Does anyone know a good family therapist? Someone willing to tackle sweeping dysfunction and complex constitutional family dynamics? Let me tell you a bit about this family. Mom has full custody of the kids. She made ‘em, and the courts are clear that she has
And on the flipside, perhaps dad has been giving mom money all along to buy things for the kids, which she has not done. So when dad comes to town, he buys some things for the kids that mom should’ve bought from the child support payments and other monies to support the kids. As in real life domestic situations, Dads are often painted as the bad guys… when Moms are not always squeaky clean either.
Mom needs to stop seeing everything Dad does as a threat to her being the Mom. And Dad needs to stop buying the kids gifts without first talking it over with Mom (esp. gifts where Mom gets stuck with additional expenses and costs to maintain the gift). They both need to get over themselves and learn to be able to be in the same room and talk reasonably about what's best for the kids. Mom needs to recognize that Dad's gifts can really help the kids, if they're well chosen and appropriate. Dad needs to recognize that, despite him being richer than Mom, that dropping a bunch of gifts with no notice or thought can be really disruptive to plans that Mom and the kids may have made. It's a very old story -- they need to learn to communicate if they're going to co-parent.
Beautiful analogy Lisa! Like most dysfunctional families Mom will continue to dictate what she wants and not necessarily what benefits the kids. We need a new Mom. What we will probably get is a new Dad. Then who will Mom squabble with?
First of all mom may have custody of the children, but she hasn't been taking care of them very well. She works, so she's got an income, but she keeps spending this income on lavish vehicles and going out with her friends, spending it on frivolous things and falling behind on paying her utilities, her mortgage and utilities . So basically she's an irresponsible mother.
When her children are sick she doesn't take care of them by bringing them to the doctor, because she doesn't believe in doctors, even though she doesn't have to pay for them.
She refuses to vaccinate her children to protect them from serious threats like covid as well.
She tries to use homemade remedies to fix things like heart issues, major illnesses, and things that should be treated my professional doctors. No common sense, doesn't realize that she's putting her children at risk. Because of her struggle financially she isn't paying her daycare funds and risks being kicked out.
None of this shows a mature parent that manages her money responsibly and uses it for the right things.
Her family is starting to worry about her children and that they may be struggling in school, because she doesn't believe in formal education and is trying to indoctrinate them in religion, even though she didn't grow up being forced into a religion.
The dad is standing back with absolutely zero control, watching his family being treated abusively but can't really prove anything, so he attempts to step in and just supply some of the things, that they need. Like help with the housing costs, power, water, heat, funding for her mortgage. Even tries to help with groceries, and cut her costs for daycare so that she doesn't have to struggle.
But funny she just wants the money so she would rather he give that to her and let her distribute it where she needs it.
And having had experience with people that had money issues like gambling and stuff before, he would rather pay her mortgage/ daycare directly, then just hand over the money because he knows that's not being used properly and he has witnesses to that. Neighbors that he's friends with that have kept in touch, that tell him the things that are going on behind his back. And are reporting this information to him directly.
So he's being a good dad and sometimes good dads have to make tough decisions, to help their children in ways that they need, that the other parent isn't doing. And handing over money and saying here use this to buy clothes, or use it for whatever you need for the house, is not always the best way of dealing with the problem.
And I say this from past knowledge of a family member that went through this very problem. And all the while his children were being neglected and abused, but it was difficult to prove it.
And the court just increased his child support costs. Which didn't help at all.
Lucky for us we can actually get a new mom. Some of us will turn red in the face even purple at times with a new mom because this is what happened the last time we got one. Some of us welcome the thought of a mother mature enough to try to get along with dad. But by then we'll probably have a new dad. We've seen this potential new dad in Ottawa too coming around and ranting and raving he blames our dad for everything too. Mom loves that. He and mom seem to have all the same dysfunctions so I wonder if he'll take us for granted the same way some of our other dad's did in the past. Some of the siblings didn't even notice they were deep in denial. We got some big problems to solve in this family that's why it's so much easier to just blame dad. Maybe the new mom or dad will be savvy enough to not only get along with dad in Ottawa but actually face the problems we have and begin to solve them. Because I don't think there is a therapist alive who can help our present mom or our potential new dad in Ottawa.
