ForumGarden

Now my location may be slightly off but I believe it was Toronto or area yesterday, a man jumped off a bridge onto Canada's busiest highway the 401 taking with him his 5 year old daughter. He died she survived. you all likely can guess why he did this....yep divorce and again another male fighting for more time with his child. My pondering for the day is this? How come there are so many more incidents lately of men taking their lives and trying to take their children along with, because they are being denied time with their children? Are these stable men? Are these men truly being ripped apart from the children they love so much that the freakin courts are forcing such drastic measures? What is driving these men to such horrific crime like actions? I really can't wrap my head around this, maybe it is because I have to force my ex to see even one of his daughters. Or I am just plain dense. Or is it these men are so bitter and ripped they are actually trying to hurt their ex's by taking the child or children on a death trip? Gosh it seems almost plague like these days.

This then leads me to wonder about our justice system and why does it still favor time with the mother over time with the father? I know a great number of single fathers who have battled over and over for "more time" with their children. Every other weekend is hardly fair to the father, but a week with dad and a week with mom repeatedly is highly stressful for a child I know this as my youngest tried it and it was hell. I guess there is no real simple solution, but boy there are some mothers out there that really suck as parents and the child would be far better off with a stable father. hmmmmm makes you think don't it.

I don't know about Canada, but I can tell you some stuff about Michigan courts.

I have several male friends who have kids and are divorced. I have dated a few men with children. Invariably, the dealings with Friend of the Court are skewed to favor the mother. Invariably. I was with a man for 5 years who had a daughter. He picked her up every other weekend. He left one Friday to pick her up, and before he got back the mother called the house, saying "He is upset with Kaila for not being ready, and he needs to come back and get her." I was confused, had no idea what had happened, and a few minutes later, he got back. He said he'd been there for a few minutes waiting for her to get up and get dressed, and when she started pouting and not listening, he said "Well, I guess you don't want to go" and left. Meanwhile, the mom had called the police saying that "Dave" had come into the house, slammed her against a wall, and left. He had to go to the police station, turn himself in, get finger-printed and processed and was served with papers not allowing him contact with his daughter till the court date. That took 5 months. During that 5 months, while you are innocent until proven guilty, he was forced to attend anger management classes, and domestic violence classes. Before any court proceedings. Not to mention the fact that he was not allowed to see his daughter.

He had a jury trial, and was found innocent, (which he was, the mother is a bitter, lying, vindictive witch,) but the 5 months without his daughter was pretty punishing for him. Whenever the mother felt like it, she called up FOTC and said she needed more money, and his child support would get raised. My experience with FOTC is that they believe the fathers are scum-sucking weasels, and the mothers walk on water.

Dave's situation was not the only one that gave me that impression. It's across the board, and it's just wrong.

When my parents got divorced, (granted, this was a long time ago) when the term "visitation" came up, both my parents said, "Uh...no. Dad will see his kids whenever he wants to." The games that people play using their children as pawns to get back at the spouse who dumped them are sick. And it's usually the father who pays. This topic makes me SOOO angry. I could rant for a while here, but would probably end up breaking my keyboard. :-5

Florrie wrote: Terrible!!!

Not a very protective fatherly event :-5 .

Cannot imagine the physical and psychological effects on the child.

Have the courts got the balance right?.

Wonder what the gender stats are in relation to putting a child's needs first?


So much depends on the age of the children here. As younger children, they tend to try and make most of the time with the mother, regardless of how good the father is. As the child hits age 12ish they tend to encourage the child to figure out the time they wish to spend with each parent, which is tough on the kids as they are made to feel pressured to make the right decision for the parent as opposed to the right decide for themselves. Not so easy on the children over all.

That is a very weak man (coward)..why can't people face problems? take the heat & try to repair what ails? One less problem in the world, but another that will need repair?

Paula wrote: That is a very weak man (coward)..why can't people face problems? take the heat & try to repair what ails? One less problem in the world, but another that will need repair?


Bravo dear girl, cop outs are shite. (sorry LC not to be slanderous) And I agree with you Paula, deal with your troubles and fix them and be a man./woman about it and grow the pheck up.

that person took down other people as well, it is a selfish act on behalf of some-one who refused to face reality...shame on them, life was of no value then? Reach out, there is more help today than ever...WHY!

I have to wonder if the courts made this man feel such drastic measures were neccessary or if he was unstable to begin with. Dealing with the legal system, trying to get his parental rights, etc. could very well push a sane person over the edge. However, if he were a sane, normal person, he would know that killing hisself and his child would not allow them to spend more time together. I also think it is horribly, horribly wrong for a parent to use the child as a pawn. I've seen it so often and it is really sick.

I agree with Paula. It was a selfsish act on the FATHERS part. Almost saying if I can't have my way, then I will take action that leaves everyone dead, or screwed up for the rest of their life. :-5

As Paula said there service out there to help anyone out with problems. They have to want the help first, then get the help and maybe find another way to solve the problem.

Jumping off a bridge with his daughter was a desperate selfish act to gain attention.

BR, sort of the same thing happened to my brother. What was really

unusual (and wonderful) was that my brother's former father-in-law

went down to the police station and talked to the police, they thought

he was just my brother's father trying to get him out of something until

the guy finally convinced them he was HER father but knew her really,

really well and that SHE was lying. So my brother (the police officer)

was just detained and not arrested.



Ever after, though, he takes my father with him when he goes to pick

up his son, my former sister-in-law wouldn't DARE do anything with

my formidable (even at 78!!) daddy there!! It's a hassle for them, but

they still do it, no telling what she'll come up with next.



