Myriam Bedard's child abduction: the impetus for domestic policy change or "status quo"

If you had asked me one-week ago to predict what I expected Myriam Bedard’s "defence" to be for the alleged child abduction, my guesses would have been quite close to what Myriam Bedard's Quebec lawyer, Me. John Pepper jr., spoke about today.

Why are there excuses? In an adversarial system, there will always be excuses. It is how the system works, even when it is hard to see beyond one's suspected "hidden agenda". In reality, Myriam may be paying the price for parents who "legally" commit domestic abductions of their children every day in Canada.

These excuses are a microcosm of what "parents tell their friends", what "lawyers tell the judges" and what the "lobbyists tell the policy makers". These excuses are also why patriarchy drives the agenda around family policy, the laws and the courts who administer it. It is why current practices violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and why children and second families suffer while lawyers and other special interests continue to profit.

Myriam Bedard's lawyer said:

1. Myriam is being persecuted for being a "whistle blower". This is also apparently why she switched hotels in Maryland several times.

2. Myriam Bedard has "sole custody" and daughter Maude's father, Jean Paquet, had Maude's cell phone number and knew how to reach her, so this search for Maude was unnecessary and irresponsible.

3. Jean Paquet is in violation of not having exercised his visitation, and should therefore be seen as a disinterested father.

When it comes to issues of parenting involving divorced couples, unreasonable decisions are often made, even when otherwise "reasonable people" are involved. Mothers say they act on behalf of children's "best interests", which are often congruent with the mother's preferences i.e. Would it be in Maude’s interest to be in the USA (or Iran?) because of her mother's persecution, even if that means she will not see her dad very often.? The child’s best interest is therefore a very subjective measure and it often pits the care of one parent against another, and asks the State to prioritise.

The most common stereotypes are that "dad's are deadbeats with respect to child support" and that "dads are not sufficiently interested in being with their children". The spin of Me. Pepper is very familiar. Fathers are often painted as being not sufficiently responsible enough (or interested enough) to take care of their children. Studies and statistics show these stereotypes that have led to our current failed policies are incorrect.

So, why does Myriam even have sole custody when it is likely in Maude's interest for her parents custody to be shared? The system is setup that way. After all, how else could one justify treating fathers as second parents exclusively because of their gender, in a society known otherwise to be mostly fair and equitable.

Why is Myriam Bedard making lots of news - front-page news in Quebec? Is it because Myriam is a convenient example for the State? She is a whistleblower, after all. But, there are also benefits from an optics perspective for our institutions enforce a family abduction by a high profile Canadian mother and Quebec woman.

Will this take some heat off the provincial Superior Courts who are under much public pressure to be more gender equitable in family law in order to offset the allegations of gender bias? Enforcement of this case clouds allegations that the system is biased. It also dispels the allegations that the enforcement of access is a second class priority when compared to the enforcement of child support ( even though there are no non-litigious or institutional remedies for domestic access denial due to a lack of federal policy).

Nevertheless, it must not be easy for the system. There is a a lack of federal legislation on access to back up family court decisions. When this is combined with decades of gender discrimination in family law, change day to day must be quite difficult.

What would be most sustainable would be if access were made a priority on the political/policy agenda regardless of whether the offending parent enters another jurisdiction or not. Domestic child abductions are not treated with the same level of seriousness as this case involving a former Canadian Olympian.

Should we not fix this thing for the sake of all Canadians, equitability and the credibility of our Charter? Going after Myriam is either a next step or a smoke and mirrors “band aid”.

Unfortunately, if time shows the latter has prevailed, domestic injustices will continue sadly because of a lack of will and responsible action .