PDA

View Full Version : "Don't Panic" - What Defines Urgency Before the Court?


Tayken
10-07-2012, 08:42 AM
Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC)
Date: 2005-01-13
Docket: 20391/05
URL: CanLII - 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1jl12)
Citation: Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC),

Many people come to this site with "urgent" or "emergency" situations. The above case law is a great summary of what defines an "emergency" for which a motion can be brought forward before a case conference.

Many come that the situation in their home is so dire that they have to have exclusive possession and that it is an "emergency". More than likely, it is not and this is how the court may determine so:


[5] He has also directed me to the decision of Belch J in Hood v. Hood, [2001] O.J. No. 2918 (S.C.J. – Family Court) in which this definition was considered. Justice Belch refused to hear the motion in that case before a case conference. He commented, “It is my decision that an urgent motion within a court proceeding contemplates issues such as abduction, threats of harm, dire financial circumstances and these can be addressed prior to a case conference.”

[6] I agree with Justice Belch. However, given the apparent lack of direction in the caselaw about what constitutes urgency, I will add my comments about how I approach a request to proceed with an “urgent” motion prior to a case conference.

[7] The first step should be an inquiry as to when case conference dates are available to deal with the matter. If there is a particularly pressing issue, the trial coordinator should be made aware of this, as there may be times that could be made available for cases of urgency to avoid a motion. In this particular case, I was surprised to hear from Mr. Singer that he had made NO inquiry about available case conference dates prior to bringing his motion. He says he assumed from a case conference date that was assigned in another matter that there would be a wait of 3 to 4 weeks[1]. He was surprised to learn from me that there are dates available in this court on January 14 (two days from now); January 17 and 21 (Monday and Friday of next week) and January 24 (the following week). There are also several dates available after January 24.

[8] The availability of case conference dates is important in assessing urgency. Obviously, if a date was not available for several months, a situation that would not otherwise seem urgent might become more critical.

[9] The next step prior to bringing a motion should be to engage in settlement discussions to try to obtain a resolution of the pressing matters until the case conference date. The focus is on achieving a short-term agreement to get the parties through to the case conference date without a motion, rather than necessarily achieving a final resolution on all issues in the case. While the court will not want to hear about the content of offers that have been exchanged, due to the confidentiality provisions of Rule 18(8) it is important to know whether the parties have made some attempt to negotiate and, if not, why not.

[10] For example, if an urgent motion is being considered because an applicant is in dire need of support, it is helpful in assessing urgency for the court to know whether support has been requested from the other side and, if so, whether proposals have been made. Generally, counsel will advise the court of their positions as part of their opening statements on the issue of urgency. I have seen situations where a moving party “urgently” requests, for example, $2000/month support to see him or her through to the first case conference date. In assessing whether this motion is urgent or not, it will make a difference to know whether the other side is completely refusing to pay any funds or is prepared to pay enough money to address immediate needs but not necessarily the amount requested by the moving party. If the payor’s opening position to the court is that he or she will pay, for example, $1500/month rather than the requested $2000 until the case conference, the urgency becomes less compelling. A similar analysis could be applied to “urgent” motions for custody, access, etc. It is generally difficult to establish that a motion is urgently needed, absent any attempt to resolve the issues by negotiation prior to bringing the motion[2].

...

[30] All this material is objectionable. The husband’s affidavits are unnecessarily inflammatory. His one-sided version of facts, his failure to acknowledge any responsibility for the climate in which the children are living and, particularly, for Jessica’s state last Friday night, cause me to question his motives and his approach to this litigation. I urge him and his counsel to reconsider how they are proceeding and come to the case conference with several proposals for resolution that might allow the parties to create some semblance of peace for their children once a physical separation is achieved.

...

[33] This motion was not urgent and should not have been brought. Costs are to be determined at the conclusion of each step (Rule 24(10). Ms. Rosen is entitled to her costs of arguing this contested adjournment on close to a full recovery basis, given the unreasonable conduct of Mr. Rosen in commencing this motion without trying to book a quick case conference day first. For oral reasons given, order to go that Mr. Rosen pay Ms. Rosen her costs of today, fixed at $2500 plus GST and payable within 10 days.

More on the matter of "urgency" can be found here:

Hyde v. Szabo, 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC)
Date: 2007-11-01
Docket: 4740/05
URL: CanLII - 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1tgfm)
Citation: Hyde v. Szabo, 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC)


[23] In considering the merits of Mr. Hyde bringing the urgent October 25 motion prior to a case conference, it is acknowledged that the Family Law Rules stipulate in Rule 14(4) that motions may only be brought after a case conference is held unless there is a situation of urgency or hardship. Further, it is accepted that decisions of our courts have held that permitting a motion to be brought before a case conference should certainly be the exception. At least two Justices of this court have commented upon the standard that must be met and the presence of urgency that is required. In Hood v. Hood, [2001] O.J. No. 2918 (S.C.J. Family Court), Belch J. commented that “an urgent motion within a court proceeding contemplates issues such as abduction, threats of harm, dire financial circumstances” and that these may be addressed prior to a case conference. In Rosen v. Rosen, [2005] O. J. No. 62 (S.C.J. Family Court) Wildman J. observed that whether urgency is present may in part depend on the existence of other circumstances, such as whether a case conference date was available on any sort of timely basis that would be responsive to the demands of the particular case. Both decisions make clear that it is not on a mere trifle that a motion should be permitted to be brought before a case conference, but rather only in the face of circumstances that show that a real standard of urgency can be met. Such circumstances might include, for example, real risk of material depletion or alienation of assets, real risk of harm to children if matters of custody are not resolved on an urgent basis or if a matrimonial home is not awarded exclusively to one spouse and the children, or real risk of material hardship being experienced by a custodial parent and children in the face of a non-custodial parents failure to provide support.

This case law should be considered by any litigant and their counsel before bringing an "urgent" matter to court before case conference.

In light of this case law, any barrister and solicitor who brings a motion on an urgent (emergency) basis before the court that does not meet this criteria in my personal opinion should have costs awarded against them. It should fall on the lawyer representing their client on the "urgent" request to insure that their client's evidence brought forward meets the criteria.

Furthermore, Legal Aid Ontario should be responsible for financing and funding litigants who bring "urgent" matters prior to case conference on an "emergency" basis. LOA lacks the governance structure to insure that public funds are not wasted on frivolous matters and should be accountable to both parties to the litigation for how public funds are used and possibly abused.

Good Luck!
Tayken

murphyslaw
10-07-2012, 09:31 AM
Lawyers oversee the actions of other lawyers.What could possibly go wrong?:D From what I have heard and overheard ,its a tactic to gain the upper hand without having the burden of proof.The "emergency" brings things into the "what if" arena.What if these allegations are true?What if the mother/father is a satan worshipper and will sacrifice on the full moon and that's tomorrow......:eek: Here's a "whatif"....what if the lawyer had to pay out of their own pocket for bringing forward a frivolous motion?.I had the pleasure of reading one of these and it was so ludicrous and so full of lies and sheer fabrication it was almost funny.Most of what was said could have been dis proven by a google search!Now ...if this wasn't money for nothing ..would the lawyer have gone through with it?

Tayken
10-07-2012, 09:38 AM
Lawyers oversee the actions of other lawyers.What could possibly go wrong?:D From what I have heard and overheard ,its a tactic to gain the upper hand without having the burden of proof.The "emergency" brings things into the "what if" arena.What if these allegations are true?What if the mother/father is a satan worshipper and will sacrifice on the full moon and that's tomorrow......:eek: Here's a "whatif"....what if the lawyer had to pay out of their own pocket for bringing forward a frivolous motion?.I had the pleasure of reading one of these and it was so ludicrous and so full of lies and sheer fabrication it was almost funny.Most of what was said could have been dis proven by a google search!Now ...if this wasn't money for nothing ..would the lawyer have gone through with it?

When you add Legal Aid Ontario into the mix you get:

"Allegations of nothing and your motions for free."

Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
You file an emergency in the SCJ
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Allegations that mean nothin' and Legal Aid for free

Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Lemme tell ya them lawyers ain't dumb
Maybe get a cost award against your client
Maybe get a the judge to order a false status quo

We gotta call the police, Children's aid and all their friends as witnesses
We gotta move on this motion
We gotta move on an em-er-gen-cyyyyyyyyyy, ex-parte that is!

I want my...
I want my...
I want my Legal Aid...
I want my...
I want my...
I want my Legal Aid... for free that is...

murphyslaw
10-07-2012, 10:16 AM
Lmao!!!!:d

wretchedotis
10-07-2012, 03:29 PM
Excellent post!

When you add Legal Aid Ontario into the mix you get:

"Allegations of nothing and your motions for free."

Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
You file an emergency in the SCJ
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Allegations that mean nothin' and Legal Aid for free

Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Lemme tell ya them lawyers ain't dumb
Maybe get a cost award against your client
Maybe get a the judge to order a false status quo

We gotta call the police, Children's aid and all their friends as witnesses
We gotta move on this motion
We gotta move on an em-er-gen-cyyyyyyyyyy, ex-parte that is!

I want my...
I want my...
I want my Legal Aid...
I want my...
I want my...
I want my Legal Aid... for free that is...

Dire Straits! Great tune!

kidsRworthit
10-12-2012, 02:19 PM
Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC)
Date: 2005-01-13
Docket: 20391/05
URL: CanLII - 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1jl12)
Citation: Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC),

Many people come to this site with "urgent" or "emergency" situations. The above case law is a great summary of what defines an "emergency" for which a motion can be brought forward before a case conference.

Many come that the situation in their home is so dire that they have to have exclusive possession and that it is an "emergency". More than likely, it is not and this is how the court may determine so:



More on the matter of "urgency" can be found here:

Hyde v. Szabo, 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC)
Date: 2007-11-01
Docket: 4740/05
URL: CanLII - 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1tgfm)
Citation: Hyde v. Szabo, 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC)



This case law should be considered by any litigant and their counsel before bringing an "urgent" matter to court before case conference.

In light of this case law, any barrister and solicitor who brings a motion on an urgent (emergency) basis before the court that does not meet this criteria in my personal opinion should have costs awarded against them. It should fall on the lawyer representing their client on the "urgent" request to insure that their client's evidence brought forward meets the criteria.

Furthermore, Legal Aid Ontario should be responsible for financing and funding litigants who bring "urgent" matters prior to case conference on an "emergency" basis. LOA lacks the governance structure to insure that public funds are not wasted on frivolous matters and should be accountable to both parties to the litigation for how public funds are used and possibly abused.

Good Luck!
Tayken

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif Determination of urgency conditions for Family Law Motions
<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Family Law Rule 14(4) provides that a motion can’t be served or heard before a case conference has been held unless it is a decision of hardship or urgency or in the interests of justice not to require a case conference. Note that an urgent motion is not necessarily synonymous with a motion without justice. Both should be infrequent but the test found Family Law Rule 14 (12) to justify proceeding without notice is very stringent.

Test met: immediate danger of the children’s removal from Ontario, immediate danger to the health and safety of the children, or irreparable harm, or solid evidence of urgency from the children’s perspective; abduction, threats of harm, dire financial circumstances, or financial hardship to the children documented by particulars of their unmet needs.

Test not met: mere fact of being in receipt of social assistance, mere fact of denial of access, anticipatory breach of parenting regime based on "fear" without foundation, issues of timing or convenience personal to, or caused by the moving party, mother's request to move children; alleged urgency is her need to meet her employer's notice requirement, mother's request for child support brought on the basis that father had stalled and delayed for 1.5 years already.
ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>

Tayken
10-12-2012, 03:50 PM
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif Determination of urgency conditions for Family Law Motions
<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Family Law Rule 14(4) provides that a motion can’t be served or heard before a case conference has been held unless it is a decision of hardship or urgency or in the interests of justice not to require a case conference. Note that an urgent motion is not necessarily synonymous with a motion without justice. Both should be infrequent but the test found Family Law Rule 14 (12) to justify proceeding without notice is very stringent.

