Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lisaforjustice





Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Posts: 24
Reputation: 11
Location: Surrey British Columbia

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:03 pm    Post subject: There needs to be a change in the Law Reply with quote

Constitutional law Charter of Rights Security of person Minister of Health and Community Services applying to extend order granting him custody of three children Whether parent's right to security of person engaged in custody proceedings Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7. This was a Supreme Court of Canada decision.

Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms states
Everyone is entitled to equal benifit and protection before the law specifically witout
discrimination. In my previous post I stated a case which was before the Supreme Court of Canada because of the security of the parent in regards to the Child Protection Policy.
This policy says that in the child's best interest that the state may remove the child from the parents care if therer are protection concerns and further more that the state can reomove the parents rights to custody and resume sole gaurdian ship of the child.
when this is overstepping parents rights because they are being forced to give up custody!

I also stat that I feel the Child Protection Policy under the Child Family and Community Services act is overstepping what rights parents do have, and it is intruding on parents rights to security and I said why hasnt there been a reform in the law, like strike it out.
I feel that the child protection policy is discriminating against parents, and instead of
removing children provide the services which parents need in order to parent, and those services ought to be provided as long as they are needed, without limitation without discrimination and they should be provided because it is the parents rights to security that they are. No policy should have anything which discrimination is included, to the individuals that policy affects.

My question is when will the governemnt take judical notice and change the policy so parents rights are protected?

I feel that everyone has the right to equal benifit before the law without discrimination
the same way the child is protected, the same way the parent should be, before the law
any other questions or comment?

Lisa Arlin
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:20 pm    Post subject: Re: There needs to be a change in the Law Reply with quote

lisaforjustice wrote:
Constitutional law Charter of Rights Security of person Minister of Health and Community Services applying to extend order granting him custody of three children Whether parent's right to security of person engaged in custody proceedings Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7. This was a Supreme Court of Canada decision.

Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms states
Everyone is entitled to equal benifit and protection before the law specifically witout
discrimination. In my previous post I stated a case which was before the Supreme Court of Canada because of the security of the parent in regards to the Child Protection Policy.
This policy says that in the child's best interest that the state may remove the child from the parents care if therer are protection concerns and further more that the state can reomove the parents rights to custody and resume sole gaurdian ship of the child.
when this is overstepping parents rights because they are being forced to give up custody!

I also stat that I feel the Child Protection Policy under the Child Family and Community Services act is overstepping what rights parents do have, and it is intruding on parents rights to security and I said why hasnt there been a reform in the law, like strike it out.
I feel that the child protection policy is discriminating against parents, and instead of
removing children provide the services which parents need in order to parent, and those services ought to be provided as long as they are needed, without limitation without discrimination and they should be provided because it is the parents rights to security that they are. No policy should have anything which discrimination is included, to the individuals that policy affects.

My question is when will the governemnt take judical notice and change the policy so parents rights are protected?

I feel that everyone has the right to equal benifit before the law without discrimination
the same way the child is protected, the same way the parent should be, before the law
any other questions or comment?

Lisa Arlin


You're advocating equal rights for everyone, but seem to be ignoring the rights of the child. Fortunately, the rights of the childs security supercede the rights of the parent. The child is in no way a threat to the parent's security - and if they are that parent has options to rid themselves of the child - adoption, etc..
Removing custodial rights is an unfortunate event, but is often necessary to protect a child. It is not a common occurence, and is most certainly a last resort. You will also take note that the parent has commited an offence - whether it gross negligence, criminal acts... they give up their rights when they refuse to protect their own child. The law is also very accomodating for parents who have "rehabilitated"..

If anything, many many more children should be removed from their homes.. There are tons of bad parents out there - but our officials do what they can within the rather lenient constraints of the law... and I don't think we should change that. Any major reform in Family law must be in the field of Gender-Bias. That is where the law becomes truly flawed.
lisaforjustice





Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Posts: 24
Reputation: 11
Location: Surrey British Columbia

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:05 pm    Post subject: Law Reform Reply with quote

You're advocating equal rights for everyone, but seem to be ignoring the rights of the child. Fortunately, the rights of the childs security supercede the rights of the parent. The child is in no way a threat to the parent's security - and if they are that parent has options to rid themselves of the child - adoption, etc..
Removing custodial rights is an unfortunate event, but is often necessary to protect a child. It is not a common occurence, and is most certainly a last resort. You will also take note that the parent has commited an offence - whether it gross negligence, criminal acts... they give up their rights when they refuse to protect their own child. The law is also very accomodating for parents who have "rehabilitated"..

