Two boys, aged two years and ten months were murdered in Calgary,their deaths are thought to be link to an acrimonious custody battle. Here is a link to the Calgary Herald story Feb. 4, 2010 :
The following article from the Calgary Herald provides an excellent comment:
Once again, we read a story which has a custody battle as a backdrop to a tragic ending. Of course, many people are asking why, but could it be the legal system itself which has an adversarial approach that fails to focus on the needs of our children, but instead ensures there is an outright winner and loser? Our children always lost in this system. They are denied the love, security and protection that can only be offered by both parents, both sets of grandparents, and an extended family.
In 1998, a federal intergovernmental panel, with the support of industry professionals from coast to coast, studied this system. Their work was titled For the Sake of the Children. Some 48 recommendations were made which have yet to be acted on. We have known for a long time what is best for our children, yet the necessary changes to the system are not made.
MP Maurice Vellacott has presented private member’s Bill C-422, which seeks to make changes to the Divorce Act which will define “in the best interests of our children”. This bill would make equal, shared parenting a presumptive arrangement, in the spirit of recommendation made by politicians and professionals more than a decade ago. I pray for the day when our elected officials make the legal changes necessary that would focus on the best interests of our children and reduce the conflict which leads to so many devastating stories.
Bill C-422 offers a chance to get rid of the damaging adversarial system and move into a world where cooperation and compromise produce a healthy happy outcome for all involved. No Winners. No Losers.
Here is the openning paragraph of the act:
(b) encourage divorcing spouses to assume more responsibility for their affairs, with less reliance on adversarial processes,
(c) promote joint responsibility and joint decision-making by spouses in respect of ongoing child care, nurturing, and development,
(d) establish that the interests of the child are best served through maximal ongoing pa- rental involvement with the child, and that the rebuttable presumption of equal parenting is the starting point for judicial deliberations,
(e) clarify relocation considerations by plac- ing the onus on the relocating parent to maintain continuity of relationship.
No Winners. No Losers.
This article is dedicated to the following Justices:
MADAME JUSTICE COLLEEN KENNEY
MADAME JUSTICE J COUTU
MADAME JUSTICE E LOVECCHIO
MADAME JUSTICE HORNER