Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 09:01 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,656
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default It's all about perception

Hello All

So yesterday we had meeting with a judge "to be spoken to". That was another attempt to figure out where we are and when we will be able to go to the trial.

The biggest news what came out from that meeting that Judge decided that even that he seized him self for at least 4 years and all issues should comeback to him for this particular trial he will not be a Judge. Rationale is that it will be in interest of justice basically.

As his honour said it's all about perception. If one judge over and over ruling that one person is lying that it very likely that those previous finding will take affect (not exactly words but meaning the same)

So that was sad day for me and happy for her. Sad for me not because I have any doubts that I can prove that she lied to any judge but it just so much more work with new judge but hey - what you can do.

Trial scheduled for Jan 2013. CAS CCAS and police records for last year should be obtained.

Ex intention to bring Neurologist to the trial who will testify regarding her memory problems (memory lose regarding particular events). That would be really interesting to cross examine doctor but I have big doubts that doctor will come.

Mommy thought she won already

What is your thoughts on that one? Any comments welcome.

WD
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 09:33 AM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,227
blinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingDAD View Post

Ex intention to bring Neurologist to the trial who will testify regarding her memory problems (memory lose regarding particular events). That would be really interesting to cross examine doctor but I have big doubts that doctor will come.
Is this the same neurologist that diagnosed her with the brain tumor?
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 09:35 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,656
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blinkandimgone View Post
Is this the same neurologist that diagnosed her with the brain tumor?
That what we going to find out I hope ...
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 09:47 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingDAD View Post
The biggest news what came out from that meeting that Judge decided that even that he seized him self for at least 4 years and all issues should comeback to him for this particular trial he will not be a Judge. Rationale is that it will be in interest of justice basically.
Do to the complexities of the matter and new allegations raised by both parties this is understandable. Also, when considering the past two decisions posted by the justice in question, it is better to avoid an allegation of "bias" against the judge from the litigant in question.

In the best interests of justice, the judge made the right decision. As the litigant in the past two decisions has not raise an Appeal to the other two posted decisions. The 30 day period for which an Appeal has long past in your matters that have already been ordered.

The challenge you face is narrowing the issues to be brought forward to the upcoming trial. No doubt that the litigant in question will attempt to readdress everything in a new trial but, as there are standing decisions it is going to be a uphill battle for the litigant in question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingDAD View Post
The biggest news what came out from that meeting that Judge decided that even that he seized him self for at least 4 years and all issues should comeback to him for this particular trial he will not be a Judge. Rationale is that it will be in interest of justice basically.

As his honour said it's all about perception. If one judge over and over ruling that one person is lying that it very likely that those previous finding will take affect (not exactly words but meaning the same)
The justice in the matter is correct about perception. Often times highly conflicted people, who have somatic issues, make repeated false allegations, demonstrate "false memory" issues, etc... Will extend their distortion campaign even against the judge in the matter.

It is unfortunate that you have to "double down" now on another judge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingDAD View Post
So that was sad day for me and happy for her. Sad for me not because I have any doubts that I can prove that she lied to any judge but it just so much more work with new judge but hey - what you can do.
Sad in that you will more than likely have more false allegations of intimate partner abuse, false allegations of child abuse, false allegations of neglect and all the things that come with possibly highly conflicted litigants. Although from your postings to this site, I suspect that the continuance of the distortion campaign didn't end after the two final orders were made anyway by the litigant in question.

When a litigant raises issues regarding their "memory" the question to be asked is... How can they make these claims if they are bringing forward that they have memory issues? What differentiates the "fact" from "false memory" and/or a "physical impairment". If the only "evidence" that this litigant can bring forward is their personal accounting ("memory") and they bring forward clinical findings (either psychological or physical in nature) how can their accounting be "truthful".

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingDAD View Post
Trial scheduled for Jan 2013. CAS CCAS and police records for last year should be obtained.
You should be bringing forward a Conference to have this ordered. The release of CAS, CCAS and police records is a technical matter and in my opinion can be ordered by a judge prior to trial as this evidence is important.

Furthermore, as the litigant in question is bringing forward a "medical expert" the rules of that professionals conduct is governed by their College. (More details below.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingDAD View Post
Ex intention to bring Neurologist to the trial who will testify regarding her memory problems (memory lose regarding particular events). That would be really interesting to cross examine doctor but I have big doubts that doctor will come.
A Neurologist is:

Quote:
A neurologist is a physician who specializes in neurology, and is trained to investigate, or diagnose and treat neurological disorders.

Neurology is the medical specialty related to the human nervous system. The nervous system encompasses the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves. A specialist physician who treats patients suffering from neurological disease is called a neurologist. Related yet distinct fields of medicine include: psychiatry, neurosurgery and their subspecialties.
1. The Neurologist can only testify if regarding their area of practice in accordance with Policy #5-05 of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario: Policy #5-05 CPSO

2. The Neurologist can only practice in their area of expertise and is only one clinician in the litigant in question's "Circle of Care". All medical experts involved in providing health care to the litigant should be called as witnesses. As well, in accordance with the guidance in Policy #5-05 all medical records have to be brought by the clinicians and entered as evidence.

