Monday, August 17, 2009

Because there is no way a child would want a fit father right?

Glenn points to an instance in which politicians use the "best interests of the child" as a shield to hide their malicious intent towards father.

Currently in Canada there is debate over a bill introduced by Saskatchewan Tory MP Maurice Vellacott that instructs judges "to apply the principle of equal shared parenting unless it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parental responsibility other than equally."

However Justice Minister Rob Nicholson seems to have other ideas when it comes to the concept of shared parenting.
The interests of children must take priority over a father's right to an equal parenting role after divorce.
As the people at Glenn's place point out this is something of a misdirect implying that a father taking an equal role in raising a child somehow conflicts with the best interests of the child. This is false. Unless said father is unfit to raise the child then it is in the best child's interest for the father to be in his/her life. However this means nothing to those that are willing to keep a child away from a fit father for the sake of their own political gain.

For years fathers have been treated as babysitters at best and walking ATMs at worst when it comes to raising children. In recent times fathers have been trying to take a larger role in the lives of their children but the road has not been easy.

When the father is not in the child's life (whether by his choice or not) it seems that the only thing of concern to the courts is ensure that he is paying his financial obligations (whether they are really his or not) yet these same entities turn a blind eye to the fathers that are desperately trying to pay said obligations and are being kept out the child's life by maternal gatekeeping Probably because those men don't make for as good of a soundbite as the ones that actually do run out on their responsibilities.

In the event the father is in the life of the child (such as marriage that ends in divorce) it is often presumed by the court that regardless of finances, connection to children, and most of all the desire of the child to have his/her father the father's role is not very important and has no problem awarding custody to the mother by default. In most situations the mother is the usually the primary caregiver for the children which would explain why the courts often side with her but even in the event that the father may have been the primary care giver custody may still be awarded to the mother. There is a clear desire to keep children away from their fathers and there is simply no reason other than hatred of children, men, and fathers for someone to actively try to prevent a child from having a fit father in their life.

Don't be fooled by attempts to turn this into "the best interests of the child vs the father's rights to the child" as that is not what is at stake here and people that try to make it seem that way are doing so for the sake of casting fathers in a negative light to push their own agenda. The real situation at hand here is "child's right to a fit father vs the mothers that don't want the child to have a fit father and the politicians that are hoping to bank on that fear, anger, hatred, and suffering".

Keeping a child away from a fit father may feel empowering and whatnot but in the end the child being robbed of a father is the real victim. So much for "the best interests of the children eh?"