Test met: immediate danger of the children’s removal from Ontario, immediate danger to the health and safety of the children, or irreparable harm, or solid evidence of urgency from the children’s perspective; abduction, threats of harm, dire financial circumstances, or financial hardship to the children documented by particulars of their unmet needs.

Test not met: mere fact of being in receipt of social assistance, mere fact of denial of access, anticipatory breach of parenting regime based on "fear" without foundation, issues of timing or convenience personal to, or caused by the moving party, mother's request to move children; alleged urgency is her need to meet her employer's notice requirement, mother's request for child support brought on the basis that father had stalled and delayed for 1.5 years already.
ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>

Could you please cite the source of the information provided? (Web-link to the content quoted.)

kidsRworthit
10-12-2012, 04:34 PM
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif Determination of urgency conditions for Family Law Motions

<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Family Law Rule 14(4) provides that a motion can’t be served or heard before a case conference has been held unless it is a decision of hardship or urgency or in the interests of justice not to require a case conference. Note that an urgent motion is not necessarily synonymous with a motion without justice. Both should be infrequent but the test found Family Law Rule 14 (12) to justify proceeding without notice is very stringent.

Test met: immediate danger of the children’s removal from Ontario, immediate danger to the health and safety of the children, or irreparable harm, or solid evidence of urgency from the children’s perspective; abduction, threats of harm, dire financial circumstances, or financial hardship to the children documented by particulars of their unmet needs.

Test not met: mere fact of being in receipt of social assistance, mere fact of denial of access, anticipatory breach of parenting regime based on "fear" without foundation, issues of timing or convenience personal to, or caused by the moving party, mother's request to move children; alleged urgency is her need to meet her employer's notice requirement, mother's request for child support brought on the basis that father had stalled and delayed for 1.5 years already.
ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>

Could you please cite the source of the information provided? (Web-link to the content quoted.)

Justice MacKinnon, Family Law Motions Seeking a Determination of Urgency (directive), [date not referenced]

sa_snoopin
10-20-2012, 08:26 AM
Can you bring a motion after a settlement conference in which the judge refused to rule and only submitted a endorsement to settle issues?
Can that endorsement be converted to an order and how would I do that?
The respondent has refused to get a lawyer, refused to settle, and now is refusing to pay taxes on a property that
The applicant had to flea to due to abuse. No children involved, 30 year marriage. The home is jointly owned but applicant cannot afford and is not able to sell due to respondents refusal.

wife#2
10-20-2012, 10:47 AM
Thanks for this post about emergency motions. It is interesting to me because my husband has been to 2 in the past 2 years, neither of which met this criteria (as far as we can tell). I would love your opinion on the situation, as well as to help anyone in a similar situation. I find often in this system you can do all the research you want, consult with lawyers, but in the end, complete opposite. As far as we can tell from being in court repeatedly for the past 2 years, it all depends on the judge you get, which is why this system is completely broken!
In Aug 2011 my hubby's ex moved. Desite my hubby sending emails requesting that they discuss her move and the child (boy, now 10) school for the following year, the ex refuses to tell us where she is moving. The child is crying (no lie) all summer to us, confused what is happening. Litterly asking us where mom is taking him. So, one day after she moves (Aug 17) and 2 weeks before school, she emails hubby to say where she moved (30 min away) from both current school and us (we bought house 2 blocks from son's school). She tells him which school she wants him to attend in new neighbourhood and tells him to 'co-operate'. Access at this time is approx 45% hubby, 55% ex (temporary agreement, court signed). So of course hubby refuses this. Child has been in same school since kindergarden, 2 blocks from us. Ex calls immediate 'emergency' motion. 3 days before school, court. For once in 2 years, we win!!! Child stays in school near us and judge changes schedule to 50/50. Also orders OCL at our request. Costs are still to be determined in this matter.

Flash forward one year. OCL does their report over the fall/winter. Unfortunately, OCL recommends child primary residence be with mother and change schools to her location (I can write a 10 page agruement over this, but will try to stay on topic). Will just say that the only reason OCL gives is that hubby works shifts, and this can be confusing to child (BS, and we think extremely discrimatory against shift workers, but thats another topic for another time!) So OCL report is out in Feb. Our lawyer (who we use for advise, not court, can't afford anymore!) tells us they will have to have a case conference on this matter. So we wait. Ex and her lawyer know hubby is against new school or change to access. Aug 2012, ex calls 'emergency' motion to change school and access based on OCL report. No case conference, no nothing. We consult 2 lawyers and do a ton research, all seem to say status quo is never changed on an emergency motion. Needs to go to trial, need to have case conference, etc. This is pointed out in our affidavit, as well as that there is no harm at all to child to stay in this school until a proper trial, case conference, whatever.
End of story goes, ex wins, change of access from 50/50 to 30/70. Change schools. And worst even yet, awards her costs at $3000. Were we wrong to not just agree with OCL report? What happened here? Thanks all.

Unevenplayingground
10-20-2012, 12:45 PM
Thanks for this post about emergency motions. It is interesting to me because my husband has been to 2 in the past 2 years, neither of which met this criteria (as far as we can tell). I would love your opinion on the situation, as well as to help anyone in a similar situation. I find often in this system you can do all the research you want, consult with lawyers, but in the end, complete opposite. As far as we can tell from being in court repeatedly for the past 2 years, it all depends on the judge you get, which is why this system is completely broken!
In Aug 2011 my hubby's ex moved. Desite my hubby sending emails requesting that they discuss her move and the child (boy, now 10) school for the following year, the ex refuses to tell us where she is moving. The child is crying (no lie) all summer to us, confused what is happening. Litterly asking us where mom is taking him. So, one day after she moves (Aug 17) and 2 weeks before school, she emails hubby to say where she moved (30 min away) from both current school and us (we bought house 2 blocks from son's school). She tells him which school she wants him to attend in new neighbourhood and tells him to 'co-operate'. Access at this time is approx 45% hubby, 55% ex (temporary agreement, court signed). So of course hubby refuses this. Child has been in same school since kindergarden, 2 blocks from us. Ex calls immediate 'emergency' motion. 3 days before school, court. For once in 2 years, we win!!! Child stays in school near us and judge changes schedule to 50/50. Also orders OCL at our request. Costs are still to be determined in this matter.

Flash forward one year. OCL does their report over the fall/winter. Unfortunately, OCL recommends child primary residence be with mother and change schools to her location (I can write a 10 page agruement over this, but will try to stay on topic). Will just say that the only reason OCL gives is that hubby works shifts, and this can be confusing to child (BS, and we think extremely discrimatory against shift workers, but thats another topic for another time!) So OCL report is out in Feb. Our lawyer (who we use for advise, not court, can't afford anymore!) tells us they will have to have a case conference on this matter. So we wait. Ex and her lawyer know hubby is against new school or change to access. Aug 2012, ex calls 'emergency' motion to change school and access based on OCL report. No case conference, no nothing. We consult 2 lawyers and do a ton research, all seem to say status quo is never changed on an emergency motion. Needs to go to trial, need to have case conference, etc. This is pointed out in our affidavit, as well as that there is no harm at all to child to stay in this school until a proper trial, case conference, whatever.
End of story goes, ex wins, change of access from 50/50 to 30/70. Change schools. And worst even yet, awards her costs at $3000. Were we wrong to not just agree with OCL report? What happened here? Thanks all.

We recently went through something similar, except we were the ones moving out of province (work related, no choice), my step-son wanted to move with us. The son had to stay with the mother until the OCL/"social worker" made a decision. So for months the son was being told by the mother that if he moves, she can't afford her apartment anymore, etc, etc. So basically in the end, the son (who was almost 12 at the time) said he didn't care where he went. So based on this, the OCL and their so called social worker said he would stay with mom. There was a case conference with us, but there was no report done up by the OCL/social worker, they told us they will only do a report if it is going to trial. We were told if it went to trail (by our lawyer) that we would lose, judge doesn't usually go against the OCL/social worker, and that we could end up paying his ex's costs. Since we couldn't afford our own lawyer's fees we didn't go further. The system does favour the mother in most cases.

I don't understand why the case conference was not set up. Was the OCL not completely finished with interviews, etc?

I did find this whole process very confusing. I don't know if I helped you, but thought maybe hearing our story might help somehow??

I think you are on to something when you say it depends on the judge, unfortunately. The system is broken.

Tayken
10-20-2012, 01:11 PM
There was a case conference with us, but there was no report done up by the OCL/social worker, they told us they will only do a report if it is going to trial. We were told if it went to trail (by our lawyer) that we would lose, judge doesn't usually go against the OCL/social worker, and that we could end up paying his ex's costs. Since we couldn't afford our own lawyer's fees we didn't go further. The system does favour the mother in most cases.

1. The cogent and relevant evidence to that "truism" being complete and utter bogus claim to make as an excuse can be found in the following case law:

Date: 2011-11-09
Docket: F-2172/09
URL: CanLII - 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII) (http://canlii.ca/t/fnr57)

Notable quote from this very well cited case law:

The Respondent was one of the most skilled and well-prepared self-represented litigants this court has seen. He was meticulously organized, and consistently demonstrated a working knowledge of the relevant provisions of the Children’s Law Reform Act, Family Law Act, the Courts of Justice Act and the Family Law Rules. Under cross-examination he was responsive but unflappable. His own cross-examination of the Applicant and the OCL social worker was respectful, understated – and at times devastating.

393. Under questioning Mr. Drouillard acknowledged a couple “truisms” well known among lawyers, judges, social workers – and frequently litigants themselves.

394. The first is that “status quo” is important. Perhaps the first piece of legal advice separated parents get is that temporary arrangements often come to be self-perpetuating. That’s why parties work so hard to stake out their turf; create patterns; and obtain favourable temporary (or even temporary-temporary) orders.

395. The second truism relates to the simplistic correlation between “joint custody” and “conflict”. Although obviously a gross oversimplification, many parents come to perceive that if someone wants joint custody they have to be able to get along with their estranged partner. The obvious corollary: if you can’t get along; if you can’t communicate; if there’s lots of conflict, then joint custody is unlikely to be imposed.

396. The OCL social worker fully acknowledged that separated parents commonly share these stereotypical perceptions. While Mr. Drouillard testified that social workers preparing assessments and section 112 reports try to be mindful of strategic behaviour by parents, in this case he appears to have done virtually nothing to investigate the extent to which either party was manipulating the system for strategic reasons.

397. Mr. Drouillard described the relationship between the parties as being "very high conflict". He said each party made numerous allegations about the other. Things were particularly bad whenever the parents had direct contact. He said some of the conflict was "situational" in the sense that custody litigation represents a time of high emotional crisis for both parties, and they were likely each behaving at their worst. But he doubted the conflict will end when this court case is completed. He said that’s why he ruled out joint custody (which he mistakenly believed the Respondent was seeking). That’s why he recommended sole custody. And with the mother having the status quo, that’s why he recommended sole custody to the mother.

398. Just like those “truisms” would have predicted.

399. During questioning, the Respondent expressed frustration that the social worker simply accepted the Applicant’s numerous allegations, without making any effort to determine if they were true. Mr. Drouillard responded that he did not even try to make factual determinations as to who did what. He was simply summarizing the fact that numerous allegations were being made, and this level of conflict impacted on parenting.

400. The Respondent suggested that by simply listing allegations rather than investigating them – and then reporting many more of the Applicant’s complaints than the Respondent’s explanations – the social worker never really developed much insight. In the Respondent’s view, the section 112 report told us what we could just as easily discern from the size of the court file: these people fight a lot.

401. The Respondent challenged Mr. Drouillard. Why didn’t he dig deeper? Why didn’t he look into the allegations? The timing? The veracity? Inconsistencies? Why didn’t he distinguish between allegations and false allegations? Did it make any difference if people were acting in good faith – or bad? Do deceit and manipulation tell us anything about parental judgment? Did he even consider whether either party might have a motive to lie or promote conflict? Were there signs of parental alienation? Was it necessary for Maxeem’s world to be so terribly disrupted?

