Second copy sent 16nov00 

To Kerry Pollard M.P. for St. Albans

From Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields, St. Albans.

13.10 4oct00

In our brief discussion ten minutes ago in St. Albans Market, you undertook

to submit three written questions to the Home Secretary. They are as

follows, and as agreed by you.

To the Home Secretary;

1. Where in National or International Declaration or Law or Statute or Case

Law is a child's right of access to its parent enshrined?

2. Please would you define the term "parent".

3. Please would you define the term "family".

Yours etc., Kerry Pollard M.P.

Thank you for your cooperation. Ivor Catt 4oct00

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Walter H. Schneider <sheep_@telusplanet.net>

To: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>

Cc: <patriarchy@egroups.com>

Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 3:01 PM

Subject: Re: [Patriarchy] Re: Fw: Manual

 

> Dear Ivor,

>

> You asked in your letter to Poyser (Poysner?): "Where in International

> Law or Statute or Declaration or in National Case Law or Statute is a

> child's right of access to its parent enshrined?"

>

> To my knowledge it is not enshrined in any laws anywhere, *but once

> upon a time it was!*

>

> Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools (Liberal) did some research of case law

> to determine where and when the doctrine "In the best Interest of the

> child" originated." She reported on her findings at the Calgary

> Workshop on Family Conflict (Peter Lougheed Centre, 1998 09 26).

>

> Senator Cools presented an analysis of the doctrine

> "In the best interest of the child." She had found that the first

> time the term had been mentioned in any legislation was in a 19th

> Century ruling, in a hearing by the Lord Chancellor in Britain -- the

> highest Court in the U.K., responsible for questions of judiciary

> equitability and ethics -- in which it became established that

> children have the right to both of their parents and that the King

> will be the protector of that right. She then recounted a trail of

> decisions during which that premise became modified repeatedly until

> it has come to mean today that children are the property of, and an

> adjunct to, their mothers, with most of those changes having taken

> place during the last three decades. She concluded by asking how it

> was possible to come from the beginnings of a doctrine with such

> noble intentions to where we are now.

>

> I'm sorry for not being able to tell you the case reference of the

> hearing in the Court of the Lord Chancellor. I don't take short hand,

> and the organizers of the work shop did not deliver on the promise to

> make available the tapes that were made at the workshop.

>

> However, you may be able to do something with the lead. It is doubtful

> that the Court of the Lord Chancellor heard all that many cases during

> the 19th century. If Senator Cools found the case then it should be

> possible to find it again.

>

> I tried to obtain a transcript of Senator Cools' presentation or a

> copy of Senator Anne C. Cools' notes pertaining to her speech, but her

> office told me that because the speech was not delivered in the Senate

> they could not make either available.

>

> My notes on the Workshop on Family conflict are accessible (when the

> server is up again -- it appears to be down at the moment) at

> <http://www.crosswinds.net/~fathersforlife/calgary.htm>.

>

> --Walter