That we call ourselves a civilized society, yet we tolerate the dismissal of basic human rights for thousands of our citizens, seems to me to be the most egregious hypocrisy. Here in B.C., the situation has been compounded by the actions of the provincial government. In the mid '90s, the NDP government of the day disallowed family law issues from the legal aid system.
So, let's see, a woman, for example, gets cut off from the family assets when she flees an abusive family home. Neither the family accountant nor the family banks will give her financial information because they know that she will be destitute until some agreement is reached in the divorce process, and their client is now solely the abusive husband. She applies for legal aid to hire a lawyer that will represent her in this process, and is denied because it is a family law matter. She goes to the police about the abuse and being cut off from her assets, and is told there is insufficient proof to lay charges. Church and family turn their backs on her because of the allegations of abuse against the husband, who has been perceived as an upstanding gent. Of course, he will also be the only one of the two of them who will be able to continue to contribute financially to church and family. Nobody likes a poor person on their doorstep.
In fact, the accountant, banker, pastor, family, and police all recommend that she go to a halfway house and start getting over it and on with the rest of her life.
How will you feel when this happens to you? It is happening to thousands of people every year. Is that OK with you?
Tuesday 4 December 2007
OFF TO OTTAWA AND BRIEFING NOTES ON NANC'S CASE
We are flying to Ottawa for the next few days. The trip is first and foremost for the resolution of my case, but we will take the opportunity to circulate the following briefing notes and talk to key people about Nanc's case. I will have the spotlight for a bit starting Thursday, and I plan to use that to illuminate the dark world of family violence.
Briefing notes: Supreme Court of Canada Rick vs. Brandsema
With close to half of all marriages ending in dissolution, the increasing affluence of middle and upper middle class Canadians, and the vast majority of couples resolving their financial issues by way of agreements, the duties of spouses in the formation of family law agreements is of critical national importance.
On April 18, 2007, three male judges of the Appeals Court of British Columbia rendered a decision in the case of Rick vs. Brandsema that removes any hope for women in abusive relationships.
The effect of this decision is to say to those women that matters of conscience, justice, equality, equity, and fairness, do not apply to them. It matters not that there was a power imbalance in the relationship, lack of sophistication of the victim, proven fraud on the part of the abuser, diagnosed and treated Post Traumatic Stress, and emotional fragility clearly demonstrated in court. If an abusive spouse can withhold information, hide money, and con you into signing a patently unfair agreement, you are done and no one cares.
Apparently British common law no longer works for women in Canada. That bastion of fairness that protected the average person from bad applications of statutory law, is irrelevant now. The abusive spouse can coerce you, con you, hide things from you, use your children against you, beat you down until you are just breathing, and then: if you sign it, you are done and no one cares.
When the letter of statutory law becomes more important than the people it is meant to serve and protect, it is fatally flawed. We do not believe that it was the intent of those who drafted or enacted our laws that they be applied in such an unforgiving, inflexible, and unjust manner. We do not believe that it was the intent of legislators to deprive abused women of hope, and of their rights. The Charter of Rights, Freedoms, and Responsibilities speaks to a fundamental right to equality under the law. Does “equality” mean that an undereducated woman that has been kept in an isolated farm culture, where lack of real information or outright misinformation and tolerance of spousal abuse is the norm, stands before the court on an equal footing with her “husband”, a sophisticated wife beater that sits on numerous corporate and organizational boards? Is she equal when she signs documents that she cannot see, let alone understand? Does the Charter err in demanding equality for each man and woman vs. fairness in circumstance? We do not believe that the Charter excludes consideration of circumstances, but will leave that issue to scholars to debate. If it is true, then the Charter is fatally flawed as well.
This decision has created a legal precedent that offends every sense of conscience. It indicates a fundamental erosion of the rights that suffragettes fought for over the last hundred years, and is an erosion of our commitment to human rights in this country. Women comprise some 50% of the votes, we think there is a base for some political action here. It is time for women and men of conscience to stand united once again to demand fairness and real justice before the courts.
Ms. Rick has applied for, and been granted leave to bring this matter before the Supreme Court of Canada. The leave panel included Chief Justice Beverly Maclachlin and Justices Charron and Rothstein.
Ms. Rick feels that it is a matter of national importance and wishes to know if the appeals court ruling is, in fact, the will of the Canadian justice system. She does not believe that “no one cares.” She asks that you review this decision and, if you decide that you do care, take action to let the Supreme Court of Canada know how you feel. Please circulate this message to others who may also care. The fundamental right of fair treatment of all abused women, and men, before the law is at stake.
The issues at law:
This is an important case on the formation of family law agreements, involving the duty of disclosure, unconscionability, undue influence, the meaning of independent legal advice, and the effect of consent dismissal orders on statutory review.
The current leading SCC cases - Miglin v. Miglin and Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, did not address what would constitute review for procedural fairness. Rick v. Brandsema will give our highest court an opportunity to hopefully establish better guidelines as to the duties of parties in the formation of family law agreements.
To encourage people to settle their domestic financial affairs by way of agreements, the rules leading to the formation of these agreements have to be clear. What are the duties of separating spouses in the settlement process as to disclosure and the mental and emotional state of their spouses?
Link to SCC case info:
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32098
Briefing notes: Supreme Court of Canada Rick vs. Brandsema
With close to half of all marriages ending in dissolution, the increasing affluence of middle and upper middle class Canadians, and the vast majority of couples resolving their financial issues by way of agreements, the duties of spouses in the formation of family law agreements is of critical national importance.
On April 18, 2007, three male judges of the Appeals Court of British Columbia rendered a decision in the case of Rick vs. Brandsema that removes any hope for women in abusive relationships.
The effect of this decision is to say to those women that matters of conscience, justice, equality, equity, and fairness, do not apply to them. It matters not that there was a power imbalance in the relationship, lack of sophistication of the victim, proven fraud on the part of the abuser, diagnosed and treated Post Traumatic Stress, and emotional fragility clearly demonstrated in court. If an abusive spouse can withhold information, hide money, and con you into signing a patently unfair agreement, you are done and no one cares.
Apparently British common law no longer works for women in Canada. That bastion of fairness that protected the average person from bad applications of statutory law, is irrelevant now. The abusive spouse can coerce you, con you, hide things from you, use your children against you, beat you down until you are just breathing, and then: if you sign it, you are done and no one cares.
When the letter of statutory law becomes more important than the people it is meant to serve and protect, it is fatally flawed. We do not believe that it was the intent of those who drafted or enacted our laws that they be applied in such an unforgiving, inflexible, and unjust manner. We do not believe that it was the intent of legislators to deprive abused women of hope, and of their rights. The Charter of Rights, Freedoms, and Responsibilities speaks to a fundamental right to equality under the law. Does “equality” mean that an undereducated woman that has been kept in an isolated farm culture, where lack of real information or outright misinformation and tolerance of spousal abuse is the norm, stands before the court on an equal footing with her “husband”, a sophisticated wife beater that sits on numerous corporate and organizational boards? Is she equal when she signs documents that she cannot see, let alone understand? Does the Charter err in demanding equality for each man and woman vs. fairness in circumstance? We do not believe that the Charter excludes consideration of circumstances, but will leave that issue to scholars to debate. If it is true, then the Charter is fatally flawed as well.
