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
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 09:41 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default The "Process"

The "process" is one of those words that insinuates that there will be an end. I believe defined as a particular steps to reach the end. As you've read, my ex believes that a "process" is abducting a child, making false claims, using all agencies to her financial/legal advantage, restricting access and prolonging this escapade of her's s long as she possible can.

We all know where I am now in the midst of this so-called "process". One day soon a judge will take the reins. She will see herself losing control of the situation. She's become used to this control. Used to calling the shots.

I hope she realizes that there are judges out there that do frown upon these behaviors and judge accordingly. It would be nice for justice to make an example out of my case. I've sat patiently, played by the rules and waited for 7 months for her to do the same. I'm still not even allowed to know where D3 lives, who she lives with, anything regarding health, etc.

She doesn't want me to be a father. She wants me to be a visitor. D3 doesn't want that though. I wish somebody in this process would think of her for once.

I thought I'd post this canlii case (below) as it motivated and inspired me as I sipped my coffee this morning.

Enjoy,

__________________________________________________ ________
URL: CanLII - 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII)
Citation: Vucenovic v. Rieschi, 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII)

3. At trial, both parties were seeking sole custody. And while each party had a plan for some access to the other; it was clear that the choice before the court was much starker: Whichever parent Emilee resided with, she could not, for very different reasons, have access to the other.

4. The trial was completed on September 5, 2012, the second day of the new school year. The parents now reside in different jurisdictions which meant the custody order would determine which school Emilee would attend. Given the urgent need for finality and stability for Emilee’s custody and schooling, I gave my decision orally to the parties and Emilee in court on September 6, 2012, placing Emilee in the sole custody of her father with no access to her mother; requiring that Emilee be enrolled in counselling; and providing for police enforcement, with written reasons to follow. I had asked that Emilee be brought to court for the decision due to the history in this case of the difficulty or even impossibility of access exchanges.

5. These are my reasons for that decision.
<TABLE class=ecxMsoNormalTable style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-TOP: 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1pt inset; BACKGROUND: rgb(233,233,233); BORDER-BOTTOM: 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt">62. It is clear that after considering all of the factors, it would be in the child’s best interests to be placed in the custody of her father. With respect to access, it most unfortunately is clear that it would not be in her best interests to have access with her mother as it would undermine the stability of her placement with her father and inevitably lead to a complete rupture in her relationship with her father as it has several times in the past, including most recently in the summer of 2012.

63. While Ms. Rieschi claims to support Emilee’s relationship with her father, it is clear that she does not really want Mr. Vucenovic to have access to Emilee because otherwise, she would not keep focusing on allegations that he always “lays his hands on her [Emilee].” She cannot on the one hand profess a wish for Emilee to have regular access with her father while on the other complain at length about Mr. Vucenovic’s deficiencies as a person and parent, including having him charged on the eve of this trial on spurious allegations of harassment, and expect to be believed.

64. Furthermore, it would not even be enough to have supervised visits with counselling as that was already tried and proved an insufficient safeguard. Ms. Rieschi would first have to demonstrate through individual treatment that she has changed.

65. I asked that Emilee be at court to hear the decision out of concern that the decision could not be implemented if she were in Ms. Rieschi’s residence. There has been a sad pattern in this case of access exchanges involving great upset at first for Emilee or even sometimes proving impossible, as with the recent attempt at an exchange at a police station July 2012. That pattern was borne out again on September 6, 2012. While Emilee was at first hysterical at the thought of going with her father, she eventually went with him willingly.

66. Emilee cannot be further subjected to the back and forth changes of custody, to the hysterical access exchanges, to this battle any further. She deserves stability, permanence and emotional security and she is most likely to achieve that in the care of her father with no access to her mother.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Resulting in the final order in section “5. ORDER (issued and entered September 6, 2012)” stating:


<TABLE class=ecxMsoNormalTable style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-TOP: 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1pt inset; BACKGROUND: rgb(233,233,233); BORDER-BOTTOM: 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt">1. The Applicant, Anthony Phillip Vucenovic, shall have sole custody of the child, Emilee Martina Rieschi, born […], 2002.

2. There shall be no access to the Respondent, Jessica Lilian Rieschi, pending further order of this court.

3. The Applicant shall enrol the child in counselling forthwith which shall not be terminated, pending further order of this court.

4. Peel Regional Police, Sheriff’s Officers and/or such other law enforcement agencies as may have jurisdiction are hereby directed and authorized to enforce this order.

5. Pursuant to section 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, police forces in the Province of Ontario, including but not limited to the Peel Regional Police, are directed and authorized:
a) To do all things that may reasonably be done to locate and apprehend the child, namely, Emilee Martina Rieschi, a girl, born […], 2002 and deliver her into the care of the Applicant, Anthony Phillip Vucenovic; and

b) To enter and search any place, at any time of day or night, where he or she has reasonable or probable grounds to believe the child may be, with such assistance and such force as are reasonable in the circumstances,

c) But this order to apprehend the child expires six months from the date of this order, unless extended or terminated earlier by further court order.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
60. Often cited in such cases are Justice Trussler’s comments in Tremblay v. Tremblay 1987 CanLII 147 (AB QB), (1987) 10 R.F.L. (3d) 166 (Alta Q.B.), paragraphs 9, 15 and 16:


