Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OCL Recommendations - What to do now?

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

  • #61
    Have a settlement date of June 27.
    Should get the ocl report some time this week

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
      This case sounds cut and dry to me.

      Your ex unilaterally and abruptly cut your child out of your life.

      You've struggled with anxiety .. but have dealt with it and have documentation to prove it.

      Your ex makes up stories about cigarette smoke to deny access. NOT COOL!

      A judge has told her to give more access .. she's not listening.

      Read up on "The Maximum Contact Principle". Judges rely on this a LOT. You're not addicted to drugs/alcohol .. no history of abuse, etc. Thus, your ability to parent is NOT compromised.

      Read through this: http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...eration-18320/

      Your ex will come in preaching "status quo" and how it shouldn't be disturbed. You will reply with .. "actually, it's a MANUFACTURED status quo" that you didn't consent to. She forced it upon you.

      You dont need conferences my friend....you need a motion. If that doesn't work...a trial.
      it's called little bit differently thna MANUFACTURED status quo ...

      1. Should an almost two-year “status quo” created by manipulation and deceit prevail in a custody trial?

      415. Mr. Drouillard expressed doubt that the Applicant would have been so sophisticated as to deliberately orchestrate or perpetuate conflict, in the hope of making the Respondent look bad, or making herself look like a victim.

      416. I find it troubling that he seemed to ignore so many obvious signs of manipulation and deception. We now know that much of what the Applicant told a motions judge in her December 2, 2009 affidavit was untrue. And yet those lies changed everything, not only for the Respondent, but also for the child. A new status quo was created. With profound implications.

      417. Given the fact that the social worker predicates his sole custody recommendation on his “assumption” that the mother will be properly motivated and better behaved in the future, it is unfortunate that he failed to test or challenge any of the Applicant mother’s manipulative and self-serving behaviours – in circumstances in which the Respondent virtually pleaded with him to look beyond the surface.

      418. Creating a favourable status quo through falsehood and misrepresentation is not just a matter of litigation strategy: It is often tantamount to child abuse. It goes to the heart of “best interests” considerations; Parental judgment; The ability to sacrifice self-interest for the sake of the child; Awareness of the child’s need to have maximum contact with both parents.

      419. If past behaviour is a predictor of the future, assessors and courts have an obligation to address – and seriously sanction – common and predictable strategic behaviours intended to create an inappropriate status quo.

      485. The social worker focussed on the “status quo” without addressing the unacceptable manner in which it was created. More importantly, Mr. Drouillard appeared oblivious to the true predictive value of the status quo. The Applicant has lied and used every conceivable excuse to marginalize the Respondent and keep him out of child’s life. She’s so intent on hurting the Respondent, she doesn’t recognize – or care – that she’s hurting the child. And she shows absolutely no sign of changing.

      486. That’s the real status quo.


      S. 24(2)(c) The Length of Time the Child has Lived in a Stable Home Environment

      534. I have carefully considered this. The Applicant argued strenuously – and to a large extent Mr. Drouillard agreed – that child has resided in a stable home environment with her since November 2009. However it happened, child is used to living primarily with his mother. Any significant disruption needs to be justified, and if appropriate, implemented in a sensitive manner.

      535. But “status quo” is a complex issue. The Applicant urges the court not to disrupt the routine and relationships child is currently used to. But in November 2009 there was an equally beneficial “status quo” which she unhesitatingly extinguished, unilaterally terminating all access even though child had been used to seeing his father on a daily basis for the first 10 months of his life.

      536. The Applicant still insists she was justified. Mr. Drouillard doesn’t agree. I don’t agree either.

      537. Quite simply, the Applicant lied to create a lop-sided status quo. She continued to lie to perpetuate an advantageous strategic position, right to the eve of trial. Indeed, I find that she continued to lie at trial.

      538. Lying to gain strategic advantage in a custody case is not only an affront to our family court system, it represents a fundamental deficit in parental judgment and trustworthiness. It must be dealt with firmly and decisively -- not as retribution -- but to protect the child from further interference and deprivation, where we have been placed on actual notice of bad faith parenting.