This constitutional division of powers is a very big topic. I could write a lot about it. I could then send links to your readers about it, but you don’t like me doing that, so…
I do not think feuding parents is a good analogy for the issues between the federal and provincial governments in Canada.
It is like this; we live in a country called Canada. Alberta is not an independent state, it is a subnational government within Canada. It cannot be allowed to try to act like an independent state.
Government has always functioned poorly in Canada. This has held the country back more than people realize. The problem has been that the basic constitutional structure was thought out poorly to begin with.
It was assumed in ye olden days that mother Britain would settle by fiat any constitutional problems between governments in Canada. Then after the 1930s Britain just walked away from it, and seemed to assume it was just handing over to the Americans.
So, if you want a family analogy to Canada’s problems, it is that of the abandoned child who was left without the where-with-all to make it in the world as a functioning adult. One of the more serious consequences of this is that provincial governments have gone right out of line. They need to be knocked back into their place; HARD.
Of course this is not going to happen within the framework of the existing arrangements. It will be imposed from outside, by decree. If that does not get done soon by the right kind of people with the right motives, then Canada will be dismantled by the wrong kind of people with the wrong motivations.
Hi Lisa! As a former journalist from Latin America, now living in Canada for the past 10 years, I follow politics here, specifically in Calgary, and it still puzzles me what is the "ideal" involvement or behaviour the federal government should have in the provinces. I agree that the case you illustrate both parents are acting in a quite immature manner, but how present should the absent dad be?
For what I have seen in other opportunities, whenever the federal government steps in, provinces tend to say that the feds are overstepping or violating the independence provinces have over their jurisdiction, which by the way seems to be a vary grey area. I'm not defending mom or dad, I'm just genuinely curious to know if there's an ideal scenario for this relationship.
This reply to my post is ignorant. I reply to it because this thread could make a good trial run for a blog article of my own. Something needs to be said about the failure of Canadian government.
The abandoned child analogy referred only to the Canadian nation. The solution is an overthrow of the existing setup and establishment of constitutional arrangements appropriate for a sovereign nation. The provinces are the big obstacle to this.
I was living in Alberta when Lougheed was premier. He was a disaster for the country because the federal government failed to stand up to him and his crap, in the interests of the nation and even the people of Alberta. I and some friends and relatives of mine were very harmed by the attacks on the health and social services systems which went on in the latter part of Uncle Peter’s tenure.
What Canada got from Lougheed was the legitimation of such attacks. He engineered the “Lougheed formula” which makes impossible any attempt to adapt government to be used for the common good. This has made a popular revolution the only solution for the institutional gridlock which is destroying the country.
Lougheed did not “see where the puck is going”. He and the creepy, shadowy interests behind him forced events in this bad direction. The present UCP government in Alberta is one of the negative consequences of this.
Here is what really should have happened back in Lougheed times. I advocated for this in those times. The oil business should have been nationalized. Administration of Health, education, and welfare should have been but under national administration until the provincial government was prepared to run it correctly. The province’s finances should have been put under federal management to prevent a ‘resource trap’ economy developing.
Provincial politicians who decide they are going to ‘stand up for’ their province, actually for special interests hostile to the public interest, should simply be removed. In some cases, they should be criminally charged. You cannot run a country with provinces acting like they have ‘interests’ outside the national interest, and can override national government.
Unfortunately, Danielle Smith isn't an expert on the Constitution, and on matters of government powers, and how they are distributed. Equally unfortunate, is that people are quick to believe anything she says, and they go along with it, oblivious to the consequences. Former politicians, have already said that what Danielle Smith is trying to achieve, cannot have the outcome she wants. Her Sovereignty Act is a classic example. The UCP are no chapions of democracy, but the courts will have to teach them a lesson, on how things are supposed to function. I pity the people who were deceived by Danielle Smith.
Great analogy, Lisa. What I see Danielle Smith behaving like is like a petulant teenager, who wants to tell Daddy how things will be. She doesn't like being put in her place, by Daddy and bullies her younger siblings in retaliation.
And on the flipside, perhaps dad has been giving mom money all along to buy things for the kids, which she has not done. So when dad comes to town, he buys some things for the kids that mom should’ve bought from the child support payments and other monies to support the kids. As in real life domestic situations, Dads are often painted as the bad guys… when Moms are not always squeaky clean either.
