Here was the press release.
On the first anniversary of C-422 passing First Reading, The Canadian Bar Association( CBA) has made a submission to the Justice and Human Rights Committee(JUST) regarding C-422(Equal Parenting) prepared by the Family Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA).
The CBA continues in its historical opposition to shared parenting as encapsulated in the following extract:
We oppose passage of Bill C-422. As lawyers with centuries of combined experience in family law and the operation of the Divorce Act, we believe the Bill would be a tremendous step backward in the development of family law. The Bill would represent a disservice both to children and families by:
- taking the focus away from children in favour of parental rights
- detracting from the individual justice required by the Divorce Act and,
- promoting further and more fractious litigation.
Posts
3 comments:
The arrogance of lawyers never ceases to amaze me. All three of their main points are flawed, but the third, which claims that EP would cause 'more litigation', is especially ridiculous.
Any fair, reasoning person would recognize that EP would do the exact opposite.
This is ridiculous and anyone who accepts these opinions needs to be educated. A presumption of 50/50 equal parenting would remove a lot more cases from the courtroom to begin with, stop children being used for financial gain by parents who think they will get more free money if they have custody and further protect the rights of children to have a loving relationship with both parents. Lawyers see this bill as a threat to their income, without conflict in custody disputes why would they be needed? Perhaps if for just one moment they could think of children's interests instead of their own they would start re-training for a different profession or at least a different approach in family law like mediation. Saying this Bill takes away from the children is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time, we have stats that show how damaged children have been left being raised by only one parent with the other parent left as just a visitor, if even that is allowed. For the lawyers it is a great big money game to them and THAT is what the CBA is concerned about.
I agree with Rhonda in general. Infact the opposition by a group towards a positive outcome or evolution is expected, and the norm, especially if that groups income will clearly be affected. They are entitled to an opinion, however "they" are also clearly biased due to the nature of what this law will do to thier profession short-term. This reminds me of conflict of interest issues. We need more noble lawyers these days to be the stewards.
Post a Comment