Myriam Bedard arrested in USA: how she could have gotten away with child abduction...

Myriam Bedard is not alone in “pushing the system” to maintain sole possession of her daughter. This is at the expense her 12 year old daughter Maude's relationship with her father.

These types of shenanigans go on every day in Canada. Then, why is Myriam Bedard under arrest? Why are other parents who do the same thing in Canada able to get away with it without penalty?

Myriam Bedard is high profile Canadian, a divorced mother, and a "whistle blower". Not surprisingly she is amongst 90% of mothers in Canada who have sole custody or at least "primary care", which means 75% of time the child is with the mother and 25% of the time is with the father. This is when access between children and fathers is not denied altogether, which happens up to 40% of the time.

In these cases, child support is paid by the father to the mother regardless of whether there is access between them. Child support is paid to the mother who collects on behalf of the child and presumably spends it on the child (and not on legal fees to block access through the courts). There is no accountability for how these monies are spent.

Some consider this to be “gender discriminatory to men” and a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Canada, reports commissioned by previous Liberal governments in 1998 and 2002 stressed that children and families would benefit if the language around custody were changed to "shared". In spite of this, custody today is still defined adversarially as "joint" or "sole".

Under most circumstances, Myriam would have been able to make her ex sign the papers permitting an extended trip to the US, or litigate. Unless she were considered a “flight risk”, the court would unequivocally award the trip by the judge who would also almost always make the father pay also the mother’s court costs.

Arguably and ironically, if Myriam had "joint" custody that was not supported by court order rather than "sole custody" by court order (because that is the “default” in cases of separation or divorce), she would have been in a much stronger position to get away with such an abduction. Flaws in the system would allow her to set up the abduction legally in Canada, first, before leaving the jurisdiction, even if the child and father could not have access to each other.

This could be done by choosing to deny access of her ex while in possession of the child (for no particular reason) to force her ex to litigate on the custody issue. The reason could be something completely unrelated and provocative, such as knowing her ex is short on money to litigate, for example.

If her ex did not take the bait and litigate right away, or if he really could not raise the money - $5,000 for starters - at that moment, she could make the access denial more or less permanent. This would happen because of a "passing of time" without the father seeing the child. If this window to challenge the access denial were missed, it would at a minimum take years of court processes and tens of thousands of dollars for the father to break that status quo.

Myriam Bedard did not know how to beat the system and she is now under arrest and in “shame”. Was her “whistle blowing” about the sponsorship scandal a factor? Did it contribute to her being ostracized by some, as she claims, and a “victim of persecution”? Did the system see this as an excuse for the abduction? No.

It is a bloody shame that such travesties can be allowed to continue in a progressive society with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is good that Myriam was found and that Maude will see her dad this Christmas. What would be even better is if the penalties and remedies for this kind of abduction were equitable and could also resolve “domestic kidnappings” in a similarly efficient way.