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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2015, 10:05 AM
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 mcdreamy View Post
I donít support the presumption of ESP and believe every case should continue to be judged on an individual basis. Although I suspect in 80-90% of the cases ESP would be of value, I canít let go of the 10-20% of children who would suffer terrible consequences from the presumption, and the amount of time it would take to revert to protect them - The system moves too slowly to help those in immediate need.
Presumably the system could move much more quickly for the 10% if it wasn't clogged up by the other 90% who really don't need to be there.

And instead of having emergency motions to get 50-50 parenting BACK when one parent runs off with the children, we'd be able to have emergency motions in cases where one parent should NOT have 50-50.

And frankly, if children are in that much danger from one parent that they should not spend equal time with him/her in the event of separation, then hopefully authorities are already involved and that emergency motion would be a slam dunk.

I may be an optimist.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2015, 10:15 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,769
dad2bandm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdreamy View Post
...I'm just not going to get behind presumptive ESP until the system is fixed and files move swiftly for the benefit of the children. I won't sacrifice the safety of even 1% of the children in our society, for 90% of the best interest of any adult, male or female...
I still don't get what risk you are referring to, that we would be inflicting on the 1% of children with presumptive ESP. It's presumptive - not mandatory.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2015, 12:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad2bandm View Post
That doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you think ESP would be of value to 80 or 90% of situations, to help speed things along, in a fairer fashion, you think the 100% should continue to work the way it does, because the 10 to 20% might suffer "terrible consequences". It's simply a presumption, to start off with. Obviously, mitigating factors could override that presumption, for this 10 to 20% you speak of, to avoid the "terrible consequences".
None of this should come down to a law of averages or majority rules. This is court, not politics.

There's a saying in Social Services - you spend 80% of your time on 20% of the people. I imagine court has very similar statistics. Doesn't make one less equal to the other, and I believe that was the point.

When entering the court - assumptions and presumptions should be nil. If the problem is biased judges, then address the problem - don't change the system to accommodate them.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2015, 12:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 185
nfc4ever is on a distinguished road
Default

For a lot of people its about control and money. The child, and amount of access to the child dictate how much they receive.

As a respondent / payor in the family court system, criminals have more rights in criminal cases than I do, that are even constitutionally enshrined. Rights to speedy trials, a presumption of innocence, and an ability of a judge to dish out a lesser judgement. The law is so concrete that common sense isn't allowed for in family courts.

Finally I don't see JT jumping on the family law bandwagon any time soon. He likes to say the word misogynist too much. Seriously, his largest fan base is women. Reforming family law would be seen as a move against women as in most cases he would be reducing access of women. As such, I didn't understand why any man with an interest in family law reform would vote for him.

I'll get off my soapbox now, and back to lunch...
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2015, 12:51 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfc4ever View Post
For a lot of people its about control and money. The child, and amount of access to the child dictate how much they receive.

As a respondent / payor in the family court system, criminals have more rights in criminal cases than I do, that are even constitutionally enshrined. Rights to speedy trials, a presumption of innocence, and an ability of a judge to dish out a lesser judgement. The law is so concrete that common sense isn't allowed for in family courts.

Finally I don't see JT jumping on the family law bandwagon any time soon. He likes to say the word misogynist too much. Seriously, his largest fan base is women. Reforming family law would be seen as a move against women as in most cases he would be reducing access of women. As such, I didn't understand why any man with an interest in family law reform would vote for him.

I'll get off my soapbox now, and back to lunch...
This is a provincial issue, not a Federal one. When you file your documents, you file them in a Provincial Court. When you complain about a lawyer, you do so to their Provincial governing body. When you read the rules of family court - they vary from province to province. When you get your order from the court and have it enforced, you do so through a Provincial program.

Maybe the men that voted for him understood the division between Provincial and Federal politics?

And the flipside of the coin - the amount of access the non-custodial parent receives (either through judgment or presumptive shared parenting) also dictates how much the payor pays - whether they do their share of parenting or not.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2015, 01:07 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,769
dad2bandm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Mom View Post
...This is a provincial issue, not a Federal one...
No, it's a Federal one. The Divorce Act, is a federal thing. The provinces all have their nuances, but this is at the Federal level.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2015, 01:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,769
dad2bandm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Mom View Post
...When entering the court - assumptions and presumptions should be nil. If the problem is biased judges, then address the problem - don't change the system to accommodate them...
It's only a presumption, to base the framework of a law(s) off of.

It's not unlike criminal court. One is presumed innocent, until proven guilty, as that is better than the alternative.

When it comes to family law, equal shared parenting, should be presumed to be in the best interests of the child, unless determined otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2015, 01:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad2bandm View Post
No, it's a Federal one. The Divorce Act, is a federal thing. The provinces all have their nuances, but this is at the Federal level.
It's a Federal Act in which the provinces have jurisdiction. That's why the decisions vary from Province to Province.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2015, 01:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 185
nfc4ever is on a distinguished road
Default

I just found out that my ex is alive and well and trolling on ODF
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2015, 01:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,769
dad2bandm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Mom View Post
It's a Federal Act in which the provinces have jurisdiction. That's why the decisions vary from Province to Province.
Federal, with some provincial cooperation/efforts.

Provinces are granted jurisdiction in some aspects, but not all.
Federal parliament has the exclusive jurisdiction to make changes in the major divorce law areas.
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
Interesting Article on Joint Custody Grace Political Issues 23 03-20-2012 10:35 AM
Presumption of Equal Shared Parenting After Divorce GGG Political Issues 5 05-12-2007 09:39 AM
North Dakota Shared Parenting Decent Dad Political Issues 20 08-31-2006 11:14 AM
This whole "shared parenting" thing... sasha1 Political Issues 42 05-02-2006 06:44 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 AM.