402. How was Maxeem affected? And how is he likely to be affected in the future?

403. It would appear that Mr. Drouillard spent little or no time asking any of these questions.


Suffice to say... You should read the case law from the link to see what the final result was on prior to "believing" that no judge goes against the OCL... That truism died many years ago with the hole "truism" that mothers always get sole custody.

Key point. Dedicated, educated and good parents are who get sole custody of their children. NOT GENDER!

2. No substantive issue can be ordered at a case conference and whatever you ended up with as a result of the case conference was agreed to on CONSENT. So you consented to moving away and not moving to trial for the child's best interests to be actually determined by the court.


I don't understand why the case conference was not set up. Was the OCL not completely finished with interviews, etc?

You should have went to trial if your evidence for the move being in the child's best interests was as good as you state often in your correspondence rather than consenting to something else you didn't agree with at a case conference. You were under no legal obligation to consent nor could a judge at a case conference order against you.

I think you are on to something when you say it depends on the judge, unfortunately. The system is broken.

I disagree 100% with the above statement. The system is not broken. Litigants fail to understand the system, educate themselves, throw away their rights in "fear" at case conferences and don't bother to invest any personal time in understanding the basic fundamentals of what defines a child's "best interests" before the court.

For the other parents that actually do... Actually read the link provided in this response in full to see the "truth" of what happens before the Superior Court, Family Law quite often.

Good Luck!
Tayken

wife#2
10-20-2012, 01:34 PM
Tayken, what about my case? I really want to know your opinion. And trust me, we educated ourselves a lot, which is why we were very surprised at the outcome. Also, part of the 'fear' you say people give into is based on constantly being threatened with a worse outcome and court costs! We felt we had every right to defend ourselves and push for 'status quo'. We gave numerous reasons why we felt it was in the child's best interest to stay 50/50 with both parents, or more with us do to his school being in our neighbourhood. My husband showed his last years work schedule and the literally dozens and dozens of shift changes he had made so that he was actually almost never, ever in the past year working while he child was in our care (the main complaint of his ex, which was totally untrue, and we proved it). None of this seemed to matter, or so we feel. So truely, I want people's opinions. What do think?

wife#2
10-20-2012, 02:02 PM
Uneven, I understand your situation. Personally, I think dropping it was a good idea. I find it would have been nearly impossible for a man to prove the child should be with him, change status quo, against OCL, and a change of province to boot! Im sure you would have lost, and had to pay costs.
Also, I completely understand about the child changing his mind on where he wants to live. Exactly same thing happened to us. Child wanted to be with us for over a year. The exact week the child met OCL SW, starting acting completely different. Over the course of a few weeks, child changed completely. He went from calling his father every single day while he was at his mother's house, to never. He started calling mom every single day from our house, never had before (or extremely rarely). Starting telling dad and me, 'I'm no longer comfortable when dad works'. (funny, the ex's main complaint!). When we spoke with child he started crying, said, and I quote, 'I'm upset over the reason the OCL worker is here, but I can't talk about'. Later he tells us that his mother, grandma, brother told him he must call everyday because 'mom cries everyday when I'm not there'. I can go on and on with stories like this. We told the OCL all of this, as it was happening at the time of their investigation. His response, 'child often act differently when someone new is in their life'. Thats great, thanks. Also, OCL did not put any of these, or our many other concerns in their report. Was a mess.

Unevenplayingground
10-20-2012, 02:26 PM
Uneven, I understand your situation. Personally, I think dropping it was a good idea. I find it would have been nearly impossible for a man to prove the child should be with him, change status quo, against OCL, and a change of province to boot! Im sure you would have lost, and had to pay costs.
Also, I completely understand about the child changing his mind on where he wants to live. Exactly same thing happened to us. Child wanted to be with us for over a year. The exact week the child met OCL SW, starting acting completely different. Over the course of a few weeks, child changed completely. He went from calling his father every single day while he was at his mother's house, to never. He started calling mom every single day from our house, never had before (or extremely rarely). Starting telling dad and me, 'I'm no longer comfortable when dad works'. (funny, the ex's main complaint!). When we spoke with child he started crying, said, and I quote, 'I'm upset over the reason the OCL worker is here, but I can't talk about'. Later he tells us that his mother, grandma, brother told him he must call everyday because 'mom cries everyday when I'm not there'. I can go on and on with stories like this. We told the OCL all of this, as it was happening at the time of their investigation. His response, 'child often act differently when someone new is in their life'. Thats great, thanks. Also, OCL did not put any of these, or our many other concerns in their report. Was a mess.

It is a really frustrating process. We would not talk about the case with my step-son. The only thing we would ever say is that he had to be clear on what he wanted and it is ok if he wanted to stay with his mom. We didn't like it but agreed that he was almost 12 and he can communicate to us if there is a problem. We knew that he was being manipulated beyond belief by the mother. Keep in mind, she isn't able to respond to this, so you only have my word on the events. We have had him call his mother when he arrives with us so (so she knows he got here ok) she doesn't answer the phone, then almost a week later calls to yell at him for not calling. There is a lot of manipulation on her part, but after this whole ordeal we are exhausted. They system failed us (in our opinion only). We thought we were prepared, we thought as long as we told the truth when giving our reasons that his son would make the move. Another thing is, his son always said he wanted to move with us, he was even the one that told his mother that. It took a lot of guts for a kid to say that to a parent, and through this whole experience, he learned he didn't have a voice. Now in the end, we were told by the OCL/social worker he said he didn't care where he lived. We have never asked him, because we don't want to put him through that.

I just feel like being a woman helps, your lawyer, the OCL/social worker you get, the judge you get if you go to trial, it all comes into play. We also think the more deceitful you are can really help. We played fair and lost. No, this isn't everybody's final outcome, but we definately feel the system on a whole failed us, and that as much as we did try, we also were not educated enough, but that was why we hired our lawyer. We knew we had no idea what to do.

When all is said and done, I am still confused on the process.

wife#2
10-20-2012, 02:37 PM
I feel the system has actually failed my step son. Again, would have to tell you over 2 years of stories etc., but in the end, thats what makes me most sad. Happy to discuss on another post, but for now, back to original topic!
Emergency Motions. In everyones opinion, was my example really an emergency?

Unevenplayingground
10-20-2012, 02:44 PM
I feel the system has actually failed my step son. Again, would have to tell you over 2 years of stories etc., but in the end, thats what makes me most sad. Happy to discuss on another post, but for now, back to original topic!
Emergency Motions. In everyones opinion, was my example really an emergency?

What was the reason the ex put down in order to even request the emergency motion? Were you advised of that?

wife#2
10-20-2012, 02:58 PM
Nope! Only 'emergency' was that school was to start in 2 weeks in both cases, both years.

Unevenplayingground
10-20-2012, 03:06 PM
Nope! Only 'emergency' was that school was to start in 2 weeks in both cases, both years.

I'm guessing that the motion was allowed that the court allowed it to be considered as an emergency.

It just seems so odd because there are other threads on here where one of the parents tries to move and this goes against the person. The parent that pulls this stunt can sometimes be forced to move back to the original area. You may want to do a search on those threads and see if anything is similar. I just don't understand why the court allowed her to change the schools on the children.

What was her reason for moving? You may have explained this, sorry if I am asking you to repeat info.

I'm sorry I don't have more to add.

kidsRworthit
10-20-2012, 11:36 PM
1. The cogent and relevant evidence to that "truism" being complete and utter bogus claim to make as an excuse can be found in the following case law:

Date: 2011-11-09
Docket: F-2172/09
URL: CanLII - 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII) (http://canlii.ca/t/fnr57)

Notable quote from this very well cited case law:





Suffice to say... You should read the case law from the link to see what the final result was on prior to "believing" that no judge goes against the OCL... That truism died many years ago with the hole "truism" that mothers always get sole custody.

Key point. Dedicated, educated and good parents are who get sole custody of their children. NOT GENDER!

2. No substantive issue can be ordered at a case conference and whatever you ended up with as a result of the case conference was agreed to on CONSENT. So you consented to moving away and not moving to trial for the child's best interests to be actually determined by the court.



You should have went to trial if your evidence for the move being in the child's best interests was as good as you state often in your correspondence rather than consenting to something else you didn't agree with at a case conference. You were under no legal obligation to consent nor could a judge at a case conference order against you.



I disagree 100% with the above statement. The system is not broken. Litigants fail to understand the system, educate themselves, throw away their rights in "fear" at case conferences and don't bother to invest any personal time in understanding the basic fundamentals of what defines a child's "best interests" before the court.

For the other parents that actually do... Actually read the link provided in this response in full to see the "truth" of what happens before the Superior Court, Family Law quite often.

Good Luck!
Tayken

______________________________

Insightful read - thanks for sharing Tayken.

In my opinion, this case is certainly worth the read, and is highly pertinent addressing many issues in this thread.
Like a good movie, I won't spoil the ending...

Wanted to draw attention to The Order...
specifically:

1. OFW is being ordered unless both parties agree otherwise in writing.
2. Costs seemingly haven't been raised as a claim, and the door is being left open to arrange a claim for costs (presumably by party on balance who "won" more of the case).

569.Regular Communications: Unless both parties agree otherwise in writing, all ordinary communications shall be in writing using the Our Family Wizard website (the cost of which is to be paid by the Respondent, until the Applicant obtains employment income, at which time the cost shall be shared in proportion to their respective incomes). If that website is no longer available, the parties shall use e-mail.

570.Urgent Communications: For anything of a truly time sensitive or urgent nature, the parties shall call or text and a response shall be provided as soon as the parent receives that communication.

603.Other Claims: All other claims, except costs, are dismissed.

606.Residual Issues: Apart from the issue of a possible redetermination of child support, either party may arrange further time to address any other issues, including costs.

Tayken
10-21-2012, 09:02 AM
Tayken, what about my case? I really want to know your opinion. And trust me, we educated ourselves a lot, which is why we were very surprised at the outcome. Also, part of the 'fear' you say people give into is based on constantly being threatened with a worse outcome and court costs! We felt we had every right to defend ourselves and push for 'status quo'. We gave numerous reasons why we felt it was in the child's best interest to stay 50/50 with both parents, or more with us do to his school being in our neighbourhood. My husband showed his last years work schedule and the literally dozens and dozens of shift changes he had made so that he was actually almost never, ever in the past year working while he child was in our care (the main complaint of his ex, which was totally untrue, and we proved it). None of this seemed to matter, or so we feel. So truely, I want people's opinions. What do think?

Your information is limited, and written from your emotional perspective of the "facts".

Did the order result from a Trial, conference or motion?

Tayken
10-21-2012, 09:08 AM
Uneven, I understand your situation. Personally, I think dropping it was a good idea. I find it would have been nearly impossible for a man to prove the child should be with him, change status quo, against OCL, and a change of province to boot! Im sure you would have lost, and had to pay costs.

You never could know this until you do as the above linked Respondent in the CASE LAW counter to the "facts" (your personal beliefs) you are trying to peddle as an "always case".

I can't really say if Unevenplayingground's *husband* whom is the father of the children in question and parent, would have *lost* their case. The disruption of a child's habitual residence is a difficult uphill battle. So, by moving and leaving (his choice) the parent already demonstrated to the court that as a parent they don't truly understand what defines a child's "best interests".

The better argument is that the leaving parent, short of having evidence that the other parent is truly abusive to the child and the child is at risk of serious harm and/or injury remaining with the other parent would have very little case... They could be a man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight and trans gender parents... It really doesn't matter. They will not be successful because it is not in the child's "best interests" to leave their habitual residential neighborhood just because one parent does not want to remain in close proximity to their children.