This decision has created a legal precedent that offends every sense of conscience. It indicates a fundamental erosion of the rights that suffragettes fought for over the last hundred years, and is an erosion of our commitment to human rights in this country. Women comprise some 50% of the votes, we think there is a base for some political action here. It is time for women and men of conscience to stand united once again to demand fairness and real justice before the courts.
Ms. Rick has applied for, and been granted leave to bring this matter before the Supreme Court of Canada. The leave panel included Chief Justice Beverly Maclachlin and Justices Charron and Rothstein.
Ms. Rick feels that it is a matter of national importance and wishes to know if the appeals court ruling is, in fact, the will of the Canadian justice system. She does not believe that “no one cares.” She asks that you review this decision and, if you decide that you do care, take action to let the Supreme Court of Canada know how you feel. Please circulate this message to others who may also care. The fundamental right of fair treatment of all abused women, and men, before the law is at stake.
The issues at law:
This is an important case on the formation of family law agreements, involving the duty of disclosure, unconscionability, undue influence, the meaning of independent legal advice, and the effect of consent dismissal orders on statutory review.
The current leading SCC cases - Miglin v. Miglin and Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, did not address what would constitute review for procedural fairness. Rick v. Brandsema will give our highest court an opportunity to hopefully establish better guidelines as to the duties of parties in the formation of family law agreements.
To encourage people to settle their domestic financial affairs by way of agreements, the rules leading to the formation of these agreements have to be clear. What are the duties of separating spouses in the settlement process as to disclosure and the mental and emotional state of their spouses?
Link to SCC case info:
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32098
Thursday 29 November 2007
LEAVE GRANTED WITH COSTS!!!
Here is the press release from the SCC:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/news_release/2007/07-11-29.3a/07-11-29.3a.html
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/news_release/2007/07-11-29.3a/07-11-29.3a.html
LEAVE GRANTED!!!
We are going to the Supreme Court of Canada!
Leave was granted today for Nanc's case to proceed. We have been expecting it for the last few weeks, hence nothing to report. It has been a tense time but now another hurdle has been passed. Jack (Nanc's lawyer) is excited about the opportunity to craft new law setting down much needed guidelines for the process of forming agreements in family law. That is really the core of Nanc's case. It is unconscionable that a stronger spouse can literally hold a gun to the other spouse's head to force him or her to sign an agreement, and then have that agreement be unassailable by legal means. That was the gist of the Appeals Court's decision, and it can not be allowed to stand!
More later, we are too excited.........
Leave was granted today for Nanc's case to proceed. We have been expecting it for the last few weeks, hence nothing to report. It has been a tense time but now another hurdle has been passed. Jack (Nanc's lawyer) is excited about the opportunity to craft new law setting down much needed guidelines for the process of forming agreements in family law. That is really the core of Nanc's case. It is unconscionable that a stronger spouse can literally hold a gun to the other spouse's head to force him or her to sign an agreement, and then have that agreement be unassailable by legal means. That was the gist of the Appeals Court's decision, and it can not be allowed to stand!
More later, we are too excited.........
Tuesday 6 November 2007
TOCK!
canada, canadian search engine, free email, canada news
Wednesday » December 19 » 2007
Top court petitioned on divorce equality
Wife loses out because of 'access to legal advice'
Joey Thompson
The Province
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
An Abbotsford mom who claims she came up $600,000 short in a mediated separation deal with her ex-husband is hoping Canada's top court will grant her plea for pay equity.
Fifty-two-year-old Nancy Rick says she proposed the settlement pay-out to Ben Brandsema while an emotional wreck triggered by a strict, abusive upbringing and aggravated by 28 stormy years with the dairy farmer.
The mother of four, who tried to end her life while in her teens, said she was too vulnerable and confused, a result of post-traumatic-stress disorder, to see she wasn't getting her fair share. Nor was she able to detect that Brandsema hadn't disclosed the true value of the couple's many holdings, including several large properties, cattle, a milk quota, equipment, vehicles and RRSPs.
She said she was too depressed to even read, much less do the math on the 2001 split-up agreement that gave her approximately $1 million.
Indeed, a specialist in post-trauma psychiatry testified that Rick's PTSD symptoms were "among the most extreme" he had ever seen.
A trial judge in B.C. Supreme Court agreed the homemaker, who laboured on the farm alongside her husband, was troubled and that Brandsema, knowing she was mentally unstable when they began negotiating, took advantage of her.
Justice Harry Slade said Rick received only 30 per cent of the family assets instead of the 50/50 split the couple had initially planned on -- partly because Brandsema had provided misleading information about their $3-million estate after they split in 2000.
He said Brandsema owed her an additional $649,680.
But B.C.'s top court said too bad, so sad if Rick missed the boat. After all, the all-male panel noted, she had consulted lawyers, accountants and two mediators. In a 2003 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada implied that access to professional legal advice can compensate for some vulnerabilities or imbalances.
"Should the husband have been obliged to tell the wife that her proposal was not enough and that she should demand more?" top court Justice Edward Chiasson asked.
"This is not a case of mental incapacity, undue influence or duress. [They] were participating in mediation, part of that process involved the recommendation that the parties obtain legal advice. The wife had done so and did so again.
"[She] was troubled but it is clear that she knew what she was doing."
Chiasson said the lower court allowed equality to trump fairness.
But family law lawyer Jack Hittrich says the appeal court's ruling sends a disturbing, chilling message to Canadians: Even when a separating spouse has mental-health issues, even when there was misrepresentation as to assets, even when they both intended that their assets be equalized, as long as they had access to legal advice, the agreement will be binding.
"This case raises significant issues of national importance about the duties of negotiating parties in family law agreements," he states in a written petition to the nation's top court. "Without proper judicial guidance from our highest court, thousands of future couples will either be deprived of just settlements or will have to face costly and uncertain litigation."
- - -
Phone: 604-605-2119
Fax: 604-605-2099
jthompson@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Province 2007
Close
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Wednesday » December 19 » 2007
Top court petitioned on divorce equality
Wife loses out because of 'access to legal advice'
Joey Thompson
The Province
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
An Abbotsford mom who claims she came up $600,000 short in a mediated separation deal with her ex-husband is hoping Canada's top court will grant her plea for pay equity.
Fifty-two-year-old Nancy Rick says she proposed the settlement pay-out to Ben Brandsema while an emotional wreck triggered by a strict, abusive upbringing and aggravated by 28 stormy years with the dairy farmer.
