Justice denied for this Dad

As Father's Day quickly approaches, Alan Mills, aka Spiderman and Decontamination Man, is still being ignored by the legal system. Vernon-based judges and lawyers treat him as a common beggar, glancing their eyes to other places as he parades in front of the courthouse with his placard, which advocates fathers' rights in custody cases.
And what's more he's not a nutcase.
In fact this 49-year-old father of two girls, age 24 and 8, articulates his cause in down-to-earth terms and seems to be a lone voice, at least in the Okanagan, for fathers as being primary care-givers.
His placard-carrying days are far from over, in fact he estimates that 50,000 cars have honked from June 2001 until June 2005 even if the legal system has completely shunned him. Hhe intends, in the future, to be even more forceful in seeing that justice is done.
As I've said, Mills is not a nutcase, even if he has worn bizarre outfits to plead his case, since the retired Ministry of Forests (recreation) officer has won citizenship awards, a minor hockey coach of the year honor and accolades from the Merritt School District for his work with kids.
The chief advocate for a "child's right to equal co-parenting and join custody" has put a comphrensive point plan forward and in order for you to get a clearer picture, I'll give it to you, without comment from this Ol' Columnist:
* Our courts are biased (87% sole custody to the mother, 10% joint custody and 3% sole custody to the father).
* The court's don't weigh a father's parental-based references (affidavit material), even if there are 17 of them, including from several PH.d's.
* The courts don't consider the child's rights or wishes, especially if they are in favor of the father's wishes.
* Attending counselling, no matter how much, is of no value to fathers.
* Mothers can commit perjury in Provincial Family Court, while under oath, you can read it in the transcripts, yet even so, they will not be held to account, nor appeal in even the higher Supreme Court.
* The court judges use this "same brush attitude" on fathers in the Family courtroom, which followed the morning of the other men in their same Criminal courtrooms. All judges were once lawyers.
* Judges have no counselling, family dynamics training or little experience with any given family and yet it is these same judges whom decide the family's fate, in often, only a few hours of exposure to them.
* Lawyers exacerbate the problems and adversarial nature of newly separated/divorced relationships by counselling their client (parent), so that their client may win, discounting their opponent (the other parent) which inevitably castrates the child's rights and best interests.
* Courts consider fathers as mere 'visitors' in their children's lives, with no necessity for continuous, meaningful relationships.
* The father is often 'hobbled' by the Child Support payments he pays. He must use his remaining funds, if he has any, to care for the child while in his care, meanwhile, the mother collects 120% more than she should, relative to her time with the child and her due support when compared on a gender-equal basis.
* Once the courts begin a tirade (removal of Joint Custody) upon a father, they like to continue 'upping the ante' by removing further, deeper paternal ties (i.e. Guardianship rights).
* Mothers often make false allegations, with their lawyers present and to the absolute extremes of falsehood, with no evidence or recompense. This places the father in a weak position of 'doubtful in the mind of the court.'
* Sole-custodial mothers may believe that 'Joint custody can never work for any child, even if both parents are fully co-operative and communicative' (Judge Smith, Kelowna).
* Judges can forecast that a child will, immediately following his Order for Sole Custody to a mother, no longer have any paternal family contact, where one was once vibrant and read for a child, and yet still feel good about their order. This must be their version of "a child's best interests"?
* There is no case law to support fathers, since the Second World War, as primary care-givers, so we live in the 21st century ... big deal, what's the rush? Is this the freedom, our fathers died for?
Although Mills outlined ever further need for fathers' rights for their children, perhaps, one statement stood out above all the others: Hell hath no fury, like the wrath of a woman's scorn! Mothers can move with the child and not tell the father, nor the courts and still be rewarded for their dishonesty, by the courts.
Then he emphasized, "Please don't misunderstand me here, there are plenty of wonderful, good mothers out there, for they are precious to us all. They honk just as loud as the dads."
In conclusion, Mills was forceful when he said, "I will be in front of the Vernon Courthouse for the remainder of my life, each week, at noon on Friday Family Court Day, in hopes they might one day hear our pleas for change."