3 ms·

What must be the most painful part of this is that he's in a weak position having shared custody. A normal parent could just give the middle finger and they'll

What must be the most painful part of this is that he's in a weak position having shared custody. A normal parent could just give the middle finger and they'll never have their kids taken away for a single minor behaviour like that. But someone with tenuous custody has to bend over backwards to look like they're doing it right. It seems he could actually lose his kids quite easily because they have another home ready to go to.

sametmax 9y ago
It's amazing an institution as such power, and that they can exercise such power, not based so much on a legal ground as on moral ground. Yeah they mentioned lawyers, but there is no law against what the parent did.
- DanBC 9y ago
  They can't do anything without going to court. Of course there are laws that govern this.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    About the result yes. But the procedures they engage can have a tremendous impact on one's life, and even more when a court is involved, whether they are right or not. Can you imagine having to kiss some distant bureaucrat bottom, accepting they invade your life, endangering your reputation, making you question your choices, threatening you to loose your kids, making them look at you differently, all that __even before any decision is taken__ ? This is madness.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      He doesn't have to do any of that. He can chose to not engage at all. Again, the state can't do anything without going to court, and when they go to court they have to prove their case, he doesn't have to prove anything.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 9y ago
> What must be the most painful part of this is that he's in a weak position having shared custody. No he isn't. Children have a right to be with their parents, and it's important that fathers are involved with their children. It would still need to go in front of a court. Do you have evidence that Canadian courts ignore those rights?

sametmax 9y ago

It's amazing an institution as such power, and that they can exercise such power, not based so much on a legal ground as on moral ground. Yeah they mentioned lawyers, but there is no law against what the parent did.

DanBC 9y ago
They can't do anything without going to court. Of course there are laws that govern this.
- sametmax 9y ago
  About the result yes. But the procedures they engage can have a tremendous impact on one's life, and even more when a court is involved, whether they are right or not. Can you imagine having to kiss some distant bureaucrat bottom, accepting they invade your life, endangering your reputation, making you question your choices, threatening you to loose your kids, making them look at you differently, all that __even before any decision is taken__ ? This is madness.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    He doesn't have to do any of that. He can chose to not engage at all. Again, the state can't do anything without going to court, and when they go to court they have to prove their case, he doesn't have to prove anything.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

DanBC 9y ago

> What must be the most painful part of this is that he's in a weak position having shared custody. No he isn't. Children have a right to be with their parents, and it's important that fathers are involved with their children. It would still need to go in front of a court. Do you have evidence that Canadian courts ignore those rights?