kidsnav.gif (4714 bytes)

Contact Us

[AKidsRight.Org] Canadian Petition / British position on 'best interest' / Your FEEDBACK / Lighter Side

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: AKidsRight.Org Webmaster (
Date: Mon Sep 06 2004 - 15:42:52 EDT

This is a message from the AKidsRight.Org mailing list.  Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message.
Good People & People of Faith,

This message contains info on:
1. Canadian Petition for reform - is it enough?
2. Child's Best Interest - the position of the British Government.
3. Your Letters - the effort to see Senator Clinton.
4. Your FEEDBACK - the effort to see Senator Clinton.
5. The Lighter Side - Lawyer welcomes poor parents!

1. Canadian Petition for reform - is it enough?
submitted by: "Hal Jeffery" <>

If you believe the following recommendations to be equally fair and 
considerate of both mothers and fathers then please blow some wind
into their sails by signing the petition and adding respectful
comment at the following link.\

To:  Canadian Federal & Provincial Legislatures

It is common practice in our courts to use confrontation and
adversarial strategies to resolve family matters. However, this
approach only further distresses families already in crisis at a time
of divorce. With parents committing suicide, or left destitute on the
street, it is high time to implement drastic changes to present


1. That mediation be made mandatory. That litigation be allowed only
after every effort at mediation has been exhausted.

2. That all children comprising a family unit be entitled to equal
consideration under Federal Guidelines irrespective of bloodline
(save where previous provision has been made).

3. That the practice of imputing income be abolished. That only
actual income be assessed when setting child support (save where tax
evasion has been proved).

4. That no individual's income be garnisheed below federal 'income
assistance' levels.

2. Child's Best Interest - the position of the British Government.
Submitted by: Roger Eldridge <>
Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland,
Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon

I received today a copy of a newsletter sent out by Don Mathis' where
he reprinted a reply he got from Kabir Ahmed, Families in Change
Team, Vulnerable Children Division, of the UK Government wherein he

"Dear Mr. Mathis, 

Thank you for your email of 21 July, addressed to Margaret Hodge,
about child contact.  I have been asked to reply on the Minister's

The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing
relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where
it is safe to do so.  The Children's Act 1989 makes the welfare of
the child concerned, rather than the rights of the parent, its
paramount consideration.  While most parents can and do resolve
issues about contact and residence following separation or divorce,
the court becomes involved if either parent applies for an order for
residence or contact.  The court has a wide discretion to take
account of all the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
Decisions are made after the judge has heard and considered all the
evidence provided by both parties and any other witnesses, including
experts.  Both parties are entitled to have their views heard and
have the opportunity to respond to any evidence put before the court.
If arrangements under a court order do not work out, either parent
may, according to the circumstances, apply to the court for the order
to be varied, revoked, or enforced.

The Government does not believe that a legal presumption of contact
would be helpful.  As the principles of the Act focus on the child,
and what would be in his/her best interests, a legal presumption of
contact would conflict with this principle.  A legal presumption
would also undermine the 'no order principle', which is that the
court should only make an order when satisfied that this is better
for the child than making no order at all....."

---------- end of Mr. Ahmed's letter

I quote from the draft of our upcoming Second Report on the Family and
Marriage in Ireland in 2004, which we are about to publish (and which
will be available to download from our website

'These rules were stated in the Supreme Court and read by O'Byrne J

"At the present day the predominating principle must always be the
welfare of the child; but, in applying that principle, the Court must
act with circumspection and in accordance with the principles set out

In exercising the jurisdiction to control or to ignore the parental
right, the Court must act cautiously, ... acting in opposition to the
parent only when judiciously satisfied that the welfare of the child
requires that the parental right should be suspended or superseded."

>From this it can clearly be seen that the relevant rule is that "A
parent can not be opposed by the court unless it can be shown 'beyond
a shadow of a doubt' that the child's welfare requires it, or to undo
the double negatives the court must give the order the parent applies
for unless it can be shown that the giving of the requested order will
seriously harm the child.

This presumes that the parent necessarily has rights free from
interference from the state and must be allowed to determine what is
right for their child as long as no one can show it does serious harm.

This is in direct contrast to this the so-called "no order principle",
that this representative of the state is claiming exists, which
presumes that parents have to make a case to the state why they should
be allowed to make decisions concerning their child and the state will
decide whether they agree or not. This treats the state as always
being in control (ie the state is the real parent with authority) and
ensures the parent must always ask the state before it does anything
to do with the child!