The real hard question... moving parents never answer is why move? Why move if it is going to impact the child's access to you? Is *your life* that much more important than *your relationship* with the child?

Good Luck!
Tayken

wife#2
10-21-2012, 09:15 AM
Your information is limited, and written from your emotional perspective of the "facts".

Did the order result from a Trial, conference or motion?


Hello Tayken, I take it from your response that you did not see my post from yesterday? It is the last one on page 1. It describes the 2 'emergency' motions we went through and the results. Just want your opinion on them.
I agree with your last post, it would be a huge uphill battle for the parent who moving out of province, which is why I said it was probably good to drop it, in my opinion anyway. Thanks!

Tayken
10-21-2012, 09:37 AM
We knew that he was being manipulated beyond belief by the mother. Keep in mind, she isn't able to respond to this, so you only have my word on the events.

How did you "know". You are presenting a statement of "fact" then identifying it as a "subjective belief" in the next sentence. You countered your own evidence. I truly hope your affidavit material, testamony and statements to the OCL reporter were not delivered in this pattern.

You may want to look up 'emotional reasoning' on Google. This is a common pattern to "emotional reasoning". You may have some "emotional reason" to support your "belief" but, it may very well not be grounded in a cogent and relevant fact.

We have had him call his mother when he arrives with us so (so she knows he got here ok) she doesn't answer the phone, then almost a week later calls to yell at him for not calling.

Then you produce the phone records, and send a with prejudice letter attaching the cogent and relevant evidence to the fact you made the phone call. You do this identifying in your own incoming call record that the mother called you and outline the facts of the conversation in detail and ask that the other parent not conduct themselves in this manner in the future.

Through the application of cogent and relevant evidence you:

(a) establish the call happened using third party documentation from the service provider that actually serviced the call.

(b) establish that the other parent called x days after the incident and raised it as an issue and inject the question why it took so long if it is so important.

(c) that the child is safe, happy and shoing no signs of distress.

(d) the other parent called on on date and time for a duration of X minutes to dispute the fact as established in (a).

(e) you request that this conduct no longer happen and for all communications to happen through the immutable and third party managed parenting system known as Our Family Wizard.

You DEMONSTRATE with COGENT AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE that the incident did happen and that the other parent called you weeks afterwards and is trying to create conflict where no conflict should exist.

There is a lot of manipulation on her part, but after this whole ordeal we are exhausted.

No police, no CAS, and you are exhausted? For some reason the Respondent in the case law already posted had over 10 police incidents called on him and well, he got through trial (17 days of it!)...

They system failed us (in our opinion only).

Or your lawyer failed to advise you of what should and could be done. As the moving party in the matter you have to meet and exceed the requirements set forth for a mobility case. Those are determined on the child's best interests... Not the parent's best interests. You can find a lot on mobility on this site and all the case law that is leveraged to make a determiniation of where a child should primarily reside.

The fact that your husband is the leaving parent makes it an uphill battle to establish it is in the child's best interests. And for good reason... A child's habitiual residential location should only be moved ON CONSENT or in their BEST INTERESTS.

Not because your husband got a new job, makes more money, married a new person, etc... IT IS ALL ABOUT THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS and the determination of the CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS.

We thought we were prepared, we thought as long as we told the truth when giving our reasons that his son would make the move.

But, did you explain why it would be in the child's best interests? That is the only element of a mobility matter a judge can make a decision on.

Another thing is, his son always said he wanted to move with us, he was even the one that told his mother that. It took a lot of guts for a kid to say that to a parent, and through this whole experience, he learned he didn't have a voice.

A child may say they want to be a astronaut at that age and then a doctor. Children do have a voice, your husband's child expressed it to the OCL and although the move may be in you and your husband's best interests ... It may very well not have been in the best interest of the child.

If the child's best interests were *THIS* important to you and your husband... You simple would not have moved. Simple fact. You would have made due with your situation (as adults) for the sake of the child in questions "best interests".

Now in the end, we were told by the OCL/social worker he said he didn't care where he lived. We have never asked him, because we don't want to put him through that.

The child doesn't realize what a move entails. New friends, new area, new sports teams, new school, new, new, new... This all poses a potential risk to the child's "best interests". The worst part being... Loss of the other parent. As the moving parents, you already demonstrated to the court and OCL that you were willing to leave the child. No matter what "reason" you give for you and / or husbands best interests as adults... I again state it is NOT about your best interests... But, the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.

I just feel like being a woman helps, your lawyer, the OCL/social worker you get, the judge you get if you go to trial, it all comes into play.

Gender doesn't matter. What matters is how you demonstrate yourself as a parent. If you are willing to uproot a child to a new area without consideration of the other parent and the child's relationship... Doesn't reflect on you as a parent quite well. Furthermore, it doesn't demonstrate the fundamental understating of what demonstrates a child's best interests.

We also think the more deceitful you are can really help. We played fair and lost.

You "lost" because you made family law a "win-lose" situation between the parties and failed to focus on the only real important person in the litigation... THE CHILD.... Who's BEST INTERESTS is all the courts can make a determination on.

The only winners and losers in family law are children. Parents are adult and should know better than to move away from their children's habitual residence and should not be going to court thinking they can "win" this.

No, this isn't everybody's final outcome, but we definately feel the system on a whole failed us, and that as much as we did try, we also were not educated enough, but that was why we hired our lawyer. We knew we had no idea what to do.

Your lawyer's first advice out of their mouth should have been:

You are going to seek a mobility decision before the court for a child. You have to establish based on facts why this is in the child's best interests. I will only represent parents who can prior to application bring cogent and relevant evidence that this move will be in the child's best interests, the only factor for which the court will rule on. Your husbands new salary, new home, and all the new opportunities for you and your husband are of no relevance to the court.

Here is some case law which is the determining factor on mobility matters as determined by the Superior Court of Canada. Please read this documentation prior to attending my office in full, write a small essay on why you think your matter is similar to this case law and bring the appropriate documentation to our next meeting demonstrating this.

Case law to read: CanLII - 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC) (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1996/1996canlii191/1996canlii191.html)

If you lawyer, never gave you a copy of or told you to read that link... You got taken by your lawyer and this whole court battle was about making money for the lawyer and not resolving a problem that could be resolved with the assistance of the court.

Sorry to be so blunt. But, mobility is not something to go in to court with unless you have SOLID cogent and relevant evidence.

Good Luck!
Tayken


When all is said and done, I am still confused on the process.[/QUOTE]

Tayken
10-21-2012, 10:05 AM
Ex calls immediate 'emergency' motion. 3 days before school, court. For once in 2 years, we win!!! Child stays in school near us and judge changes schedule to 50/50. Also orders OCL at our request. Costs are still to be determined in this matter.

Proper outcome and application of the "best interests" rules as defined under the Children's Law Reform Act.

Flash forward one year. OCL does their report over the fall/winter. Unfortunately, OCL recommends child primary residence be with mother and change schools to her location (I can write a 10 page agruement over this, but will try to stay on topic).

What jurisprudence (case law) and evidence based medicine does the OCL clinical investigator cite in support of their recommendation. If none, then it is easily defeated in court. See the case law I posted in another thread and other case law reviews in a variety of other threads.

Will just say that the only reason OCL gives is that hubby works shifts, and this can be confusing to child (BS, and we think extremely discrimatory against shift workers, but thats another topic for another time!)

Not very strong "evidence" to support a habitual residential move. I am assuming you are a caregiver to the child and avalible to the child when the parent is working. This weighs very high in court and you should present yourself as a "in loco parent" when the parent (your husband) is working.

So OCL report is out in Feb. Our lawyer (who we use for advise, not court, can't afford anymore!) tells us they will have to have a case conference on this matter. So we wait. Ex and her lawyer know hubby is against new school or change to access.

And you have a court order preventing the change of the school as noted above in your statement.

Aug 2012, ex calls 'emergency' motion to change school and access based on OCL report. No case conference, no nothing. We consult 2 lawyers and do a ton research, all seem to say status quo is never changed on an emergency motion. Needs to go to trial, need to have case conference, etc. This is pointed out in our affidavit, as well as that there is no harm at all to child to stay in this school until a proper trial, case conference, whatever.

Read this tread and all the links contained in these threads:

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f3/using-ocl-report-motion-stage-12974/

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f3/section-30-assessments-defense-against-pazaratz-12452/

End of story goes, ex wins, change of access from 50/50 to 30/70. Change schools. And worst even yet, awards her costs at $3000. Were we wrong to not just agree with OCL report? What happened here? Thanks all.

Was this heard on motion or at TRIAL??

You probably went into motion or trial without a proper Book of Authorities linked to your theory of the case. This happens to a lot of unrepresented litigants. There is so much case law evolving that even family law lawyers have no idea how the court is proceeding in jurisprudence.

The two links to other threads have incredibly powerful jurisprudence that could have upset what you experienced before the court. This is why I post this "stuff" to a public forum. So the public it serves can access it, find it and apply it to their matters properly.

If you have a publicly posted decision on CanLII please PRIVATE MESSAGE it to me and I can review it in more detail and provide some insight. I am not a lawyer, do not represent myself as a lawyer... I am just a nerd for jurisprudence and case law. Anything I say should be reviewed with counsel.

wife#2
10-21-2012, 10:12 AM
Thats what I'm saying, this was all decided in an emergency motion. My hubby even sited 'the rules' and that this did not follow 'procedural fairness' as set out in the rules (we did this research and consulted lawyers). Litterly, judge made decision and changed child's life, our lives, his ex's life completely in just 15 min! I just could not believe it.

Tayken
10-21-2012, 10:16 AM
Thats what I'm saying, this was all decided in an emergency motion. My hubby even sited 'the rules' and that this did not follow 'procedural fairness' as set out in the rules (we did this research and consulted lawyers). Litterly, judge made decision and changed child's life, our lives, his ex's life completely in just 15 min! I just could not believe it.

If made only on motion it is not "final" and you should bring forward your own motion ... But, do so after reading my other posting and the jurisprudence you should leverage. If the matter is going to trial then you can just put it all into your BOOK OF AUTHORITIES.

TRIAL is no walk in the park. Nothing is *FINAL* until trial or unless both parties *CONSENT*. Motions are "temporary" and can only become *final* if consent is provided or a very STRICT set of criteria are met in the judgement which rarely happens.

Also, if you don't understand what i just wrote into the paragraphs above YOU NEED TO HIRE A TRIAL LAWYER AND FAST.

wife#2
10-21-2012, 10:17 AM
[QUOTE=Tayken;112225]Proper outcome and application of the "best interests" rules as defined under the Children's Law Reform Act.



What jurisprudence (case law) and evidence based medicine does the OCL clinical investigator cite in support of their recommendation. If none, then it is easily defeated in court. See the case law I posted in another thread and other case law reviews in a variety of other threads.

Nothing at all. His report, in our opinion, was horrible. Our lawyer said it was one of the shortest, thoughless reports he had seen in his 15 years. Our lawyer said it makes no sense. He goes on about how both house holds are great, how child has great relationship with both parents and his step mom (me). Then, in the conclusion section, litterally just comes to the conclusion that child should live with mother and change schools.
His only agrument is to say that my hubby works shifts, and its not consistant for child, but then he also notes that hubby most often changes all his shifts so he is actually not even working when child is with us??? It really made no sense, and we were just shocked. Still are months later.

wife#2
10-21-2012, 10:25 AM
If made only on motion it is not "final" and you should bring forward your own motion ... But, do so after reading my other posting and the jurisprudence you should leverage. If the matter is going to trial then you can just put it all into your BOOK OF AUTHORITIES.

TRIAL is no walk in the park. Nothing is *FINAL* until trial or unless both parties *CONSENT*. Motions are "temporary" and can only become *final* if consent is provided or a very STRICT set of criteria are met in the judgement which rarely happens.

Also, if you don't understand what i just wrote into the paragraphs above YOU NEED TO HIRE A TRIAL LAWYER AND FAST.