The mother of four, who tried to end her life while in her teens, said she was too vulnerable and confused, a result of post-traumatic-stress disorder, to see she wasn't getting her fair share. Nor was she able to detect that Brandsema hadn't disclosed the true value of the couple's many holdings, including several large properties, cattle, a milk quota, equipment, vehicles and RRSPs.
She said she was too depressed to even read, much less do the math on the 2001 split-up agreement that gave her approximately $1 million.
Indeed, a specialist in post-trauma psychiatry testified that Rick's PTSD symptoms were "among the most extreme" he had ever seen.
A trial judge in B.C. Supreme Court agreed the homemaker, who laboured on the farm alongside her husband, was troubled and that Brandsema, knowing she was mentally unstable when they began negotiating, took advantage of her.
Justice Harry Slade said Rick received only 30 per cent of the family assets instead of the 50/50 split the couple had initially planned on -- partly because Brandsema had provided misleading information about their $3-million estate after they split in 2000.
He said Brandsema owed her an additional $649,680.
But B.C.'s top court said too bad, so sad if Rick missed the boat. After all, the all-male panel noted, she had consulted lawyers, accountants and two mediators. In a 2003 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada implied that access to professional legal advice can compensate for some vulnerabilities or imbalances.
"Should the husband have been obliged to tell the wife that her proposal was not enough and that she should demand more?" top court Justice Edward Chiasson asked.
"This is not a case of mental incapacity, undue influence or duress. [They] were participating in mediation, part of that process involved the recommendation that the parties obtain legal advice. The wife had done so and did so again.
"[She] was troubled but it is clear that she knew what she was doing."
Chiasson said the lower court allowed equality to trump fairness.
But family law lawyer Jack Hittrich says the appeal court's ruling sends a disturbing, chilling message to Canadians: Even when a separating spouse has mental-health issues, even when there was misrepresentation as to assets, even when they both intended that their assets be equalized, as long as they had access to legal advice, the agreement will be binding.
"This case raises significant issues of national importance about the duties of negotiating parties in family law agreements," he states in a written petition to the nation's top court. "Without proper judicial guidance from our highest court, thousands of future couples will either be deprived of just settlements or will have to face costly and uncertain litigation."
- - -
Phone: 604-605-2119
Fax: 604-605-2099
jthompson@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Province 2007
Close
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Monday 29 October 2007
Still between
Well, the time between tick and tock has become longer than we expected. Tock is now 2 weeks late, but it is still coming!
In the mean time, my big court battle has been resolved to my satisfaction. We reached an agreement in principle with the other parties and are now just working out the logistics of doing that which has never been done. Tick and tock again, but mine will resolve on December 4,5,or 6 or the agreement goes down the drain. I don't think either side wants that to happen. Watch the national news and CPAC during this period, it will be historic.
There is that old Chinese curse about living in interesting times.....
In the mean time, my big court battle has been resolved to my satisfaction. We reached an agreement in principle with the other parties and are now just working out the logistics of doing that which has never been done. Tick and tock again, but mine will resolve on December 4,5,or 6 or the agreement goes down the drain. I don't think either side wants that to happen. Watch the national news and CPAC during this period, it will be historic.
There is that old Chinese curse about living in interesting times.....
Thursday 11 October 2007
THE TIME BETWEEN TICK AND TOCK
We have learned that much of life exists between the tick and tock of events. We are in such a place now. One great event has occurred, and we must wait for the inevitable tock that follows. "Tock" occurs (god willing and the creek don't rise)on next Tuesday, October 16th. I will be posting about it, but right now I don't want to throw any monkey wrenches into the clockworks (to extend the metaphor perhaps a bit too far). In the mean time, I want to share some quotes on fear that struck Nanc and I as appropriate to this time:
Eleanor Roosevelt:
You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do.
Marcus Aurelius:
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.
David Oliver-Godric:
Fear is one of the essences of what it is to be alive. Courage is to have fear but act anyway, cowardice is to have fear and fail to act. Life is about action, failing to act is the same as being dead, although even the dead act as fertilizer so perhaps it is worse.
See you Tuesday!
Eleanor Roosevelt:
You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do.
Marcus Aurelius:
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.
David Oliver-Godric:
Fear is one of the essences of what it is to be alive. Courage is to have fear but act anyway, cowardice is to have fear and fail to act. Life is about action, failing to act is the same as being dead, although even the dead act as fertilizer so perhaps it is worse.
See you Tuesday!
Thursday 4 October 2007
NUTSHELL - PART 2
The abuser appealed and won his appeal before 3 male judges who had little family law background. They were corporate contract lawyers. Their mantra was "if you sign it you are done, regardless". In their finding, they say some very bizare things. According to them, Nanc knew perfectly well what she was doing when she signed the documents (that she couldn't even read), She had access to a lawyer and accountants, and it isn't the abuser's fault that they were incompetent and relying on the abuser's fraudulent financial info. The appeals court dismissed the trial judge's findings of fact. Nanc has appealed to the SCC to overturn the BC Appeals Court Ruling in the interest of justice, equity, and clarity of law. We are currently awaiting leave to appeal to the SCC.
!!!WOMEN TAKE NOTE: this finding is a LEGAL precedent that means that an abusive spouse has no obligation under the law to provide accurate financial info. Banks and accountants are encouraged to deny the woman access to her own accounts and financial info.
Your mental/emotional state at the break up of the marriage is of no interest to the court, you are assumed to be equally as competent as your spouse/abuser. Abusers are not accountable for tormenting their spouses into submission.
Merely having access to professionals is sufficient to assume proper and competent legal and financial advice.
This decision should scare the hell out of every woman in Canada, and make every legal professional hang their head in shame.
!!!WOMEN TAKE NOTE: this finding is a LEGAL precedent that means that an abusive spouse has no obligation under the law to provide accurate financial info. Banks and accountants are encouraged to deny the woman access to her own accounts and financial info.
Your mental/emotional state at the break up of the marriage is of no interest to the court, you are assumed to be equally as competent as your spouse/abuser. Abusers are not accountable for tormenting their spouses into submission.
Merely having access to professionals is sufficient to assume proper and competent legal and financial advice.
This decision should scare the hell out of every woman in Canada, and make every legal professional hang their head in shame.
IN A NUTSHELL
Several people now have asked for a simple version of what this is all about. I sat down to write a "simple" version and found that harder to do than I thought. Like life in general, it's just not a simple thing. Did my best, though.
The nutshell version is this: Nanc was in an extremely abusive relationship for 27 years. She lived in near isolation on a dairy farm, and her church and community turns a blind eye to even obvious abuse. Her 2 youngest girls removed her from the farm in 2001 in a basically catatonic state. Nanc got a bit better, still suffering what her doctor termed “one of the most severe cases of PTSD” he had ever seen and he is a specialist in PTSD, and she commenced divorce proceedings. Her abuser provided all the financial info relied upon in negotiations, and we have subsequently proved he hid large amounts of money, the full extent will never be known. Now Nanc is absolutely brilliant in matters of the heart and family, but she never finished grade 10, she was never involved in the finances of the business. Nanc was in such a highly emotional state that she found that she was unable to see what was written on documents relating to the divorce. We now understand this to be a symptom of her PTSD. Nanc signed the agreement, relying on advice from an incompetent lawyer that she could revisit the agreement’s terms within a 2 year period. I came into her life about this time and introduced her to a competent lawyer, Jack Hittrich. Nanc went to court to have the agreement overturned. She testified to the circumstances in court and the trial judge found her credible and the agreement unconscionable.