Once you see it like this you have to realise that this so-called
'principle' is utter nonsense and makes parenting totally unworkable
otherwise we would all have to queue up outside the courts every day
to ask a judge if it was "in the child's best interest' to make the
kids eat cabbage and brush their teeth.

The question is "When and where, specifically did they change the
rules in the UK and introduce their "no order principle".

Is it written in statute? Is it from a citation from the House of
Lords.  Where? If so on what authority did they change the established
'Kindersley' rules of court? Ie where precisely, according to this
man, head of the 'Vulnerable Children Division' (!) did MARRIED
PARENTS lose all authority over their children....

3. Your Letters - our effort to meet with Senator Clinton
For more details on the effort see:

--- Joanne Rudman <>

Subject:An open message to the New York Times
For years I have been buying daily NY Times papers and now have the
convenience of an online subscription.  Your paper exhibits the
epitome on news reporting with a superior quality of article writing
on a vast variety of subjects.
I am living in California, in the Sacramento area, but have been
following the efforts of a fellow child advocate in New York.  His
name is John Murtari and his story is so typical of parents severed
from a relationship with their children due to the divorce system in
this country.  Have you ever done a recent article on his story?  I
feel that this will enlighten many parents going through the same
problems with the family division.  Instead of uniting fractured
families, our courts are distancing kids from the God-given rights
they have to the equal love and interaction with both parents.  Since
our children are our future, what message and example are we giving
them?  I am enclosing a copy of the most recent article John posted on
his web site.  I'm sure you will be able to contact him.
Please respond to my inquiry because I have personally written to
Senator Hillary Clinton several times and have never been given the
curtesy of any kind of reply.  As the first former first lady to hold
this position in your state, I would feel that she would take more of
a personal interest in her constituents' problems.  All this gentleman
has ever asked was to have a personal meeting with the Sentator.  As a
mother herself I would think she would take these kinds of problems
seriously enough to help John and the thousands of similsr parents in
New York.  Your state should also be an example, as is California, for
the true joint custody rights of both parents in a divorce/separation
Joanne Scheafnocker
National Board Member of National Congress for Fathers and Children

--- Leszek Forczek  <>

To Senator Hillary Clinton:

Why is our Nation in such dismal denial of America's nasty secret,
i.e., the failure of the Family Court System?

If only Mr. Mutari represented some minor or eccentric voice regarding
father's rights/parental and children's rights in this so-called free
country, Sen. Clinton's actions (i.e., lack of action) would be
understandable and forgivable.

Unfortunately, he is not some isolated case!  He only happens to be
someone who is willing, who has the integrity and courage to
relentlessly bring attention to a most serious issue that almost all
politicians lack the compassion, insight and integrity to bring to the
center stage so that this issue can be properly aired, rather than
done away with backscenes.

Does the statistic 35 million children forced to by the "law" to be
without one of their parents, mean anything?  What will it take to
bring this issue to the forefront where it deserves to be?

Come on, Senator Clinton, walk your talk and sit down with this
citizen and have a heart to heart talk.  Let the Nation know that you
care and are willing to put your money where your mouth is.  Do you
think that by ignoring these issues, that they are going to go away? 
Or do you simply want somebody else to do your job? Perhaps you want
something more sensational. We all would like to know what's
preventing you from doing the right thing.

"There comes a time that to remain silent is an act of betrayal." -
Martin Luther King, Riverside Church, NYC

4. Your FEEDBACK - our effort to meet with Senator Clinton

--- Mike Little <>

> Keep it up John.  Texas is just too far away for me to be there.
> I've told may people that one of the reasons those who abuse us
> through denial of our constitutional rights get away with all that
> they do is because too often there are little or no witnesses.
> Don't give up.

--- "Mates, Joseph M" <>

> John, I know you must be disapointed that more people do not show up
> to support you and the cause you are fighting for. I live in CA.
> and wish that I could join you. I follow and support your actions
> and am disgusted with Senator Clinton. She is a disgrace to the
> position that she holds.Good luck to you and please continue to keep
> us informed of what is going on with you.