We understand fully. Here is our problem. While I am sure his ex would have gone to trial over this issue, we truely are, and have been trying to look out for the child's best interests. His school changes. It was ordered by the court 2 weeks before school. Not much we could do. We have no intention of going to trial over this, even though we believe we were right and OCL report was joke, etc., because we just don't think it is in the child's best interest to change schools AGAIN! It would be too confusing for him, and he has been through enough. While my hubby was very upset to lose time with him, now, a few months in, everything is working out and we just don't want to disrupt anything more for this poor kid. It should have been ordered to go to trial in the first place. Thats what we were told would likely happen, and in all our research ourselves, we thought this too. Even on this site, I have seen many people advice that a judge would not make such a drastic change based on emergency motion (unless of course, child was in danger). This was not the case here.

Mess
10-21-2012, 11:20 AM
You wouldn't be changing schools again, you would be returning him to the school, neighbourhood, classmates and friends that he already familiar with.

If you were moving to a new town I would agree with you, but honestly, you are rationalizing to justify giving up the fight. I have been in court, I know how stressful and expensive it is, but I wouldn't give up a life raising my children over a false decision on an emergency motion.

Unevenplayingground
10-21-2012, 12:04 PM
Part 1

[QUOTE=Tayken;112223]How did you "know". You are presenting a statement of "fact" then identifying it as a "subjective belief" in the next sentence. You countered your own evidence. I truly hope your affidavit material, testamony and statements to the OCL reporter were not delivered in this pattern.

You may want to look up 'emotional reasoning' on Google. This is a common pattern to "emotional reasoning". You may have some "emotional reason" to support your "belief" but, it may very well not be grounded in a cogent and relevant fact.



Then you produce the phone records, and send a with prejudice letter attaching the cogent and relevant evidence to the fact you made the phone call. You do this identifying in your own incoming call record that the mother called you and outline the facts of the conversation in detail and ask that the other parent not conduct themselves in this manner in the future.

Through the application of cogent and relevant evidence you:

(a) establish the call happened using third party documentation from the service provider that actually serviced the call.

(b) establish that the other parent called x days after the incident and raised it as an issue and inject the question why it took so long if it is so important.

(c) that the child is safe, happy and shoing no signs of distress.

(d) the other parent called on on date and time for a duration of X minutes to dispute the fact as established in (a).

(e) you request that this conduct no longer happen and for all communications to happen through the immutable and third party managed parenting system known as Our Family Wizard.

You DEMONSTRATE with COGENT AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE that the incident did happen and that the other parent called you weeks afterwards and is trying to create conflict where no conflict should exist.



No police, no CAS, and you are exhausted? For some reason the Respondent in the case law already posted had over 10 police incidents called on him and well, he got through trial (17 days of it!)...



Or your lawyer failed to advise you of what should and could be done. As the moving party in the matter you have to meet and exceed the requirements set forth for a mobility case. Those are determined on the child's best interests... Not the parent's best interests. You can find a lot on mobility on this site and all the case law that is leveraged to make a determiniation of where a child should primarily reside.

The fact that your husband is the leaving parent makes it an uphill battle to establish it is in the child's best interests. And for good reason... A child's habitiual residential location should only be moved ON CONSENT or in their BEST INTERESTS.

Not because your husband got a new job, makes more money, married a new person, etc... IT IS ALL ABOUT THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS and the determination of the CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS.



But, did you explain why it would be in the child's best interests? That is the only element of a mobility matter a judge can make a decision on.



A child may say they want to be a astronaut at that age and then a doctor. Children do have a voice, your husband's child expressed it to the OCL and although the move may be in you and your husband's best interests ... It may very well not have been in the best interest of the child.

If the child's best interests were *THIS* important to you and your husband... You simple would not have moved. Simple fact. You would have made due with your situation (as adults) for the sake of the child in questions "best interests".

Unevenplayingground
10-21-2012, 12:05 PM
Part 2:

The child doesn't realize what a move entails. New friends, new area, new sports teams, new school, new, new, new... This all poses a potential risk to the child's "best interests". The worst part being... Loss of the other parent. As the moving parents, you already demonstrated to the court and OCL that you were willing to leave the child. No matter what "reason" you give for you and / or husbands best interests as adults... I again state it is NOT about your best interests... But, the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.



Gender doesn't matter. What matters is how you demonstrate yourself as a parent. If you are willing to uproot a child to a new area without consideration of the other parent and the child's relationship... Doesn't reflect on you as a parent quite well. Furthermore, it doesn't demonstrate the fundamental understating of what demonstrates a child's best interests.



You "lost" because you made family law a "win-lose" situation between the parties and failed to focus on the only real important person in the litigation... THE CHILD.... Who's BEST INTERESTS is all the courts can make a determination on.

The only winners and losers in family law are children. Parents are adult and should know better than to move away from their children's habitual residence and should not be going to court thinking they can "win" this.



Your lawyer's first advice out of their mouth should have been:

You are going to seek a mobility decision before the court for a child. You have to establish based on facts why this is in the child's best interests. I will only represent parents who can prior to application bring cogent and relevant evidence that this move will be in the child's best interests, the only factor for which the court will rule on. Your husbands new salary, new home, and all the new opportunities for you and your husband are of no relevance to the court.

Here is some case law which is the determining factor on mobility matters as determined by the Superior Court of Canada. Please read this documentation prior to attending my office in full, write a small essay on why you think your matter is similar to this case law and bring the appropriate documentation to our next meeting demonstrating this.

Case law to read: CanLII - 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC) (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1996/1996canlii191/1996canlii191.html)

If you lawyer, never gave you a copy of or told you to read that link... You got taken by your lawyer and this whole court battle was about making money for the lawyer and not resolving a problem that could be resolved with the assistance of the court.

Sorry to be so blunt. But, mobility is not something to go in to court with unless you have SOLID cogent and relevant evidence.

Good Luck!
Tayken


When all is said and done, I am still confused on the process.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

wife#2
10-21-2012, 12:21 PM
You wouldn't be changing schools again, you would be returning him to the school, neighbourhood, classmates and friends that he already familiar with.

If you were moving to a new town I would agree with you, but honestly, you are rationalizing to justify giving up the fight. I have been in court, I know how stressful and expensive it is, but I wouldn't give up a life raising my children over a false decision on an emergency motion.


I just can't see how thats in the child's best interest though? Ours, yes. Its not like he is currently crying everyday beging us to get him out of that school. He is adjusting. I can't imagine telling him he is changing schools again next year! Yes, he knows the kids and teachers here, etc, but still. It would break my heart, even though we would love it!

Unevenplayingground
10-21-2012, 01:46 PM
Part 1

[QUOTE=Tayken;112223]How did you "know". You are presenting a statement of "fact" then identifying it as a "subjective belief" in the next sentence. You countered your own evidence. I truly hope your affidavit material, testamony and statements to the OCL reporter were not delivered in this pattern.

You may want to look up 'emotional reasoning' on Google. This is a common pattern to "emotional reasoning". You may have some "emotional reason" to support your "belief" but, it may very well not be grounded in a cogent and relevant fact.



Then you produce the phone records, and send a with prejudice letter attaching the cogent and relevant evidence to the fact you made the phone call. You do this identifying in your own incoming call record that the mother called you and outline the facts of the conversation in detail and ask that the other parent not conduct themselves in this manner in the future.

Through the application of cogent and relevant evidence you:

(a) establish the call happened using third party documentation from the service provider that actually serviced the call.

(b) establish that the other parent called x days after the incident and raised it as an issue and inject the question why it took so long if it is so important.

(c) that the child is safe, happy and shoing no signs of distress.

(d) the other parent called on on date and time for a duration of X minutes to dispute the fact as established in (a).

(e) you request that this conduct no longer happen and for all communications to happen through the immutable and third party managed parenting system known as Our Family Wizard.

You DEMONSTRATE with COGENT AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE that the incident did happen and that the other parent called you weeks afterwards and is trying to create conflict where no conflict should exist.



No police, no CAS, and you are exhausted? For some reason the Respondent in the case law already posted had over 10 police incidents called on him and well, he got through trial (17 days of it!)...



Or your lawyer failed to advise you of what should and could be done. As the moving party in the matter you have to meet and exceed the requirements set forth for a mobility case. Those are determined on the child's best interests... Not the parent's best interests. You can find a lot on mobility on this site and all the case law that is leveraged to make a determiniation of where a child should primarily reside.

The fact that your husband is the leaving parent makes it an uphill battle to establish it is in the child's best interests. And for good reason... A child's habitiual residential location should only be moved ON CONSENT or in their BEST INTERESTS.

Not because your husband got a new job, makes more money, married a new person, etc... IT IS ALL ABOUT THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS and the determination of the CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS.



But, did you explain why it would be in the child's best interests? That is the only element of a mobility matter a judge can make a decision on.



A child may say they want to be a astronaut at that age and then a doctor. Children do have a voice, your husband's child expressed it to the OCL and although the move may be in you and your husband's best interests ... It may very well not have been in the best interest of the child.

If the child's best interests were *THIS* important to you and your husband... You simple would not have moved. Simple fact. You would have made due with your situation (as adults) for the sake of the child in questions "best interests".

I'm not sure why but all of my response is missing from this??:confused:

Rioe
10-21-2012, 02:06 PM
Part 1



I'm not sure why but all of my response is missing from this??:confused:
Looks like an error with your quoting. As you can see, it only lets you quote the most recent layer of a post. If you want to respond to multiple parts of a quote, it's better to add more quote codes.

Unevenplayingground
10-21-2012, 03:14 PM
Looks like an error with your quoting. As you can see, it only lets you quote the most recent layer of a post. If you want to respond to multiple parts of a quote, it's better to add more quote codes.

Thanks, i'm not techy enough! :)

Unevenplayingground
10-21-2012, 03:28 PM
<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"MS 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> </style> Part 1

Tayken, i'm sorry this is going to be a bit confusing but the only way it would let me reply. I put numbers in front of each point, so you knew it would be a new point.
1. I know this because she discuss things. She would tell him if he leave to live with us, she will lose the cs from my husband, tax credits, etc. Then my step-son, who doubtfully would not come up with this on his own, would tell my mother-in-law because he was worried about his mother not having a place to live.
Another example is when the OCL made the recommendation that the child stay with his mother, my husband simply said to his son, are you ok with everything, the son said yes, and that was the extent of that part of the conversation. They continued to talk about other things, and then hung up. Within 3 minutes his ex called back screaming at my husband saying he was starting everything up again. That his son was freaking out crying because (they live in a small apartment and my husband could not hear the son in the background crying and freaking out, as she stated). He simply told her what he said, and then she yelled at him for another five minutes, and they hung up. We found out later, his ex calls his mother all the time, she told the mother that my husband told his son he was going back to court over this etc, etc, and that she had to console their son for an hour and a half. This was not true, so we advised her lawyer that for now on we would be taping the conversations. The child’s mother “looms” and includes herself in the conversations between my husband and his son. We have noticed since we said he would be taping this has helped. We don’t actually tape the conversations.
2. Yes, I do think there is probably some ‘emotional reasoning’, but when we presented what we had to our lawyer and the OCL/social worker, we gave them what we had, not what we suspected she would do, only what we knew she had done. This included police reports, emails, etc

3. We do have phone records of our phone number calling hers, but the phone company does not track her calls to us, with her without a phone number. We already called about this. The child’s grandmother (who keeps in contact with the mother, so that she can maintain contact with her grandson) was also there to witness this incident.

4. We didn’t think of calling her service provider, but thank you. I will call but I don’t think that the phone company will release her phone records to us, even if the call was to our phone. I will check

Unevenplayingground
10-21-2012, 03:28 PM
Part 2

<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"MS 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> </style> 5. Yes, I was/am exhausted, so is/was my husband. His ex is extremely high conflict, police where involved the last two months before he moved. In another thread you recommended ourfamilywizard, thank you, my husband did approach her about this via email, she flat out refused, she will not even think about it.
6. I have to agree with you, our lawyer did fail us, I do consider her part of the system though.
7. My husband maintained the same residence since the day his son was born. The mother moved no less than 6 (moving in and out of different bf’s places, the last place she moved in by herself with child) times from the time the child was born to present (he is now 12). As a result the child had to get new childcare, and change schools. She was also going to move completely out of the area at one point with the bf she was with at the time. They broke up so she didn’t make the move; she had every intention of moving with the child. My husband has also maintained one job with the same employer for over 13 years, his ex, in 13 years. His ex in 13 years has had over 7 different jobs.
8. My husband is military, so it wasn’t a move for a new job/more money/married a new person; it was a move because the military told him if he wants a job he has to move. If my husband released from the military he would have had no income to support the child, I think in this case it was the best interest of the child to have the cs payment coming in. Basic needs first, are the best interests of the child.

Unevenplayingground
10-21-2012, 03:29 PM
Part 3

<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"MS 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> </style> 9. This matter did not go before the judge, we did not go to trial, it was recommended by our lawyer that the judge we would have would go with the OCL recommendation. We didn’t know about CanL11 at the time, I also didn’t know about this site. I wish we did.
10. I 100% disagree; we had a total of 5 kids to support, and no other job prospects. You can’t just “quit” the military, and if they agree us releasing (and they probably would, although, I have seen it go the other way) it would take at MINIMUM of 6 months.
11. I agree, with what you are saying that a child doesn’t realize what a move entails. This was something we tried to tell him, we tried to tell him it wouldn’t be a cake walk, that he wouldn’t just be able to go to his mom’s every couple weeks, hard to tell that to a child. We understand he can see up to the corner, but not necessarily around the corner.
12. No matter what we did, this was never going to be a “win” “win” situation. Our offer was for the mother to not pay cs to us, and that we would pay for transportation, Christmas, March break and at least a month in the summer for her visitation, with regular phones calls/skye in between.
13. This was a “lose” “lose” situation anyway you looked at it, for the child, the term “win” was the easiest way to describe the situation.
14. Unfortunately, We didn’t find out about CanL11 until it was all said and done.
15. No, please be blunt, I may not agree with everything you present to me, but it is always helpful, and allows me to think of it in a different perspective. Sometimes it sways my original opinion and sometimes it convinces me we were on the right track. Thank you, I honestly appreciate it.

I hope you can make heads or tails of this...

I'm sorry this is the only way it would let me post a reply!

baldclub
10-25-2012, 07:08 AM
You never could know this until you do as the above linked Respondent in the CASE LAW counter to the "facts" (your personal beliefs) you are trying to peddle as an "always case".

I can't really say if Unevenplayingground's *husband* whom is the father of the children in question and parent, would have *lost* their case. The disruption of a child's habitual residence is a difficult uphill battle. So, by moving and leaving (his choice) the parent already demonstrated to the court that as a parent they don't truly understand what defines a child's "best interests".

The better argument is that the leaving parent, short of having evidence that the other parent is truly abusive to the child and the child is at risk of serious harm and/or injury remaining with the other parent would have very little case... They could be a man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight and trans gender parents... It really doesn't matter. They will not be successful because it is not in the child's "best interests" to leave their habitual residential neighborhood just because one parent does not want to remain in close proximity to their children.

The real hard question... moving parents never answer is why move? Why move if it is going to impact the child's access to you? Is *your life* that much more important than *your relationship* with the child?

Good Luck!
Tayken

I believe unevenplayingground's partner is military, in which case it is highly probable that he was posted, against his will, to a position elsewhere because the Canadian Forces has a need for him there. Personally, I've been very lucky to have had the support of my chain of command to stay in the area to be close to my children but another sergeant in my unit was not. He got posted in from Halifax,a very long way from his kids, and he's definitely not happy about it.
I just want to emphasize the case by case specifics for moving. Military families have been at a disadvantage for years due to operational commitments, although I'm happy to see there is a change to address family needs in the CF while maintaining operational requirements. Just my two cents.

Tayken
10-25-2012, 10:16 AM
I believe unevenplayingground's partner is military, in which case it is highly probable that he was posted, against his will, to a position elsewhere because the Canadian Forces has a need for him there.

He can't leave the service and seek employment in the public sector? I do respect those who *choose* military service but, it is ultimately a choice one makes and has to live with.

baldclub
10-25-2012, 10:32 AM
Of course he can...if he's lucky. What if you are an infantry soldier? Not a lot of parallel trades in the civilian world. Police officer is similar somewhat, but you need to be extremely lucky to find a job and one close to where your children are. Also we're constrained by contracts, I'm not allowed to leave the military for another year and a half for example, due to the tax payers' investment in my training.
Just saying, military life can take its toll on families in different ways. Personally, I think my own marital problems started after I left the military the first time, leading us to financial difficulties. Sorry OP (original poster), don't want to hijack your thread.

Unevenplayingground
10-25-2012, 11:30 AM
Of course he can...if he's lucky. What if you are an infantry soldier? Not a lot of parallel trades in the civilian world. Police officer is similar somewhat, but you need to be extremely lucky to find a job and one close to where your children are. Also we're constrained by contracts, I'm not allowed to leave the military for another year and a half for example, due to the tax payers' investment in my training.
Just saying, military life can take its toll on families in different ways. Personally, I think my own marital problems started after I left the military the first time, leading us to financial difficulties. Sorry OP (original poster), don't want to hijack your thread.

Unfortunately, the area his son lives, the only type of job he is trained for, he was doing. So no matter what he would have to move for work. And the type of job he does in the military doesn't open a lot of doors to employment after military life.

Unevenplayingground
10-25-2012, 11:41 AM
He can't leave the service and seek employment in the public sector? I do respect those who *choose* military service but, it is ultimately a choice one makes and has to live with.

Tayken, i'm kind of surprised with this response from you. I don't mean this to in a disrespectful way, but it is a very black and white response from you. If it had of been that easy, we would have done it, but we are both military, we both would have had to quit our jobs. My husband had been in one location for over 13 years, that is actually pretty darn good for the military. You would normally have to move every 5-7 years, and his ex knew he was military when they met.

When you have 5 children, you absolutely have to provide for all of them. We are scraping by on good incomes. Suggesting that two people just up and quit their jobs (which would have taken at least 6 months to be released from the military) seems to me, to be very irresponsible. I really think a judge would think the same thing. I don't think it is as simple as saying it was a "choice", it was necessity. We would not have been eligible for EI or even welfare, if we had made the "choice" to just irresponsibly quit our jobs.

Tayken
10-25-2012, 12:04 PM
Of course he can...if he's lucky. What if you are an infantry soldier? Not a lot of parallel trades in the civilian world.

Something that employee ("infantry soldier") should be addressing in their career. Same impact someone in a "buggy whip" industry should be considering. Like all the printing press operators who were laid off when the internet hit and published materials declined.

Also we're constrained by contracts, I'm not allowed to leave the military for another year and a half for example, due to the tax payers' investment in my training.

Many private industry and other public working individuals have the same commitments. What about a manager whom agrees to complete an MBA and if they leave the company they have to pay back a portion of the education?

Just saying, military life can take its toll on families in different ways.

That is *life* not just "military life". Nothing you have described is "unique" to being in the military.

On average today in 2012 and going forward people often have to change careers. The "magical" world of one-job-one-career-for-life hasn't existing in society for quite some time now. Everyone should be working towards being able to adapt to change. Versus project blame that they can't change (careers, employment, update skills, etc...). Every human has the capability to "change".

Tayken
10-25-2012, 12:12 PM
Tayken, i'm kind of surprised with this response from you. I don't mean this to in a disrespectful way, but it is a very black and white response from you.

How so. It is very easy to claim something is "black and white" but, much more difficult to "demonstrate" that it is. If it is truly "black and white" thinking then it is easy to state:

You stated "white" - supported by fact (i.e. a quote from the person).
Then you stated "black" - supported by fact (i.e. a quote from the person).

But, the counter argument is a human factor of "change". Opinions change.

If it had of been that easy, we would have done it, but we are both military, we both would have had to quit our jobs.

No one ever said life is easy.

My husband had been in one location for over 13 years, that is actually pretty darn good for the military.

Also far beyond the employment statistics for people working in other industries (private and public). Most people's employment is on a 7 year cycle.

You would normally have to move every 5-7 years, and his ex knew he was military when they met.

So, after divorce the children should be subject to one parent's career choice and impact on their "best interests". I am of the opinion that a parent's choices should reflect the children's best interests.

When you have 5 children, you absolutely have to provide for all of them. We are scraping by on good incomes. Suggesting that two people just up and quit their jobs (which would have taken at least 6 months to be released from the military) seems to me, to be very irresponsible.

It would be irresponsible and you are jumping to conclusions about what I was stating. But, being a parent one should be planning a sustainable career and planning to be able to provide for their children.

I really think a judge would think the same thing. I don't think it is as simple as saying it was a "choice", it was necessity. We would not have been eligible for EI or even welfare, if we had made the "choice" to just irresponsibly quit our jobs.

If you have chosen a career path that is "buggy whip" or limited on market avalibility then, you adapt, change, educate yourself in another field and move to a better opportunity. Complaining and lamenting that you cannot because you are in the military really isn't going to solve the problem.

Tayken
10-25-2012, 12:15 PM
I really think a judge would think the same thing.

Based on your past postings, in an admission against interest, a judge has possibly provided their "thoughts" driving a FINAL order in your matter and in contravention of your own statements, for the child in question to primarily reside in their habitual residential jurisdiction, which is not where the child in question's parent (your husband?) resides, with the other parent.

I could be wrong though. Lots of content on this site and limited time to verify.

Unevenplayingground
10-25-2012, 12:40 PM
Based on your past postings, in an admission against interest, a judge has possibly provided their "thoughts" driving a FINAL order in your matter and in contravention of your own statements, for the child in question to primarily reside in their habitual residential jurisdiction, which is not where the child in question's parent (your husband?) resides, with the other parent.

I could be wrong though. Lots of content on this site and limited time to verify.

My previous posts I stated the judge didn't make the decision. There are so many other elements that cannot be conveyed through limited responses.

Tayken
10-25-2012, 01:04 PM
My previous posts I stated the judge didn't make the decision. There are so many other elements that cannot be conveyed through limited responses.

Correct me if I am wrong but, your husband acquiesced on CONSENT to a FINAL order at a conference (case, settlement and/or trial) to the OCL's recommendations and did not challenge the recommendations?

Unevenplayingground
10-25-2012, 01:09 PM
How so. It is very easy to claim something is "black and white" but, much more difficult to "demonstrate" that it is. If it is truly "black and white" thinking then it is easy to state:

You stated "white" - supported by fact (i.e. a quote from the person).
Then you stated "black" - supported by fact (i.e. a quote from the person).

But, the counter argument is a human factor of "change". Opinions change.

It isn't simple, it isn't easy but having a steady income (when the biological mother can't hold down a job) so the child can have his basic needs met, is in the child's best interest. There are also 4 other children that need a roof over their head and food in their belly. Basic needs start there.


No one ever said life is easy.


Also far beyond the employment statistics for people working in other industries (private and public). Most people's employment is on a 7 year cycle.
Yes, and with this employment "instability" comes a lot of other down sides. My husband would also make no where near what he is making in the military. The mother has yet to hold a job down, (longest job 1 year 2 months, and that was a good stretch for her). So should my husband go to school and retrain, is that the suggestion here? If so, in the meantime, I take a lower paying job (with little stability) to support 5 children, 2 adults?


So, after divorce the children should be subject to one parent's career choice and impact on their "best interests". I am of the opinion that a parent's choices should reflect the children's best interests.

