British Columbia: Children not entitled to father without mother’s consent

by W.F. Price on June 12, 2013

British Columbia may now have the dubious distinction of having the worst family law on earth or, in other words, the most “progressive.” I reported on the new BC Family Law Act back in March, and it’s one of those things that just gets worse and worse the more you learn about it.

The first thing to come to light in the press is that you can be automatically married simply by living with someone for two years, which means they can sue you for a very real divorce. Another thing that can trigger marriage is getting a woman pregnant. But it turns out that this has an optional clause for women: if she doesn’t want you to be the kid’s official father, there isn’t much you can do about it. Even if you know the kid is yours, you have to jump through all sorts of hoops simply to be approved by the state and then granted the title “father.”

A Sunshine Coast man has challenged the constitutionality of the new Family Law Act in a bid to prevent a child conceived during casual sex, and its mother, from moving to Alberta.

The names of the twentysomethings are being withheld, but Gibsons lawyer Judith Wilson represents the man, who is trying to establish a connection to the infant and obtained an interim order in provincial court to block the woman’s planned move and obtain a paternity test.

“I argued when we got the interim order for guardianship that the Legislature could not have possibly have intended to deprive a child — on the face of it — of the right to their dad,” Wilson said. “It just didn’t seem to wash.”

Unless the mother agrees, Wilson said, the new law forces biological fathers into court to prove a relationship and gain visitation or other rights.

“The rules of the act say the mom has to agree, you have to have visited the child, or you have to have a pattern of looking after the child — which applies to (an estranged) father or someone who has had access to the child,” Wilson said.

“But, even if the mom agrees, you still have to have a criminal record check, you have to have a (Ministry of Children’s and Families) check so that they can say there is no bad stuff in its files against you — you have to prove prima facie you’re not a bad guy.”

I can see exactly where this will go. A significant fraction of mothers will abscond with the baby and the guy will have no option unless he has tens of thousands of dollars on hand to fight it in court, so he’ll give up, lick his wounds and move on. But this won’t be where it ends.

Some years down the road when the child has been comfortably removed from the father and prevented from developing a relationship with him, she’ll look him up and hit him with a paternity suit demanding back child support with annual interest tacked on, and he’ll be ordered to pay it. Mark my words — this will happen to many poor suckers out there. If there’s anything in the law preventing women from changing their minds and identifying the father later to get retroactive support I’ll eat my hat.

What is sick about this law is that it gives women full legal power over every aspect of reproduction and childrearing, and men none at all. This is “equality” feminist style. Children’s concerns, naturally, are secondary if considered at all.

Amazingly, this law gives women the ability to not only throw the real father out of the child’s life, but to substitute another guy and then ID him as the father if he took the kid out to McDonald’s or the movies a few times. The law makes no distinction between the child’s biological father and any other guy. It’s really all just up to mom — whatever she thinks is in her best interests.

From here on out, any man in British Columbia who dates a single mother should be considered an imbecile. This negative incentive may be the one good thing about the law — it will all but guarantee that single mothers have a hard time finding replacement daddies, and that might make some of them think twice about trying.

However, this is a disaster for children. By declaring fathers optional, the law suggests that children have no right to a father. If it stands, judges will not be able to use the best interests of the child in determining whether or not the father will have a relationship with them. It is a step backward in human evolution to a time when the concept of fatherhood didn’t exist. This means it is probably a step back to before the evolution of homo sapiens, perhaps to homo erectus or some other troglodyte precursor.

For men, this is simply irrefutable evidence that family law in BC has finally gone around the bend. When it’s “heads she wins tails you lose” every single time, and you don’t even get a consolation weekend with your kid, it’s time to stop even trying to work within the system and start fighting it.

For Canadian men, I’d recommend appealing to the United Nations or for help from some other country outside Canada in pressuring your deranged legislators. Your government clearly isn’t willing to deal reasonably with its male citizens, so its time to start letting the rest of the world know about the abuses taking place in British Columbia.

{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }

A Sky Called Shotgun June 12, 2013 at 08:14

>> COMING SOON TO THE USSA <<

Bottom line: unless you want to run the high likelihood of becoming a wage slave facing real prison time if you don't produce, stay the F-K away from women!

