September 4, 2001
The Real Crime Starts In Family CourtroomLetter to the Editor by Roger Townsend
Kamloops Daily News
I wish to respond to recent comments by the co-ordinator of the Kamloops Womenís Resource Centre, Dodie Goldney. As a co-ordinator of a menís center, I have met many male and female victims of domestic abuse and one thing is very clear. Most men who are abused have a mother, a sister, a daughter and new female partner who also suffer abuse from the same abusive female.
The fact is Jeffrey Unruhís 17-year-old daughter chose to live with her father in poverty rather than live with her high income earning mother speaks volumes. This daughter chose her fatherís love and affection rather than her motherís money.
In 95 per cent of disputed custody cases, women get custody. Most fathers simply donít even fight in court. Many just give up because they know that judges cannot view men as loving parents but rather as walking cheque books. Paternal grandparents frequently die of broken hearts unable to have a relationship with their grandchildren because they are unable to pay the blackmail demanded by a mother who treats the children as income-producing property.
If you attend family court you will hear a never-ending list of cases of children who are alienated Ė from their fathers. Most cases seem to start the same way. A mother abducts the children in the absence of any court order to obtain the status quo. These abductions by mothers never result in criminal convictions or jail time. The first hearing generally results in judges ordering the children to spend about 25 per cent of the time with the father.
Child support is ordered assuming that fathers have no expenses unless the children spend more than 40 per cent of the time with the father. This is another example of gender apartheid. Non-custodial parents at the very least have similar fixed expenses such as suitable accommodation that exist 100 per cent of the time. Since separation Unruh has earned very little if any income yet, our feminist system imputes an income of around $60,000 simply because that is an average manís income. Many fathers in B.C. have these fabricated imputed incomes attributed, which causes them to live in dire poverty unable to pay money to a lawyer to go to court and get the imputed income corrected. Most fathers in B.C. who apply for legal aid appear to be automatically rejected and only really considered upon appeal. Where did Judge Robert Hunter go wrong? I think he formed an automatic conclusion that the imputed income was correct. That may be so if you are using the civil law burden of proof that is the balance of probabilities rather than criminal lawís burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which I suggest would not result in any imputed income.
Judge Hunter could also have made a phone call to one of his brother judges in Prince George. They would have told him that Unruhís seven months incarceration achieved nothing and after some reflection they released him without conditions. In criminal law you cannot be found guilty of the same offense more than once, itís called res judicata because the same question has been previously decided.
Now, this begs the question: If Judge Hunter is going to release Jeffrey Unruh in 30 days because one of the above reasons, who not admit that an error was made and release Unruh right now?
I can think of several reasons. Unruh is guilty of the terrible offense of being a heretic and offending feminist doctrine. He is guilty of acting upon his principles and staying firm in his beliefs despite many months of incarceration with real criminals while his children are being alienated from him by the courts, which I think most readers will agree is child abuse and thatís a real crime that seems to start in family court.