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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2016, 01:39 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
My post was supposed to be humorous...
So was mine, thanks for feeding the trolls.... today is another day where trolls won't go hungry.

Family Court is clearly a well-oiled functioning system providing an excellent service to the community.

Some people say, their exists a concept of hypergamy, western women generally marry up. Not sure if it's true - anecdotally doesn't seem the case. Most couples seem of relatively equal value.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2016, 01:51 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,902
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

I knew both the posts were tongue in cheek. I made my statement because I worried someone else would take it to be fact. High conflict people are that for a reason and money, employment, background, religion etc are simply excuses.

Although I like Links' idea of a battle in court. It made me wish it was like roman gladiators and you fought each other. Ridiculous people who withhold children? Throw a tiger in there for good measure!
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2016, 01:55 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,217
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
My post was supposed to be humorous...
Evidently you forgot the obligatory emoticon denoting such.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2016, 03:00 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,298
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
Evidently you forgot the obligatory emoticon denoting such.
...and the humour.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 11-18-2016, 10:26 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,489
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 trinton View Post
Wrong. I'm not in the Hamilton Court House. I spoke with a lawyer in Hamilton. That does not mean I am in the Hamilton Court House. You must have not read my posts about retaining out of town vs local counsel. Making assumptions and jumping to conclusions now, are we?
Actually it is an assumption that is easy to make. Most people retain counsel in their local jurisdiction. As you have not disclosed this information the assumption is a safe one. Nor does the jurisdiction for which your matter is being heard in you are doomed anyways. Your attitude will be your downfall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
As per eating me alive, I don't drink alcohol, I don't even drink, coffee. None of the things that the father in that case was critisied for are relavant to me.
Actually that was one of the things that the justice brought up. But, the conflict that the parents created was the major discussion in this case law. See the above quotes. Something you have again missed.

As a typical HCP you miss the relevant points for which you should be criticising your own conduct on. But, you also missed the spelling of those words so no doubt you will miss a lot of the "little things" that are going to drown your case in conflict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
I'm in much better position.
Only you can know that right now as no one truly knows where you are in your case or what is truly happening. Like Justice Pazaratz says in this case law... I don't believe you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
My offer to settle to the other party has everything that The Honourable Justice Pazaratz has ordered for the dad in the case you have psoted.
For yourself or for the other party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
That man has more holiday access than I do - I don't have any. Gives me every other reason to continue to push through and marsh towards a trial.
I am not sure what you are "marshing" towards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
That being said, if I was in fact before the Honourable Justice Pazaratz, quite to the contrary of your statement, OP would be getting eaten alive. Costs would be the icing on the cake.
You keep believing that and you are going to get a big shock to the system when you get your "day in court". My recommendation is that you need to reflect on yourself and your own conduct and stop trying to get lawyers removed from files with silly nonsense, focusing on the other parent, and start focusing on yourself.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 11-18-2016, 11:10 AM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,568
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
You are doomed anyways. Your attitude will be your downfall.
Please tell me more about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
you also missed the spelling of those words so no doubt you will miss a lot of the "little things" that are going to drown your case in conflict.
I'm going to be missing a lot of the "little things" because of a typo. It's starting to sound like you're the HCP - one that makes real petty accusations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Only you can know that right now as no one truly knows where you are in your case or what is truly happening. Like Justice Pazaratz says in this case law... I don't believe you.
No point in me even seeking any help from you if you're not going to "believe me". We all have our biases. But if you want to know where I am in my case, I have gone past the case and numerous settlement conferences. I won my disclosure motion and there is a hearing coming up. My request for OCL was dismissed as "premature". It will be re-requested at the hearing. The hearing, if I am successful in, will be followed by an amendment and a trial.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
For yourself or for the other party?
The access terms dad got in that case are the access terms I offered for myself - except for that the summer will be divided equally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
I am not sure what you are "marshing" towards.
Marching** - Marching towards a hearing and/or trial.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
You keep believing that and you are going to get a big shock to the system when you get your "day in court". My recommendation is that you need to reflect on yourself and your own conduct and stop trying to get lawyers removed from files with silly nonsense, focusing on the other parent, and start focusing on yourself.
I'm not trying to get lawyers (plural) removed from cases with silly nonsenses. I inquired on this forums opinion on whether I should remove OC (singular) and the feedback was "don't do it". You can exaggerate things out of proportion all you want. But I did receive the same feedback from some lawyers - that OC can say that the information was shredded. Other lawyers said if that lawyer comes off record then a real asshole lawyer could come on the other side making things even worst.

You've got to understand, removing a parents lawyer almost 2 years into a court proceeding is not a pleasant situation for anyone. It takes time time to find a new lawyer and to get them up to speed and you have to defend yourself during that time since you don't have a lawyer. That is what the courts did to me and there should really be no "unfairness" if it happened to the other parent as well. What's fair to "mom" should also be fair to "dad".

Doesn't matter, I've found a new lawyer that I like. Retaining him today. Should detach me from the legal aspect so perhaps you could tell me more about this: focusing on the other parent, and start focusing on yourself.

At the end of the day, I'm here to share, learn, and reflect. But if you're going to be the grammar police and make petty accusations about typos and then call my accusations of conflict of interest "non-sense", then I will most certainly respond.

Last edited by trinton; 11-18-2016 at 11:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 11-18-2016, 11:35 AM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,568
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

As per the case - going back on topic - it seems like the OCL was appointed and the smart lady figured out what was going on- Her supervisor wouldn't let her do her job and was breatging fire over her shoulder: "WE'RE NOT DOING 50/50! WE'RE GIVING CUSTODY TO MOM!! THAT MAN IS ABUSIVE! SHE IS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE" - the regular non-sense used to gain advantage in court by mother's that have mental health issues.

OCL report get's all fudged up, the OCL person get's frustrated with her supervisor breathing fire over her shoulder, and the report get's dismissed.

OCL assigns someone else who supports women that allege to be "victim of domestic violence" takes her side and with bias, rules in her favour.

The judge, throws out the first report and gives credit to the second report, not realizing that the parents are at rage and will continue to be so if custody is not jointed:

Doctor Frank Williams, director of the Family and Child Psychiatry Programs at Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles was referring in a recent address to the American Bar Association[1] when he stated: (as quoted by His Honour Provincial Judge Alan P. Ingram in his address of 4 March 1989 to the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario)

There is the myth in some mental health, legal and judicial thinking that joint custody can only be effectively undertaken by co-operative parents. To the contrary, joint custody provides one of the best methods of stimulating a degree of significant and meaningful co-operation in warring parents who would otherwise continue years of battling to the detriment of their children.


Our experience leads to the conviction that parental identity — if strengthened in both parents — can increase co-operation and that co-operation should not be a criteria for joint custody vs. sole custody schedules for children. During the ensuing years, after custodial orders are in place, children of parents who remain highly unco-operative suffer greatly, and suffer just as much in unilateral sole custody as in joint custody arrangements.

Judge Ingram commented:

He stated that he found that the essential minimum co-operation needed by parents in maintaining a relationship between each parent and the children, develops more rapidly under a joint custody order or agreement. In sole custody situations, the non-custodial parent feels a loss of parental identity or a victim of psychological or “legal parentectomy”, resulting in feelings of powerlessness, depression and rage.

(See page 18 of Judge Ingram’s address).

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/do...resultIndex=36
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 11-18-2016, 11:39 AM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,568
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
They started living together in January 2000.
d. They separated on July 4, 2014
Quote:
62. DeGeer testified about his recommendation that the Applicant be granted sole custody. He explained:

b. Taylor has been residing with the Applicant since separation.
Quote:
166. The bottom line for the Respondent (and for all litigants):

a. When a court makes orders in custody/access cases, those orders have to be obeyed.
b. If you don’t like the order, appeal it.

Based on a different case:

Quote:
[14] The status quo is the one that existed prior to separation and not what is created after separation. See Kimpton v. Kimpton, 2002 CanLII 2793 (ON SC), 2002 CanLII 2793 (S.C.J.)
Dad should appeal. Status quo prior to seperation was 50/50. Judge told him he should if he doesn't like it - I would.
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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:43 AM.