Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2017, 07:27 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Your words: ..."The father is then bullied and taken advtange of , not having a lawyer although financially eligible, due to our lame sorry-ass ill-funded legal aid system, and is forced to sign something under duress and when the lame sorry-ass duty counsel refuses to give him legal advice because she was overloaded by our lame sorry-ass fludded and back-logged court system and didn't have time to discuss with him....'

Legal Aid websites (Canada-wide) clearly set out their qualifying income for various levels of coverage of legal aid certificates.

Is Legal Aid underfunded and understaffed?

It is generally accepted that before people go to court they should have some basic idea of the process they are about to get involved with. An exception to this might be if the litigant had a mental deficiency or was below basic intelligence level as there is ample information online available to anyone. There are family law information clinics where people can obtain information from lawyers for free. Sure you have to probably wait a while but 'beggars can't be choosers' can they?

Ultimately, in family court, you are 100% responsible for your own misery. You can educate yourself or not. Options are readily available for those motivated.
Let me tell you something about legal aid and I will also take the opportunity to say the same about OCL. These organizations operate on money and funds. They have a pool of funds they use to fund parents. When a mom and dad run to them (when both are financially eligible) they will fund the mom because she claims she is a victim of domestic violence and they will tell the father to screw off. The father is disadvantaged because clearly he cannot afford a lawyer on welfare. True story.

Legal aid is going to continue to say fuck off to the father and tell him he is responsible to know the law. we don't care if you went to law school or not, go learn the law, but we will help out your ex. she doesn't have to learn the law, we'll help her screw you over. We don't have enough money to pay both of you.

This is of course not to mention that the courts don't like self represented parties because the system is designed for experienced professionals.

The same is true with OCL, they will often decide to take your case or not depending on their funding pool. If it is running low, they will preserve it for critical cases, if it is the beginning of the year and the got a ton of funding, then it's we'll take whatever comes our way.

Legal aid does of course have duty counsel services, but they're not your lawyers, some are very good and some are useless. You go see them and rely on them, but they refuse to give you legal advice, you are screwed over and end up back in court.

Let me ask you this, why do we even have lawyers, why do we even need lawyers if you are expected to know everything yourself? Why do lawyers themselves hire lawyers to represent them? If the lawyer's know it all why don't they just represent themselves then?

Not to completely bash the system, things have been going well for me so far, but is just taking way too long and I continue to miss out on my child's childhood while waiting for the wheels of our justice system to turn. Taking a person's house, car or salary is one thing but taking a person's child is another.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2017, 07:37 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Women and children are still often considered to be vulnerable in our society. This will change when women are in work-force at the same percentage as men. You can argue this any way you want to. Don't get mad at the system - get mad at your "bros" who happily go along with their partners not working and staying home to raise the children. People naively do this when kids are young because they want to save money on daycare. THAT is the problem IMO. If you want women to stay home to raise children you should play them a wage, fully taxable, where they pay CPP and EI. Then when the marriage ends they can fall back on their EI or CPP. It certainly would make women AND men more accountable and we would probably see more people planning for their retirement at a very young age.

I think it's about evening the playing field. You want a woman/slave to stay home and have your kids and keep your house then you're going to pay for it sooner or later. A smart guy would plan for marriage failing right from the start.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2017, 07:42 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Women and children are still often considered to be vulnerable in our society. This will change when women are in work-force at the same percentage as men. You can argue this any way you want to. Don't get mad at the system - get mad at your "bros" who happily go along with their partners not working and staying home to raise the children. People naively do this when kids are young because they want to save money on daycare. THAT is the problem IMO. If you want women to stay home to raise children you should play them a wage, fully taxable, where they pay CPP and EI. Then when the marriage ends they can fall back on their EI or CPP. It certainly would make women AND men more accountable and we would probably see more people planning for their retirement at a very young age.

I think it's about evening the playing field. You want a woman/slave to stay home and have your kids and keep your house then you're going to pay for it sooner or later. A smart guy would plan for marriage failing right from the start.
Funny thing is no, I wouldn't want her to stay home. I would want her to work just like everyone else. And she got a job and started working but chose to put the child in daycare as opposed to giving me that time extra time. If you are no longer a stay at home mom, and are working, and are not available to look after the child all day, then why on earth would you choose a total stranger over the child's other parent. The only thing I can think of is resentment and control.

But to answer your question, they do pay their wage. And pay even more of it when they seperate through spousal support and child support. That is why I will never ever merry a women that doesn't work. She should be earning close to or more than my income, knowing what the system can do to me if she ever decides she wants to move on. Unless I truly trust her, even then, you would be surprised how unexpectedly and unilaterally people change.

Last edited by trinton; 01-07-2017 at 07:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2017, 07:49 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Stay single and keep your own respective residences. No mingling of finances - just dates and vacations together. Sounds perfect to me!

Hey don't forget I got royally screwed by my ex. I'm now old and have no retirement funds. It's not just men who lose out financially when a marriage ends. Don't forget that. I'm fortunate in that I am intelligent and am employed. Many women my age aren't so fortunate and cannot support themselves after being homemakers their entire marriages. 40 years ago it was quite normal. It is still acceptable and I applaud anyone who does it. I hope they have contingency plans in place for when their marriage ends though. I certainly didn't think my marriage would end after 30 years and spouse absconds with money. Who does at that stage? That is why I think there should be a mandatory sort of thing one pays into (lets call it MI - marriage insurance). If/when marriage ends a portion of that money is paid for legals/court services). Lawyers would have a hey-day with that one for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2017, 07:56 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Stay single and keep your own respective residences. No mingling of finances - just dates and vacations together. Sounds perfect to me!

