Accountability missing for an Ontario judge ... even though he edited the record

Even though judicial appointments are for life and in spite of the fact there is no real accountability for "subtle" misconduct, there is accountability for those judges who blatantly break the rules ... at least in theory. Unfortunately, it seems an Ontario Family Court judge is not being held to the same standards as others for whatever reason.

The Toronto Star reports today that Justice Marvin Zuker acknowledged he committed judicial misconduct when he altered court transcripts in 2005, after learning they were to be used in an appeal case. Because of his "clean" record Justice Zuker was let off with a warning even though the panel reviewing the case could have ordered the removal of Zuker from the bench.

While I appreciate the principle of "forgiveness" especially when persons who have done wrong take responsibility, judges need to be held to higher "standards". This is especially when they demonstrate that they can be motivated for self interested reasons to break fundamental rules upon which depends our justice system and our society at large.

This is especially so because there already exists a lack of any accountability on the basis of decisions by judges, especially those preceding over the the family court. Arguably, many family court judges violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms everyday by making decisions about child custody on the basis of gender rather than merit.

It is important to consider in all of this that judges are typically political appointees and former lawyers, some of whom hold their allegiances to the legal industry in higher regard than to the principles of equitability and justice. And, all of this occurs in a society where the State offers the same discretion and trust to judges that Plato might only have offered to his philosopher kings. The Guardians' innate ability to be solely about "the collective interest" makes proponents of our current judicial system look naive or perhaps manipulative. As evidenced here, our judicial appointees are not at all living up to the level of altruism that would need to be in place to warrant such little accountability.

Whether the panel made the right decision here or not, I leave that up to others to decide. From my perspective, this case does highlight once again the extent there is inadequate accountability for judges, especially when it comes to conduct that would typically result in a much more severe rebuke for anyone else in our society.

Could bad policy help bring down an Ontario Minister in her own riding?

It seems the Government of Ontario is spinning faster than ever via a strategically timed communications strategy. This campaign is an attempt by the government to offset a possible "political lemon" and "minefield" in an election year - except when it comes to special interests.

Recent policy by the Government of Ontario has shown how it is possibly ignorant, opportunistic and/or highly influenced by special interests. The reasons why the Ontario Liberals screwed up are published here and here and at Views from the Water's Edge on Saturday and in January when the latest enforcement policy was announced. Premier Dalton McGinty and persons at the Government of Ontario now understand why this recent policy is both short-sighted and gender discriminatory. At the very least, it will go down in history as some very bad policy. Why don't we get tough on crime and possibly start a war while we are at it?

Rather than taking responsibility or taking measures to account for the shortcomings in its policy, the Ontario Liberal government instead came out today with more spin promptly reported on by CTV, which claims Ontario's policy to post the pictures of "deadbeat dads" on the internet has been successful so far in "shaming" 5 dads into paying up.

Claims of success six weeks after launching the controversial website is absolutely premature. No qualitative or quantitative exercise could acurately claim to measure and correctly interpret these 5 results, let alone correctly give credit to one policy action over another so soon after this website's implementation. What about coincidence especially with a sample of only 5. How many dads pay up in a slow month?

Is the release of this information in such a vague way before there is an appropriate sample or any acurate way of assessing the results a sign of panic by Community and Social Services Minister Madeleine Meilleur? Was this a convenient coincidence for Minister Meilleur that needed to be promoted now? I challenge Minister Meilleur to be more specific about who are these 5 dads and how a six-week old website contributed to them “paying up”.

Should Canadians believe that the “Good Parents Pay” website has been successful in motivating those who owe support to pay? What about those other very intrusive enforcement mechanisms that will kick in first and must fail before the website is an option. These include (in the order in which they come into effect): the garnishing of wages, the garnishing of bank accounts, the removal of drivers licences, and 120 days non-payers will spend in jail.

Minister Meilleur, did any of these 5 persons report their lives were ruined by the website, while the hand of “big brother” in their affairs and 120 days in jail were not equally motivating? I also did not see any pictures of women on the site. Is this because all "good mothers pay" already”, or not? Meanwhile, Minister Madeleine Meilleur is now acting like a Conservative and it seems she is hunting for "cheap political points" in an election year by promoting even more child support enforcement than necessary or reponsible.

This is in spite of best practices in family policy that show a relationship between fathers who see their children and fathers who pay their child support voluntarily. In the meantime, out of either ignorance or belligerence, the Minister has missed opportunities to create policy that would to seek to collect otherwise uncollectible child support by working with the Attorney General's Department to preserve the rights of children and their non-custodial parents to have meaningful access with one another.

