From: Connie Brauer
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:40 PM
Subject: Fw: [CEPC_Members] New blog post from Gene C. Colman Action Now for Bill C-560
Dear Scott,
We urge you to vote for Bill-560 on May 7th. Last chance.
We urge you to attend the vote. Absence will be considered a no vote. A no vote is unconstitutional.
As victims of judicial and family abuse in this medieval
and unconstitutional system,
we are the poster family for the victims of abuse.
This sole custody system has stolen our children, our home, our income, our parental
rights, our Charter Rights, our financial security, our grand children and most importantly
any right to even know where our children are.
We have been fighting for access to our children for 22 years now. We still don’t know where they are.
That information has been unlawfully withheld from us all these years.
- NO JUDGE TERMINATED CHILD SUPPORT FOR A MISSING ADULT MAN.
- NO JUDGE ORDERED THE REQUIRED ACCESS.
- NO JUDGE HAS ORDERED DISCLOSURE.
- ONE MILLION DOLLARS PAID IN SUPPORT.
You now have children of your own.
Can you imagine this happening to you?
Vote for Bill C-560.
We will be watching on May 7th.
Live Free,
Connie Brauer
1061 Mines Rd. RR2
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Phone, 902 791 0958
Email, cbrauer@eastlink.ca
From: Gene C. Colman
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 12:32 AM
To: CEPC_Members@yahoogroups.com ; EPOC_NEWS@yahoogroups.com ; l4sp@yahoogroups.ca
Cc: Paulette MacDonald ; Terry Brennan
Subject: [CEPC_Members] New blog post from Gene C. Colman Action Now for Bill C-560
Revised blog post adds to legal history: I have revised my recent blog post (http://tinyurl.com/jwf572z) with respect to my thoughts on equal shared parenting – why we need legislative change. I’ve added reference to two additional cases from 1988 and 1989 where Justice Roger Salhany, relying on legislative changes, thought that the legal landscape had so changed that “joint custody” should have the legal status of a rebuttable presumption. Judges and lawyers mostly ignored those cases and as far as I know, they were never cited by any appellate court. The fact that two judges (there was another one in Nova Scotia but I don’t refer to him in my blog post) felt that the law had changed gives some support to those who believed that the law as changed from 1986 should have heralded significant changes. The fact that other judges did not follow these two judges highlights why significant changes are needed in our Divorce Act. Unless the federal Parliament makes it crystal clear that kids have a right to both parents’ time and attention, then judges and lawyers will likely continue to disenfranchise one parent (usually but not always the father) under the cover of so-called “best interests”. True “best interests” needs to be redefined as a rebuttable presumption in favour of equal shared parenting. That’s what C-560 does.
Feds can and should act unilaterally: Some M.P.’s may tell you that the feds cannot act without the provinces. Not true. The feds changed the child support laws and the provinces followed suit. The federal Department of Justice commissioned the federal Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. Those Guidelines were never even made into any sort of law but because the feds had sponsored this and because the Guidelines were put together by two respected law professors with lawyer input from across Canada, those guidelines now, by virtue of a number of appellate court decisions, effectively have the force of law. Therefore, there is ample precedent for the feds acting on their own and showing leadership in family law.
Advocates need to act now: Polling demonstrates that a huge majority of Canadians are in favour of equal shared parenting. Please contact your local Member of Parliament and lobby him/her to vote in favour of Bill C-560 after the 2nd hour of 2nd reading debate on May 7th. The vote will be held on or after May 7th – likely shortly after. Will we soon have another opportunity like this if C-560 does not pass 2nd reading? Not likely. It is incumbent upon every equal shared parenting advocate in Canada (and even those who disagree with some aspects of Bill C-560 in its current form) to push very hard now to motivate members of Parliament to support the Bill in 2nd reading. Powerful forces such as the Canadian Bar Association and part leaders are lined up against us and Conservative government ministers are sitting on the fence. Both the Liberals and the N.D.P. have indicated that they will not support the Bill but we know that there are many parliamentarians in both of those parties who truly support the Bill. So, don’t give up!
Years ago on EPOC I wrote that I was against any presumptions in family law. Many of you responded both on line and privately and told me how wrong I was. I listened carefully to you men and women, I discussed the issues extensively with Prof. Kruk, and I thought long and hard about the issue. You guys convinced me to change my views and change I indeed did! I changed because you all convinced me that a rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting was best for kids. Now, as one of the founders of CEPC and L4SP I am calling on all advocates to do everything that they can in the coming days and weeks to garner support for Bill C-560. Don’t leave it for the next guy. Make one call. Write one email. And then get your friends and family to do the same. And then do whatever else you possibly can to influence our elected representatives.
Please post this to other groups. (I have posting rights only on EPOC and CEPC so I am relying on all of you to continue to get the message out.) Thanks to all and a very happy holiday to you and your families.
Gene C. Colman
25 Bowring Walk
Toronto, Ont. M3H 5Z8
Tel: 416-635-9264
Follow me on twitter
From: Gene C. Colman [mailto:gene@complexfamilylaw.com]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 5:00 PM
To: l4sp@yahoogroups.ca
Cc: CEPC_Members@yahoogroups.com; EPOC_NEWS@yahoogroups.com
Subject: New blog post from Gene C. Colman
These are my thoughts today.
Gene C. Colman
25 Bowring Walk
Toronto, Ont. M3H 5Z8
Tel: 416-635-9264