The nutshell version is this: Nanc was in an extremely abusive relationship for 27 years. She lived in near isolation on a dairy farm, and her church and community turns a blind eye to even obvious abuse. Her 2 youngest girls removed her from the farm in 2001 in a basically catatonic state. Nanc got a bit better, still suffering what her doctor termed “one of the most severe cases of PTSD” he had ever seen and he is a specialist in PTSD, and she commenced divorce proceedings. Her abuser provided all the financial info relied upon in negotiations, and we have subsequently proved he hid large amounts of money, the full extent will never be known. Now Nanc is absolutely brilliant in matters of the heart and family, but she never finished grade 10, she was never involved in the finances of the business. Nanc was in such a highly emotional state that she found that she was unable to see what was written on documents relating to the divorce. We now understand this to be a symptom of her PTSD. Nanc signed the agreement, relying on advice from an incompetent lawyer that she could revisit the agreement’s terms within a 2 year period. I came into her life about this time and introduced her to a competent lawyer, Jack Hittrich. Nanc went to court to have the agreement overturned. She testified to the circumstances in court and the trial judge found her credible and the agreement unconscionable.
Saturday 29 September 2007
Climbing Out Broken Windows: Domestic Violence and Abuse: Signs and Symptoms of Abusive Relationships
This is an excellent resource for warning signs and a description of what a severely abusive relationship looks like. Nanc's experiences, as related to myself, her lawyer, and led as evidence in court, matches this description to a "t". It is a blog by a New York survivor, so resources listed are mostly American.
Climbing Out Broken Windows: Domestic Violence and Abuse: Signs and Symptoms of Abusive Relationships
Climbing Out Broken Windows: Domestic Violence and Abuse: Signs and Symptoms of Abusive Relationships
Thursday 27 September 2007
FAMILY RELATIONS ACT - NEEDED CHANGES
Nanc's lawyer, Jack Hittrich, has been practising family law for many years and has become concerned by certain deficiencies unique to family law. He is part of a working group of lawyers that have come to grips with ways to address these issues. Many of these issues were central to Nanc's experience with the justice system. This post is a preliminary report:
C.B.A. FAMILY LAW SUBSECTION SUBMISSIONS ON DISCLOSURE PRINCIPLES IN REFORMING FAMILY LAW RULES
Mr. Justice Fraser in Cunha v. Cunha [1994] B.C..No. 2573, brilliant description of “non disclosure” as “the cancer of matrimonial property litigation” is applicable to all areas of family law. Accessing reliable financial information at an early stage and with a minimum of expense and complexity should the primary objective and underlying rationale in the current review of our disclosure rules.
The current Supreme Court and Provincial Court Rules are a good start but simply do not go far enough. Very real barriers continue to exist to obtaining accurate and reliable financial information upon which informed decisions can be made. A complex, expensive, and often unpredictable court process is frequently necessary to determine income and asset information in cases of self employed individuals.
It is unfortunate that our adversarial legal system places the onus on usually the weaker spouse, who lacks the knowledge and often the financial means, to prove on a balance of probabilities that her spouse (yes, this is usually gender specific) has income at a certain level or has this or that asset and what its value is. Why force the weaker party to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on lawyers, forensic accountants and business valuators to prove income levels and business values when the party in control of the key financial information can often sit back and wait to see if his (yes, it is usually “his”) spouse will tire and hopefully give up and take a settlement which is less than fair?
The key here is to shift the burden and expense of disclosure to the spouse who controls the financial information. The traditional burden of proof on a balance of probabilities on the claiming party is deeply flawed in the area of disclosure in family law.
Why should there be a requirement to commence litigation before the disclosure rules of our courts apply? Why should the party seeking the disclosure through the court process be required to seek costs, usually at a small fraction of their real costs? Why should the non disclosing party have the opportunity to delay and then produce at the last minute knowing very well how lax courts tend to be about awarding costs?
There are a number of useful ideas in this area and they include the following:
1. There should be an automatic right to seek full financial disclosure by means of appropriate demands, without the need to start any legal action. Supreme Court Rule 60D could be amended to include pre writ disclosure demands.
2. If the demand is on a self employed individual, in addition to the usual disclosure requirements, there should be a clearly specified requirement to produce banking records, both personal and business, over a period of 2 to 3 years.
3. The forms for financial demands should clearly spell out that failure to produce by a stipulated date will automatically result in a fixed financial penalty unless the non disclosing party brings on a successful application in court to show cause why the penalty should not apply.
4. If the commencement of legal action is required for failure to comply with disclosure, special costs should normally be awarded unless the offending party can show compelling reasons to the contrary.
5. The scope of Interrogatories should be broadened to include demand for specified documents.
6. There should be the option in family cases to specify on a Demand for Lists of Documents the subject area in issue.
7. Photocopying costs and costs of accessing third party documents should be controlled as much as possible with an automatic payment out of family assets unless cause can be shown otherwise.
8. Judicial Case Conference and Family Case Conference Judges and Masters should have broad and specific powers to order extensive financial disclosure with meaningful penalty provisions in case of non compliance.
9. At any stage of the proceeding, either party should be able to bring on an application to fund the full costs of an appropriate investigation and report into financial matters with legal fees, accounting fees, and disbursements paid by the other party or from family assets.
10. Non disclosure, partial disclosure, and financial ability to bear costs, should be specified criteria in the awarding of costs to fund investigations and reports into financial matters.
11. Rule 60D should be clearly linked to Rules 32 and 32A with expanded powers for court appointed masters, registrars, special referees and experts to investigate and report on financial matters. FRA s. 15 investigations and reports into custody and access matters are well known and routinely ordered while Rules 32 and 32A are little known and rarely used to investigating and report on financial matters.
12. If there is a judicial finding of material non-disclosure, there should be specific legislative authority for judges to reverse the onus of proof on evidence and to draw appropriate adverse inferences against the non disclosing party, essentially incorporating the rationale of Cunha v. Cunha. This goes beyond the scope of procedural law and will require amendments to the FRA and possibly the Divorce Act.