Speaking as a 100%^ heterosexual guy, It pains me to say this but in today's feminist legal environment, if you want to be in a sexual relationship it makes the most sense to be gay.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1
The Trend June 12, 2013 at 08:15

I would invest in apartment buildings now as there will no doubt be tons of men looking for a new place before the 2 year limit hits.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer June 12, 2013 at 08:22

Off-topic but this one’s for you Price as it concerns your friend Sarkessian :

E3 Inspires Woman-Bashing On Twitter

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2013/06/11/e3-inspires-woman-bashing-on-twitter/?ss=forbeswoman

Misogynist gamers are at it again, attacking Anita Saarkesian for making a simple observation. Perhaps all the excitement at E3 has made their thumbs twitchy. There’s nothing particularly surprising here. Hopped up on adrenaline and “fiero,” they invoke the patriarchal battle-cry. Of course, Saarkesian is the easy scapegoat. She has been for some time, the villain in social media’s version of a juvenile battle between the sexes.

In some ways I regret getting my internet connection re-established.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
Wobs June 12, 2013 at 08:44

“For Canadian men, I’d recommend appealing to the United Nations ”

Try going to the UN website and searching for “boys” or “Men”, and see what comes up. Mostly policies on women and girls, and how men and boys impact on women and girls.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer June 12, 2013 at 09:08

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

——

I know it’s you Amanda.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
keyster June 12, 2013 at 09:39

Yeah, the United Nations is pretty much feminism on a worldwide scale…except for Islam of course, which gets a pass. The UN is one big melting pot of Progressive/New World Order/Egalitarian Utopia policy. Where else could you have Syria represented on the Human Rights Commitee? Human Rights is code for “empowering women and girls to not have to be dependent on husbands and/or fathers”…and any violation they can pin on the United States government or Israel.

In the USA if a heroic single mom applies for welfare benefits she’s asked if she knows who the father is and if so, what is his name. The father is then BILLED by the county to help compensate for the government pay-out. This was a key tenet of Clinton’s welfare reform bill, that religious, racist white-knight Republicans gleefully supported.

IOW it put the burden of welfare on (mostly urban black) males in the hope they’d stop reproducing or get a job. That, combined with abortion clinics strategically placed in inner city black neighborhoods, has been fairly effective at reducing the overall crime rate. Combine this with black on black gang shootings and affirmative action hiring quotas skewed towards black women…and you have a “soft” genocide of an entire race within a free country…moving very slowly, one generation at a time. No one seems alarmed by this except for a few “radical/extremist” black church groups.

By 2113 the majority hispanic population and what’s left of the “privilaged white class” will look back on blacks and the black culture with a sort of nostalgic fondness, the same way we look at Native Americans today.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Grant June 12, 2013 at 09:42

All of your predictions regarding this law are spot on. It’s amazing more people don’t see it coming — or maybe they do, but they feel powerless to stop it. All I can say is, keep up the great work Mr. Price!

OT: Another crazed Ameribitch caught on camera. The irony is that she actually filmed herself doing this, believing that people would take her side! I am awestruck at the power of the hamster at work here, not only that she did this insane, racist rant in the first place, but that she proudly posted the video on Facebook for the world to see, as if she thought it made her some sort of folk hero.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/taylor-chapman-dunkin-donuts-viral-video-856341

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
joeb June 12, 2013 at 09:42

The system in BC has been hijacked and Force will be needed to resolve anything in a reasonable settlement .
Ill bet every Government , megalomaniac in the congress is licking his chops and sharping his /her claws in the though of totalitarianism rule .
Hell, force may be needed here to settle anything reasonably .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
geographybeefinalisthimself June 12, 2013 at 09:47

Wow, I guess it looks like British Columbia is the HIV of Canada.

Any province that would come up with this idea probably deserves this analogy, because giving one parent authority to eject the other from the kids’ lives like this is as corrosive to any society as rampaging HIV has been to southern Africa in particular.

Apologies to all males in that province, but I can’t think of a better (or worse) way to describe it. If you guys can think of a better (or worse) way to describe what your home province is doing to the rest of Canada, tell me about it.

I am well aware that this shit is coming south of the border and never had any intention of living with a woman or becoming a father anyway. I am pretty confident that the dystopic nature of the USA in the 2010s is not going away any time soon until everything is destroyed, and laws like this may accelerate the destruction.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Rmaxd June 12, 2013 at 10:46

Good screw all the single mothers & the men stupid enough to date them & impregnate them

They deserve every freaking repercussion

Refused to stand up to the governments & courts, enjoy getting ass raped by your corrupt government under the guise of feminism

This is what happens when you don’t stand up for your rights

You still have a chance, fight them in the courts reverse these laws

You won’t …

They’ll poke & prod you until you revolt, & then the fight, the riots

Do something take legal action now, get organised fight back

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
Tom Smith June 12, 2013 at 11:09

Mr. Price, Even if you do not like the law, this really discourages single motherhood. No dad will want to participate in fathering a child (particularly if he’s not married) under this type of law. The problem- as I have highlighted in earlier posts- is that single motherhood is the scourge of modern society.