When the rights of the child superceded the rights of the parents that is when there is a thret to the parents security. Removing custody is also a threat to the parents security. Furthe more if it is necessary to protect the child parents should not have to be forced to give up custody because of it in any event whether gross negligence, criminal acts etc, everyone has the right to equal protection and benifit before the law and such as the criminal code says everyone has the right to rehabilation, and what I said is parents are being forced to give up custody because they need asistance.

Parents give up there rights when they refuse to proctect there child, that is not a resonable statement which is not welcome, because there are other factors at play when parents are being accused of faling to protect there children, such as the
state refusing to provide the parents what they need to parent. Finally regardless of the child needing protection the parents are entiled to equal protection and benifit before the law, thankyou!

I cant emphisize this enough parents should not have to be forced to give up custody
because their child is in need of protection!

any other questions and comments?

Lisa
lisaforjustice





Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Posts: 24
Reputation: 11
Location: Surrey British Columbia

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Removing custodial rights is an unfortunate event, but is often necessary to protect a child. When a child is removed from the parents care because they are failing to protect the child, that is discrimination.

What ever the services are which are needed should be provided for the parent in order for them to fufil their responsiblities to protect the child. If the state has not provided all measures necessary or services to the parent then the state is failing to protect the child
and the parent should not be relieved of his or her legal rights to the child.

So there for the state interference is removing custodial rights by saying the parent has falied to protec the child when there are other factors to be considered!

Thankyou!
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
such as the
state refusing to provide the parents what they need to parent


All right, that statement lost all credibility in my eyes.

The state has nothing to do with being a good parent.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:20 pm    Post subject: Re: There needs to be a change in the Law Reply with quote

biggie rection wrote:
If anything, many many more children should be removed from their homes..


Yes - without a doubt too many parents aught not even have a cat or a dog let alone a child...there needs to be some regard for 'the child' as you've noted - the law still looks at children as non-entities...parental rights supercede the child's rights.

Myself I don't think having children is a right - rather - it is a privilege and of course - our rights are not governed by what we do but - our privileges are...for children it is a right to have proper care in every respect not a 'privilege'.
lisaforjustice





Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Posts: 24
Reputation: 11
Location: Surrey British Columbia

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok first of all it is not a privlage it is a right, it is not a privlage to have a child it is a choice! you know before people go foaming at the mouth about nothing they know about then dont say anything! I want to see something that actually says
what youve been saying to be true, and not just heresay, I want reliability.
Do you even know what you are saying I got my information from the Child Family
and Community Services Act which I stated I disagree with the state removing the child
and permanately, that child protection would sever custody.

Second of all I have quated an actual decison from the Supreme Court of Canada and the decison stated it was an intrusion regarding state interferencec. Specifically I have provided the case infromation regarding the Minister of Health and Community Services
specifically you can comfirm this is a real case by going to the following link,

http:// yorku.ca/jcameron/cases/NewBrunswick.htm Where did you get your facts from biggie, and by the way unless you know it to be a fact and you can provide
proof you know nothing regarding the subject, and for example someone stated
on here if a parent has cat fesees or is you say unable to take care of themselves
heresay upon hersay dosent make reliable! Anyone can say a parent is inapable
however even that parents still has their rights!
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lisaforjustice wrote:
Ok first of all it is not a privlage it is a right, it is not a privlage to have a child it is a choice! you know before people go foaming at the mouth about nothing they know about then dont say anything! I want to see something that actually says
what youve been saying to be true, and not just heresay, I want reliability.
Do you even know what you are saying I got my information from the Child Family
and Community Services Act which I stated I disagree with the state removing the child
and permanately, that child protection would sever custody.