The foregoing ideas are expressed in very general terms. They arise from the collective financial and emotional pain of numerous disadvantaged spouses who have a bitter taste in their mouth about the substantial procedural hurdles that they faced in the current family justice system. It is time to make the family justice system more user friendly and more just.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
September , 2007
Jack Hittrich, Chair of the Law Reform Committee of the Westminster Sub Section
David Hart
Janet L. Clark
David Halkett
with input from David Dundee
and J.P. Boyd
C.B.A. FAMILY LAW SUBSECTION SUBMISSIONS ON DISCLOSURE PRINCIPLES IN REFORMING FAMILY LAW RULES
Mr. Justice Fraser in Cunha v. Cunha [1994] B.C..No. 2573, brilliant description of “non disclosure” as “the cancer of matrimonial property litigation” is applicable to all areas of family law. Accessing reliable financial information at an early stage and with a minimum of expense and complexity should the primary objective and underlying rationale in the current review of our disclosure rules.
The current Supreme Court and Provincial Court Rules are a good start but simply do not go far enough. Very real barriers continue to exist to obtaining accurate and reliable financial information upon which informed decisions can be made. A complex, expensive, and often unpredictable court process is frequently necessary to determine income and asset information in cases of self employed individuals.
It is unfortunate that our adversarial legal system places the onus on usually the weaker spouse, who lacks the knowledge and often the financial means, to prove on a balance of probabilities that her spouse (yes, this is usually gender specific) has income at a certain level or has this or that asset and what its value is. Why force the weaker party to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on lawyers, forensic accountants and business valuators to prove income levels and business values when the party in control of the key financial information can often sit back and wait to see if his (yes, it is usually “his”) spouse will tire and hopefully give up and take a settlement which is less than fair?
The key here is to shift the burden and expense of disclosure to the spouse who controls the financial information. The traditional burden of proof on a balance of probabilities on the claiming party is deeply flawed in the area of disclosure in family law.
Why should there be a requirement to commence litigation before the disclosure rules of our courts apply? Why should the party seeking the disclosure through the court process be required to seek costs, usually at a small fraction of their real costs? Why should the non disclosing party have the opportunity to delay and then produce at the last minute knowing very well how lax courts tend to be about awarding costs?
There are a number of useful ideas in this area and they include the following:
1. There should be an automatic right to seek full financial disclosure by means of appropriate demands, without the need to start any legal action. Supreme Court Rule 60D could be amended to include pre writ disclosure demands.
2. If the demand is on a self employed individual, in addition to the usual disclosure requirements, there should be a clearly specified requirement to produce banking records, both personal and business, over a period of 2 to 3 years.
3. The forms for financial demands should clearly spell out that failure to produce by a stipulated date will automatically result in a fixed financial penalty unless the non disclosing party brings on a successful application in court to show cause why the penalty should not apply.
4. If the commencement of legal action is required for failure to comply with disclosure, special costs should normally be awarded unless the offending party can show compelling reasons to the contrary.
5. The scope of Interrogatories should be broadened to include demand for specified documents.
6. There should be the option in family cases to specify on a Demand for Lists of Documents the subject area in issue.
7. Photocopying costs and costs of accessing third party documents should be controlled as much as possible with an automatic payment out of family assets unless cause can be shown otherwise.
8. Judicial Case Conference and Family Case Conference Judges and Masters should have broad and specific powers to order extensive financial disclosure with meaningful penalty provisions in case of non compliance.
9. At any stage of the proceeding, either party should be able to bring on an application to fund the full costs of an appropriate investigation and report into financial matters with legal fees, accounting fees, and disbursements paid by the other party or from family assets.
10. Non disclosure, partial disclosure, and financial ability to bear costs, should be specified criteria in the awarding of costs to fund investigations and reports into financial matters.
11. Rule 60D should be clearly linked to Rules 32 and 32A with expanded powers for court appointed masters, registrars, special referees and experts to investigate and report on financial matters. FRA s. 15 investigations and reports into custody and access matters are well known and routinely ordered while Rules 32 and 32A are little known and rarely used to investigating and report on financial matters.
12. If there is a judicial finding of material non-disclosure, there should be specific legislative authority for judges to reverse the onus of proof on evidence and to draw appropriate adverse inferences against the non disclosing party, essentially incorporating the rationale of Cunha v. Cunha. This goes beyond the scope of procedural law and will require amendments to the FRA and possibly the Divorce Act.
The foregoing ideas are expressed in very general terms. They arise from the collective financial and emotional pain of numerous disadvantaged spouses who have a bitter taste in their mouth about the substantial procedural hurdles that they faced in the current family justice system. It is time to make the family justice system more user friendly and more just.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
September , 2007
Jack Hittrich, Chair of the Law Reform Committee of the Westminster Sub Section
David Hart
Janet L. Clark
David Halkett
with input from David Dundee
and J.P. Boyd
Wednesday 26 September 2007
What IS the role of the church in family violence events?
Jeannie Babb Taylor: An open letter to Christian pastors
09/23/07
Jeannie Babb Taylor
Respond to this story
Email this story to a friend
|
|
| |
| Jeannie Babb Taylor, On the Other Hand |
Pastors, have you ever preached a sermon against domestic violence? Odds are, you haven’t. I’ve listened to approximately 4,000 sermons and have yet to hear a pastor condemn domestic violence from the pulpit.
Southern preachers prefer to pontificate on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Sometimes they rail against feminism. On occasion they preach against pornography, using the occasion to slam churchwomen over immodest attire. In every denomination, pastors preach often enough on tithing, and never fail to pass the plate. Yet they fail at addressing an issue faced by approximately one fourth of their congregation.
Recently a wildly popular pastor shoved the problem of Christian violence into the spotlight when he choked, kicked and stomped his wife in the parking lot of an Atlanta hotel. In the South, beating your wife may or may not be a crime. Records show that the most common law enforcement response to domestic violence is “separating the parties.” Victims rarely press charges because they fear reprisal. Law enforcement rarely presses their own charges (though they could and should), essentially treating wife-beating as a “victimless crime.”
Bishop Thomas W. Weeks, III crossed the line that even Georgia will not tolerate: He was wearing shoes when he kicked his wife. That’s a felony. Besides that, he committed the acts publicly and on video surveillance tape. He also threatened to kill her, which is another Georgia felony.
The abused wife, Prophetess Juanita Bynum, is an internationally acclaimed televangelist and best-selling author who empowers Christian women with her preaching. Church members say that couple of weeks before the attack, Weeks announced that Bynum would no longer be preaching at the church they founded.
Bynum is pressing charges against Weeks and seeking to end the marriage. Attorneys for Weeks say he will contest the divorce on the grounds that she was cruel. The strangest part of this story is not that the man who kicked and stomped his wife is contesting the divorce or fighting the charges; that happens all the time. What is so bizarre is where this man was just a few days after the beating: He was behind his pulpit telling his congregation that the devil made him do it.
Finally, a preacher is talking about domestic violence! If only his congregation had responded with a resounding movement down the aisle – and right out the church door. No one should sit under the teaching of a wife-beater. The elders should have stripped this man of his title and never let him behind the pulpit again.
