Stats areapparently a highly abused analytic tool. But they are also highly influential to government and judges. As Fekete points out it is a major ploy in sexual discrimination used effectively by the Status for Women Canada, through their various university and sponsored research connections. It appears when you do get a statistic you’ve got to look very close where it came from and what it really means.
It may be true and useful from a macrosociological viewpoint to say 40 % of men get joint custody. However, what doesit really mean? It really means that there are 2 types of cases. Agreementswhere your odds of custody are 100 %, and litigation where your odds of custodyare 12 %. And if you average the 2 types of cases together you get 40 % which is not representative of either type of actual case. And this is what government has done to make the system look relatively fair. In effect, the government is crediting itself with the fact that’s lots of private people make somewhat reasonable private deals over divorce. Which hides the fact that the actual government part of the system is highly discriminatory and only gives men custody or joint custody 12 % of the time.
A lot of gov stats are like that. If 10 %of men go to court and are ordered to pay 100 % of their income as support, and the other 90 % make agreements and only pay 25 % of their income, then theoverall data would show men paying 30 % of their income. Which is how government presents its support data. The fact that 10 % of men are ordered into slavery by the government court gets hidden in the overall data. I gave another example last year regarding criminal charges for threats andharassment. The government uses data that only records when threats and harassment are the most serious charge. And will tell you men are charged 8 times as often as females. My studies looked at all threat and harassment charges. When you do that you find men are charged 25 times more often than women. The government hides this by using specialized statistics which only report what they want to tell the public.
This is an important stat regarding custody. Because the government and supporters will defend the system using the40 % stat. I think serious lobbying and media and other efforts will ultimately require some explanation of this point. I will soon have numbers and viewpoint in another study. I’m just finishing reviewing all the joint custody cases, which should also have some interesting results and be of interest to those advocating equal parenting. Since joint custody ispretty much as close as the law currently has to equal parenting, it is quite significant what the government and judge’s version of that is. You may be surprised. I would make a preliminary estimate that around 60 % of jointcustodial fathers have over 40 % access ( meaning I do have the access /primary residence data for the joint cases and will soon have numbers ) .On the other hand, since 75 % of them made agreements maybe its not a surprise that lots got half decent access. There are a couple of other things worth mentioning about the custody numbers. First of all I show the odds for joint custody being severely reduced if your ex does not agree. But I didn’t mention sole custody. Well it looks like over half of the male sole custodies are also on consent. So the odds of a man winning a litigated sole custody may be quite a bit less than 5 %. Second, note that male custody varies with income. It shouldn’t take much thought to realize that it shouldn’t. It doesn’t when it comes to the female data. Something is clearly wrong ( and I don’t mean with my data ).
Quite a lot more can be said. When it comesto support for joint custody cases, I could name 5 ploys judges frequently useto increase awards above the guideline income offsets. Maybe the most important is the ‘ Contino ‘ multiplier. I think it important to gain some knowledge of these ploys because they are not the laws passed by parliament. And if you want equal time or money or anything else, then you’re going to have to stop them subverting the law in these various manners. And be able to prove what they are doing. I might conclude this sermon with one of the more technically shocking examples. I’d call this one, ‘ some hours are longer than other hours ‘. A definite indication judges will bend space and time itself to inflict their abuse. It sure wouldn’t surprise me to see them try to redefine every second weekend as being equal time or equal parenting. First of all the language below does tend to negate the claim this is some sort of private litigation between private parties. Instead it is the government imposing obligations and responsibilities. Second, when was the last time you heard government joint custody legislation used as an excuse to upset the status quo of a long term sole custodial woman. Or hear of a man getting paid for exercising access. But most significant of all, the discussion of time goes directly against well established precedent from when men tried to make the same claim. Judges won’t even uphold their owns laws let alone the ones passed by the government.
Nepaulv. Nepaul, 2004 CanLII 5067 (ON SC)
 Both parents are, in my view, equally qualified to look after the children. There has been a relatively long term status quo respecting where the children reside – they have resided in the father’s home for the past six years. I am not concerned with how that cameabout. The fact is that they are in a stable environment and I do not propose interfering with it. On the other hand, I cannot accept theresidency history as a basis for granting father sole custody. This would be contrary to the direction in which parliament is legislating thecourts. It would also be contrary to the children’s best interest. The legislation in progress is meant to reflect social and judicial recognition of the fact that the children’s best interests are to be dealt with, not on the basis of “awarding” a parent “custody”, but on the basis of “imposing”“parental responsibility” on parents. In this spirit, therefore, therewill be, given the present state of the legislation, an order for “joint custody”. The regime to be imposed will be a “split custody” regime.
 However, most of the time during the week that the children wouldbe with father would be sleeping time while the time with mother would require at an absolute minimum at least twice the amount of direct intervention in thechildren’s care. “Weighting” the parent’s relative time in this manner would result in a rough ratio of three days with father and two days with mother per week.
 Assuming childcare cost at $10.00 per hour, it would cost $250 per week or roughly $1,000 per month, if mother was not providing the 25 hoursper week care that she does. Based on their relative incomes, father would be responsible for roughly 63 percent of this or $630 per month. The value of the time, therefore, that mother puts into her very onerous responsibilities more than offsets the child support claim