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.