Mom needs to stop seeing everything Dad does as a threat to her being the Mom. And Dad needs to stop buying the kids gifts without first talking it over with Mom (esp. gifts where Mom gets stuck with additional expenses and costs to maintain the gift). They both need to get over themselves and learn to be able to be in the same room and talk reasonably about what's best for the kids. Mom needs to recognize that Dad's gifts can really help the kids, if they're well chosen and appropriate. Dad needs to recognize that, despite him being richer than Mom, that dropping a bunch of gifts with no notice or thought can be really disruptive to plans that Mom and the kids may have made. It's a very old story -- they need to learn to communicate if they're going to co-parent.
Beautiful analogy Lisa! Like most dysfunctional families Mom will continue to dictate what she wants and not necessarily what benefits the kids. We need a new Mom. What we will probably get is a new Dad. Then who will Mom squabble with?
First of all mom may have custody of the children, but she hasn't been taking care of them very well. She works, so she's got an income, but she keeps spending this income on lavish vehicles and going out with her friends, spending it on frivolous things and falling behind on paying her utilities, her mortgage and utilities . So basically she's an irresponsible mother.
When her children are sick she doesn't take care of them by bringing them to the doctor, because she doesn't believe in doctors, even though she doesn't have to pay for them.
She refuses to vaccinate her children to protect them from serious threats like covid as well.
She tries to use homemade remedies to fix things like heart issues, major illnesses, and things that should be treated my professional doctors. No common sense, doesn't realize that she's putting her children at risk. Because of her struggle financially she isn't paying her daycare funds and risks being kicked out.
None of this shows a mature parent that manages her money responsibly and uses it for the right things.
Her family is starting to worry about her children and that they may be struggling in school, because she doesn't believe in formal education and is trying to indoctrinate them in religion, even though she didn't grow up being forced into a religion.
The dad is standing back with absolutely zero control, watching his family being treated abusively but can't really prove anything, so he attempts to step in and just supply some of the things, that they need. Like help with the housing costs, power, water, heat, funding for her mortgage. Even tries to help with groceries, and cut her costs for daycare so that she doesn't have to struggle.
But funny she just wants the money so she would rather he give that to her and let her distribute it where she needs it.
And having had experience with people that had money issues like gambling and stuff before, he would rather pay her mortgage/ daycare directly, then just hand over the money because he knows that's not being used properly and he has witnesses to that. Neighbors that he's friends with that have kept in touch, that tell him the things that are going on behind his back. And are reporting this information to him directly.
So he's being a good dad and sometimes good dads have to make tough decisions, to help their children in ways that they need, that the other parent isn't doing. And handing over money and saying here use this to buy clothes, or use it for whatever you need for the house, is not always the best way of dealing with the problem.
And I say this from past knowledge of a family member that went through this very problem. And all the while his children were being neglected and abused, but it was difficult to prove it.
And the court just increased his child support costs. Which didn't help at all.
Lisa Young just keeps getting better !
Lucky for us we can actually get a new mom. Some of us will turn red in the face even purple at times with a new mom because this is what happened the last time we got one. Some of us welcome the thought of a mother mature enough to try to get along with dad. But by then we'll probably have a new dad. We've seen this potential new dad in Ottawa too coming around and ranting and raving he blames our dad for everything too. Mom loves that. He and mom seem to have all the same dysfunctions so I wonder if he'll take us for granted the same way some of our other dad's did in the past. Some of the siblings didn't even notice they were deep in denial. We got some big problems to solve in this family that's why it's so much easier to just blame dad. Maybe the new mom or dad will be savvy enough to not only get along with dad in Ottawa but actually face the problems we have and begin to solve them. Because I don't think there is a therapist alive who can help our present mom or our potential new dad in Ottawa.
Hi, Lisa
This constitutional division of powers is a very big topic. I could write a lot about it. I could then send links to your readers about it, but you don’t like me doing that, so…
I do not think feuding parents is a good analogy for the issues between the federal and provincial governments in Canada.
It is like this; we live in a country called Canada. Alberta is not an independent state, it is a subnational government within Canada. It cannot be allowed to try to act like an independent state.
