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
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 05-20-2017, 04:17 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 55
Dad1985 is on a distinguished road
Default

Have a settlement date of June 27.
Should get the ocl report some time this week
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2017, 11:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,656
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
This case sounds cut and dry to me.

Your ex unilaterally and abruptly cut your child out of your life.

You've struggled with anxiety .. but have dealt with it and have documentation to prove it.

Your ex makes up stories about cigarette smoke to deny access. NOT COOL!

A judge has told her to give more access .. she's not listening.

Read up on "The Maximum Contact Principle". Judges rely on this a LOT. You're not addicted to drugs/alcohol .. no history of abuse, etc. Thus, your ability to parent is NOT compromised.

Read through this: http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...eration-18320/

Your ex will come in preaching "status quo" and how it shouldn't be disturbed. You will reply with .. "actually, it's a MANUFACTURED status quo" that you didn't consent to. She forced it upon you.

You dont need conferences my friend....you need a motion. If that doesn't work...a trial.
it's called little bit differently thna MANUFACTURED status quo ...

1. Should an almost two-year “status quo” created by manipulation and deceit prevail in a custody trial?

415. Mr. Drouillard expressed doubt that the Applicant would have been so sophisticated as to deliberately orchestrate or perpetuate conflict, in the hope of making the Respondent look bad, or making herself look like a victim.

416. I find it troubling that he seemed to ignore so many obvious signs of manipulation and deception. We now know that much of what the Applicant told a motions judge in her December 2, 2009 affidavit was untrue. And yet those lies changed everything, not only for the Respondent, but also for the child. A new status quo was created. With profound implications.

417. Given the fact that the social worker predicates his sole custody recommendation on his “assumption” that the mother will be properly motivated and better behaved in the future, it is unfortunate that he failed to test or challenge any of the Applicant mother’s manipulative and self-serving behaviours – in circumstances in which the Respondent virtually pleaded with him to look beyond the surface.

418. Creating a favourable status quo through falsehood and misrepresentation is not just a matter of litigation strategy: It is often tantamount to child abuse. It goes to the heart of “best interests” considerations; Parental judgment; The ability to sacrifice self-interest for the sake of the child; Awareness of the child’s need to have maximum contact with both parents.

419. If past behaviour is a predictor of the future, assessors and courts have an obligation to address – and seriously sanction – common and predictable strategic behaviours intended to create an inappropriate status quo.

485. The social worker focussed on the “status quo” without addressing the unacceptable manner in which it was created. More importantly, Mr. Drouillard appeared oblivious to the true predictive value of the status quo. The Applicant has lied and used every conceivable excuse to marginalize the Respondent and keep him out of child’s life. She’s so intent on hurting the Respondent, she doesn’t recognize – or care – that she’s hurting the child. And she shows absolutely no sign of changing.

486. That’s the real status quo.


S. 24(2)(c) The Length of Time the Child has Lived in a Stable Home Environment

534. I have carefully considered this. The Applicant argued strenuously – and to a large extent Mr. Drouillard agreed – that child has resided in a stable home environment with her since November 2009. However it happened, child is used to living primarily with his mother. Any significant disruption needs to be justified, and if appropriate, implemented in a sensitive manner.

535. But “status quo” is a complex issue. The Applicant urges the court not to disrupt the routine and relationships child is currently used to. But in November 2009 there was an equally beneficial “status quo” which she unhesitatingly extinguished, unilaterally terminating all access even though child had been used to seeing his father on a daily basis for the first 10 months of his life.

536. The Applicant still insists she was justified. Mr. Drouillard doesn’t agree. I don’t agree either.

537. Quite simply, the Applicant lied to create a lop-sided status quo. She continued to lie to perpetuate an advantageous strategic position, right to the eve of trial. Indeed, I find that she continued to lie at trial.

538. Lying to gain strategic advantage in a custody case is not only an affront to our family court system, it represents a fundamental deficit in parental judgment and trustworthiness. It must be dealt with firmly and decisively -- not as retribution -- but to protect the child from further interference and deprivation, where we have been placed on actual notice of bad faith parenting.

539. Simplistically, a “status quo” analysis often speaks to the quantity of parenting. But as the OCL social worker belatedly acknowledged during questioning, the more important assessment is quality of parenting. And in this respect, while the Applicant is generally a good mother – her exclusionary attitude toward the Respondent, combined with her questionable judgment in areas such as the child’s medical care, cause me to conclude that whatever “status quo” she created, it should not be continued.
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 05-22-2017, 01:49 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Love para. 537.. a "lop-sided" status quo. This caselaw needs to be replicated over and over my friend to make real change. Judges enjoyed employing its message in my case as well.

As the judge stated in so many words, Succeeding in court through falsehoods, although a common litigation strategy, is tantamount to child abuse.

The mother's argument that the child is doing well and thriving under the current conditions was nicely countered by the judge reminding her that the child was doing well living with his father before as well.

The more judges that follow suit to this case law, as mine have in my case, the more we will deter lying and scheming as a litigation strategies to achieve new lop-sided status quo's.

You can't just try to erase parents out of their children's lives because you break up or are mad or annoyed with them. Strict tests have to be met to deem somebody not fit to parent...and warring ex's are not qualified to objectively make rational decisions. The only way to stimulate change is for caselaw like the above to fill canlii.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 05-22-2017 at 02:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 06-05-2017, 01:51 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 55
Dad1985 is on a distinguished road
Default

Any recommendations on what can be done if the ocl for not provide the report 2-3 weeks after the disclosure meeting?
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 06-14-2017, 05:43 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 55
Dad1985 is on a distinguished road
Default

Hey Everybody!

So I received the OCL report.

After reading through it, It talks about the observation with my daughter and I. It goes on to say that i'm a competent parent, have a safe home, provide food, proper care, love, and an essentially a great parent.

It touches on my mental health but goes on to say that its all been spoken for with doctors notes and previous clinician records.

The overall summary as to why sole custody has been recommended to the mother is that we do not get along with each other.

Is this enough for a Judge to order sole?

From my understanding, Parallel Parenting is to be suggested and that it is not good enough simply that the parents do not get along.

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 06-27-2017, 06:08 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 55
Dad1985 is on a distinguished road
Default

Hey everyone

Need some help on the previous.

Had my settlement conference today.

Our offer put together a gradual increase starting in October to overnightd to an eventual shared after about a year and a half.

During the settlement convergence at Kitchener court house the judge completely ripped apart my side. She wasn't agreeable to joint. Thought the increase was too soon (mentioned over 5 years). Fully endorsed my ex to move as long as concent was given.

My lawyer mentioned that this is along the lines of how the judge operates.

At this point is it worth pursuing at trial?
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 06-27-2017, 07:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,656
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dad1985 View Post
Hey everyone

Need some help on the previous.

Had my settlement conference today.

Our offer put together a gradual increase starting in October to overnightd to an eventual shared after about a year and a half.

During the settlement convergence at Kitchener court house the judge completely ripped apart my side. She wasn't agreeable to joint. Thought the increase was too soon (mentioned over 5 years). Fully endorsed my ex to move as long as concent was given.

My lawyer mentioned that this is along the lines of how the judge operates.

At this point is it worth pursuing at trial?
Well too bad but take it as big win since you not going to have that judge for the trial. 5 years to get to 50/50 is insane...why not 15? Lets make it 18 an call it a day ...
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 06-27-2017, 09:38 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 55
Dad1985 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingDAD View Post
Well too bad but take it as big win since you not going to have that judge for the trial. 5 years to get to 50/50 is insane...why not 15? Lets make it 18 an call it a day ...
My lawyer said the exact same thing when we finished. She said look at the pros...in this jurisdiction you won't get any more extreme then that.

I do not want to sign off on sole custody. I am a good father.
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 06-28-2017, 06:33 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,530
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Take the judges oponion with grain of salt and go for joint custody and shared parenting. Don't settle for anything less. 5 years is too long. the children may be alienated by that time. I would go for 2 years.
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 06-28-2017, 06:37 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 55
Dad1985 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
Take the judges oponion with grain of salt and go for joint custody and shared parenting. Don't settle for anything less. 5 years is too long. the children may be alienated by that time. I would go for 2 years.

The ex feels a lot of confidence at this point with the ocl in her favor and after the settlement conference.

Obviously I on the other hand not so much. My lawyer did mention it was a gamble to go to trial and cant insure me that we win.

It is also at the kitchener court house from what I understand is far behind in custody arrangements
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Hamilton/GTA Section 30 Assessor Recommendations Halton_Dad Divorce & Family Law 6 05-24-2016 12:48 PM
Endorsements and Recommendations Of Dro Busch Divorce & Family Law 0 03-12-2016 07:26 AM
OCL recommendations MommyTime Divorce & Family Law 0 06-18-2014 04:24 PM
Understanding OCL Recommendations? OntarioDaddyMan Divorce & Family Law 5 04-11-2014 01:21 AM
Lawyer recommendations memyselfandi Divorce & Family Law 8 02-21-2012 11:14 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:33 AM.