Second of all I have quated an actual decison from the Supreme Court of Canada and the decison stated it was an intrusion regarding state interferencec. Specifically I have provided the case infromation regarding the Minister of Health and Community Services
specifically you can comfirm this is a real case by going to the following link,

http:// yorku.ca/jcameron/cases/NewBrunswick.htm Where did you get your facts from biggie, and by the way unless you know it to be a fact and you can provide
proof you know nothing regarding the subject, and for example someone stated
on here if a parent has cat fesees or is you say unable to take care of themselves
heresay upon hersay dosent make reliable! Anyone can say a parent is inapable
however even that parents still has their rights!


I think we cannot confuse the ability to produce a child with a so-called 'right' to have custody of a child - as for your other points - I answered them in the other thread:

"...because we're in an era where the provincial 'governments' have even less regard for the Courts and - the Charter - less regard than any criminal really! When their MO causes Canadians to suffer - a Court can order that it 'cease' and yet - no respect for the Courts - they go into denial with the effrontery that their departments are inerrant.

Like here in 'redchina asskatchewan' - we have a government that often does 'whatever' it desires while it operates as though there are no Courts and no Charter.

We also see how our provincial governments are continually calculating the provincial laws - to do what they want.

It can be said that there is no question of having rights - at least not until they are encroached - then - the question of having rights is satisfied and validated by an enforcement of those rights - without enforcement - they are simply nice words on paper - it's sad that all we really have are 'nice words on paper'.

Less than thirty years after we are granted this Charter it is being abrogated in so many ways not which the least of is - a simple disinclination to respect it.

As times change there are fewer and fewer differences within 'the governance' of western leaders and - 'the governance' of those in one of the many communist fascist states in our world..."

I don't think the state should have too many rights and there are times that 'departments' disrupt peoples lives by taking their children and there are many more instances where people produce and poorly rear them and thus disrupting everyone's lives and the state does nothing.
lisaforjustice





Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Posts: 24
Reputation: 11
Location: Surrey British Columbia

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:50 am    Post subject: parents rights supersede childrens rights no they dont ! Reply with quote

ASUME
Have you ever spelt it out before? It spells out
Never asume anything because you make an ass out of u and me.
lol
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:32 am    Post subject: Re: parents rights supersede childrens rights no they dont ! Reply with quote

lisaforjustice wrote:
ASUME
Have you ever spelt it out before? It spells out
Never asume anything because you make an ass out of u and me.
lol


What have i ASSUMED here??

BTW did you lose your kids somehow? Why is this your issue?

I'll say it again:

I don't think having children is a right - rather - it is a privilege and of course - our rights are not governed by what we do but - our privileges are...for children it is a right to have proper care in every respect not a 'privilege'.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:19 am    Post subject: Re: parents rights supersede childrens rights no they dont ! Reply with quote

don muntean wrote:
I don't think having children is a right - rather - it is a privilege and of course - our rights are not governed by what we do but - our privileges are...for children it is a right to have proper care in every respect not a 'privilege'.


Yikes.

I haven't read the whole thread but I will say this. Having children certainly is a right (a right granted by our own biology and inborn in us as human beings). Maintaining custody of those children is a similar right, so long as the rights of the children are not violated.

That is the line.
jw





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 90
Reputation: 14.5

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are clearly some changes needed in child custody cases:

At present:

- all fertile females have the right to force a fertile male to become a father and to pay child support to that female. This is the right of the female to rape and profit from it. A goodly few of our boys are faced with this situation and it is a deeply dehumanizing one: It is male-slavery. NASTY!

- non-married women have the right to set a baby out for adoption over the express wishes of the father. That is vile.

- children's aid & facs throughout Canada support known for sure to be abusive women when there is a known-for-sure to be non-abusive father who wants the child

- abused women who refuse to play the feminist "abuse" game can and sometimes do lose their children to child protective services.

- current family violence law together with anti-father bigotry mean that 10,000 known for sure to be abusive women are added to the group single mother ... every year we get 10,000 or so more known for sure to be abusive women gaining custody. Protecting battered men frees up a tenth of our child protective service workers to work on other cases. A HUGE improvement.

Just off the top of my head, these are the important ones. There's work to be done in protecting children. Lots of work. There's also a huge invested interest who DEMAND that these things stay as they are.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me try and summarize this, because its gotten a little bit scattered and I am trying to follow.

Now please of course correct me if I am mistaken.