      539. Simplistically, a “status quo” analysis often speaks to the quantity of parenting. But as the OCL social worker belatedly acknowledged during questioning, the more important assessment is quality of parenting. And in this respect, while the Applicant is generally a good mother – her exclusionary attitude toward the Respondent, combined with her questionable judgment in areas such as the child’s medical care, cause me to conclude that whatever “status quo” she created, it should not be continued.

      Comment


      • #63
        Love para. 537.. a "lop-sided" status quo. This caselaw needs to be replicated over and over my friend to make real change. Judges enjoyed employing its message in my case as well.

        As the judge stated in so many words, Succeeding in court through falsehoods, although a common litigation strategy, is tantamount to child abuse.

        The mother's argument that the child is doing well and thriving under the current conditions was nicely countered by the judge reminding her that the child was doing well living with his father before as well.

        The more judges that follow suit to this case law, as mine have in my case, the more we will deter lying and scheming as a litigation strategies to achieve new lop-sided status quo's.

        You can't just try to erase parents out of their children's lives because you break up or are mad or annoyed with them. Strict tests have to be met to deem somebody not fit to parent...and warring ex's are not qualified to objectively make rational decisions. The only way to stimulate change is for caselaw like the above to fill canlii.
        Last edited by LovingFather32; 05-22-2017, 02:01 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Any recommendations on what can be done if the ocl for not provide the report 2-3 weeks after the disclosure meeting?

          Comment


          • #65
            Hey Everybody!

            So I received the OCL report.

            After reading through it, It talks about the observation with my daughter and I. It goes on to say that i'm a competent parent, have a safe home, provide food, proper care, love, and an essentially a great parent.

            It touches on my mental health but goes on to say that its all been spoken for with doctors notes and previous clinician records.

            The overall summary as to why sole custody has been recommended to the mother is that we do not get along with each other.

            Is this enough for a Judge to order sole?

            From my understanding, Parallel Parenting is to be suggested and that it is not good enough simply that the parents do not get along.

            Thanks

            Comment


            • #66
              Hey everyone

              Need some help on the previous.

              Had my settlement conference today.

              Our offer put together a gradual increase starting in October to overnightd to an eventual shared after about a year and a half.

              During the settlement convergence at Kitchener court house the judge completely ripped apart my side. She wasn't agreeable to joint. Thought the increase was too soon (mentioned over 5 years). Fully endorsed my ex to move as long as concent was given.

              My lawyer mentioned that this is along the lines of how the judge operates.

              At this point is it worth pursuing at trial?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Dad1985 View Post
                Hey everyone

                Need some help on the previous.

                Had my settlement conference today.

                Our offer put together a gradual increase starting in October to overnightd to an eventual shared after about a year and a half.

                During the settlement convergence at Kitchener court house the judge completely ripped apart my side. She wasn't agreeable to joint. Thought the increase was too soon (mentioned over 5 years). Fully endorsed my ex to move as long as concent was given.

                My lawyer mentioned that this is along the lines of how the judge operates.

                At this point is it worth pursuing at trial?
                Well too bad but take it as big win since you not going to have that judge for the trial. 5 years to get to 50/50 is insane...why not 15? Lets make it 18 an call it a day ...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
                  Well too bad but take it as big win since you not going to have that judge for the trial. 5 years to get to 50/50 is insane...why not 15? Lets make it 18 an call it a day ...
                  My lawyer said the exact same thing when we finished. She said look at the pros...in this jurisdiction you won't get any more extreme then that.

                  I do not want to sign off on sole custody. I am a good father.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Take the judges oponion with grain of salt and go for joint custody and shared parenting. Don't settle for anything less. 5 years is too long. the children may be alienated by that time. I would go for 2 years.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by trinton View Post
                      Take the judges oponion with grain of salt and go for joint custody and shared parenting. Don't settle for anything less. 5 years is too long. the children may be alienated by that time. I would go for 2 years.

                      The ex feels a lot of confidence at this point with the ocl in her favor and after the settlement conference.

                      Obviously I on the other hand not so much. My lawyer did mention it was a gamble to go to trial and cant insure me that we win.

                      It is also at the kitchener court house from what I understand is far behind in custody arrangements

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Dad1985 View Post
                        The ex feels a lot of confidence at this point with the ocl in her favor and after the settlement conference.

                        Obviously I on the other hand not so much. My lawyer did mention it was a gamble to go to trial and cant insure me that we win.

                        It is also at the kitchener court house from what I understand is far behind in custody arrangements
                        There is never any gauarntees. it's always a gamble. for both sides. The judge just doesn't want this to go to trial and is bullying you to give up custody of your kids - and when you do - it is your fault and you must assume full responsibility for that decision. Go to trial and if you lose then let them give you reasons why you should not be an equal parent, and then exercise your right to appeal it in the Toronto court. Don't let the judge pressure you into settlement like a pushy car salesman. Judges job is to settle as many cases as possible on consent and keep trial numbers as low as possible. Do I aggree with the nasty attitudes they use to do that? Absolutely not. obviously has panties in a bunch based on what the judge has said. You should be able to get parallel parenting at the least. Sole custody is child abuse. Don't consent to it. You _will_ regret it.

                        keep in mind the courts argue they do not give custody to mothers the majority of the time and it's the fathers themselves that give it up. Go to trial and if your not worth of a parent to have involvement in your kids let the trial judge be the one to make that call so that you fought tooth and nail for your kids before your kids eyes. If I ever gave up custody of my kids because of what some monkey in a court room said I would not be able to look at my kids in the eyes and tell them that I love them.
                        Last edited by trinton; 06-28-2017, 06:58 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by trinton View Post
                          There is never any gauarntees. it's always a gamble. for both sides. The judge just doesn't want this to go to trial and is bullying you to give up custody of your kids - and when you do - it is your fault and you must assume full responsibility for that decision. Go to trial and if you lose then let them give you reasons why you should not be an equal parent, and then exercise your right to appeal it in the Toronto court. Don't let the judge pressure you into settlement like a pushy car salesman. Judges job is to settle as many cases as possible on consent and keep trial numbers as low as possible. Do I aggree with the nasty attitudes they use to do that? Absolutely not. obviously has panties in a bunch based on what the judge has said. You should be able to get parallel parenting at the least. Sole custody is child abuse. Don't consent to it. You _will_ regret it.

                          keep in mind the courts argue they do not give custody to mothers the majority of the time and it's the fathers themselves that give it up. Go to trial and if your not worth of a parent to have involvement in your kids let the trial judge be the one to make that call so that you fought tooth and nail for your kids before your kids eyes. If I ever gave up custody of my kids because of what some monkey in a court room said I would not be able to look at my kids in the eyes and tell them that I love them.
                          I find this very interesting and would appreciate reading anything relating to this.

                          I believe that your lawyer was correct in giving you fair warning that you may not be successful in trial. That is the prudent thing for a lawyer to do.

                          I'd recommend taking a break from everything and clear your head. Then go back and review submissions, pretending that you are the judge. Then you simply ask yourself how you would rule if you were a judge?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Is it possible to decide on a gradual increase in access for now than save custody issues for further down the road?

                            Such as in interim order? Or is it likely the courts would want the whole thing settled?

                            We are waiting on a proposal from the other side. From what I gather it will offer a gradual increase to every other weekend with sole custody to mother with some consideration the the father in decisions (whatever the heck that means...essentially sole)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I don't know your case personally but from what you have posted here I'd say stay the course. You, yourself, state you are a loving and caring father.

                              Sometimes you have to put your trust in the judge.

                              I'd look at getting things settled once and for all.

                              I think the minute you give into sole custody you are hooped. Particularly with mother having majority of decision-making.

                              What are the major obstacles to you getting shared custody? I don't want to read back through your numerous posts (although I would have read them before so simply refresh us please).

                              Isn't your ex a nut-job? Why would you want your child raised solely by a nut-job?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by arabian View Post
                                I find this very interesting and would appreciate reading anything relating to this.

                                I believe that your lawyer was correct in giving you fair warning that you may not be successful in trial. That is the prudent thing for a lawyer to do.

                                I'd recommend taking a break from everything and clear your head. Then go back and review submissions, pretending that you are the judge. Then you simply ask yourself how you would rule if you were a judge?
                                Read "The child custody book - how to protect your children and win your case" written by judge Judge James W. Staurt. It is in the section where he addresses the concern of bias in courts.

                                A good lawyer should always give warnings to cover their own butt. There are no gauarntees in family court. That being said, it's not unreasonable to oppose sole custody and seek parallel parenting.
                                Last edited by trinton; 06-28-2017, 08:24 PM.

                                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