T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist who helped bring Bynum to power, condemned violence against women in a written statement two weeks after the attack. He pointed out that every day, four American men murder their wives or girlfriends, resulting in 1,400 deaths per year. That’s an FBI statistic. He also mentioned that over half a million cases of intimate assault are reported each year. Most cases go unreported. According to the most conservative estimates, between 2,000,000 and 4,000,000 women are battered each year. In 1990, the U.S. had 3,800 shelters for animals, and only 1,500 shelters for battered women.
Other Christian leaders even try to blame the victims. Christian author Gillis Triplett claims that there are thirteen traits common to abused wives, including “THEY LOVE THE DRAMA!” (Emphasis his.) Evangelical leaders John Mac
Following the advice and example of such leaders, thousands of pastors regularly dismiss domestic violence and send women back into dangerous situations. With “saving the marriage” as the highest aim, these pastors seek to prevent divorce at all costs. Women receive the subtle message that their pain – or even their lives -- are not as important as keeping the marriage intact.
One woman told a victims’ support group how she took her children and fled the state in fear of her life. Her church responded by sending her a letter of ex-communication.
In the introduction to her new book “Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence,” Jocylen Andersen states that “The practice of hiding, ignoring, and even perpetuating the emotional and physical abuse of women is ... rampant within evangelical Christian fellowships and as slow as our legal systems have been in dealing with violence against women by their husbands, the church has been even slower.” The Christian wife abuse cover-up is every bit as evil as the Catholic sex abuse cover-up.
Christian leaders set the stage for domestic violence by perpetuating pop-culture stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. T. D. Jakes claims in his book “Woman, Thou Art Loosed” that all women were created to fulfill the vision of some man. Jakes bases his gender theology solely on the physical characteristics of male and female genitalia, insisting that all women are “receivers” and all men are “givers.” This false dichotomy breaks down quickly when one considers that female sexuality includes giving birth and giving milk. More importantly, Jakes deviates from Scripture in claiming that women and men must operate like their genitalia in every facet of life.
John Mac
Finally, consider Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Patterson recently dismissed Hebrew professor Sheri Klouda, simply because she was female. He claims the Bible does not allow women to instruct men. Patterson then launched a new major at the seminary: Homemaking. Only women are allowed to take these courses, which focus on childcare, cooking and sewing -- as well as a woman’s role in marriage. The courses are taught by Patterson’s wife, who is the only surviving female in the school’s 42-person theology faculty.
Considering Patterson’s view of women, we should not be surprised at his response to domestic violence. Participating in a panel on “How Submission Works in Practice,” Patterson tells abused wives to do three things: Pray for their husbands, submit to them, and “elevate” them. He admits that this advice sometimes leads to beatings, but also claims that the men eventually get saved. Apparently, it’s only the men that matter.
Pastors who truly want to help people and save marriages should stop attacking feminism. Instead, teach couples never to hit, choke, kick, threaten or verbally batter their spouse. Preach against domestic violence from your pulpit. Help abuse victims to escape their batterers – permanently. Encourage them to press charges so that justice can be served.
Pastors, if you want to defend marriage, set an example of a loving relationship. Instruct couples to live in a way that makes their spouse want to stay with them. It really does not take a six-tape series to teach the number one tool of a successful marriage: the golden rule.
Jeannie Babb Taylor is a local business leader and author. She also teaches Sunday school, educates her children at home, and engages in Georgia politics. Jeannie may be contacted at jeannie@babb.com, or you can leave a public comment on her blog OntheOtherHandColumn.blogspot.com.
Tuesday 25 September 2007
NANC'S WORDS
MY WORDS – MY TRUTH
Nanc Rick
About a year before I left the abuser, I remember walking through the kitchen door to see him sitting at the table. In the depth of my soul I prayed hard “Lord, let him shoot me, I can’t take this pain no more.” But he let me keep on breathing….
I will share with you a dream or nightmare I have had many times:
I am with my children, we are walking on a painful path, cliffs on both sides. My feet are bare and the rocks are sharp. “Stay close” I say, for fear they would fall. At the end of the path is a raging river. I glance down to see its fury. When I look up, I see the abuser with my children on the other side, laughing and taking them away. Then I find myself in a house on top of the river, with posts to hold it in place in the raging water. I stand at the end of the house over the river. Just stand. The posts start to crack and break, the walls fall into the river, the roof crumbles down on me and I go down.
Monday 24 September 2007
WRITTEN BY NANC'S SISTER, HER TRUTH
She’s done all she can. But her story still needs to be told. Most she did tell, but people refuse to believe her……or worse yet, know it to be true, but won’t do anything to help her.
I remember the night she told me. We were driving around town when she said: “Nothing I can’t handle now, I’ve been through everything already, did you know that I’ve been beaten for the past 21 years?” She still sees the look in her husband’s eyes when she screamed “if you beat me again I’m gonna call 911!” He knew she meant it.
The first time he beat her, she was 18 and pregnant with his child. She had learned, as a child, to stay quiet throughout the ordeal or the punches would become more violent.
And so secret beatings unfold. Each time things would go wrong in the barn, he would enter the house…..fiery red eyes….foam spewing from his mouth…..he walked toward her. She would dash to the bedroom to keep the kids from seeing….daddy’s anger was not for their innocent eyes to see. But children are not easily fooled.
And so…. In the privacy of her own home, she endured her pain, always hoping that maybe, if she would be good enough, the beatings would stop. She would show him how much she loved him.
My sister kept her secret well. She hid it in the form of a bottle hidden somewhere in her home….but even alcohol couldn’t disguise her soul from slowly dying.
After 21 years of beatings, reality has kicked in. Her day to day survival turns into emotional turmoil.
She continually relives her past, each hit, each bruise, now more real than ever. Her fear turns into ‘Post Traumatic Stress Disorder’ She panics at his every move. He’s afraid that their secret might leak out, He becomes gentle and kind. She can’t stand the touch of those hands that tried to strangle her. She knows her marriage is over.
She fills for divorce. She doesn’t trust him. Her head is all confused. Her P.T,S,D, takes over. Everything is overwhelming.
Two years come and go. Most of it a blur. Her children are torn, some in silence, some in rejection. And so my sister endures still yet another kind of pain.
There’s a new court case. This one’s to prove money was hidden from her in her first settlement. Maybe now’s her chance to tell her whole story.
The court hears it all. Each memory she recalls allows her to become vulnerable to her hidden pain. But the court demands hard proof evidence. Pictures…Witnesses….The court silences her story. Oh Yes! There was substantial evidence of hidden money. She will get her due…. But what of her beatings…..’I only wanted to make a difference. To tell my story, to help others, to change laws so such abuse will be criminalized.’
Well sis….your story will not end in court. Hear it again. Maybe someone, maybe just one person, will hear your story, speak up, keep evidence, talk to someone they trust, and abuse such as this will be exposed for what it is,
I LOVE YOU SIS
Sunday 23 September 2007
SCC CASE SUMMARY- WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT
I linked to the SCC case on the first post, but the SCC just got the official summary post up, so I thought I should post it here.
