A Child Is Crying for a Parent Tonight. Do Not Look Away. Act Now

From Parental Alienation Canada

Template for Writing to Your MP | Please Use It - Feel Free to Personalize
 
Monique Dietvorst writes;
I have created a template for parents to send to their Member of Parliament. It asks MPs to reject the Canadian Bar Association's brief on Bill C-223 and to stop deferring to special interest groups that override democracy.


Dear [MP Name],
I am writing as a constituent and a parent affected by Canada's family law system. I am asking you to reject the Canadian Bar Association's brief on Bill C-223 and to stop deferring to special interest groups that override democratic will.
 
Canadians support equal shared parenting.
Polling since 2007 has consistently shown that 70% or more Canadians, across all genders, regions, and political affiliations, support a legal presumption of equal shared parenting. This is not a fringe position. It is the clear will of the people.
 
The evidence supports it.
Research, including Linda Nielsen's 2018 peer-reviewed analysis of 60 studies, directly addresses the claim that shared parenting only works when parents are wealthy or conflict-free. Nielsen found that independent of family income or parental conflict, joint physical custody is generally linked to better outcomes for children . In the 25 studies that accounted for family income, children in joint physical custody had better outcomes in 18 studies and equal-to-better outcomes in 4 more. In the 19 studies that accounted for parental conflict, children had better outcomes in 9 studies and equal-to-better in 5 . When both parents are fit before divorce, they remain fit after divorce. A default of equal shared parenting reduces conflict, litigation, and the financial and emotional destruction that drives parents to suicide.
 
The Canadian Bar Association is a special interest group.
The CBA has blocked equal shared parenting legislation twice in Canada, including Bill C-560 and Bill S-202. Their opposition is not about child safety. It is about billable hours. A shared parenting default reduces the "high conflict" litigation that fills their members' pockets. An "individualized assessment" for every family means more assessments, more experts, and more court time, at the expense of children and families.
 
Their brief on Bill C-223 is unacceptable.
The CBA brief is better than NAWL's proposal, but it is still unacceptable. It would only allow courts to consider alienation if there is no history of family violence. But it provides no safeguards against false accusations, the very tactic at the heart of parental alienation. False accusations are profitable to the bar associations and the special interests they represent.
 
On consent for reunification therapy:
The CBA criticizes the bill for requiring both parents' consent. But their proposed alternative, requiring the child's consent, is equally problematic. An alienated child has been manipulated into rejecting the targeted parent. Their refusal is not a free choice. It is a symptom of the alienation. Asking for their consent gives the alienator another veto, this time through the child. The solution is not to require consent from either party. The solution is to give the court the authority to order reunification therapy when the evidence shows it is in the child's best interests, with appropriate safeguards for genuine abuse.
 
What children actually need:
A court order to prevent contact between the child and the alienator for 90 days, as protection, and time to do family systems therapy with the targeted parent. Family Reflections is a peer-reviewed, family systems therapy program. Unlike traditional therapy, it is future-focused, not looking at past blame and trauma. After 90 days, the alienator can earn back 50/50 parenting time, as required by a future amended Divorce Act.
 
I am asking you to:
Reject the Canadian Bar Association's brief on Bill C-223.
Support a default of equal shared parenting, as the majority of Canadians do.
Stop deferring to special interest groups that override democracy in Canada's Parliament.

Children deserve both parents.
Families deserve a system that works.
And Canadians deserve a Parliament that listens to them, not to the billable hours of special interests.
 
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]

Reference:
Nielsen, L. (2018). Joint versus sole physical custody: Outcomes for children independent of family income or parental conflict. Journal of Child Custody, *15*(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2017.1422414