Government has always functioned poorly in Canada. This has held the country back more than people realize. The problem has been that the basic constitutional structure was thought out poorly to begin with.
It was assumed in ye olden days that mother Britain would settle by fiat any constitutional problems between governments in Canada. Then after the 1930s Britain just walked away from it, and seemed to assume it was just handing over to the Americans.
So, if you want a family analogy to Canada’s problems, it is that of the abandoned child who was left without the where-with-all to make it in the world as a functioning adult. One of the more serious consequences of this is that provincial governments have gone right out of line. They need to be knocked back into their place; HARD.
Of course this is not going to happen within the framework of the existing arrangements. It will be imposed from outside, by decree. If that does not get done soon by the right kind of people with the right motives, then Canada will be dismantled by the wrong kind of people with the wrong motivations.
Say what, Lisa and Friends?
https://adultsincharge.blog/
Since Dr. Johnnie Walker would be the quickest therapist but inappropriate. Our problem here is deeper and harder to resolve but possible.
Chantal Hébert suggested a hard place to start,”Grow up!”.
Maybe the kids could go to university and get away from Mom and Dad.
Hi Lisa! As a former journalist from Latin America, now living in Canada for the past 10 years, I follow politics here, specifically in Calgary, and it still puzzles me what is the "ideal" involvement or behaviour the federal government should have in the provinces. I agree that the case you illustrate both parents are acting in a quite immature manner, but how present should the absent dad be?
For what I have seen in other opportunities, whenever the federal government steps in, provinces tend to say that the feds are overstepping or violating the independence provinces have over their jurisdiction, which by the way seems to be a vary grey area. I'm not defending mom or dad, I'm just genuinely curious to know if there's an ideal scenario for this relationship.
Lawyers rather than therapists are the beneficiarys of the scenario.
This reply to my post is ignorant. I reply to it because this thread could make a good trial run for a blog article of my own. Something needs to be said about the failure of Canadian government.
The abandoned child analogy referred only to the Canadian nation. The solution is an overthrow of the existing setup and establishment of constitutional arrangements appropriate for a sovereign nation. The provinces are the big obstacle to this.
I was living in Alberta when Lougheed was premier. He was a disaster for the country because the federal government failed to stand up to him and his crap, in the interests of the nation and even the people of Alberta. I and some friends and relatives of mine were very harmed by the attacks on the health and social services systems which went on in the latter part of Uncle Peter’s tenure.
What Canada got from Lougheed was the legitimation of such attacks. He engineered the “Lougheed formula” which makes impossible any attempt to adapt government to be used for the common good. This has made a popular revolution the only solution for the institutional gridlock which is destroying the country.
Lougheed did not “see where the puck is going”. He and the creepy, shadowy interests behind him forced events in this bad direction. The present UCP government in Alberta is one of the negative consequences of this.
Here is what really should have happened back in Lougheed times. I advocated for this in those times. The oil business should have been nationalized. Administration of Health, education, and welfare should have been but under national administration until the provincial government was prepared to run it correctly. The province’s finances should have been put under federal management to prevent a ‘resource trap’ economy developing.
Provincial politicians who decide they are going to ‘stand up for’ their province, actually for special interests hostile to the public interest, should simply be removed. In some cases, they should be criminally charged. You cannot run a country with provinces acting like they have ‘interests’ outside the national interest, and can override national government.
Maybe mom shouldn’t sit around watching Fox News all day.
Unfortunately, Danielle Smith isn't an expert on the Constitution, and on matters of government powers, and how they are distributed. Equally unfortunate, is that people are quick to believe anything she says, and they go along with it, oblivious to the consequences. Former politicians, have already said that what Danielle Smith is trying to achieve, cannot have the outcome she wants. Her Sovereignty Act is a classic example. The UCP are no chapions of democracy, but the courts will have to teach them a lesson, on how things are supposed to function. I pity the people who were deceived by Danielle Smith.
Great analogy, Lisa. What I see Danielle Smith behaving like is like a petulant teenager, who wants to tell Daddy how things will be. She doesn't like being put in her place, by Daddy and bullies her younger siblings in retaliation.
Wonderful tongue in cheek sarcasm. Therapy won't help.