Perspective: Involving children

Involving the children early in the FCoA process is a necessary step. There is no question about it.

The former FCoA procedures, under CJ Nicholson, -- which excluded the children in favor of court procedures that essentially left the whole matter in the hands of the lawyers and judges --, trapped the family, parents and children in the adversarial process and court procedures.

The failure of the courts and procedures, supposedly based on "the interests of the child" illustrated another fact that we cannot lose in the rush to implement new court procedures. The interests of the child are best served when the interests and needs of both parents are best served.

The former FCoA attempted to abstract and generalize the concept of "the interests of the child", and failed.

Supported by a marginal and incomplete understanding of child development, as you've pointed out, the results were a childishly cruel interpretation that was applied across the board -- even in the face of decades of facts. It was the arrogance of the courts in bald face.

What we cannot lose sight of is that although the interests of the child must be paramount, these interests cannot be the only issues considered. Unless the courts intend to dictate the lifestyle and daily activities of the family, then the realities and needs of both parents must also be important considerations. It can be said that "Happy parents make Happy children", if you will.

The measure of the courts' failure can be the degree to which the courts attempted to dictate the lifestyle of the parents.

One recent report went even further to state that a happy child after separation lived in a financially secure mother's home. That conclusion was based on the results of the current biased -- where more than 85% of mothers are awarded custody -- reality. Even then, a second largest category was for children in financially secure homes with their father. The only realistic conclusion that could be drawn from these figures was that children are happiest in a financially secure home -- something no parent would disagree with.

The key concept is that the child(ren) cannot be used a leverage to force either parent to act by anyone involved, and that includes the psychologists, the court, or the state. If the child(ren) are used as leverage by any participant, the results are similar to when one or both parents attempt to use the child(ren) as weapons.

The child(ren) are quickly aware that they have been objectified, and react in dysfunctional or disassociative ways that reflect that realization.

I have come to believe that if there is a heirarchy of needs that must be served, it would be something like this:

1. The physical and emotional safety of the children
2. The parental needs of both parents
3. The physical and financial needs of both parents
4. The beliefs of the psychologists and counselors
5. The financial requirements of the state.
6. To satisfy the strictures of the law.

No 1 above, has been defined and overstated, in my opinion, to the point that many ignore the other factors that will influence decisions. There is no question that every parent will choose, to different degrees of sincerity, to place their children's needs above their own. To take this issue as the only issue simply makes the whole process abusive, to both children, parents, and family.

Legislation for over 30 years has recognized the parental needs of both parents, but has been perverted by the manipulations and abuse of different professions. It has taken nearly a half century for the courts to recognize the wisdom and meaning of this legislation.

In a commercial, capitalistic society -- whatever your feelings about those terms -- reality forces the process to consider the financial needs of both parents. Both parents must be free to contribute to the well-being of the child(ren) to the best of their abilities. In order to be happy with the demands of making that contribution, both parents must feel that their individual parental needs are satisfied.

To impoverish one parent in favor of another is abusive to all involved. Such actions displace the heirarchy.

For professionals, -- counselors, psychologists, lawyers, and semi-professionals in social services -- to attempt impose their own beliefs on the parents is problematic.

For some professions, they are attempting to create a self-fulfilling prophecy using children as leverage. Counselors and psychologists must understand that their role is to satisfy ranks 2 and 3 above. The more trauma and drama they create, the more dysfunction they create. This dysfunction may be profitable for them in their careers, but it only results in a deeper distrust of their professions and in the system as a whole.

For lawyers, schooled in the adversarial process, all the people involved are fair game. There is only one measure of success as a lawyer, time billed. If there is no conflict, there is no need for lawyers. A measure of the failure of the system as a whole is the amount of time barristers and solicitors are needed.

Unfortunately, semi-professionals -- courthouse clerks and 000 operators -- follow these prejudiced beliefs and aid in creating the self-fulfilling prophecy. Their role must be defined as in support of the process; not the prejudice.

If this heirarchy is followed, the financial strain on the state can be reduced because there will be less stress in the breakups; meaning less court time; and less need for aftercare from the breakup. The finances of the state can be spent aiding the separated parents to build new lives by education and professional development, instead of so many more destructive efforts.

I have come to believe that the law has little place in this process. There are too many issues that cannot be defined clearly enough to satisfy the current methods of law enforcement and the courts.

The law must be rational in order to be enforceable. It is irrational to outlaw normal human behaviour. You cannot outlaw angry arguments during a breakup; even more, to outlaw attempts to avoid such arguments as has been done in recent definitions.

The magistrates and judges are incapable of judging abuse. Its definition is too ill-formed, and the courtroom is a poor structure to bring forth a fair judgment.

The law can prevent violence. It can deal with those who are violent. But to define violence as an angry look or someone holding the television remote, is ridiculous -- and more, destroys the general faith in the law and legal system.

Even more so, the attitudes taken by the court and legal system, especially the lawyers and judges, towards parents damages the role of parental authority, which could be called another form of truly damaging child abuse.

Paul Donley