I don't see how holding down a full time stable job is not in the best interests of the child? I feel it is in the best interests to have a steady income. If every parent only accepted jobs that were in the "best interests" of the child, there would be a lot of unemployed parents out there.



It would be irresponsible and you are jumping to conclusions about what I was stating. But, being a parent one should be planning a sustainable career and planning to be able to provide for their children.

This is what he is doing.


If you have chosen a career path that is "buggy whip" or limited on market avalibility then, you adapt, change, educate yourself in another field and move to a better opportunity. Complaining and lamenting that you cannot because you are in the military really isn't going to solve the problem.

Agreed, if it does not create a greater hardship for the family.

What you are saying is black and white because you are saying that if my husband's best interests were for his child, he would have quit his job and just got a new one. Simple as that, but it isn't that simple.



In one breathe you are saying it would be in the child's best interest to quit your job, and in the next you are saying I am jumping to conclusions (even though that is what you wrote). I find this confusing.

You are arguing, when you do not have a full understanding of the military, that we should just quit our jobs for the best interests of the child.

Of course when we were posted we had 5 children to consider. So the decision to not quit our jobs was based on all of our circumstances, with consideration to our children. We needed to financially support 5 children, we have stability, we have TWO medical/dental plans (something the biological mother has only ever provided for herself), so the child's best interests were put first, actually all of them.

Unevenplayingground
10-25-2012, 01:19 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but, your husband acquiesced on CONSENT to a FINAL order at a conference (case, settlement and/or trial) to the OCL's recommendations and did not challenge the recommendations?

You are 100% right. Our lawyer advised us to, she said the judge would side with the OCL. We could not find another lawyer to hire, and literally stuck with this lawyer. We were in NB fighting this. The child is in ON.

We are financially not in a good spot, and could not afford to fly up for every court date. We tried to hire a lawyer here, but the lawyer here would have had to fly up as well.

We found out after the OCL made their recommendation, that the mother's live in bf was charged and plead guilty to possession of an illegal substance. We asked our lawyer repeatedly if this changed anything, no response, over and over.

At this point we don't know what to do, the mother would say a lot of things to the child and it would upset him. If I am on the phone with the child, the mother is in the background making comments to the child, calling him naive (because the child asked if we could get posted back and I said no). She went on to say I was lying. This was after the decision from the OCL. So do we put the child through this all over again? We don't know what to do. We don't want him going through more of this. It was very hard on him, his mother would tell him if he left she couldn't afford her apartment anymore because she would lose her cs. Pretty big weight to put on a child if you ask me.

baldclub
10-25-2012, 01:20 PM
Something that employee ("infantry soldier") should be addressing in their career. Same impact someone in a "buggy whip" industry should be considering. Like all the printing press operators who were laid off when the internet hit and published materials declined.



Many private industry and other public working individuals have the same commitments. What about a manager whom agrees to complete an MBA and if they leave the company they have to pay back a portion of the education?



That is *life* not just "military life". Nothing you have described is "unique" to being in the military.

On average today in 2012 and going forward people often have to change careers. The "magical" world of one-job-one-career-for-life hasn't existing in society for quite some time now. Everyone should be working towards being able to adapt to change. Versus project blame that they can't change (careers, employment, update skills, etc...). Every human has the capability to "change".

Will post a reply with some documentation from studies to highlight the uniqueness of the CF's load on family life. That should be fairly easy once I get home. Note my example of the infanteer and also I want to address your comment of sustainable career.

Unevenplayingground
10-25-2012, 01:27 PM
Will post a reply with some documentation from studies to highlight the uniqueness of the CF's load on family life. That should be fairly easy once I get home. Note my example of the infanteer and also I want to address your comment of sustainable career.

I wish we had a "like" button. ;)

Tayken
10-25-2012, 01:28 PM
Will post a reply with some documentation from studies to highlight the uniqueness of the CF's load on family life. That should be fairly easy once I get home. Note my example of the infanteer and also I want to address your comment of sustainable career.

Just be careful. As an enlisted member of the military you may be under obligation by contract not to make liable statements against the military and the positive opportunities it provides to families as a career. You wouldn't want to expose anything that puts the military and service in a bad light as an enlisted employee.

(Not being rude here or poking fun. Military contracts for employment under the terms of service are not a walk in the park to understand.)

You wouldn't want to post information in contravention to your terms of service agreement by which you suggest that military life is not supportive of a family needs. This could have an impact on anyone searching the internet for information about a "career" in the military negatively.

Tayken
10-25-2012, 01:40 PM
You are 100% right. Our lawyer advised us to, she said the judge would side with the OCL. We could not find another lawyer to hire, and literally stuck with this lawyer. We were in NB fighting this. The child is in ON.

So you moved already. Unfortunate for the child in question. The establishment of status quo with the other parent was already established.

We are financially not in a good spot, and could not afford to fly up for every court date. We tried to hire a lawyer here, but the lawyer here would have had to fly up as well.

Nor is any litigant generally before the Family Court system in any jurisdiction. Litigation does not lead to anyone becoming rich other than the professionals involved in the matter that people are battling out that they couldn't figure out themselves.

We found out after the OCL made their recommendation, that the mother's live in bf was charged and plead guilty to possession of an illegal substance. We asked our lawyer repeatedly if this changed anything, no response, over and over.

Nothing. Nothing you could do. It isn't "evidence". Unless the person in question was injecting, blowing smoke, or forcing the child in question with the "illegal substance" it is irrelevant. The CAS and Police have to return hundreds of children a day to parents who live in known grow ops after they are all cleaned up.

At this point we don't know what to do, the mother would say a lot of things to the child and it would upset him. If I am on the phone with the child, the mother is in the background making comments to the child, calling him naive (because the child asked if we could get posted back and I said no).

This is easy to deal with and falls under the concept of "parental anonymity". You basically need to get a third party (expert witness) to listen into the call and transcribe them (to text).

Also, remember *your* conversation to the child in question will be transcribed in full too. The expert witness should be unbiased.

She went on to say I was lying. This was after the decision from the OCL. So do we put the child through this all over again? We don't know what to do.

No, you don't have to. Have a normal conversation, let the other parent demonstrate what you are stating to a expert witness who can transcribe the conduct and you present it to court and call the expert witness as a witness.

We don't want him going through more of this.

But, if what you are stating is truthful regarding the violation of the father's parental anonymity during access calls it can easily be demonstrated. But, be forewarned a third party expert witness may tell you that you are hearing things, it isn't a problem and not a danger to the child and have nothing to proceed with before the court.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Tayken
10-25-2012, 01:47 PM
Agreed, if it does not create a greater hardship for the family.

What you are saying is black and white because you are saying that if my husband's best interests were for his child, he would have quit his job and just got a new one. Simple as that, but it isn't that simple.

You are taking exceptional liberties with what I am thinking, stating and saying. This is known as "jumping to conclusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_to_conclusions)".

What I am stating is that a parent, independent of their life choices, should be willing and able to meet and exceed their commitments to their children's best interests if they want to be a custodial parent and have primary residency.

This includes proper career planning, adaptability to change, embracing change and actually changing. This is not quitting a job. This is called career planning.

In one breathe you are saying it would be in the child's best interest to quit your job, and in the next you are saying I am jumping to conclusions (even though that is what you wrote). I find this confusing.

Where did I state he should "quit his job". I recommended a change in employment. This could be done through proper planning, education and re-training on the job while in the military. Done through the assitance of a scollarship. There are many positive ways to make a career change. It doesn't have to be as *you* state the black concept (which you have derived from my statements on your own accord) of "quitting a job".

You are arguing, when you do not have a full understanding of the military, that we should just quit our jobs for the best interests of the child.

I know quite a lot about military service. Unfortunate you jump to conclusions again.

Of course when we were posted we had 5 children to consider. So the decision to not quit our jobs was based on all of our circumstances, with consideration to our children.

Training? Military sells training and education as a major reason to join. Leverage the opportunity with your current employer. There are lots of great opportunities in the military but, one has to seek them just like at any other employer.

We needed to financially support 5 children, we have stability, we have TWO medical/dental plans (something the biological mother has only ever provided for herself), so the child's best interests were put first, actually all of them.

Just not their habitual residential requirements in accordance with the CHildren's Law Reform Act when aligned to Rule 24 of the same Act. Which was identified by the OCL and agreed upon by consent to a FINAL order by the father and made into a legal court order to the fact.

Being a parent means sacrificing one's own "best interests" for the "best interests of the child".

Good Luck!
Tayken

Unevenplayingground
10-25-2012, 02:08 PM
Tayken,

We did move already, but the process started well before the move. It took an additional 11 months to receive the OCL's recommendations. The mother did a lot of stalling, wouldn't sign the OCL consent, then would, things like that. The military gives you a specific date to move, and you have 30 days (on either end) to ask to move it around. It is not always approved.

Financially I was only speaking from our perspective, of course we understand the only people making money off of family courts are the lawyers.

We now know the drug charge meant nothing, but it would have been nice to get a response from our lawyer, there were drug issues with his ex before. We were hoping this would further back this up. She was also charged with domestic abuse, we were hoping this would all speak for her character and the company she keeps.

Now, since we told the mother we tape the conversations she hasn't been saying anything bad. She will "hover" over the child and include herself into their conversation, but the negatives have stopped. Can my husband do anything about her hovering, or is that a to bad so sad situation?

Now, if we had of hired an expert witness, would we have had to tell her that we did, and that the conversation was being recorded?

We had no idea you could hire somebody to do this. We actually received a "warning" email from her lawyer (stating she could not advise us of the legality of taping the calls, we were just telling her, not asking the legality) when we advised her we were recording the calls.

Unevenplayingground
10-25-2012, 02:39 PM
[QUOTE=Tayken;112916]You are taking exceptional liberties with what I am thinking, stating and saying. This is known as "jumping to conclusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_to_conclusions)".


I had to remove the rest of what you said because it won't let me post otherwise.

So you are right, there is "potential" to re-train in the military. A member has some options, if it is approved. In saying that, IF, it is approved, the member would then have to go re-train, and the odds in that person being able to stay home and do their training is very slim. Depending on the job they would re-train for, they could be away for 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, just depends on what they applied for. It isn't nearly as easy as you have made it sound. The military is cutting back, but you probably know that with your knowledge of the military. A lot of trades are "closed", that is actually how the military refers to it when a certain trade is not available to apply for, as there are no positions "open". My husband's job, which is not lining him up for civilian work, is also currently closed. Not a whole lot of choices right now, and actually for the past few years.

The training (that you are referring to), that the military promotes, is your initial training. Just like any employer, they don't like to pay twice. In the military they don't just "post" internal job listings.

When it comes to the decision not to release, because even if my husband changed trades (imagining it was that easy), he still would have had to leave the area and be separated from ALL of his children for an extended period of time. And then when his training was complete, guess what, A POSTING!! I'm sure you knew that though, since you know quite a lot about the military. So we are back at square one.

So there was a lot of factors included in our decision, and this was the best decision for our children on a whole. The decision was never going to be a winning one, but it was the BEST decision for our 5 children.

Tayken
10-25-2012, 03:56 PM
Tayken,

We did move already, but the process started well before the move. It took an additional 11 months to receive the OCL's recommendations. The mother did a lot of stalling, wouldn't sign the OCL consent, then would, things like that. The military gives you a specific date to move, and you have 30 days (on either end) to ask to move it around. It is not always approved.

Delay, delay, delay, it is a legal strategy. If you document the delays and have a *good* lawyer, these issues can be addressed on motion and on costs requests. For the next time you have to deal with, set clear time lines, if they are not met, bring forward a motion rather than waiting.

Now, since we told the mother we tape the conversations she hasn't been saying anything bad. She will "hover" over the child and include herself into their conversation, but the negatives have stopped. Can my husband do anything about her hovering, or is that a to bad so sad situation?

Not much really. So long as she is not interupting the conversation verbally you really can't do much.