Hey don't forget I got royally screwed by my ex. I'm now old and have no retirement funds. It's not just men who lose out financially when a marriage ends. Don't forget that. I'm fortunate in that I am intelligent and am employed. Many women my age aren't so fortunate and cannot support themselves after being homemakers their entire marriages. 40 years ago it was quite normal. It is still acceptable and I applaud anyone who does it. I hope they have contingency plans in place for when their marriage ends though. I certainly didn't think my marriage would end after 30 years and spouse absconds with money. Who does at that stage? That is why I think there should be a mandatory sort of thing one pays into (lets call it MI - marriage insurance). If/when marriage ends a portion of that money is paid for legals/court services). Lawyers would have a hey-day with that one for sure.

Nah, I wouldn't want lawyers anywhere close to any sort of marriage insurance. You could be sure they would make 5 or 6 useless phone calls and 3 or 4 letters a week just to take as much of that insurance money as they possible can.

I thought you royally screwed over your ex with spousal support? and that he is not able to end it? Isn't he the rat in the wheel in a sense ?
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2017, 08:04 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Yes I am entitled to receive SS indefinitely. However, if my ex wants to retire and have SS terminated he will probably have to prove to the court that he has the funds upon which to retire. In doing this he would have to reveal his real finances wouldn't he? So I think he has kind of screwed himself in the end.

SS is fully taxable. I would have much preferred to have maintained my original business investment and would have reinvested it. SS is therefore not a really big deal to me but you can bet it is a big deal to my ex.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2017, 12:54 PM
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 arabian View Post
Here's a recent update from Ontario on the woman who abducted her daughter (Amber Alert).

Mom denied access to daughter | Welland Tribune
This matter is an interesting one. The challenge that the abducting parent has is one of habitual residential location. If the child has been resident in Egypt then the court will return the child.

Recent case law is not in this abducting parent's favour:

Orlowska v Orlowski, 2016 ONSC 7472 (CanLII)
Date: 2016-12-07
Docket: FS-16-408028
Citation: Orlowska v Orlowski, 2016 ONSC 7472 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/gvzx0

Child returned to Poland despite claims of "abuse" by the abducting parent.
Quote:
[40]** ** ** * As noted by Justice Hood in Usmani, there is an informative definition of “habitually resident” under the Children’s Law Reform Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C.12.* Section 22 of that Act provides that a child is habitually resident where he/she resided with both parents, or where the parents are living separate and apart with one parent under a separation agreement or with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other parent, or under a court order.

Source: Orlowska v Orlowski, 2016 ONSC 7472 (CanLII), par. 40, http://canlii.ca/t/gvzx0#par40
And this recent appeal is a huge win for parents seeking the return of their children after they have been wrongfully removed:

Winsa v Henderson, 2016 ONSC 1736 (CanLII)
Date: 2016-03-22
Docket: C61336; DC-931
Citation: Winsa v Henderson, 2016 ONSC 1736 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/gsshg

Quote:
[77]** ** * For the above reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed. Ontario does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues of custody and access of C.H.

Source: Winsa v Henderson, 2016 ONSC 1736 (CanLII), par. 77, http://canlii.ca/t/gsshg#par77
The abducting parent in this matter took the law into their own hands and this will haunt their case. The CND courts are very respectful of other jurisdictions and the Rules regarding habitual residential jurisdiction of children.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2017, 12:55 PM
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

Back to the issue of jail time for access denials. It has been ordered in Canada. It is a rare situation where it happens but, if you search CanLII you can find the examples.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2017, 03:21 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
This matter is an interesting one. The challenge that the abducting parent has is one of habitual residential location. If the child has been resident in Egypt then the court will return the child.

Recent case law is not in this abducting parent's favour:

Orlowska v Orlowski, 2016 ONSC 7472 (CanLII)
Date: 2016-12-07
Docket: FS-16-408028
Citation: Orlowska v Orlowski, 2016 ONSC 7472 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/gvzx0

Child returned to Poland despite claims of "abuse" by the abducting parent.


And this recent appeal is a huge win for parents seeking the return of their children after they have been wrongfully removed:

Winsa v Henderson, 2016 ONSC 1736 (CanLII)
Date: 2016-03-22
Docket: C61336; DC-931
Citation: Winsa v Henderson, 2016 ONSC 1736 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/gsshg



The abducting parent in this matter took the law into their own hands and this will haunt their case. The CND courts are very respectful of other jurisdictions and the Rules regarding habitual residential jurisdiction of children.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Very good case Tayken.


(I didn't miss the part where the mother "tackled" her 13-year-old son). A very contentious situation.

Both parties previously agreed that Hawaii was habitual residence so this Appeal makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 01-09-2017, 10:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 160
vocalfather is on a distinguished road
Default

My experience, judge's are just plain scared/politically correct/etc to actually enforce this stuff. I've watched through my own experience the judge warn my X over and over and over to comply, stop the destructive and abusive behaviours and do what's right. They've been threatened with costs, jail, etc and to no avail.

How about we start jailing parents who allege false sexual/physical abuse without merit as well? The list goes on. Again, it's gonna take judges actually finally standing up, strong being afraid and actually doing the right things. I'm not labeling all judges as we know there are decisions coming down the pipe BUT they are few and far between.
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Access Terms trinton Divorce & Family Law 2 09-14-2016 01:00 PM
Jail time? Stillbreathing Divorce & Family Law 20 10-16-2015 11:38 PM
What to do when.... thefunone Parenting Issues 12 05-24-2012 04:35 PM
Is there a minimum amount of access time for joint custody? TODAD Divorce & Family Law 18 04-05-2011 12:03 AM
Make up visits! WorkingDAD Divorce & Family Law 12 03-17-2011 11:56 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:01 PM.