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 01-15-2017, 10:49 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatherforever1904 View Post
Hi Everyone,

I need your advice.

Here's a brief summary.

2 year Custody and Access Battle
She wants sole Custody - I had asked for 50/50

She has referred me to Children's Aid 5 times. It started off a your classic child sexual abuse allegation and escalated to the most egregious forms of child sexual abuse allegations.

All this began when I applied for joint custody and shared access.
On all 5 occasions, I was in the presence of multiple witnesses.
On all 5 occasions, the CAS investigated and found her allegations unfounded.
She didn't fool the CAS nor did she fool the Clinical Psychologist who conducted the custody and access assessment. In the report, the Assessing Clinical Psychologist mildly rebuked her for her multiple CAS referrals

Separate from the CAS investigations, she has tried unsuccessfully to implicate me 4 separate times and has involved the police. I have never been brought in for questioning by the police.

Today, I have been referred to the CAS again.

This time the police want to interview me for a sex-related issue involving my child.

My Lawyers are involved and they are great!.

Does anyone have any advice regarding the interview itself?

Thanks
Has the CAS noticed the pattern? You need to get your hands on the CAS reports. That, together with your parenting assessment report from the clinical psychologist should be all you need to achieve sole custody. She has no business making important decisions in anybody's life given her behaviors and serious allegations.

Regarding the interview,

1. Be honest
2. Be yourself
3. Have some evidence and materials around to back up your case.
4. Be sure to let them know it's a high, conflict case and reiterate the pattern of false allegations.

You'll do fine.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2017, 09:58 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Has the CAS noticed the pattern? You need to get your hands on the CAS reports. That, together with your parenting assessment report from the clinical psychologist should be all you need to achieve sole custody. She has no business making important decisions in anybody's life given her behaviors and serious allegations.

Regarding the interview,

1. Be honest
2. Be yourself
3. Have some evidence and materials around to back up your case.
4. Be sure to let them know it's a high, conflict case and reiterate the pattern of false allegations.

You'll do fine.
Bad advice, I wouldn't talk to the police.

If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you.If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that.Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of” an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to arrest, they will. If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested.This is completely contrary to popular belief. For some reason, many people think that they are savvy enough or eloquent enough or well educated enough to be able to talk to the police and convince the police not to arrest them. But ask any police officer if because of the eloquence and convincing story of the suspect, they have ever been convinced not to arrest somebody whom they had originally intended to arrest, and they will tell you no. They will tell you that in their experience, no one has ever talked themselves out of getting arrested. Talking to the police cannot help you. It cannot prevent you from getting arrested. It can only hurt.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/top...7PvK5S2XHQ7.99

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2017, 10:01 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Your right not to speak to the police when questioned is part of your fundamental right to be free from self-incrimination; that is, to not provide the police with evidence that may be used against you.

You have a duty to identify yourself by giving them your name, however, and in some circumstances, your birth date and address.

If you refuse to identify yourself to the police, they can hold you in custody for the purposes of determining who you are.

The scenario is common. The police might think that you know about an incident.

The police may or may not be seeking to charge you. Or suppose you have already been charged, or are at the police station and about to be charged. You might think that you can avoid being charged by telling your story, or “talking your way out of it”.

Remember: the role of the police in investigating crime is to charge people whom they have reasonable grounds to believe have committed a criminal offence.

To lay a charge, a police officer must have grounds to believe they are justified in doing so. In most circumstances, if they have grounds, they will lay the charge. Thus, when a police officer asks for a statement from someone who has not been charged, it usually means they do not have grounds to lay the charge.

Any statement may just provide those grounds.

The police must tell you of your right to remain silent.

The reason for the right to silence is to give you the opportunity to speak to a lawyer and then make a free and meaningful choice about whether to speak.

After speaking with the lawyer, the police can continue to ask you anything they want without the presence of a lawyer.

The general rule of thumb is to refrain from speaking with the police. The three situations below underscore your right to remain silent.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2017, 11:02 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
Your right not to speak to the police when questioned is part of your fundamental right to be free from self-incrimination; that is, to not provide the police with evidence that may be used against you.

You have a duty to identify yourself by giving them your name, however, and in some circumstances, your birth date and address.

If you refuse to identify yourself to the police, they can hold you in custody for the purposes of determining who you are.

The scenario is common. The police might think that you know about an incident.

The police may or may not be seeking to charge you. Or suppose you have already been charged, or are at the police station and about to be charged. You might think that you can avoid being charged by telling your story, or “talking your way out of it”.

Remember: the role of the police in investigating crime is to charge people whom they have reasonable grounds to believe have committed a criminal offence.

To lay a charge, a police officer must have grounds to believe they are justified in doing so. In most circumstances, if they have grounds, they will lay the charge. Thus, when a police officer asks for a statement from someone who has not been charged, it usually means they do not have grounds to lay the charge.

Any statement may just provide those grounds.

The police must tell you of your right to remain silent.

The reason for the right to silence is to give you the opportunity to speak to a lawyer and then make a free and meaningful choice about whether to speak.

After speaking with the lawyer, the police can continue to ask you anything they want without the presence of a lawyer.

The general rule of thumb is to refrain from speaking with the police. The three situations below underscore your right to remain silent.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
The police have a special unit that specializes in sexual abuse and they work very closely with CAS.

They can smell bullshit a mile away and can prepare a good report for you.

This individual needs to collect as many of these reports as possible. They make for great exhibits to show what a nutcase the other parent is.

If there was no wrong-doing I don't understand why he would refuse to speak with them. I'm afraid he may look very guilty for that. If anything, have a lawyer by your side.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2017, 11:14 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
The police have a special unit that specializes in sexual abuse and they work very closely with CAS.

They can smell bullshit a mile away and can prepare a good report for you.

This individual needs to collect as many of these reports as possible. They make for great exhibits to show what a nutcase the other parent is.

If there was no wrong-doing I don't understand why he would refuse to speak with them. I'm afraid he may look very guilty for that. If anything, have a lawyer by your side.
If you decide you want to go and offer them information that could be potentially manipulated, twisted, and used against you, then sure, go ahead and speak to the police. But don't do it without a lawyer. And obtain full complete disclosure before saying a word to them. I still don't see how speaking to the police will help you. Their job is to try and find you guilty. They are looking for evidence to find you guilty and are hoping to get something from you , any small inconsistency.

The only way I would see this helping you is if they interviewed you and still had no evidence on you. But that is no different than now, you're innocent. You're innocent until proven guilty. If you were guilty, they would have already arrested and charged you.

Last edited by trinton; 01-16-2017 at 11:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2017, 11:26 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

The only question you have to answer from the police is your name and address. That's it. Not a word more.

The risks of answering some questions but not others
It is extremely important that an accused person who makes a decision not to answer questions (apart from the ones that are required by law) should stick to that decision, rather than answer some questions and not others.

Answering questions selectively, that is, answering some and refusing to answer others, may later be interpreted by a court as consciousness of guilt.

If a person decides to make a statement, a lawyer should always be consulted first so that the statement can be made in the presence of a lawyer or prepared with the help of a lawyer and then given to police. It may be in a person’s best interest to make a statement, for example, where a person has a valid explanation. However, this should only be done after obtaining legal advice.


The police are experts at getting information from people. A person may be told 'it will be easier if you make a statement', or 'bail will be granted more quickly if a statement is made'. Do not fall for tricks such as 'a co-offender has told us the whole story'. Any incentives offered by the police should be ignored if the person does not wish to answer questions.

Written and verbal statements can be used in evidence. Any conversation with the police can be used in evidence. Hence any suggestion that a conversation between a suspect and the police is 'off the record' should be ignored.

Police can also listen to and note down conversations held by a person with anyone else, except a lawyer, and use it later in evidence against the person.

All police interviews are required to be recorded – this should be by video (audio visual) but can be an audio or written record. The record of interview (whether written or transcript from a video or audio record) is usually presented as evidence in court if the charge or charges proceed to trial.

Where a written record is made of an interview the person interviewed will be asked to read and sign it. There is no obligation to read or sign a record of interview.

You should always read the record of interview before signing and can refuse to sign if the police will not allow it you to read it.

Even if unsigned, if you indicate to the court that it was given voluntarily and is accurate, it may be held as an admissible, voluntary and accurate record of interview.

What if I want corrections made?
If you do not agree with information contained in the record of interview, you should ask that it be corrected. Any changes you have requested should then be initialled by you. Caution should always be taken when signing a statement as you are considered to be agreeing with all its contents when you sign.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2017, 11:30 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

The aim of a Police interview is to obtain admissible evidence with which to prosecute you.
It is not a search for the truth. The Police are not generally trying to get your version of events so they can compare it to another version of what happened. If it was a search for the truth they would not be videotaping your interview.

People who have never been in trouble before tend to misunderstand a Police interview.
They believe that going in there and telling the truth as they remember it will fix the matter. Unfortunately that is not true. The Police will often know that you are going to deny the charges before they interview you. The reason they are interviewing you is to tie you into a position. They are often trying to get you to commit to something that is wrong so they can later claim that you are a liar. (for example “who was there?” – if you leave someone out they would prove they were there and use that fact against you).

A Police interview happens because they have identified you as a suspect. A person who is not a suspect might be invited in to the Police Station to make a statement. The difference between the two is that you must to attend an interview but you do not have to agree to make a statement.
You should also remember that the Police are experienced questioners. They regularly cross-examine and question people in police interviews.

An interview starts with the Police asking you questions about whether you understand your rights.
They will ask you if you want to contact a lawyer and if you do not know one they will give you a yellow pages to look through (which is generally unhelpful). So, make sure you have your criminal lawyer’s number in your pocket.

It is always wise to discuss the interview with your lawyer prior to attending, because the decision about whether to talk or do a “no comment” interview is a very important one with lots of considerations.

Often, it pays to ring your lawyer when the Police gives you the option to as your lawyer can have a discussion with the Police. This is often useful in getting a gauge of what charges might be pending and whether you will be bailed. If they are not going to bail you, then it helps to arrange to have a lawyer at Court to arrange the bail application.

The Police will ask you a series of questions about what happened. Usually, once you have given your version, they will put the other version of events to you and ask you to comment. This is where interviews often go wrong as the interviewee is annoyed and says things that they later come to regret.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2017, 02:26 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7
fatherforever1904 is on a distinguished road
Default Update on the STBX Allegation

Hi everyone,

Here is an update

I spoke to several lawyer friends. Each one agreed that I should not go to the interview.

I did end up going today (Thursday) for one reason only. That is, I had digital evidence that refuted her allegation.

A lot of the advice given in this particular thread is true, at least from my interview experience. They lull you into a false sense of security. You definitely get the impression that they believe you're guilty. You definitely have to watch what you say because they will go after you if you say something that is perceived to support the allegation.

After so many children's aid society referrals I was absolutely stunned at the depravity and maliciousness of this particular allegation.

In any case, they laid out their so-called evidence. And then I played the digital recording for them which categorically refuted her allegations. They were completely surprised by the digital recording. However the entire tone of the interview changed at this point.

I was informed before leaving the interview that police would close the case and that CAS would close the file.

It was the best feeling in the world.

I will say one thing, there is no way in hell that I would've gone in for the interview had I not had the digital recording which categorically refuted her allegations.

If you decide to go into an interview with the thought that a recording will help you, it's not enough. That recording has to be rock-solid and irrefutable in order to support your innocence. The lawyers whom I referred to earlier were not aware that I had the digital recording when they gave me the advice to not go to the interview.

I can't get into any details because obviously the STBX is probably on this forum as well.

Thanks everyone for their help with this.

Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2017, 09:16 AM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,968
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Why do the police now not charge your ex with something?
It is disgusting that people who make false accusations get away with this.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2017, 10:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,012
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Because anyone is allowed to make false allegations but only the ones who have to defend themselves get punished. This is the part that kills me about victimization. People who make a legitimate claim with proof of an assault are vilified but people who make false allegations go unpunished having ruined someone elses life.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abuse, allegation, child, false, sexual


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
re-calculation of time for access Tatyana K Divorce & Family Law 75 12-12-2017 12:02 AM
Allegations of child abuse in the context of parental separation: A discussion paper Tayken Domestic Violence 7 08-21-2013 04:29 PM
Custody and Access Decision-Making and the Breastfeeding Child: Cavannah v. Johne WorkingDAD Divorce & Family Law 8 05-03-2011 11:55 AM
Co-parenting ----post divorce bearall Parenting Issues 14 05-25-2010 12:14 PM
CP cc'd child on email to NCP sidelineref Parenting Issues 4 04-04-2010 05:41 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:15 AM.