PRETZER: No, you should not be guaranteed access to your children

Just because you have had a child does not mean you should have guaranteed, consistent access to that child if you behave poorly.

Why do people who cause Amber Alerts get defended by some people? File photo

Share Adjust Comment Print

Another Amber Alert has affected Alberta and as always I am appalled by some of the responses to the emergency.

I was sitting at my home office this weekend when the face of little Waylon Armstrong flashed across my computer screen after I was woken earlier in the dark hours of the day by a text message detailing his dire circumstances. The child had been taken from his home near Hinton by his father, who was thought by authorities to have had a rifle with him and is reported to have gotten into an “altercation” with the mom.

Thankfully young Waylon was unharmed, and, to be fair, the general public cannot know the whole story surrounding circumstances like this.

But, I must admit I was absolutely sickened when I turned to the cesspool of the internet (Twitter) to see what people were saying about it all.

Pockets of comments blamed the mother and said that the father had a right to take his son in such a way, and, even though what he did constituted an abduction, that was not sufficient grounds to keep him from his son. That is nonsense and a mindset that needs to go away.

Just because you have had a child does not mean you should have guaranteed, consistent access to that child if you behave poorly. Any search for information on custody laws in this country will tell you that access to youth for those that created them can only be blocked in very narrow circumstances like death threats or psychological damage. That is far too generous and numerous examples back up my view.

Earlier this year a father who served time in Newfoundland and Labrador for failing to provide his malnourished children with basic care was awarded supervised visits with his offspring. In the case, one child had missed 89 school days out of 146 total, another’s teeth were so rotted all four in the front of their mouth had to be removed, and, when serving an eviction, officials found their home was smeared with feces.

Does someone that incompetent and uncaring really deserve a second chance? I would not trust him to run a lemonade stand.

South of the border lies a man in the state of New Jersey who has made headlines around the world for naming his children after Nazi party figures. Isidore Heath Hitler has named some of his nine children with five women after Adolph, Heinrich Himmler and the Aryan Nation. He has had legal trouble and allegations of domestic violence – which, in some cases have been found to be unmerited by investigators – and drawn the support of diverse defenders who say that, though he has hideous views, one should be allowed to name a child after anything.

Is that someone who should be allowed to be around their children? If you have the deficit of common sense to name your child after one of the most vile figures in all of human history, you should get exiled to a deserted island in the Arctic Ocean along with your foolish friends.

The bottom line is this, death threats and psychological abuse absolutely should be conditions to block someone from seeing their kids and so should a whole heaping helping of other things that are not presently. No one has a right to spend time with a child. They are thinking, feeling people the same as you or I and what is best for them would be to not treat them like goats to be bartered in an ancient wedding.

That is my last thought of the year. Merry Christmas, happy holidays and I will be back.