Once the residential schools fell out of
favour, the governments slowly began to close them and instead opted to take indigenous
children from their
families to place them to be fostered and adopted by non-indigenous
families.
«We are worried that increased competition for school places will further exacerbate the social segregation in schools, with wealthier parents able to buy properties closest to
favoured schools and
children from poorer
families being squeezed out and concentrated in the less popular schools.
The Ontario Superior Court has ruled in
favour of Aboriginal Plaintiffs who were removed
from their homes as
children and placed with non-Aboriginal
families (commonly referred to as the Read More
FAMILY LAW — APPEAL — INTERIM PARENTING — Where there is nothing anomalous about the primary judge finding, by virtue of s 61DA (3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)(«the Act»), that it would «not be appropriate» to apply the presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility, while going on to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility ¬ Where it can be seen that the primary judge addressed what was necessary from s 65DAA of the Act, given the parameters of the dispute, and how the parties» respective cases were presented — Where the primary judge adequately and appropriately considered what she is obliged to in determining where the best interests of the children lie, bearing in mind that that consideration is framed by the parameters of the issues in dispute, and how each party has presented their case — Where there is no merit in the grounds of appeal ¬ Appeal dism
FAMILY LAW — APPEAL — INTERIM PARENTING — Where there is nothing anomalous about the primary judge finding, by virtue of s 61DA (3) of the
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)(«the Act»), that it would «not be appropriate» to apply the presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility, while going on to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility ¬ Where it can be seen that the primary judge addressed what was necessary from s 65DAA of the Act, given the parameters of the dispute, and how the parties» respective cases were presented — Where the primary judge adequately and appropriately considered what she is obliged to in determining where the best interests of the children lie, bearing in mind that that consideration is framed by the parameters of the issues in dispute, and how each party has presented their case — Where there is no merit in the grounds of appeal ¬ Appeal dism
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)(«the Act»), that it would «not be appropriate» to apply the presumption in
favour of equal shared parental responsibility, while going on to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility ¬ Where it can be seen that the primary judge addressed what was necessary
from s 65DAA of the Act, given the parameters of the dispute, and how the parties» respective cases were presented — Where the primary judge adequately and appropriately considered what she is obliged to in determining where the best interests of the
children lie, bearing in mind that that consideration is framed by the parameters of the issues in dispute, and how each party has presented their case — Where there is no merit in the grounds of appeal ¬ Appeal dismissed.