3. A Neurologist is not a psychiatrist or psychologist and is limited to the area of practice for which they are registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The testimony would be limited to their expertise only in the area of brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves. They cannot testify (unless licensed to practice) in the area of psychology/psychiatry.

4. The Neurologist will have to testify before the court viva voce and be cross examined. Any report, document, etc... Produced by this witness (if presented) in the Trial Record would require cross examination.

5. If the litigant in question does have a neurological disorder an expert in psychology would be required to assess the potential harm/danger and past incidents of conduct by the litigant to insure that the disorder diagnosed does not place the child in question at risk of harm. A neurological disorder is not temporary as with psychosomatic "false memory" or "memory loss".

6. The expert in question will have to be cross examined to determine if the evidence being presented is a physical condition and not psychological in nature and explicitly not factitious or somatic in nature. Neurologist is not an expert in mental health.

7. A full psychological evaluation would be required in my opinion to determine the full impact of any diagnosed neurological disorder for which the Neurologist is not qualified to conduct to address the concerns. MMPI-2 and a large number of other personality inventories and a detailed examination of the psychological impact of the neurological condition would be required to insure the safety and security of the child in question. Reason being, if you have a neurological disorder of the brain, it will impact your logic, reason and other cognitive functioning. The only way to determine that is through a detailed and properly executed psychological evaluation by a psychologist and/or psychiatrist.

8. If the neurological disorder is say similar to the brain tumour that Storm, a poster on this board, reported just days prior to this posting by "coincidence", if degenerative and untreatable, the parent could find themselves with supervised access as their condition causes them, black outs, and other physical conditions which put the child in question in danger while in their care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingDAD View Post
Mommy thought she won already
Highly egocentric behaviour to be claiming by the litigant in question to anyone that the the litigant in question has "won", especially the other parent (you). Family Law is not a win-lose situation for anyone. Especially for the child in question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingDAD View Post
What is your thoughts on that one? Any comments welcome.
Hope this helps.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Last edited by Tayken; 09-14-2012 at 09:52 AM.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 09:59 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by blinkandimgone View Post
Is this the same neurologist that diagnosed her with the brain tumor?
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...mething-13049/

The sudden posting of Storm to this forum 09-11-2012 @ 06:09 PM regarding a neurologist and brain tumour could just be "coincidence".

Well, unless the person in question does have a memory issue resulting from their wrist sized brain tumour and will claim in the future they do not remember posting those messages. The good news is that the internet has pretty good "memory" that is incredibly persistent and often tracks IP addresses.

One can question how this person will parent a child if their memory recall (or storage) is physically impaired by a neurological disorder which interrupts their memory. What if they left the stove on and forgot? Burn the house down? What if they forget where their children are?

Interestingly enough, if the person in question is whom assumed to be... They never forget to show up to court at the scheduled date. High suspicions of "selective memory" will no doubt come into question at trial.

Strangely enough as you have pointed out Blink... The coincidence of Storm's post is rather puzzling don't you think?
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 10:10 AM
hadenough's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,468
hadenough is on a distinguished road
Default

Without going into the numerous complexities of WD's matter, I still find it astounding that the other party has not been shut down. The very idea that this kind of litigation can just go on and on is nuts! What exactly is the other party hoping to accomplish??

If custody/access has been decided and to my understanding, it has been - what the hell is all this about? The other party seems to think the Courts are a 3 ring circus and I have no doubt, before ANY Judge - that it will be just that. Apparently there are no limits to which the other party has, to seek attention/sympathy??With all those other 'standing decisions' - why is this even permissible? What an unimaginable strain on everybody involved.

Last edited by hadenough; 09-14-2012 at 10:18 AM.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 10:21 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by hadenough View Post
With all those other 'standing decisions' - why is this even permissible?
The only reason, my opinion, is something like this happens when new cogent, relevant and tangible evidence was brought forward by a party in the matter on a prima facia basis of a highly important nature prior to an event of an emergency nature.

The reasons for bringing forward such an emergency is probably best explained by a left behind parent like Stephen Watkins.

There is very little that a parent can do as the laws and regulations of Canada has yet to properly address these serious matters as other jurisdictions have already done in North America.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 10:36 AM
hadenough's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,468
hadenough is on a distinguished road
Default

Tayken: your inbox is full as I'm sure you are aware.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 10:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

The last matter I was aware of was that she was trying to sell off her possessions and flee back to Ukraine... with their child. Hoping to pull a Stephen Watkins on WD I guess.

Fortunately WD and a friend noticed what was going on (through Kijiji) and took preemptive action to get her passport held by the courts. WD's ex denied the whole thing and tried to delete her electronic footprints but wasn't entirely successful.

If there are new matters to be decided I'm not sure what the current issues are.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 10:54 AM
FB_ FB_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,407
FB_ will become famous soon enough
Default

Good luck with your case.

It's very sad you are dealing with this. I hate to say it but I might be on the same path as you, although certainly not as extreme. I hope I am not and we can settle early but I have my doubts.
Closed Thread


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OCL and perception of mental illness?? billiechic Divorce Support 9 08-24-2012 12:38 PM
lie? cyclegeek Divorce & Family Law 8 09-17-2009 09:00 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 AM.