And in the U.S., it seems like the “freebies” which promote single motherhood as a viable “choice” will not go away soon. In my mind, the question is: “When will men ‘wake-up’ and demand equal access to their children as a matter of law?” Until men do, and it becomes law in the legislatures, men will have to litigate this one case at a time which is extraordinarily expensive.

I have to “tip my hat” to the legislature in BC, it is clear that the law of unintended consequences will likely apply here, and let’s lean back, grab some beer and popcorn to enjoy the show.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
keyster June 12, 2013 at 11:17

Boy’s moms fight for his human right to do what only girls are allowed to do. Totally intolerant and sexist!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/11/lesbian-parents-start-moveon-org-petition-over-14-year-old-sons-makeup-at-school/

It’s only fair that boys should be able to dress and behave like girls, if girls are allowed, even encouraged, to dress and behave like boys. He’s bravely defying socially constructed gender roles. This is NOT promoting gender equality in our schools. It’s discrimination against boys who are rejecting masculinity or “machismo” in favor of equality with girls. Please sign the petition!

Are tampon dispensers in the boys bathrooms next?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Former BCer June 12, 2013 at 11:21

B.C. is primitive and backwards when it comes to law, the rights of men, and the well-being of children. I lived there for 20 years, and will never go back. (I’m a woman by the way, and believe that female imperative, especially codified into law, has been an unmitigated disaster for everyone.)

Only Sweden rivals B.C. in its hysterical embrace of female imperative. This is what happens when you do away with traditional mores and embrace progressivism as your moral foundation. Since progressivism is completely detached from reality, the sort of legal craziness we’re seeing is the only possible result. Every one of these laws is an ex post facto attempt to deal with the unintended consequences of a previous law: the law makes marriage unappealing to men, so men only want to shack up; the law makes shacking up de facto marriage, so men only want to engage in casual relationships; the law makes casual relationships potentially binding parental (i.e. financial) contracts contingent on female whim, so … ? Well, as the author points out, the result ought to be men avoiding single mothers like the plague. This latest iteration could well be the end-point, because it’s difficult to imagine even the insane law-makers in B.C. legislating their way around *that*.

And, ironically, this could eventually force people in B.C. back into a more traditional approach to inter-sexual relationships. Any man in B.C. with half a brain ought to think twice before he involves himself, even in a platonic way, with a single mother, and think three or four times before engaging in casual sex with even a childless woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
geographybeefinalisthimself June 12, 2013 at 11:31

@ keyster

It’s been a long ass time since “boys will be boys” has even remotely been allowed, anywhere in the USA.

Trust me, it wasn’t allowed when I was in school; girls got treated (and boys got mistreated) as if the female sex was the model sex. Last I checked, neither sex was the model sex, but try telling that to any female public school teacher who discharges her sexism onto any warm male body she can find.

A complaint, mostly made by African-Americans (but with the same legitimacy as my complaint over the treatment of the female sex as if it were the “model sex”), is that the white race is treated as if it were the “model race,” at least in the United States. Just as there is no “model sex” there is no “model race,” even if there are far fewer Melanesians, Micronesians or Polynesians than there are Asians from Northeast and Southeast Asia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Gilgamesh June 12, 2013 at 11:53

“Mr. Price, Even if you do not like the law, this really discourages single motherhood.”

A better way to discourage single motherhood would be to cut all subsidies, but apparently not letting women have their cake and eat it constitutes a war on women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
Poiuyt June 12, 2013 at 14:55

Forget about that stinking dog of a sub-normal woman whom may or may not exercise her falsely assumed authorities, to eject her child’s father from its life for a moments whim or fleeting fancy, if you can …

… and think about the parasitic amoeba and army, of state processors, state contractors, state bureaucrats, state intruders and state interferers whom are the REAL force demanding, suborning, supporting and enforcing such odious laws. It is these bloodsucking pathogens that have the real might and the real means to ever create circumstances for the perpetual need of such laws, such institutions and such unwanted services to misandry, as they may wish to supply by force.

When anti-male-anti-father misandry is looked at in unsentimental monochrome and seen for what it is, you begin to see its institutional staff, as that malevolent omnipotent force, driving all the hatred and trivialization of men as men and men as fathers. By fomenting, normalizing and validating antimale anxieties and anti-male enproblematizations, these official processors and enforcers on State wages are able to perpetually justify their activities and their services for which we must all pay by force.