Organised groups who are proponent of policy that would make child-parent access a fundamental right, are currently planning to hold the Minister accountable in her home riding of Ottawa-Vanier in the time leading up to the upcoming Ontario election. Inter-provincial forces are planning to set up in her riding and concentrate their efforts to topple Minister Meilleur as an MPP with campaign made up of local publicity, information that will be distrubuted to every consituent and a door to door campaign and daily rally/protests in the Ottawa-Vanier riding to help elect anyone but Madeleine Meilleur. More on this later...

For today, I leave you with an excerpt from a very thoughtful article written by family law lawyer © 2005 Karen Selick which is published here on her website and previously in the February 2005 edition of Canadian Lawyer under the title: the Politics of Child Support. She calls this iteration “Demonizing Deadbeat Dads”:

…So far, it appears that the only purpose was to score points with voters by appearing to do something—anything—to benefit children. However, the benefits
are nebulous.

…The statistics that might really have been useful were missing: for instance, whether case loads and compliance have been affected by the major policy changes of May, 1997—i.e., the introduction of the child support guidelines and the abolition of tax deductions for support payments. As a family law practitioner, I believe these changes greatly increased the net cost for most payers. Is this more onerous burden reflected in higher default rates?

…Has anyone in the Ontario government actually looked into the factors that are known to correlate to good payment history? Two of the most portant seem to be the parent’s ability to have some input into his children’s upbringing and his right to maintain regular contact with them.

…Then there was the 1998 report “For the Sake of the Children” produced by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. It recommended abolishing the inflammatory terms “custody” and “access” in favour of a system of shared parenting. The federal government hastily shelved the report (ideology again?), but there’s nothing preventing Ontario from implementing changes along those lines. If Ontario really wanted to do something for families, it should quit the ineffectual posturing and start looking at the measures that might really help.

Politicians like Premier Dalton McGinty and Minister Madeleine Meilleur have for whatever reason turned a blind eye to best practices in family policy. This is backed up by Karen Selik here and there are plenty of statistics to show how much they are off course. Ontario's opposition parties have so far missed opportunities to highlight bad family policy by the Liberals, perhaps because special interests have gotten to them too. Who other than "child-parent access organisations" are going to hold accountable these enablers of ongoing gender discrimination?

Will Madeleine Meilleur need to be sacrificed for the greater good or will she come to her senses first? Please stay tuned...

A shocking truth: one blogger gets CRIES FOR HELP from people around the world...

Are others being terrorised?

I wrote my last blog about Dr. Kenneth Dickie last weekend. Since writing the Dr. Dickie series, I have been contacted by others living inside and outside of Canada who are also targets of bad family policy in Canada. One man in exile in Europe contacted me ... he no longer has a Canadian passport or a drivers licence. He described himself as being "hunted and cornered" by the FRO (Family Responsibility Office). What's next? Dawg the Bounty Hunter hunts down "deadbeats" for a live TV audience?

Historically, non-payment of financial support for children to ex-spouses is in part because of an inability to pay. Also, there are those who are unwilling to pay to retaliate for illegal denial of child /parent access by custodial parents. Do proponents of excessive support enforcement consider these types of situations too?

Illegal access denial without penalty is possible because of a lack of non-litigious or institutional remedies to matters of child-parent access issues. Rightly or wrongly, custody is still awarded to mothers because of their gender (rather than because of their character). Can anyone who interprets the Charter see this as being anything other than gender discriminatory?... but I digress. Because of a lack of policy on access or deterrents to the denial of access, some custodial parents self-interestedly limit access (to punish the other parent) even if psychological research shows that such behaviour negatively affects children emotionally.

Nevertheless, Canadians who divorce and do not (or cannot) honour their financial responsibilities lose their drivers licences, their passports and their children, because of legislation that wrongly assumes further enforcement will motivate people to "pay up". Only after that, those who don't pay what they are due could spend 120 days in jail. After that, Ontarians and/or Albertans who still don't pay will end up with their picture on the internet and labelled a "deadbeat".

I once read we have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 50 times over... for those who get off on that, wouldn't once enough? How much support enforcement do we really need?...Does Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government truly believe the posting pictures of "deadbeats" on the internet is really good family policy? Or, is this simply "good politics" in an election year? Is this, as George Bush once said, to "smoke them out of their holes"?

Excessive support enforcement helps keep children away from their fathers

As a by-product, even those who always intended to pay their first families (what some say is excessive and miscalculated yet legislated child and spousal support) will invariably lose all contact with their children. Then again, "access" (which serves mostly men because of the gender preference in custody decisions by Canadian judges) does not matter. Many parents also end up in exile and may lose everything, including their homeland. Some, like Dr. Ken Dickie, end up in jail simply, because they cannot pay.

"Debtor's prison" was eliminated a long time ago in all matters other than the family. So, is this OK because only "divorced dads" are at risk of such incarseration? Is this also a form of state-orchestrated child-parent alienation for mothers who may want to have that card to play just in case? One father in exile suggested in an e-mail to me that politicians have created a "monster (in the FRO) and now they don't know what to do with it"? Are Minister Madeleine Meilleur and Premier Dalton McGuinty responsible out of ignorance, opportunism or pandering to special interests? Will they pay politically for making short-sighted and bad policy decisions (for political reasons) in an election year in Ontario?

Is Canada's judiciary more loyal to legal industry or to fairness and equality?

On New Year' Day I wrote about "discrimination ratings" by Ontario Court of Appeal judges. I highlighted Supreme Court Justice, Rosalie Abella, as an example of a (former) Ontario Court of Appeal judge with one of the worst discrimination ratings.

I previously knew of Justice Abella because of the anecdotes made flippantly by lawyers who I know in Ontario. Some consider Justice Abella to be responsible for much "rain-making" for the legal industry in family law - either the "hero" or the "zero" - depending upon one's perspective. Jurisprudence under her watch made it so that separation agreements in divorce could be could be reopened - because of either "missing financial disclosure" or "inadequate independent legal advice".

Cynics might consider that jurisprudence of this type ensures that the legal industry is fully in control in of the break-up of families in Canada whether that is appropriate or not. Consider this: Canadians must consult a lawyers while separating or divorcing in order to avoid being completely financially vulnerable. This jurisprudence is precisely for why Kenneth Dickie and others have been ostracized by Canada and are in exile.

Are these persons victims of a money grab and a takeover by a legal industry (along with their judicial accomplices) which produces more lawyers than there is legal work? What ever happened to transparent money grabs - like "ambulance chasing"? When children are involved, is it really in their interest for matters of the family to be sorted adversarially?

Are major law firms are "flippant" about family law inequities? Que bono?

This article in its entirety provides an overview of “advocacy dominance” and “superior representation” by certain Canadian law firms in matters of the family. The article was posted on the website of one such firm as a testimony to their ability to provide fair representation in family matters. Healthy sceptics might consider this to be more about assurances (from those who profit from bad family policy) that it is possible, post-agreement, to go after one’s ex-spouse for everything they can. This is via litigation on family matters, even if matters were previously resolved via a supposed “binding contract” in the form of a separation agreement. Would business people agree to such terms?

As such, I leave you with an excerpt from that article below, which also shows another case where Mr. Harold Niman represented a female client pro-bono. Why?

"If my client assured me that she was familiar with her husband’s assets, then it’s possible, perhaps, to do a settlement without full disclosure," says Sadvari at McCarthys tentatively. The risk, however, isn’t really the wife’s - if she later feels she got too little, the fact that the settlement was made without full financial disclosure leaves the husband vulnerable. The courts have shown themselves perfectly willing to reconsider agreements more than a decade after settlement - tow it, Bailey v. Plaxton. Married in 1965, divorced in 1985, Beverly Bailey - represented pro bono by Harold Niman of Niman Zemans Gelgoot - and Alan Plaxton - represented by Stephen Grant of McCarthy Tétrault - were back in the courts in March 2000, to revisit spousal support 10 years after payments, in accordance with their divorce agreement, ceased."

This seems too similar to the financial arrangement Harold Niman allegedly had with Mrs. Dickie to be a coincidence. Is Harold Niman also representing these clients for a larger purpose? You tell me…

Many thanks Dr. Dickie… for setting the rest of us back even further

There was plenty of media coverage yesterday about Dr. Kenneth Dickie, the plastic surgeon who moved to the Bahamas with his new wife in part to escape child and spousal support obligations. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (like they often do on child support issues like here because of this) that Mr. Dickie be held accountable and it looks like he is f-cked if he ever returns to Canada.

Thanks for the bad publicity, buddy… there are many of us who are working hard to fix a broken family law system that caused you to bolt. Now, the myth of the “deadbeat dad” is alive and well it is also “top-of mind“. Special interests who lobby hard for the need to have more and more enforcement of child support unnecessarily will use people like you to further their arguments.

On the other hand, from a policy perspective, there is an argument to be made that your departure from Canada, from the lives of you kids, job and friends could be viewed also as evidence that family policy is broken. After all, one measure of a successful policy is the extent to which those who are served and affected by policy comply with it voluntarily.

Dr. Dickie, either you are the ass that those who strategically use the euphemism “deadbeat” want to portray you as, or you discovered what many men themselves affected by family policy have already discovered : that the formula used to calculate child support according to the tables is based on flawed principles that not only make it unaffordable, make it so that it also benefits higher income mothers at the expense of lower income and who really need it. Why? The women’s groups who inputed into the process to create the tables focussed on mostly on themselves and the needs of higher income earning mothers, like lawyers.

Some say this issue is all about the money and to preserve the flow of monies from men to women, often inappropriately.

How are the tables out of whack and what are the signs that this arguably corrupt policy design process created an incentive (or no other choice) for Dr. Dickie to flee the jurisdiction and become a fugative on the run? What would Tie Domi think now that he has felt the intrusiveness of this system?

Here are the top five:

1. Where child support was previously tax deductible for fathers and income for mothers, in 1995, a Supreme Court decision changed this. Rather than making child support tax deductible for fathers and income for children (the intended recipients) which would make it tax free under $8600, the government did a tax grab and shifted the tax burden to fathers squeezing many even further.

2. Where child support is supposed to be for children of divorce to maintain their lifestyles in a way similar to how they would evolve in an intact family, the income of the mother is not taken into account by the child support tables - so the burden of paying for children lies solely on the father even if the mother’s income is higher (except in Quebec where the difference in incomes between mothers and fathers dictates the table calculation which is arguably the correct interpretation of the policy). Furthermore, these monies are paid to the mother who often use it to litigate against the child support paying father to selfishly keep him away from the children.

3. Child support according to the tables does not consider that in divorce families have to increase the number of homes supported by the same incomes from one home to two. Therefore, non-residential parents expenses go up because of the cost of housing, transportation infrastructure, and spending money for activities on weekends when the children will typically visit that is not considered when the table amounts were set.

4. Child support obligations can get in the way of non-residential parents being able to enforce access to their children, since a lack of federal policy makes it so that there is no non-litigious way to enforce access to children where a primary caregiver arbitrarily “denies it“. The cost of bringing a motion or a trial can become inaccessible for many who are already stretched to the limit by artificially high federal child support table figures.

5. While monies spent on litigation to collect child support are tax deductible while monies spent on litigation to enforce access are not. Family Responsibility Offices (FRO) are already there to enforce child support, with the power to remove driver’s licences, garnish bank accounts, incarcerate fathers and now, in Ontario, post the pictures of “deadbeats” on the internet. These same deadbeats (assuming like the State seems to do they are in the highest tax bracket) are paying 1 dollar to the lawyer and 1 dollar to the tax department to enforce access with their children via the courts. There is no institutional support for fathers enforcing access, notwithstanding that the FROs provide free enforcement to those who collect child support, 90% of whom are women.

There are many other indicators of failed and even gender biased policy, but this is not my point. My only other substantive comment is that the only way this case got to the Supreme Court was via advocacy funding from the Status of Women who give money to the Women’s Legal Action Fund (Leaf) to support litigation on issues such as this.

What about the 37.7% of fathers who don’t see their children because enforcing access for many men (with all these child support obligations a need to rely solely on slow, expensive and arguably biased family courts) is simply unaffordable? Proponents of change say there is just not enough money to do everything and financial support paid to mothers trumps relationship support for child/father relationships every time.

Also, with zero funding support from “Leaf” type organizations, is the administration of family policy also gender discriminatory on the basis of who gets funding and who doesn’t? Does the government have a role to play to help men in enforcing the frivolous denial of access by women who do it because the system is broken and they can without consequence? Or, does the State have an obligation to create institutional support to enforce child access much like other institutions previously set up to help enforce child support?

Yes, I am really pissed at Dr. Dickie, but for different reasons than those persons who like to use the words like “deadbeats”. At the same time, I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees that corresponding rules that affect child support (a policy for women because of how custody is awarded) and access (a policy for men because of how custody is awarded) are out of balance.

Is Dr. Dickie is a complete “ass” who deserved to be divorced, shamed, ostracised by society, aliented from his children and also locked up because he is cheap and doesn’t give a "rat’s ass" about his children? Or, were the financial obligations too much? Is it this that forced a man who was once respected and admired to go away in a form of "exile"? Is a system set up by and for wealthy (lawyer) women with access to billions of dollars in advocacy funds to lobby governments too out of balance for persons like Dr. Dickie to live comfortably in Canada?

Readers, you decide ...but please remember, it could also happen to you.

(Part 1): finally... grassroots accountability for deniers of parent/child access

In a naive move that exposes just how much influence special interests have with policy makers in Ontario, Dalton McGinty's provincial Liberal government via Social Services minister, Madeleine Meilleur, MPP from Ottawa Vanier, announced yesterday that her department will use "shaming" to encourage "deadbeat" parents to pay their child support. Therefore, parents who fall behind in their child support for any reason will have ultimately have their picture posted on the internet as a "deadbeat".

What percentage of these "shamed" people will be men and what percentage of these people will be women? Because custody is awarded along gender lines in an inappropriate way in a country with a Charter of Rights, 90% of child support flows to women. Most men who have custody of their children do not collect child support, sometimes because they are afraid their ex-wives will challenge them for custody of the children in a gender biased system not trusted by many. Also, the patriarchy/double standard that is pervasive in society promotes when it is convenient that men are the "breadwinners" and women are the "caregivers". Many men who are eligible are too proud. In any case, I would be surprised to see the pictures of women posted as deadbeats, apart from a token one or two to try to prove wrong this post.

Therefore, why isn't Madeleine Meilleur honest that this is really about going after just the "deadbeat dad" again and because well funded advocacy groups have forced an inappropriate policy choice.

I have written about this type of policy choice before in other jurisdictions, and why it is simply bad policy. On December 10th I wrote:

"Ironically, on a day when thousands march on behalf of highly organised advocacy organisations defence of advocacy funding in Ottawa and across Canada, the UK announces (like in the USA) that the names of "deadbeat dads" will be published on the internet to encourage compliance.

Please remember:

· 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
· 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
· 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
· 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
· 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.

Simple analysis of these data suggest that there is a relationship between fathers who have access to their children and fathers who voluntarily pay child support. Connecting the issues of access and child support it seems would go a long way to making almost all fathers comply voluntarily with their obligations. Or, if one insists on being punitive, why doesn't the UK publish the names of mother's who deny access of their children to the other parent, and stigmatise those types of persons in the same way?"

If I were still a member of the party in Ontario, this would be grounds to "terminate" my membership. Other Liberals who believe in a just " society" might consider the same. After all, this is simply "bad policy" that resembles more the New Jersey model used for too long by Mike Harris' Conservatives. This is not an approach I consider to be (l)Liberal.

The spin created by advocacy funding the puts the best interests of one gender over another in spite of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This has worn thin. Finally, movements to apply the Charter to issues of the family have taken root, sadly only because of the grassroots and not because of any political will to do the right thing.

Overshadowed by this announcement is a move by "child/parents rights" organizations that will from now on hold those who "deny access" accountable by posting their pictures on the internet too. Because custody is awarded on gender lines (not because women collectively are any better or worse than men), it just so happens that the majority of parents who deny access are women. Why have governments chosen not to make access as much of priority as the enforcement of child support? The lobbies and the spin! To be equitable, the State should also equitably apply such punative approaches of "shame" to Canada's most notorious deniers of parent/child access. Or, make policy that will encourge for now men to pay their child support voluntarily by promoting access, and mothers to allow their children to have meaningful relationships with their fathers, in spite of "broken" policy and in spite of any "anger" that still lingers following the divorce.

For now, that is obviously neither here nor there.

So, for today, the poster children of the denial of access are the enablers, Madeleine Meilleur and Dalton McGinty. These persons entrusted by the public have done nothing but create bad policy that perpetuate the myths "dreamed up" and promoted by those who receive advocacy funding. These groups lobby governments to make policy that benefits one gender at the expense of the other. Meanwhile children, men, women and second families suffer and are "second class" in this otherwise great country of ours.

When I left Ontario, it was in part because Mike Harris made Ontario a "police state". Unfortunately, Dalton has "dropped the ball" by doing nothing to help Ontario become the equitable and just society it needs to be under any Liberal government.

In am sorry that the provincial cousins of my federal Liberals have it seems simply "changed dirty underwear" with Mike Harris conservatives. As a ideological liberal, my opinion is that this is a derelection of Dalton's government's responsibility to govern fairly and to uphold the human rights principles also along gender lines. I am sad to say Dalton's team do not deserve to be re-elected provincially, especially with inequitable moves like this.

Perhaps David would talk some sense into his brother, please?