Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Petition for Family Law Reform

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Petition for Family Law Reform

    Hi Community....

    I am thinking about starting a petition for Family Law Reform. I would like to see our MPP's/MP's bring forward a private members bill that proposes legislation that :

    1. Index's and/or cap's what a lawyer can charge a client to handle a divorce matter.

    2. That parties be required to mediate prior to having to resort to litigation.

    Having been through it, Its clear to me that we are all being taken advantage of by family lawyers. No matter how benevolent they may claim to be. They are soaking us and they know it.

    I think we can take the model of the OCL, or that of legal aid and expand it to cover all people.

    This has to stop. What do you guys think about a petition in this regard ?

    PND

  • #2
    Most politicians are former lawyers and/or are supported by a large block of the legal community. Trying to get this as a policy initiative is a long painful road with no guarantee of success due to a strong legal lobby against it.

    To give you an idea of how long these things take...I was at a policy convention in 1998 when same sex marriage successfully made it onto the policy agenda for the then Liberal government. It had been slogging through approvals to get there for at least five years and was only voted in by hundreds of young Liberals and women rushing in when it was called for the vote. --it almost failed-- It then took more than a decade to become law.

    Its a noble effort and Im sure many people will agree it should be supported but as long as theres money to be made, the money makers will vote against it.

    Definitely call your MP and MPPs office though and also contact the federal Liberal party to see whats on their policy agenda for their next convention.

    Comment


    • #3
      The only focus of any lobby group looking to reform family law should be the "rebuttable presumption of shared custody". Everything else will change after that...

      Comment


      • #4
        I personally do not endorse mediation in its current format.

        After a 30 year marriage I divorced and settled matters in 9 months by way of binding arbitration. We had one time-waster, namely a "4-way meeting."

        I think the current system of needless, unproductive case-conferences should be examined and stiff financial penalties levied to parties who arrive unprepared and/or seeking adjournment.

        Seems everyone uses OCL or CAS (which are free) to bolster up their child custody cases. This should be recognized for what it is.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by arabian View Post
          I personally do not endorse mediation in its current format.

          After a 30 year marriage I divorced and settled matters in 9 months by way of binding arbitration. We had one time-waster, namely a "4-way meeting."

          I think the current system of needless, unproductive case-conferences should be examined and stiff financial penalties levied to parties who arrive unprepared and/or seeking adjournment.

          Seems everyone uses OCL or CAS (which are free) to bolster up their child custody cases. This should be recognized for what it is.
          Arabian, the CAS and OCL have played a pivotal roll in my matter and I am grateful to them for giving my children a voice. That said, these resources should not be abused.

          Comment


          • #6
            I invite further comment. I think its important. None of us will likely benefit from the change as RS pointed out, but I think its something we should do.

            Comment


            • #7
              first off I would talk to your local mp or mpp to see what is involved and if they would be willing to bring it forward first.

              Comment


              • #8
                rebuttable presumption of equally shared parenting

                I agree that reform is necessary and that the strongest resistance would be from lawyers' unions like the OBA.

                A rebuttable presumption of equally shared parenting would be an excellent start. Much good would follow from that.

                I agree that obligatory mediation is very problematic. Mediation is darn near obligatory in Ontario now, but it is often used as an intentional time-and-money waster, in some cases used (like the 'conference system') to cost the other party money (and line lawyers' pockets) and to waste time so that a 'status quo' which is contrary to the child's interests is established.

                Conference system is a waste of our judges' time. At least one Ontario judge is on the record as having stated that. As soon as it's clear one party is being obstructive and unreasonable, conferences should be abandoned and things should quickly go to trial.

                And I like glitter-farting unicorns.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I have thought with JT in charge and having had a bipolar partying mother (who would have gotten custody if she didn't have the media following her everywhere) and the dad as a prime minister and being a father himself might not have a position on the matter...

                  I dont care if i benefit but having a rebuttable presumption for shared custody will cut the legs off any custody warfare unless the parents are truly unfit... and costs awarded against the party asking for sole unless there is a clear preference.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Links, thanks for concisely articulating, in your second paragraph, the value of a rebuttable assumption of equally shared...


                    I hadn't thought of JT and his experience as a child maybe increasing the political will to change things. I hope it does and it seems likely but I have some reservations. Certainly his childhood might have gone more pear shaped if his mom had had more control. Certainly if the media hadn't been following his mom around mom might have had more control, contrary to the childrens' interests. I just hope he recognizes that the fact things went relatively well for him isn't the norm.

                    I worry that, since things didn't go pear shaped for him, he will be less motivated to reform. I think an adult with power who would want to change things most would be one whose childhood was wrecked but who as an adult realises why that was allowed to happen. It seems that JT's childhood didn't get wrecked because there was a media spotlight on his mother's actions. Because of his socially exceptional experience, his family's outcome was very unusual. I hope someone close to him points out to him what a mess his childhood might have been if it had unfolded how it would have for the majority of children.


                    The fact that legal costs were not an issue for his late father is another abnormal factor which JT benefitted from and most children don't. A presumption of equally shared, with consequent costs considerations, might help children from common families overcome that.
                    Last edited by somethingelse; 10-24-2015, 07:21 AM. Reason: typo

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Exactly, he should recognize more than anybody else that the default mom gets custody would have been his fate if he hadn't been in his exceptional circumstances. He was in sole custody of his dad, he must recognize the value of fathers even if he is as busy as a prime minister.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I just want to add my name to this thread as someone who would like to take my anger and frustration at this nonsensical system to the next level.

                        I don't look on this forum every day as I need to compartmentalize the rage and sleepless nights that go along with dealing with this crap.

                        I am "fortunate" if you like in that my 2 kids are in University and therefore old enough that custody is not an issue (though she fought tooth and nail for sole). I have an excellent relationship with both.

                        My issues are purely financial... This time, as they have moved out of her place to attend school, the CS rules change (i.e. no table support, all s.7). Our divorce order clearly states CS rules to be adjusted in this circumstance. I basically proposed to make CS payments directly to the kids (which would pretty much cover the s.7 obligation). She said an emphatic NO. I made a Motion, and am waiting 4 months for the CC, which I'm sure will lead nowhere. SC to follow (another 4 months(?)), then trial probably a year after the original motion.

                        Meanwhile, she's banking massive CS payments.... she places kids squarely in the middle and they're super stressed about uni payments, expenses, etc.

                        "It's all Dads fault" because he refuses to pay your schooling.

                        This crap is hung up in courts for a YEAR... with no guarantee she'll pay back the money she is so obviously not entitled to.

                        What utter, complete crap. How anyone can possibly say this system operates in "the best interests of the children" is beyond me.

                        Anyway... enough venting.. there has to be a way to channel this negative energy into something positive... I know the financial self-interest of the legal system trumps any human concerns... so how do we start to build momentum to get around that??

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Someguy, has your ex registered with FRO? If yes then the motion is best bet. If no, why havent you stopped? Are you subtracting the CS amounts paid from the living expenses you are being asked to cover for your kids? Because that would be how you get that money "back".

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No she has not registered with the FRO... but if I were to do as you suggest (and I've certainly thought of it), she would immediately run to the FRO with the current court order to "ensure she is getting the full payments she is entitled to by order of the court".... then I've got one more layer of bureaucracy to deal with.

                            Does the FRO work both ways? i.e. can I use the FRO to recover money from her (should the court order as such)?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I great idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X