--- Suzanne Shell <>

> John - I wish I could be there with you, I'd gladly film it all. I'm
> on trial Nov. 9 for filming two cases in Fremont County. They accuse
> me of practicing law and issued a contempt (of the supreme court)
> citation. I'll be praying for your victory in your trial. If I ever
> get any money, I'll be out there to film what they do to you.

--- "Tom" <>

> Turn the media on to this and every advocate group you can think of.

Yes, it has turned into a bit of 'circus.'  I had gotten media
attention in the past, but I think they are tired of just reporting on
one person (which makes some sense).  The list reaches a lot of people
and hopefully something will 'pop'.  We did send out a News Release
last week, you [anyone] are certainly welcome to use it.


--- Jim MacFarlane <>

> Sorry to hear about your plight.. Being an USAF pilot with judges
> and lawyers means nothing to them.  Most of them are draft dodgers.
> In my case I was ordered to pay $75,000 to a Brit woman in a farce
> divorce who I was not legally married to and the Brit woman lied 17
> times during farce divorce and I have edvidence courts refuse to
> accept.
> I flew 4000 hours in Laos and flew atomic sub crews across N
> Atlantic also flew flag draped coffins back from Vietnam to
> Travis...
> None of my 8 years particpation in Vietnam and my 20 years as a
> reserve officer meant anything to these draft dodgers because they
> have no conscience!!
> Good luck to you!!
Major James MacFarlane
United States Army, Avn (ret)
Quito, Ecuador

--- Daniel Hostedler <>

> If you really want to understand the truth about an organization
> look at the cash flow. The "Divorce Industry" clearly re-distributes
> close to a trillion dollars per year in the United States
> alone. Lawyers fees, Court cost, taxes for judges salaries. Baby
> sitter cost when the "non-better parent" would just love to spend
> time with the child, abuse shelters, child support, police, child
> protective services, psychologist. I even discovered that my own
> child's school had put up security measures to prevent divorced
> fathers from accessing school records until proved Innocent.
> I changed that rule in a hurry. I know your situation from
> experience. As a divorced father you are the most wanted man in
> America. As an activist you are even more of a threat. Just think of
> it, you threaten to take away nearly a trillion dollars from well
> deserving lawyers and bureaucrats. Listen to what I say, this
> "Divorce Industry" does not want you to interferer with the
> system. Hillary does not want your advice. This is not about Womens
> rights it is about government's rights.
> Thomas Jefferson said "that government is best that governs the
> least". When it comes to the family I say that Jefferson understates
> the problem. You might as well give your petition to the blind,
> Hillary would like to see a global village (ie. communism), not
> family. This quest of yours is a star that shines for all to see,
> you spread light and therefore reason. When the vast majority of
> society sees what has been taken from them, their children, their
> families their fortune the voice of reason will once again return to
> these United States.
Thanks for the message and there is a lot of truth in what you say
about how the system is.  It is degrading, and I cringe when I here
about 'visitation centers' where you actually have to pay money to see
your child.

... Regarding Hillary.  You forgot to mention she is a VERY good
politician and wants to be President.  If we can't get enough public
support to convince her Family Reform is important -- what does that
say about the reform effort?  We need to 'move' people in this country
to rethink Family rights and I'm sure she'll want to be on the right
side of the issue (for the same practical reasons you mentioned

5. The Lighter Side - Lawyer welcomes poor parents!
[To our lawyer friends regarding the below: Please try to remember,
we are not laughing at you -- we are laughing with you (note the
legal distinction?!) - Ed.]

A wealthy lawyer was riding in his Rolls-Royce when he saw two persons
along the roadside eating grass. Disturbed, he ordered his driver to
stop and he got out to investigate.

He asked one of them, "Why are you eating grass?"

"We are divorced and don't have any money for food," the poor person
replied.  "We have to eat grass."

"Well then, you can come with me to my house and I'll feed you," the
lawyer said.

"But sir, I have six divorced friends with me. They are over there,
under that tree." 

"Bring them along," the lawyer replied. Turning to the other one he
stated, "You come with us also."

They all entered the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as
large as the Rolls.

Once underway, one of them turned to the lawyer and said, "Sir, you
are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you."

The lawyer replied, "Glad to do it. You'll really love my place; the
grass is almost a foot high!"

webmaster@AKidsRight.Org               AKidsRight.Org
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/             "A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"

Newsletter mailing list  subscribe/unsubscribe info below:

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 03:12:01 EST