I can understand frustration, what I can't understand is the solution.

It was in Toronto. The man had a history of problems. Phoned his ex several times telling her that he was going to kill the child and himself to punish her and when the police approached him he threw the child ove the side and then he jumped after her.

She is in hospital, having survived the fall, but is on life saving machinery and in a coma.

kensloft wrote: It was in Toronto. The man had a history of problems. Phoned his ex several times telling her that he was going to kill the child and himself to punish her and when the police approached him he threw the child ove the side and then he jumped after her.



She is in hospital, having survived the fall, but is on life saving machinery and in a coma.This info changes everything. I do feel for the men who have to endure being treated like second class citizens when it comes to visitation. This guy, however, is a sick ****. Or was. Threw his child over the bridge to punish his ex. I can't even wrap my mind around that.

kensloft wrote: It was in Toronto. The man had a history of problems. Phoned his ex several times telling her that he was going to kill the child and himself to punish her and when the police approached him he threw the child ove the side and then he jumped after her.

She is in hospital, having survived the fall, but is on life saving machinery and in a coma.


Oh that changes my opinion as well Ken, Jaysus that is criminal. The man should have been arrested long ago. He is a bloody coward. And sorry my nasty side coming out, he deserved to die.

I hope the little girl will survive and be able to go on and live a normal life, pity what state she is in right now.

Gawd some days you just have to hate the crazies of the world.

The exixting "Child custody Justice System" is archaic and is certainly not up to the current times! The laws are old and still from the times when "women" had to be protected because they only stayed at home. They did not work, and or have luctative paying jobs and were toatally dependant on their husbands for financial support. The majority of the time the "Mothers" were the sole providers of child care back in those days, and the Father was the sole financial provider. However, over the years things/ circumstances have evolved to where it has been mentioned in other posts, that sometimes the Fathers make a better parent the the Mother. Today, most families have both parents working, having "two" incomes coming in. So most "women/ mothers" have lucrative jobs, and in some cases earn more then their husbands. So if there is a case of a divorce, the woman/mother can support herself & "their" children. She no longer is totally dependant on the husbands financial support, so laws need to be updated to reflect the same. Conversly, the laws need to also be updated to reflect the visitation rights of "both" parents, but mainly the "outdated" laws affecting Fathers! Giving equal rights to each!!! :wah: (Jumping off the bridge had to be an emotional sickness caused by???)

Cars :driving:

cars wrote: The exixting "Child custody Justice System" is archaic and is certainly not up to the current times! The laws are old and still from the times when "women" had to be protected because they only stayed at home. They did not work, and or have luctative paying jobs and were toatally dependant on their husbands for financial support. The majority of the time the "Mothers" were the sole providers of child care back in those days, and the Father was the sole financial provider. However, over the years things/ circumstances have evolved to where it has been mentioned in other posts, that sometimes the Fathers make a better parent the the Mother. Today, most families have both parents working, having "two" incomes coming in. So most "women/ mothers" have lucrative jobs, and in some cases earn more then their husbands. So if there is a case of a divorce, the woman/mother can support herself & "their" children. She no longer is totally dependant on the husbands financial support, so laws need to be updated to reflect the same. Conversly, the laws need to also be updated to reflect the visitation rights of "both" parents, but mainly the "outdated" laws affecting Fathers! Giving equal rights to each!!! :wah: (Jumping off the bridge had to be an emotional sickness caused by???)

Cars :driving:


Here in Alberta if I were to go in front of a judge and say ok sir, I want my child to see me 50% of the time and the child to see her father 50% of the time, I would have 20 minutes to state my case and they would base their decision on 20 minutes of my childs 12 years of life. That is it period. 20 freakin minutes to make a snap decision. So likely it would go like this ok mrs X that sounds fair, is the father in agreement. and it would be sure he is. Presto done. Meanwhile .... my child wants nothing to do with her father. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm yep there is justice for you.

Here's more

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... alogin=yes



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... /National/



http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSu ... 9-sun.html



Kensloft

minks wrote: Here in Alberta if I were to go in front of a judge and say ok sir, I want my child to see me 50% of the time and the child to see her father 50% of the time, I would have 20 minutes to state my case and they would base their decision on 20 minutes of my childs 12 years of life. That is it period. 20 freakin minutes to make a snap decision. So likely it would go like this ok mrs X that sounds fair, is the father in agreement. and it would be sure he is. Presto done. Meanwhile .... my child wants nothing to do with her father. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm yep there is justice for you.


minks- Certinly if the child (at age of reason, like 12) didn't want anything to do with the Father, then that aspect must be taken into account by the judge! Accordingly, it would seem if the Father knew that the child who was at the age of reason did not really want to be with him, then he would be a fool not to respect their's & your wishes! I know there can spite reasons (on both sides) in a not-so-friendly divorce. When that's the case, all bets are off, then there is no resoning, only turmoil & misery! :wah:

Cars :driving:

cars wrote: minks- Certinly if the child (at age of reason, like 12) didn't want anything to do with the Father, then that aspect must be taken into account by the judge! Accordingly, it would seem if the Father knew that the child who was at the age of reason did not really want to be with him, then he would be a fool not to respect their's & your wishes! I know there can spite reasons (on both sides) in a not-so-friendly divorce. When that's the case, all bets are off, then there is no resoning, only turmoil & misery! :wah:

Cars :driving:


Child of nearly 18 is the daughter who wants naught to do with her father so far as to wanting to legally change her name in a few months. The judge would take that into consideration of course. They would also take into consideration the now 14 year olds desires too, because here in AB as of 12 years of age the child does have a say when it comes to custody.