How else would the growing army of job-seeking and rent-seeking officials ever get to draw such easy salaries and such excessively high bills off their public treasuries for unwanted services, if not by first disguising their foul economic intents and malign pecuniary purposes behind “rights-talk” for women and children ?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
DW3 June 12, 2013 at 15:18

I’m next door to BC, and in these parts we say that BC stands for Bring Cash. It would seem that this now applies even more.

I had to go to court to become the legal parent of one of my kids. It was very frustrating to never get any answers as to who messed up, or was lying, about why I was not recorded as the father on the birth certificate. Institutionalizing what was a “mistake” in my case as the de facto arrangement is insanity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Mr. Freeze June 12, 2013 at 16:40

First in response to A Sky Called Shotgun who said:

“Speaking as a 100%^ heterosexual guy, It pains me to say this but in today’s feminist legal environment, if you want to be in a sexual relationship it makes the most sense to be gay.”

Speaking as a 100% homosexual “post-gay” man who largely forgoes sexual relationships due to the escalating and insipidly shallow gay culture and its feminist regime … I’d be perfectly happy to help y’all out in that regard. ;)

(sorta joking – sorta not)

Secondly, and more on topic …

This video is over an hour long, but well worth the time investment.

The feel-good movie of the year, IMHO.

Every single cruel and manipulative tactic ever used by a female in a custody dispute goes up in glorious smoke and tears, documented on camera.

Seriously. This is a jump-up-out-of-your-seat-and-cheer kinda moment.

Happy Father’s Day!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFY3POHk2k

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Alex June 12, 2013 at 17:24

Just when I think we’ve hit rock bottom( that devious maneuver to turn a live in relationships into the equivalent of marriage(contractual financial slavery ), the bottom drops out to a new low.

What I have trouble wrapping my head around, is given the current legal climate and it’s future direction, what possible incentive is there for a man to marry, breed and produce anything? Time to travel the world and perhaps settle somewhere simple while the West sinks into the latrine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
highwasp June 12, 2013 at 17:30

Well it seems the new BC Family Law Act has caught up with my personal life experience for the past 25 years ago.

“if she doesn’t want you to be the kid’s official father, there isn’t much you can do about it. Even if you know the kid is yours, you have to jump through all sorts of hoops simply to be approved by the state and then granted the title “father.””

My child was taken out of California (CA) into Oregon (OR) upon birth at the mother’s will. I didn’t even know the child was mine but was sent the Child Support bills from the D.A. in OR. Another move within OR and I was sent new sets of debt from another D.A. in another county. A visit from the local sheriff to my place of employment, handing papers to me in front of the other staff. yeah…

Three years go by and the mom decides to move back to CA. More Child Support (CS) threats to me from the D.A. in CA. All of this without a blood test. I told them all to FkOff… and they did until the state of my residence, CA got the results of the blood test and it turned out to be 99.9%! a blood test which cost me $650 – then I was officially labeled the biological father… and the CS was enforced at gun point behind a badge. But I wasn’t the Father. Some other men were chosen for that. Not for another 10 years or more, when the grandmother literally brought the teenager to me… was I chosen to be the father. I already had another child by then, oh, and a marriage too. I almost decapitated the matriarch since she was at least 10 years too late with her ‘generosity’ and she claiming to be a devout christian follower of jesus…

BC Family Law has simply written it ‘legal’ what has been going on for decades. Fathers aren’t fathers unless the mother agrees. And is ‘father’ label is contingent on his ability to pay.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 12, 2013 at 18:11

Man, it sure is nice to have money to spend on an in-wall wiring installation for a home theater, watering system for my yards or a new Tavor instead of getting it exsanguinated by some heroic sluts chalimony mandate.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
TFH June 12, 2013 at 19:54

it’s time to stop even trying to work within the system and start fighting it.

Yes.

