I have read a few articles on 'adversarial lawyers' and it seems its no secret 'adversarial' lawyers can really mess a family up, what about when its used in cases of domestic violence ?
If its known to be destructive why do Judges allow 'adversarial' lawyers to go unchecked in their court room ?
In my case my X had 2 adversarial lawyers from the same firm, by 'adversarial' i am referring to events like :
a) submitting a psychologist report about their client but leaving off last page (the recommendations).
b) out right lied to Judge successfully inflicting more financial burden on me.
c) making personal negative comments towards me just outside Judge's hearing range.
This are events lawyers control not their client - and not talking about lawyers responding in an agressive manner - talking about right out of the gate "day#1" this was their approach, effectively making sure negotiations and/or cooperation were contineously out of reach
Why would they do this in todays 'give peace a chance' court system ?
On item 'b)' it was a lie on court record before previous Madam Justice and the current Madam Justice just moved on, so the adversarial behavior continued.
For over 3+ years I could get no protection from my X whom threatened me with feeling pain and just days before the end of my case was sending me materials like the picture of a tombstone;
Was an 'adversarial' approach a good position for my 'X' in a situation where she was the perpretator of domestic violence ?
A little background - my X beat our children severely, I mean bleeding from the mouth - knocking them to the floor and stepping on their necks for as little as spilling some popcorn watching a kids TV movie, I was attacked also such as blows to the upper body in front of my daughter and being knocked to the floor while sleeping in our bed, I was even told how to walk across the floor.
The 'adversarial' approach was 110% effective in the situation of extreme domestic violence - it was thee 'perfect' position for my X especially with the court unwilling to intervene or acknowledge the behaviour.
The 'collaborative' approach of my lawyers (from different firms not just 1 lawyers behaviour ) i sometimes refer to as 'laying down', if they truely wanted cooperation and any type of family plan or for 1 parent to be able to sit along side the other is it unreasable to ask they first had to curb the violence and threats against the other parent ?;
I believe lawyers are have no practicle training in domestic violence ... and just throw it over the fence to therapists while in fact Judges are making the decisions;
The mother moved out of the city, the Judge never knew I was getting pictures of tombstone just days before giving the mother custody of all 3 children , among other things the Judge never even knew I wanted parallel parenting ...
I am in Calgary Alberta Canada, the last stronghold of what I see as a 'mothers only' legal system.
If its known to be destructive why do Judges allow 'adversarial' lawyers to go unchecked in their court room ?
In my case my X had 2 adversarial lawyers from the same firm, by 'adversarial' i am referring to events like :
a) submitting a psychologist report about their client but leaving off last page (the recommendations).
b) out right lied to Judge successfully inflicting more financial burden on me.
c) making personal negative comments towards me just outside Judge's hearing range.
This are events lawyers control not their client - and not talking about lawyers responding in an agressive manner - talking about right out of the gate "day#1" this was their approach, effectively making sure negotiations and/or cooperation were contineously out of reach
Why would they do this in todays 'give peace a chance' court system ?
On item 'b)' it was a lie on court record before previous Madam Justice and the current Madam Justice just moved on, so the adversarial behavior continued.
For over 3+ years I could get no protection from my X whom threatened me with feeling pain and just days before the end of my case was sending me materials like the picture of a tombstone;
Was an 'adversarial' approach a good position for my 'X' in a situation where she was the perpretator of domestic violence ?
A little background - my X beat our children severely, I mean bleeding from the mouth - knocking them to the floor and stepping on their necks for as little as spilling some popcorn watching a kids TV movie, I was attacked also such as blows to the upper body in front of my daughter and being knocked to the floor while sleeping in our bed, I was even told how to walk across the floor.
The 'adversarial' approach was 110% effective in the situation of extreme domestic violence - it was thee 'perfect' position for my X especially with the court unwilling to intervene or acknowledge the behaviour.
The 'collaborative' approach of my lawyers (from different firms not just 1 lawyers behaviour ) i sometimes refer to as 'laying down', if they truely wanted cooperation and any type of family plan or for 1 parent to be able to sit along side the other is it unreasable to ask they first had to curb the violence and threats against the other parent ?;
I believe lawyers are have no practicle training in domestic violence ... and just throw it over the fence to therapists while in fact Judges are making the decisions;
The mother moved out of the city, the Judge never knew I was getting pictures of tombstone just days before giving the mother custody of all 3 children , among other things the Judge never even knew I wanted parallel parenting ...
I am in Calgary Alberta Canada, the last stronghold of what I see as a 'mothers only' legal system.
Comment