The Applicant and Respondent separated after a 27 year marriage. They had five children, and they had established a dairy farm business, of which they were equal shareholders. They had acquired land, vehicles, RRSPs and real property as family assets. The wife retained a lawyer to commence divorce proceedings, but twice terminated his services. First one mediator was retained and then another, and a memorandum of agreement was drawn up providing that the husband could keep the farm and another dairy farm business, while the wife would retain a house purchased with farm funds and receive an equalization payment of $750,000. The amount was proposed by the wife before information on the value of the assets was final. There was a $100,000 lump sum payment to the wife for child support, but no provision for spousal support. Although a second lawyer advised the wife that the $750,000 amount could be low and that she should not give up spousal support, the separation agreement was signed. The parties were divorced and a consent order was entered dismissing the wife’s claims against the husband. Later the wife initiated a court action seeking rescission of the separation agreement on the basis of misrepresentation and unconscionability. She alleged misrepresentations on the value of disclosed assets and a failure to disclose some assets, and asked in the alternative for a variation pursuant to s. 65 of the the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128. She also brought claims for physical and sexual assaults alleged to have been committed by her husband throughout the course of their marriage.
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.
Contracts - Validity - Remedies - Unconscionable transactions - Family law - Separation - Family assets - Separation agreements - Does mere access to legal advice fully compensate for a weakened mental state - What is the duty on a spouse, if any, to provide accurate values of assets within his or her control both in the mediation process and the finalization of the agreements - Does it matter that the mediation and the minutes arising from it refer to an equalization payment and that the final agreements makes the accuracy of a sworn financial statement a condition precedent - What constitutes res judicata where statutory rights are involved - Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303, 2003 SCC 24.
The Applicant and Respondent separated after a 27 year marriage. They had five children, and they had established a dairy farm business, of which they were equal shareholders. They had acquired land, vehicles, RRSPs and real property as family assets. The wife retained a lawyer to commence divorce proceedings, but twice terminated his services. First one mediator was retained and then another, and a memorandum of agreement was drawn up providing that the husband could keep the farm and another dairy farm business, while the wife would retain a house purchased with farm funds and receive an equalization payment of $750,000. The amount was proposed by the wife before information on the value of the assets was final. There was a $100,000 lump sum payment to the wife for child support, but no provision for spousal support. Although a second lawyer advised the wife that the $750,000 amount could be low and that she should not give up spousal support, the separation agreement was signed. The parties were divorced and a consent order was entered dismissing the wife’s claims against the husband. Later the wife initiated a court action seeking rescission of the separation agreement on the basis of misrepresentation and unconscionability. She alleged misrepresentations on the value of disclosed assets and a failure to disclose some assets, and asked in the alternative for a variation pursuant to s. 65 of the the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128. She also brought claims for physical and sexual assaults alleged to have been committed by her husband throughout the course of their marriage.
Friday 21 September 2007
NEWS STORY FROM NYC
Interesting story from NYC. Striking similarities to Nanc's story, although it didn't end for her with murder, obviously. Her two youngest daughters packed her and her personal stuff into her car and drove her to a safe house. She was basically catatonic at that point.
http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/290184017300243.php
NATION NEWS
New York New York – No need to suffer domestic abuse
http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/290184017300243.php
New York New York – No need to suffer domestic abuse
"
Nigel Gittens, a Barbadian attorney in Washington D.C. who once practised law in Massachusetts, was making a point about the fate of his sister Joycelyn Watson, who was killed by her husband in Brooklyn more than two years ago.
His message was straightforward: when a relationship becomes abusive, get out of it, even if means leaving the comfort of your own home.
"Don't stay in the home with an abuser," he advised women after his sister's funeral. "If I had known my sister's situation, I would never have allowed her to agree to live in the same house with him [her husband]."
The attorney hopes his advice will be enough to prevent other women and men from suffering a fate similar to his sister's – death at the hands of someone who says: "If I can't have you, no one else will."
The final chapter in the saga of Joycelyn and Remington Watson was written recently when a New York State Supreme Court judge, Mathew D'Emic, sent the abusive spouse to prison for 18 years after he had pleaded guilty to a manslaughter charge in a Brooklyn court. The husband, a soft drink salesman, had beaten his wife to death with a brick in their Brooklyn home in 2005, then stabbed her in the heart.
It was a relationship with a long history of spousal abuse, which the woman had hidden from her close relatives, including her brother. She had even gotten a court order of protection, but it may never have been served on the man, who continued to live in the house, even after divorce proceedings were started.
Familiar case
The case of the West Indian couple has become a familiar one to Charles Hynes, Brooklyn's District Attorney (DA) whose office prosecuted the case.
The DA has established a highly successful domestic abuse prevention programme designed to shield spouses from violence and it offers protection to immigrant women in the country illegally who are often verbally and or physically abused by their partners.
Domestic violence is at epidemic proportions in the West Indian immigrant communities in the city. It isn't difficult to see why. Immigrants from almost every nation in the region have grown up in an atmosphere in which men feel it is okay to beat women.
Peruse any human rights report on the Caribbean, especially the annual document prepared by the United States State Department and sent to the United States Congress, and a hard bit of reality stares you in the face.
Even after strict laws have been enacted to punish wrongdoers and hotlines and counselling programmes established, the scourge remains a fact of everyday life.
But the DA noted that people from the Caribbean aren't alone either as victims or perpetrators. Domestic violence cuts across ethnic and geographic boundaries.
"It's a problem in all groups," Hynes said in an interview in his office some time ago. "We want to make it easier for victims to come forward to get help."
That's what more Caribbean nations need to do: smooth the path for victims, men and women, to come out from the shadows of abuse
so they wouldn't end up as a statistic, much like Watson.
Thursday 20 September 2007
NEW ADS
We are adding Adsense Google ads to the blog, strictly to generate funds to carry on the fight. Nanc and I have put all of our resources into this 5 year (so far) battle for justice, and resources are getting thin. I've concluded that I probably should have been a lawyer! :)
I am assured that the ads will be content relevant - I'm dying to see what kind of ads are relevant to the topic here - so hopefully won't offend anyone that is here looking for serious info.
I am assured that the ads will be content relevant - I'm dying to see what kind of ads are relevant to the topic here - so hopefully won't offend anyone that is here looking for serious info.
Wednesday 19 September 2007
RESPONSE! SOMEONE ELSE DOES CARE
Well, the feelers we've been putting out have - perhaps - borne fruit. We were contacted today by a national umbrella group for women's issues. I sent them our factum and further info including the text of the decision by the BC Appeals Court, both of which are too long to post here. we'll gladly email them to interested parties. Our email is:
Tuesday 18 September 2007
CONTACT DAY
Have spent the day contacting women's groups in BC and nationally. Last time I tried I must have had an old contact list, because 10 of 12 emails sent bounced. So far, no bounces and we sent about 15 out. Also tried to contact some respected feminist leaders. Hopefully one or more will see the implications and help us connect into feminist networks. Trying to create some buzz here, people need to look at this!