Too bad very few MRAs actually do any activism….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh June 12, 2013 at 21:05

If there’s one thing AVFM is good for, it’s testing all the approved channels so that everyone else can see they don’t work anymore. I just wish they weren’t seriously calling for egalitarianism instead using it to call the feminist’s bluffs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
greyghost June 12, 2013 at 23:19

This is what we need to be working on.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/asia-pacific/indonesia/110224/indonesia-birth-control-pill-papua-men
I would like to see if I can grow that plant here in the US. I would open up a health food store and sell that shit on line. Those BC boys would be more than happy to buy some .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
greyghost June 12, 2013 at 23:29

TFH you don’t need activism just take action on your own. Imagine over the counter male birth control pills. Even if they were illegal in the states imagine a college football team not having any players in the draft on the hook for CS. She comes up pregnant you don’t need to say a thing about yourself. (you know she was fucking someone else to be pregnant) You proof is not you were on Birth control your proof is the baby is not yours just say you need a DNA as proof. Men need to be taught to think like this all of the time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
greyghost June 12, 2013 at 23:32
Anonymous June 13, 2013 at 02:45

Man-persecution… this is what you liberals have worked for all these years?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
GeoRice81 June 13, 2013 at 13:10

@Mr Freeze….

That was/is an awesome video. That pscyho chick threw everything she had at her kid. He and and his father were awesome and strong.

The kicker is that she was ready to press charges on her 14 year old son “for his own good!” That is when the cop got pissed off at her. He could see that it wasn’t about him but all about her! Her able to control and manipulate her son while hurting the father. That chick should be sent to jail!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
angryflower June 13, 2013 at 17:15

“From here on out, any man in British Columbia who dates a single mother should be considered an imbecile.”

Thanks, as a single BC man I am keenly aware of these issues, having already barely dodged a common-law bullet. Guys here don’t have a prayer if they date a mom or cohabitate.

I now have a dude roommate and probably will for many years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
van Rooinek June 14, 2013 at 09:04

as a single BC man I am keenly aware of these issues, having already barely dodged a common-law bullet. Guys here don’t have a prayer if they date a mom or cohabitate. I now have a dude roommate and probably will for many years.

Just wait. Gay Common Law marriage will eventually happen. You”ll have no choice but to live alone. Sad to say.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
BCFred June 14, 2013 at 11:37

van Rooinek
angryflower:

You will just need to make sure that your assets are valued at less than hers, and your income is the same or less. It may also be a good idea (and care will need to be taken to watch your finances) to borrow money and go into debt. People are less assertive when they know that they will need to assume liabilities as well. And of course….

Please do not have any children with her (but you already knew that).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
BCFred June 14, 2013 at 11:39

Any assets in your name should go into a trust, by the way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
diasan June 15, 2013 at 09:31

Mr. Freeze, re the video.

That is an interesting, and somewhat disturbing video; but with a (to me) surprisingly good ending.

About 1/4 of the way through, when the lad was clearly upset with his mother, and frustrated with her unwillingness to discuss the situation with him, I thought it would end poorly.

All I can say is that the boy comported himself much better than the mother did.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jerry June 18, 2013 at 03:48

From one of the comments on linked site:

Girl moves out west tells no one she is pregnant, returns to Ontario 9 YEARS later & files family court papers listing father & requesting current & retro child support – & she got both, happened to a friend of mine. This is part of the problem, these women can cut off the father’s access, can move away, can demand travel expenses be met if there is access & if no access can still demand support. I think if that is the case they should not have access to $$, bet a whole lot of them would then believe in daddy’s rights. Yes I’m female and yes I was a single mother, in the true sense of the term, for many years. If she can prove after 24 mths that his access was never utilized in a manner to justify her remaining nearby then by all means let her move but until then it should not be allowed. On that note daddies make sure you take lots and lots of pictures that show events, family members, different homes, special occasions because not only will you be able to smile at the memories you will strengthen your case when the mother tries to say you were never around or involved. Pictures don’t lie.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rob June 18, 2013 at 06:08

Men living in British Columbia should move out of there. In fact, all single or engaged Canadian men should move out of Canada if the evil law goes nationwide.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tracy July 24, 2013 at 00:54

This is a good thing, IMO. I don’t think men should be held responsible for children born out of wedlock one way or the other. I.e., women have no rights (or should have no rights) to men’s wallets if they’re not married, kid or no kid, and men have no rights over the kid if they’re not married to the mother. At the same time, marriage laws have to be totally revamped so as to eliminate no-fault divorce, custody should by default be given to the father (i.e., fathers should have custody unless there’s abuse, etc.), abortion needs to be outlawed, contraception should be outlawed for the unmarried (at the State level in the US), women have to stop giving a way the milk for free and men have to stop asking for it/pressuring women into it, and people have to start re-thinking the wisdom of saturating our culture with porn.

Marriage is the keystone of Western civilization, the greatest civilization that’s ever been. It needs to be restored, and as I see things, the above ways are the only way to go about it.

If people had listened to the Catholic Church decades ago, when the contraceptive mentality and divorce became common, none of this would’ve happened. Think about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: