Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:44 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 84
Doctor Martins is on a distinguished road
Default

For sure there was no motion or cross motion. In fact not only did I file the motion with regards to custody, the party about youtube was just one of many things in my exes reply that had more to do with mud slinging and trying to make me look bad. The judge only mentioned the youtube stuff as saying about how there are sexual predators. Reality is that a child is more likely to be molested by a coach or teacher or priest or family member than some random person online. Thats kind of a boogie man hysteria . So it was a bias to one of a bunch of slander launched at me by my ex. I didnt have a chance to rebut it, and for sure it was over reaching saying ALL social media. Also as a practical matter I have a viable youtube channel that generates money as my primary job is a producer. I have financial partners in my channel and it gets both ad revenue as well as sponsor revenue. Also I should add that none of the content is illegal or child porn. And then there is a slippery slope of what is inappropriate.. who decides that? These get into a whole freedom of expression debate because what might be offensive to one person is not to another.. and if its not illegal.. having bugs bunny hit someone with an anvil is violence while a muslim might think a woman with face not covered is offensive.. There are a bunch of arguments I would have made had this properly been litigated.

I am hoping you are right about appeal as i think it would be the best option if it was something I could do viably.

Oh and thanks for everyone's feedback.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2017, 11:02 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Wow, this OP must be rich and like to waste legal fees fighting over social media postings. Take the stuff down and save yourself a 30,000 - 50,000 appeal on nonsense.

Prior to the wide-scale use of the internet... Parents didn't need to post their children in public places. If you want to share photos and videos of your family with other trusted people then use a service specific to that.

You are going to have a long, hard-fought and very expensive family law matter if this is what you are focused on. Do your child a favor and eliminate the conflict by taking down everything.

Seriously... This should be on the bottom of your priority list.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2017, 12:40 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 84
Doctor Martins is on a distinguished road
Default

I self represent. Its also my business and where the future is going exponentially. Kids are in all kinds of entertainment properties. Half the movies shot here would have to be shut down if this was the law.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2017, 01:06 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
I self represent.
Consider this recent comment from the Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz:

Quote:
1. How did parents ever raise children before Family Court was invented?

2. Where did they scribble their endless complaints about one another, before we gave them fill-in-the-blank forms called affidavits?

3. In Hamilton, where did angry, vengeful parents hang out on Fridays at 10:00 a.m., before the advent of “motions court”?

4. As a judicial system, we like to think we’re helping people. Sometimes we even succeed.

5. But when many of our regular customers regard repeated trips to Family Court as “no big deal”, perhaps all we’re really doing is creating lazy parents. It’s easier to dump a mess on a judge, than to grow up and raise your own children.

6. Most families come to us once, at a time of crisis. They solve their problems. And they never come back.

7. But our system is plagued by a small group of frequent flyers who keep adding new chapters to their horror story. They keep coming back because we’ve made it easy for them. And perversely, they almost seem to enjoy it.

8. There are all sorts of reasons that this has to stop.

9. As a community, we can’t afford to fund courtrooms as a playground for petulance.

10. But most importantly, these endless court cases are usually about children. And no matter how much parents pretend that each salvo is “for the sake of the child”, the reality is that endless conflict and litigation inevitably breeds family misery. And children end up being robbed of their joy and innocence.
Peters-Webb v. Cloutier, 2017 ONSC 6139 (CanLII)
Date: 2017-10-16
Docket: 3612/14
Citation: Peters-Webb v. Cloutier, 2017 ONSC 6139 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/h6mhg

In addition, being "self-represented" is not a good thing. I would recommend you identify yourself to the court and others as "unrepresented". Why? Well, if we use WorkingDad as an example, he never uses or pretends to be self-represented. His reasons are sound.

1. Self-representation gives the impression you don't want representation by a properly trained professional.

2. "A man (or woman) who is his (her) own lawyer has a fool for his client. A lawyer who represents himself (herself) has a client who is an even bigger fool." -- There is significant truth to this proverb.

Why use "unrepresented" over "self-represented"?

You are telling the justice and everyone else that if you had the option to... You would hire a proper professional to represent you. You are at the very last option but, would like to have a lawyer.

Finally, don't think that you are not incurring costs. Judges often order massive costs awards against "self-represented" folks in court. It is very common now thanks to the efforts of WorkingDad and his resulting case law.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2017, 01:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 84
Doctor Martins is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Consider this recent comment from the Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz:



Peters-Webb v. Cloutier, 2017 ONSC 6139 (CanLII)
Date: 2017-10-16
Docket: 3612/14
Citation: Peters-Webb v. Cloutier, 2017 ONSC 6139 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/h6mhg

In addition, being "self-represented" is not a good thing. I would recommend you identify yourself to the court and others as "unrepresented". Why? Well, if we use WorkingDad as an example, he never uses or pretends to be self-represented. His reasons are sound.

1. Self-representation gives the impression you don't want representation by a properly trained professional.

2. "A man (or woman) who is his (her) own lawyer has a fool for his client. A lawyer who represents himself (herself) has a client who is an even bigger fool." -- There is significant truth to this proverb.

Why use "unrepresented" over "self-represented"?

You are telling the justice and everyone else that if you had the option to... You would hire a proper professional to represent you. You are at the very last option but, would like to have a lawyer.

Finally, don't think that you are not incurring costs. Judges often order massive costs awards against "self-represented" folks in court. It is very common now thanks to the efforts of WorkingDad and his resulting case law.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Thanks Ill remember unrepresented.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2017, 01:19 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
I self represent. Its also my business and where the future is going exponentially. Kids are in all kinds of entertainment properties. Half the movies shot here would have to be shut down if this was the law.
So, you profit from your children? I don't really understand your point. You are mixing your "business" with your "parenting". You need to separate those concerns and balance what is best for your children. Don't make your family law matter a case for being a "justice warrior". It is not in your children's best interests to do so.

The legal complexities of parents who are living separate and apart and their children being employed (or used) for the entertainment is a very complex matter. Why do you think the idea of emancipation came about in the child acting world? Because parents are often idiots and do stupid things.

You now have to not only consider the CLRA (Children's Law Reform Act) but, Protecting Child Performers Act (PCPA) also when you make arguments as to why your children should be in your videos... Which you profit from. Are you prepared to do everything required by PCPA and obtain the consents necessary from the other parent? Is the other parent going to consent? Clearly, they haven't.

Save your children the conflict... Hire a child who's parents both consent to their use and are paid for their services in accordance with the PCPA. Don't make your use of your children in your professional work a complex family law issue. You don't owe society or anyone the time and energy to argue this. Let them be kids! Do you want this for them as an adult?

You have to learn FAST that the court system is small "c" conservative. They will opt to remove children in a family matter from conflict over your professional and personal opinion. Their duty is to the child's best interests. Parents fighting over youtube videos and the use of their children in a public space (for profit or not) is something they won't generally entertain. They will do exactly what they have already done...

You want to settle your matter as soon as possible. Furthermore, you want to be ready to compromise on things. This is something I would recommend you compromise over. If you had a lawyer the lawyer would tell you the same thing probably.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2017, 01:27 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 84
Doctor Martins is on a distinguished road
Default

I don't really care if she is in future videos or even the two videos at issue. The problem was the the judge made an overall motion that was not even what she intended. The videos where simple videos of my daughter doing whats called toy unboxing which is a category on its own. Several you tubers doing this are pulling in 7 figures. She was enjoying it. But since then I changed the channel to just adults however past videos also produce income on an ongoing basis.

I offered to remove the videos in question, the problem is my ex said all videos like the order even though she knows that the judge clarified this in court but not on paper. So I'm going to do B14 asking for clarification.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2017, 02:28 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
I don't really care if she is in future videos or even the two videos at issue.
Then the matter is settled. You are going to follow the order as written. You really have no other option that is worth your time or effort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
The problem was the the judge made an overall motion that was not even what she intended.
"The judge made an order that was not possibly what was intended" is the proper way to phrase it.

Here is your issue... The order is enforced as written. So follow it as written. You could ask the judge for clarification (which you did) but, the judge chose not to change the order. The other problem is that a subsequent judge who deals with this matter will expect you to follow it as written.

You could appeal it but, what error in law did the judge make? Appeals are horribly complex and not worth the effort on something like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
The videos where simple videos of my daughter doing whats called toy unboxing which is a category on its own.
Very familiar with the concept on YouTube and other similar sites. Watch someone open a package.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
Several you tubers doing this are pulling in 7 figures. She was enjoying it. But since then I changed the channel to just adults however past videos also produce income on an ongoing basis.
Very familiar with the "unboxing" phenomenon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
I offered to remove the videos in question, the problem is my ex said all videos like the order even though she knows that the judge clarified this in court but not on paper. So I'm going to do B14 asking for clarification.
You can assume that it is all videos that contain the children and not literally "all videos". But, if you need clarification you should talk to a lawyer. Especially if this is your business. Further reason you should have a lawyer represent you.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2017, 03:56 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 84
Doctor Martins is on a distinguished road
Default

the judge at a later motion has suggested I file a 14b asking for clarification.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2017, 04:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,965
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

You do realize that these clarification dates take up the courts time and push back legitimate cases for things like custody, child support, parenting time etc right? So because you dont want to be reasonable and take down a couple of videos you are now bumping cases that truly need an immediate answer just so you can have a judge waste their time saying take down all videos?

Which means that many of the other parents on here who are desperately waiting to get in front of a judge to get money or actual time with their kids are having to wait longer for people like you who cant simply say “maybe I should just err on the side of caution and assume its all”.

*smh*
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
judges order, motions, shared parenting, youtube


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spousal/Child Support Question Jenny Divorce & Family Law 6 10-01-2013 01:01 AM
How to change Interim Restraining Order??? kp300 Divorce & Family Law 2 09-21-2013 12:52 PM
Without prejudice in Final order? SingingDad Divorce & Family Law 9 01-28-2013 07:27 PM
How far do Grandparent rights go? sasha1 Divorce & Family Law 13 02-13-2011 01:46 PM
The Concept: Standard of living gooddadgoingmad Divorce & Family Law 7 02-20-2006 10:59 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 PM.