Monday 17 September 2007
THIS IS THE WEEK
This is the week we launch our Supreme Court media campaign for Nanc's case. (see first post) We have some local interest, but we have to get the story out to the national media. Nanc is scared to death, based on her experience in the past, that no one does care about abused women, children, elderly, but I don't believe that. And yet, I have been pushing the Family Violence Education Initiative (see post 2) for about 4 years now, and we keep getting this "soft resistance" to it. Everyone says, "oh yes, this is so important and your idea makes sense" but nothing comes of it. No one has been willing to step up to the plate and promote the idea or raise the issue in public forae.
We have had numerous conversations about why it is so difficult for people to come to grips with this issue, and our best conclusion, and probably not the only one, is that people don't want to admit to themselves or others that it has happened to them, in their families, or to those they know. If they admit it, then it means that there is something wrong with their family. Also, If they admit there is a problem, they may have to take some action, which is typically a last resort that people have to be pushed into when things get so bad that lives are at stake. Unfortunately, that is sometimes too late.
This problem IS that pervasive in our society. Almost every single person that I have talked to over the last few years about this has had their own stories, and those that didn't probably could if they were willing. This issue is, perhaps, the last bastion of barbarism in North American society. Is that why we cling to it? Is the right to assault family members a final link to our animal selves?
Anyway, it's time to lock and load. We're going over the top.
We have had numerous conversations about why it is so difficult for people to come to grips with this issue, and our best conclusion, and probably not the only one, is that people don't want to admit to themselves or others that it has happened to them, in their families, or to those they know. If they admit it, then it means that there is something wrong with their family. Also, If they admit there is a problem, they may have to take some action, which is typically a last resort that people have to be pushed into when things get so bad that lives are at stake. Unfortunately, that is sometimes too late.
This problem IS that pervasive in our society. Almost every single person that I have talked to over the last few years about this has had their own stories, and those that didn't probably could if they were willing. This issue is, perhaps, the last bastion of barbarism in North American society. Is that why we cling to it? Is the right to assault family members a final link to our animal selves?
Anyway, it's time to lock and load. We're going over the top.
Sunday 16 September 2007
PAIN AND VALUES
I originally wrote this for Jack Hittrich, Nanc's attorney in this case. Hopefully, readers of this blog will find it inspiring:
"Great events and horrific trials identify the outstanding individuals among us. They take the ordinary man or woman and, if they have the right steel, forge them into the tools of history. Pain is the birthright of humans. What the individual does with that pain is the story of their life. For the few that find their true temper – turning their personal suffering to the service of others – there we see the shining blades that are the power and the real value of our species."
SOLUTIONS: A FAMILY VIOLENCE EDUCATION INITIATIVE
Facts
- 200 000 women and 177 000 men reported abuse in 2000 in Canada
- The abused were children, spouses, and the elderly
- This represents about one in ten Canadians each and every year
- These are only those we know about. Abuse is severely underreported
- Many victims are unaware that what they suffer is abuse until informed by friends, relatives, or professionals. They believe “that’s just the way it is.”
- Once aware that they are in abusive relationships, victims are often advised or believe they should not report
1. to keep the family together at all costs
2. to avoid community or family knowledge of the situation
3. to protect the abuser
4. to protect their financial situation
5. to avoid retaliation by the abuser
6. because the abuser will never do it again
- Abusers almost always do it again and usually escalate their abuse over time
- Children raised in abusive families often become abusers themselves, even when they are not the direct victims of the abuse
- A large percentage of violent offences are committed by victims of abuse
- Victims frequently do not know what they can do about their situation
- Adult abusers rarely stop abusing
Needs
- Children must be taught
- to recognize abuse in all its forms
- that abuse is wrong
- what they can and should do about an abusive situation
- what a healthy relationship looks like
- A national commitment to actively address family violence
- Emphasis on stopping the cycle of violence for future generations
- Provide honest and impartial advice to victims
One Solution
A nationally mandated curriculum on family violence delivered to all Canadian children in both public and private schools. It can be delivered in an annual seminar/special assembly format by specially trained facilitators that travel from school to school. It must begin at the kindergarten level, and be targeted to the developmental level of the group. It should include dramatic enactments of healthy vs. abusive interactions so that children can recognize abuse when they see it.
Conclusion
There is no “quick fix” to the problem of family violence. Education of our children, however, does provide hope for future generations to be free from the cycle of violence.
THE LEGAL DEATH OF HOPE
On
The effect of this decision is to say to those women that matters of conscience, justice, equality, equity, and fairness, do not apply to them. It matters not that there was a power imbalance in the relationship, lack of sophistication of the victim, proven fraud on the part of the abuser, diagnosed and treated Post Traumatic Stress, and emotional fragility clearly demonstrated in court. If an abusive spouse can withhold information, hide money, and con you into signing a patently unfair agreement, you are done and no one cares.
Apparently British common law no longer works for women in
When the letter of statutory law becomes more important than the people it is meant to serve and protect, it is fatally flawed. We do not believe that it was the intent of those who drafted or enacted our laws that they be applied in such an unforgiving, inflexible, and unjust manner. We do not believe that it was the intent of legislators to deprive abused women of hope, and of their rights. The Charter of Rights, Freedoms, and Responsibilities speaks to a fundamental right to equality under the law. Does “equality” mean that an undereducated woman that has been kept in an isolated farm culture, where lack of real information or outright misinformation and tolerance of spousal abuse is the norm, stands before the court on an equal footing with her “husband”, a sophisticated wife beater that sits on numerous corporate and organizational boards? Is she equal when she signs documents that she cannot see, let alone understand? Does the Charter err in demanding equality for each man and woman vs. fairness in circumstance? We do not believe that the Charter excludes consideration of circumstances, but will leave that issue to scholars to debate. If it is true, then the Charter is fatally flawed as well.
This decision has created a legal precedent that offends every sense of conscience. It is a greater crime against humanity to kill an abused person’s hope, than to kill their body. Death of the body ends pain and suffering, death of hope makes pain and suffering a permanent condition. We are offended by conditions in
Ms. Rick has applied for leave to bring this matter before the Supreme Court of Canada, and the panel has been assigned to consider the application. The panel includes Chief Justice Beverly Maclachlin and Justices Charron and Rothstein.
Ms. Rick feels that it is a matter of national importance and wishes to know if the appeals court ruling is, in fact, the will of the Canadian justice system. She does not believe that “no one cares.” She asks that you review this decision and, if you decide that you do care, take action to let the Supreme Court of Canada know how you feel. Please circulate this message to others who may also care. The fundamental right of fair treatment of all abused women, and men, before the law is at stake.
This letter will form the body of both a press release and a campaign for support and public action from women’s groups across
Ms. Rick can be contacted at:
Link to SCC case info:
http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?32098
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)