saying all along.  Jumping up and down
> in anger has not effect.  Providing the information to a news item
> does.

> Also, go to this link and send some comments to the Premier, Bernard
> Lord and to the AG, Bradley Green.  You may like to compose your
> message and then copy-paste it to the links bellow (I did it and it
> works).

Government of New Brunswick
Attn: The Hon. Bernard Lord, Premier
Centennial Building
P. O. Box 6000
Fredericton,  NB
E3B 5H1
The St. John's Times
506-648-2652 Fax

CVAT-TV - Fredericton
506-451-4003 Fax

CVAT-TV - Moncton
506-853-6886 Fax

506-632-7761 Fax

Primier's office

Tel:  506) 453-2144
Fax: (506) 453-7407

Justice Dept.

Tel.: (506) 462-5100
faxes: (506) 453-7483 & (506) 453-3651

Note: Mr. Osborne can be reached at: 506-832-7246

For a picture of Steve and his picketing signs, please download them from:

To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to with the following 1 line in the
BODY of the message (Subject is ignored).

unsubscribe members

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 02 2003 - 03:12:02 EST