You feel that the government should have no right to enter into a situation where they are the ones removing custody of a child from a parent, the only situation in which a child should be given up is when the parent themselves step aside and offer the child to the government.

Furthermore, the government should fully provide the parents of whatever they need in order to raise a child, and if they are not the government is failing the rights of that child?

If that is the case, you will have to excuse me for not agreeing with the statement.

Having a child a right, of that there is no question. It is a choice that is made on a daily basis and it should not be deemed as a "privilege" because it isn't, but it should not be expected that if someone decides to exercise this right that the government be responsible for the welfare of the child if the parent is lacking, its not the government failing to protect the welfare of the child, its the parent.

If the government was issuing "birth licenses" ala Logan's Run, then perhaps there is a responsibility of the government to work with the parent to provide what the parent cannot, but if the parent wants to exercise their right to have a child there is responsibility associated with that right, you cannot just physically still be there, yet "mentally" check out and expect the taxpayer to fund the rights of the parent even if staying in that environment is not within the best interest of the child.

Perhaps I am holding on a little tight on this issue, but one of my friends was removed at a very young age from a very toxic environment, drug use and the like. She was after certain period of time placed with foster parents. The mother had challenged this and drifted in and out of rehabilitation to no avail. My friend went on to finish university despite many early childhood issues as a result of her mothers drug use when she was in utero and is now living a very productive life, where as her brother born to the same mother three years later ended up dying of a drug overdose at 15.

When faced with the option of keeping a child in a situation where the parents are struggling at best with drug use and or abuse and having the government provide the means for the child to live in this situation,

or

After reasonably determining that this situation is not suited for the child, and putting them into a situation where they are no longer handcuffed to the issues which they were removed for and allowing them a set of options which could greatly benefit their lives,

I'm sorry, I have to lean towards the latter.
Perhaps its because I am familiar with a situation that hits close to home, with a very close friend of mine and even by her own admission it was the best thing that could have happened to her. I have to respectfully disagree.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hold on - the issue of parenting being a right or a priviledge is merely an excersize in semantics..

In order to maintain your rights you must follow your responsibilities. Having a child - that is a right - but I think Don's point was that the responsibilities must be satisfied in order to maintain custody of your children.

This is true of most of our fundamental rights - using lisa's logic we can apply the same argument to all laws. All of a sudden criminals can't be jailed because it infringes on their rights. No, the point is that if you can't be responsible with the rights you have, you lose them.

As for proof lisa - I don't need any proof; the proof for pulling a child out of a home is on a case-by-case basis. But one thing I can tell you; I've gone on ridealongs... a couple now. And I've seen situations where children should have been pulled out of a house, but couldn't be.
Sit down and watch a couple episodes of to serve and protect... Then maybe you'll see why we have this law in place.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie rection wrote:
Hold on - the issue of parenting being a right or a priviledge is merely an excersize in semantics..

In order to maintain your rights you must follow your responsibilities. Having a child - that is a right - but I think Don's point was that the responsibilities must be satisfied in order to maintain custody of your children.

This is true of most of our fundamental rights - using lisa's logic we can apply the same argument to all laws. All of a sudden criminals can't be jailed because it infringes on their rights. No, the point is that if you can't be responsible with the rights you have, you lose them.

As for proof lisa - I don't need any proof; the proof for pulling a child out of a home is on a case-by-case basis. But one thing I can tell you; I've gone on ridealongs... a couple now. And I've seen situations where children should have been pulled out of a house, but couldn't be.
Sit down and watch a couple episodes of to serve and protect... Then maybe you'll see why we have this law in place.


I think you hit the nail on the head there. One of the central themes in philosophy is that with every right comes a responsibility. Such as with the right to have children, we have the responsibility to raise them in a safe environment. The argument, as I percieve it, from Lisa is that children cannot be removed because it would somehow violate the parents rights doesn't fly with me. Its not because it doesn't violate some rights of the parents, because it surely does. It doesn't fly with me because the children also have rights. They have a right to a safe home and a healthy life (including mental health). If there is child abuse going on, then the parents have neglected their responsibility and thus lose their rights to retain custody of their children.

That's how I see it anyway. I'm pretty sure its how the courts see it too.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


There needs to be a change in the Law

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB