Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce Support

Divorce Support This forum is for discussing the emotional aspects of divorce: stress, anger, betrayal of trust and more.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2016, 08:26 PM
mafia007's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 235
mafia007 is on a distinguished road
Default

New development here.

I just received a confirmation from the OCL stating that they won't provide any services, nor assigned an advocate for the children nor require a clinical assessment to the children even if it was ordered by the judge. So the OCL are closing the file and won't get involved. They acknowledged that supervised visits were to take effect and should be kept for a long period of time before revisiting this issue. (Visits haven't started yet because the centres are swamp with enormous demands). WTF, is it good or bad?

They know our case is very conflictual and the criminal charge are still pending (but should be dropped next week hopefully). Why would they stepped out? CAS were also involved and after conducting an investigation with both parents and children, they concluded that there was no requirements to put the children under protection. OCL knew about that as a copy of the letter was provided to them. Is it possible that would be a reason for them to not get involved?

Any thoughts on this? I'm asking as most of the posters here had OCL involved with their issues on access/custody.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2016, 11:05 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Hey Mafia.

There are many reasons OCL don't take on cases:

Quote:
The Office of the Children's Lawyer reviews each court ordered request for appointment of the Children's Lawyer in custody/access cases.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer may not provide services in the following circumstances:

The child resides outside of Ontario;
The child and/or either parent/party does not reside where the action is being conducted;
There is an outstanding or anticipated order for assessment or mediation, or an assessment or mediation is pending;
An assessment has been completed about custody and access in the year preceding the request;
A review of the case history indicates that there have been multiple assessments or protracted litigation with little possibility of resolution;
There are serious mental health concerns with respect to either parent and/or child, and a mental health assessment has not been undertaken or completed;
Support and/or property issues are the primary concerns and the custody and access arrangements have been relatively stable for an appreciable period of time;
The primary purpose is to obtain evidence to further the litigation;
Other resolution efforts should have occurred and have not been attempted;
The child's situation would not be improved, e.g. where the issue is "joint" v. "sole" custody, or where an unrealistic time-sharing plan is being sought, or an applicant seeks to change custody to resolve an access problem, or both parties reside in the matrimonial home etc.;
(a). One or both parties allege abuse and/or neglect and the local Children's Aid Society (CAS) is investigating or should be asked under the Child and Family Services Act to investigate the allegations; or (b). The CAS is or has been involved and has taken a position as to the custody/access arrangements;
Updating the Children's Lawyer's Report that has been served and filed in court under section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act.https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov....ocl/intake.php
The CAS letter may have also had an effect.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2016, 11:54 PM
mafia007's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 235
mafia007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
The CAS letter may have also had an effect.
I'm assuming that must be it. I met with CAS before and after the criminal case and after the investigation they conducted, they send that letter confirming there was no issues and they were closing the file. Letter was dated over a month after the incident. Perhaps OCL have deducted something.

More in my favour to fight against the supervised access and re-instate those access at my place as per our summer schedule we had agreed.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2016, 06:06 PM
mafia007's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 235
mafia007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Waiting for a confirmation that my criminal charge are finally dropped. Another long week to wait and the nightmare should be over. I will then have all my attention focusing on the other nightmare of mine... the separation.

Preparing myself for the motion. As I noticed in other threads on the ODF and several case in CanLII, there is no point of looking in the past to prove what the other party did wrong and who is acting unreasonable. The best is to move on and to show the judge that it is in our best interest to settle ASAP. So here what I've done during the past month.

1- wrote a brief indicating my position for a shared custody with 50/50 access time with all the advantages for the best interest of our children.

2- established a fare parental plan of 14 pages describing the role each parent will have between each other and for the children. Proposing a parallel parenting as Plan B in case the other party keeps on requesting sole custody for non communication purposes.

3- wrote a brief to re-instate access right away with my children as my criminal charge is dropped with unconditional forgiveness and base on the fact that access did occurred last summer while my criminal record was in effect and there was no worries at that time (no security issues with me being with the children unsupervised). Also, with the assurance that the kids did had a good time while they were spending time with their dad and his new partner's family. Yes I have a new gf with a daughter (just visiting once in a while) and my kids very liked them.

4- wrote another brief describing my position as why I should not pay SS.

I forwarded everything to my lawyer who read and took note of everything and when we met, she made some changes and specifications:

1- she indicated that we were going for 50/50 shared custody with joint custody on decision making. Only if the other party insist that it won't work for joint custody because of lack of communication we should go to plan B for
parallel parenting. Otherwise, it shouldn't be an issue as we were able to manage for 15 years with no hassles. The onus is on her side to prove the opposite as I was an involved father.

2- Parenting plan is subject to changes. I know that and it will change for sure. I made sure to have as less physical contact as possible, like pick-ups/drop-ups at school and communication by emails and com book for children matters only.

3- I was only asking for access on a progressive schedule because I haven't seen my kids for over 6 months but my lawyer said "no". Ask for the maximum and let the judge decide on the access he will grant you. What if you ask for less when the judge was willing to give you more? She advised me not to ask for what I think I will only get... but for what the best the children and I wish to get. Damned she's right... I think I have a good lawyer even though she's very young.

4- for spousal support, she told me not to worry. Under the temporary order where she has full custody and given primary parental role until the matter is resolved, there is no SS because the CS amount is already high. Even at a minimum wage salary, there would be no such payments. Only under a shared regime custody she would probably be entitled to SS for needs only, which is at the minimum scale for a limited time only. For sure, she is not entitled for compensatory alimony. Still my position is that she is not allowed at all.

I guest I'll spend the week working in my binder to update and note all what was done until now as for exchange of emails, negotiations to settle, historical of events/agenda, financials, court forms, and so... at least to keep track in case I'm ask for costs. This way I won't see the week going by doing nothing and thinking of it all the time. I wish I could turn the page NOW and call it OVER.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2016, 08:25 PM
mafia007's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 235
mafia007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Some good advices from other posters were provided on this following thread;

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...0/index13.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
If you did not provide consent then they judge at a CC cannot make that order. Also, you should have a good lawyer who could have waved Shaw v Shaw back at the judge and similar case law. Or at least be familiar with this VERY COMMON jurisprudence and easily argued for a motion to be heard and for it to be a long motion and that both parties prepare books of authorities on the matter.

See this thread: http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f3/false-allegations-false-status-quo-shaw-v-shaw-cited-13457/

No excused anymore... Educate your lawyer if you have to! Never consent to something at a CC and drive matters to motion for determination. If you do consent to something don't complaint that the court system is biased because you made a decision to consent to something you state you didn't consent to...




Please repeat after me... I will read the link Tayken provided fully and any other links provided in the comments. I will educate my lawyer on the basics of Shaw v. Shaw and demand the lawyer follow my instruction to argue the matter in accordance with what has already been established in jurisprudence. If my lawyer is not willing to do this then I will see another lawyer who primarily practices in family law and understands what the norm is and actually knows how to search CanLII.


Here is the reference for Shaw v. Shaw: 2008 ONCJ 130 (CanLII)

Also read this one (para. 9 in particular): http://canlii.ca/t/gj3cm

Honestly, you didn't need to agree to how things typically went in 1988... As our prime minister has said: It is 2015 (now 2016). No reason you shouldn't have access - especially when your threat is against the other parent and not the children.

Good Luck!
Tayken
and also this one;

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Shaw Vs. Shaw is great caselaw.

Conferences are tricky when it comes to allegations of abuse and supervision.

The judge isn't there to analyze all the evidence to see if the abuse actually occurred. Therein lies the problem. Dad wants to see kid -->mom saying dad's an abuser --> judge has to err on side of caution.

I made the mistake Tayken is talking about by consenting to supervised as well. I HAD to see my daughter no matter what. I just couldn't wait any longer and I know D4 couldn't either.

I remember asking the judge (and I still have the transcripts) ..

"Your honor, I don't agree that I require supervision. I have a clean drug test, clean record, etc. I have never been involved with police in my entire life and and Ms. ___ has nothing to back up her claims[".

Didn't matter. The judge told me he had no choice but to er on the side of caution. I then asked "Is this the ONLY way I get to see my D4?" To which he replied....yes, unfortunately.

I did schedule a motion then...but I couldn't go another hour without seeing D4 .. which would have been in another few months awaiting the motion. No way I could do that.

The cool thing was the judge wrote on his endorsement..."Although I see no requirement of supervision, Mr. LF32 will have supervised visits from.....". I believe this was a message for the subsequent judge at the motion, who we all know slammed my ex fairly hard for her behavior.

It's such a tough situation if it's the only way the OP is allowing you to see your child.
I thought it would be good to keep those advices/comments on my own thread for future reference.

Last edited by mafia007; 02-09-2016 at 08:40 PM. Reason: Adding the input from the relevant posters
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2016, 01:30 AM
mafia007's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 235
mafia007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Finally, unconditional forgiveness was obtained last Friday. It sure give a relief of stress for the past couple of months. Now I can say it's behind and I can concentrate more on my divorce case. It was a long week as I spend most of it in Court. Why? Because my STBX that I haven't spoke, seen and heard of for the past 7 months kept on calling the prosecutor stating she was scared and was still concerned about her safety and the children. Asking that if forgiveness was granted, the same old strict conditions should remain. Of course, her concerns were not related to safety... but to custody.

The prosecutor and my lawyer were not on the same line. I've respected my commitments and was at no fault and my STBX acknowledge to this (at least). The judge could not make a decision. Final say was always adjourned.

The last day, I had enough. I ask my lawyer to confess. I did and I succeeded! Prosecutor had no question at all after my testimonial of 5 minutes.

The judge ruled based on the mother's security and threats concerns;
- no other incidents
- no charge and mist conduct in the past
- mother spend a full day in front of father on mediation day
- mother let kids to father during summer
- no security concerns
- separation agreement refused by father after mediation
- access to kids denied by mother after SA refusal by father
- safety concerns arises suddenly

Judge view: "Father respected his commitments at no fault, he seek professional help to deal with the anger and emotions, father has been trying to settle but refuses to sign a 'biased' SA. Mother has no safety concerns and when the agreement is not reached... she cuts access and now has safety concerns."

"Although the charges against the father are severe , it is important to note that the lack of criminal record in the history of the father, the commitment is to be a decisive penalty that he will remember. The father persuaded the Court that such an incident should not occur. It is clear that the fears of the mother are a reflection of the agreement that has failed and that the dispute should be resolved in Family Court."

"For these reasons I say that the verdict is an absolute discharge."

Now it's time to start a new thread with the next motion coming next week and that criminal charge behind.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2016, 09:18 AM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,961
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

You have my sincere congratulations!

Give yourself a pat on the back for seeing this thing through to the end.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2016, 10:42 AM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,143
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Way to go, very happy for you!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2016, 11:01 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 228
PeacefulMoments is on a distinguished road
Default

Sounds like you are doing your very best to fight for your kids and your relationship with them. Keep it up!
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2016, 04:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ontario
Posts: 216
YoungDad23 is on a distinguished road
Default

Congrats on getting this behind you!
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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:50 PM.