9. I start with the premise that a parent has the right to see his or her children and is only to be deprived of that right if he or she has abused or neglected the children. Likewise, and more important, a child has a right to the love, care and guidance of a parent. To be denied that right by the other parent without sufficient justification, such as abuse or neglect, is, in itself, a form of child abuse.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-25-2014 at 09:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 09:48 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 721
Straittohell is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Welcome back! I was getting worried about you. Glad to see that you are still kicking and screaming!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 09:56 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

Don't get too caught up in dramatic cases like this one. If you go to court trying to villify the other parent you will pay for it. This kind of judgment is only rendered after years of a judge's involvement when everything else has been tried repeatedly and there are no other alternatives remaining.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 09:58 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Thanks Strait

lol No need to worry. As time goes on I just get stronger. Mentally, I'm fine. They cant do much more to me than they've already done.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 09:59 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FightingForFamily View Post
Don't get too caught up in dramatic cases like this one. If you go to court trying to villify the other parent you will pay for it. This kind of judgment is only rendered after years of a judge's involvement when everything else has been tried repeatedly and there are no other alternatives remaining.
Yea. I know FFF. It was just nice to read. Don't spoil it for me. lol

But I have read other cases FFF where it wasn't only after years and years. The judge clearly saw the trend of mothers inability to include father in child's life and judged accordingly.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-25-2014 at 10:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 11:04 AM
MrToronto's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,338
MrToronto is on a distinguished road
Default

Exactly

" The judge clearly saw the trend of mothers inability to include father in child's life and judged accordingly."

That's why as time goes by the EX's real position becomes clearer even without HARD evidence.

Trouble is your now getting the evidence you need that "allegations" are fabricated to deny access and contact which OP is painfully aware of.

It's most likely whatever remnants of a position the OP had, may be turned into a settlement offer to avoid a Trial.

I'd watch for "wordy" offers which can be "be defaulted on by a insincere party" and this process starts again. so be careful.

If your going to read case law read the "sanctions" Judges put on the bad party.

There is no way the EX will come back to your town....even with an agreement.

They'll want the allegations swept aside...as a OPPS I'm sorry.

IF both parties make an agreement without going to Trial....then it's a consent agreement....and there's a distinction on "consent orders" and a Trial Order.

You cannot go back and redo everything "when the EX defaults on both parties acceptance of there agreement"

The strength of the "consent agreement" is in it's terms.

Remember the above....and also the EX plans everything in advance along with her LAO scumbag lawyer.

Your obtaining an excellent position for Trial....all your rights have been stripped away...but you have rights.

Don't sign off on your rights.







<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 11:13 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 721
Straittohell is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Mr. Toronto has made a compelling case for going to trial. Your ex has done you a huge favour by showing up front what she will be like for the next 15 years.

Don't let her idiocy be for nothing. Don't settle on consent for something that she won't even honour, and then find yourself starting this process all over again.

I would assert that their strategy has been to beat you down until you settle, so that they can then turn around an fail to honour that as well. Your ex and her lawyer comitted to this strategy never wanting to go to court, because they hoped that these kinds of actions would shock and awe you into giving up early.

It was a huge gamble for them, because scumbag lawyer knew that if it didn't work, those same actions they took to win the early game would hurt them in the late game.

Of course, the only person that has lost the most in all of this is D3, because she will have lost almost a year of her time with her dad as a result.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 11:33 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Mr T. & Strait:

You got it. Remember in my early posts I described after the EM when I was speaking to her lawyer in the hallway. He saw the tears in my eyes. But Im not that same guy. I've grown stronger.

Yes, the wordy offers arn't far off now and yes they want to break me down.

No, I wont be signing my life away. I agree. They wont honor anything they suggest and will still maintain complete control.

I'm of the opinion that there needs to be orders and police enforcement for noncompliance .. although I'm cognizant judges don't always like to do the police enforcement thing.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-25-2014 at 11:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 12:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 721
Straittohell is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

They don't always want to, that is correct. You might have to get on your second appearance if they continue to fail to comply.

You can certainly request it and use the last 6 months as evidence that they don't intend to honour anything that is imposed. The worst that the judge can say is no.

One thing that I suggest is that whether you are dealing with a court order, or an unlikely agreement that you hammer out with her, to try and not get held up by the small things, no matter what. One such example is this whole business of phone calls and emails with the child when they are not with you. I have read up on all kinds of fights that people have with their exes over phone calls being refused, or one parent calling excessively, etc. Based on my own personal experience, I have actually found that LESS phone calls is better. It makes for one less thing to fight over, and forces each parent to respect the space and parenting time of the other parent.

For example, my kids are allowed to call me at any time. I am allowed to call them at any time. I make a concious decision, however, to maybe call them once, if at all, while they are at their mom's for the week. Of course, I do that because I get them for a week at a time after that, and not everyone hast that, but I find that as difficult as it can be, it makes for one less thing to wrangle with my ex, and it creates good boundaries. My kids can and do call me and my ex whenever they ask for it, but to be honest, they only maybe ask once a week.

One thing that my ex and I accomplished from this is that our kids don't treat calls to either parent as an obligation. It is something that is available to them when they want. Really, if the parent that they are with is doing their job properly, they shouldn't feel the need to call the other parent so much.

The nice thing about this whole business is that you are already used to not being able to talk to your daughter for a week at a time, so if you followed this tact, and focused on the big picture of access, and of consistent exchange times, you won't really miss the phone calls.

Just a little thought for you to consider as you move into the next phase of the process.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 12:16 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Strait:

Phone calls are small potatoes for me. One thing I wont be is high conflict and needy. She's toughened me up early.
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 06:18 PM.