Now, if we had of hired an expert witness, would we have had to tell her that we did, and that the conversation was being recorded?

If you are recording it serves the same purpose as you can turn over the recording to a transcription service and have it transcribed. No need for the expert. But, if the conduct is no longer continuing then, you have no grounds to complain about the conduct.

We had no idea you could hire somebody to do this. We actually received a "warning" email from her lawyer (stating she could not advise us of the legality of taping the calls, we were just telling her, not asking the legality) when we advised her we were recording the calls.

You could also advise the lawyer back that the recordings are permissible under law, can be transcribed and if the conduct continues an expert third party with a mental health background will be retained to listen in and transcribe the calls. This expert would be called as a witness to provide an expert opinion on the conduct of the calls.

The warning is about the "admissibility" of the evidence. But, if transcribed properly it can be entered into a court record. The court won't sit there and listen to stuff but, if you transcribe verbatim what happened at what minute... The court will consider it. How the written came about isn't really the concern. You just use the recording to insure what you stated is fact. If challenged you have the recording should the court want to hear it.

Tayken
10-25-2012, 04:04 PM
So you are right, there is "potential" to re-train in the military. A member has some options, if it is approved. In saying that, IF, it is approved, the member would then have to go re-train, and the odds in that person being able to stay home and do their training is very slim. Depending on the job they would re-train for, they could be away for 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, just depends on what they applied for. It isn't nearly as easy as you have made it sound.

It isn't easy with any employer. In fact, when compared to most private employers, the military has way more better training and acceptance of training. The average budget for a private employee is about 120$ a year in "training" in an HR budget. The top 30 companies that get listed is about $1200 per employee per year and that is one of the criteria to get that nice seal from MacLeans Magazine and other "ranking" systems for the "best employer".

Still doesn't mean they will let you spend the training dollars... or you will have the time to do it while employed either. No different than the military.

The military is cutting back, but you probably know that with your knowledge of the military. A lot of trades are "closed", that is actually how the military refers to it when a certain trade is not available to apply for, as there are no positions "open". My husband's job, which is not lining him up for civilian work, is also currently closed. Not a whole lot of choices right now, and actually for the past few years.

Reflective of the reality that other private sector and public sector workers face every day. Look at what is happening with the teaching profession. There is no "safe" employment / employer any more in our society.

The training (that you are referring to), that the military promotes, is your initial training. Just like any employer, they don't like to pay twice. In the military they don't just "post" internal job listings.

Private and most public sector industry expect you to come with your training (education) in hand prior to employment. So at least you get that opportunity in the military if you choose to do so when entering. I don't know of any other private or public sector industry with an "RMC-like" equivalent.

When it comes to the decision not to release, because even if my husband changed trades (imagining it was that easy), he still would have had to leave the area and be separated from ALL of his children for an extended period of time. And then when his training was complete, guess what, A POSTING!! I'm sure you knew that though, since you know quite a lot about the military. So we are back at square one.

No different than educating yourself for a specific field and then having to hunt for a "posting" on Workopolis.ca in the private and public sector. You may have spent years getting a degree and even post graduate studies to find out... Technology, a change in market or economy has basically wiped your career path out. Everyone whom is employed has to deal with this challenge.

In fact, it is different because only an enlisted person can apply to the "posting" and not a member of the public. When something goes up on Workopolis.ca you are competing against thousands of others. Generally when I post something with a head hunter these days for a position I get about 250-300 resumes.

You can't hide from the economy. It impacts all aspects of employment be it private, military, and public sector work. There is no "safe" job. In fact, one would argue that the military has one of the best pensions out there... Only second maybe to the teachers union. The vast majority of the population doesn't have this as a benefit to employment.

baldclub
10-26-2012, 10:20 PM
Just be careful. As an enlisted member of the military you may be under obligation by contract not to make liable statements against the military and the positive opportunities it provides to families as a career. You wouldn't want to expose anything that puts the military and service in a bad light as an enlisted employee.

(Not being rude here or poking fun. Military contracts for employment under the terms of service are not a walk in the park to understand.)

You wouldn't want to post information in contravention to your terms of service agreement by which you suggest that military life is not supportive of a family needs. This could have an impact on anyone searching the internet for information about a "career" in the military negatively.

Thanks Tayken my friend, that is the last thing I plan on doing. The military is an honourable profession and I am proud of being able to serve. I mentioned the effects of military life on families, and its unique challenges. Here is a study called "Family Resilience: An Annotated Bibliography ", which you can find here (http://cradpdf.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc78/p530519.pdf). The abstract reads:

"All families are faced with challenges at one time or another. The military environment, however, presents additional challenges for families. Geographic isolation, postings, frequent time away, high-risk deployments, and unpredictability are unique aspects of military life that put stress on members and their families. The quality of life experienced by families is a key determinant of many outcomes that affect the Canadian Forces (CF) directly. As such, family resilience is a concept of prime importance in the CF. This annotated bibliography reviews work on family resilience in military families and similar populations, as well as in society in general. It presents a comprehensive collection of theoretical frameworks, models, and empirical literature on family resilience."

I personally disagree quite a bit with your statements:

"Something that employee ("infantry soldier") should be addressing in their career. Same impact someone in a "buggy whip" industry should be considering. Like all the printing press operators who were laid off when the internet hit and published materials declined.

That is *life* not just "military life". Nothing you have described is "unique" to being in the military.

On average today in 2012 and going forward people often have to change careers. The "magical" world of one-job-one-career-for-life hasn't existing in society for quite some time now. Everyone should be working towards being able to adapt to change. Versus project blame that they can't change (careers, employment, update skills, etc...). Every human has the capability to "change".

You know Tayken, the military is great for training and retraining to other trades in the military. You may be able to remuster and then get posted back to the base of your choice, but this typically is not simple, it may take years before there is an opening and if you get where you want to go, you would still be looking at getting posted out as that is the way of life in the military: postings.

Obviously some of the skill sets you acquire are transferable to civilian life. They definitely help with upgrading your education as probably has been mentioned, I'm halfway through a degree.

You talked about there not being any 'safe' employment anymore in our society, well in terms of job safety there are few professions as secure as the military. Obviously this may not apply to safety in terms of coming home from a deployment all in one piece.

However, when you spend a few years in places like Afghanistan dealing withe IEDs on a daily basis, and your job as an infanteer has been to literally learn how to "close with and destroy the enemy" let's just say that adjustment to civilian life may not be all that easy for everyone. And it takes its toll on the soldier and everyone around them. Remember that.

The original thread about what constitutes real urgency in family court is an important point for me, and I apologize to everyone for clogging it up with posts about different issues. I would like to sum up by saying: It's just not that easy for someone to drop what they are doing in the military to stay close to their children. In fact, it can be a much harder task for some members of the military to 'change', adapt to civilian life and also to find employment in the same area as their children. It's not whining, it's a fact.

Tayken
10-27-2012, 09:55 AM
Thanks Tayken my friend, that is the last thing I plan on doing. The military is an honourable profession and I am proud of being able to serve.

I am proud of my job too. Does what I do make me less of a person than you? I am proud that I pay taxes that can be used to insure that this country can have an armed forces to protect our nation.

Family Resilience: An Annotated Bibliography ", which you can find http://cradpdf.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc78/p530519.pdf

I have read it before.

All families are faced with challenges at one time or another. The military environment, however, presents additional challenges for families. Geographic isolation, postings, frequent time away, high-risk deployments, and unpredictability are unique aspects of military life that put stress on members and their families. The quality of life experienced by families is a key determinant of many outcomes that affect the Canadian Forces (CF) directly. As such, family resilience is a concept of prime importance in the CF. This annotated bibliography reviews work on family resilience in military families and similar populations, as well as in society in general. It presents a comprehensive collection of theoretical frameworks, models, and empirical literature on family resilience.

Ever met a "mining engineer" with family? The work in very dangerous places, work in geographically isolated areas, are frequently away from their family, have high-risk employment (abductions, ransoms, murders) and often work in mine camps that get frequently attacked.

Also, you could put people who work in the fisheries into the same catagory under the same conditions of work.

So, I don't see the relevance to the "military" being the problem in all the arguments being made in counter. The choice to be a mining engineer, work in fisheries, forestry, on an oil rig, military, are all personal choices. One has to live with the choices they make and adapt when necessary.

You know Tayken, the military is great for training and retraining to other trades in the military.

And for those seeking a university level education offers services through the RMC and other public schooling. If planned properly one can achieve a PHD while serving.

You may be able to remuster and then get posted back to the base of your choice, but this typically is not simple, it may take years before there is an opening and if you get where you want to go, you would still be looking at getting posted out as that is the way of life in the military: postings.

Mining engineer wanting to work in Toronto/Ottawa?
Oil rig worker wanting to work in Toronto/Ottawa?
Fisheries worker wanting to work in Toronto/Ottawa?

Can they get "posted" (a job) in Toronto/Ottawa as easily as say a "software engineer", "professional project manager", etc...?

Geography defines a lot of careers. Not just the military.

Obviously some of the skill sets you acquire are transferable to civilian life. They definitely help with upgrading your education as probably has been mentioned, I'm halfway through a degree.

Discipline learned through the military, which is one of their best aspects of training in ANY role can be applied to any future goal. The one thing that the military is VERY good at is training in discipline. If one leverages this discipline learned through their military experience, a lot can be done.

You talked about there not being any 'safe' employment anymore in our society, well in terms of job safety there are few professions as secure as the military. Obviously this may not apply to safety in terms of coming home from a deployment all in one piece.

Tell that to the mining engineers who put out oil field fires, are in the jungles of Africa being shot at, the ones working in Columbia who have been abducted and held for ransom, the ones who die on oil rig explosions and fires...

Tell that to a fisheries worker who's friend's boat was capsized in a storm.

There are dangerous jobs everywhere.

However, when you spend a few years in places like Afghanistan dealing withe IEDs on a daily basis, and your job as an infanteer has been to literally learn how to "close with and destroy the enemy" let's just say that adjustment to civilian life may not be all that easy for everyone. And it takes its toll on the soldier and everyone around them. Remember that.

Life today is stressful. Veterans affairs has services to deal with that just like employers have Employee Assistant Programs (EAP) to assist employees with stress. There are more "civilians" in Afghanistan dealing with day-to-day life working than military. Imagine their stress of day-to-day life trying to work there. They haven't been trained to "close with and destroy the enemy"... They don't even know who the "enemy" is... Imagine the stress they must feel trying to get the infrastructure back together? They get shot at, have bombs thrown at them and they have no training. Are they not brave?

The original thread about what constitutes real urgency in family court is an important point for me, and I apologize to everyone for clogging it up with posts about different issues. I would like to sum up by saying: It's just not that easy for someone to drop what they are doing in the military to stay close to their children.

It is not easy for anyone in any industry be they a "civilian", "private citizen", or in the "military". But, change often comes in life and the adaptability to change is in one's own control and to project blame on any employer one has chosen to on their own free will to work for isn't going to win you favor in a custody and access dispute.

All citizens, be they military or "private" are seen equal under the Rules and Law that define custody and access.

In fact, it can be a much harder task for some members of the military to 'change', adapt to civilian life and also to find employment in the same area as their children. It's not whining, it's a fact.

The fact is I still don't see how the military is any different than examples of possible employment provided in my thread. The problems the "military" poses is not all that different than other employers in private industry that "citizens" regularly do.

The key element is that no person joining the military, mining engineering, fisheries, oil rig worker, et all was *forced* to do this work. Everyone has a choice and when you signed your employment contract you were informed of the facts of the terms of the contract. If you were conscripted and forced against your will to do any of these jobs against your will... My deepest sympathies.

Good Luck!
Tayken

baldclub
11-11-2012, 03:45 AM
I am proud of my job too. Does what I do make me less of a person than you? I am proud that I pay taxes that can be used to insure that this country can have an armed forces to protect our nation.

Haha! I am glad to hear you are proud of your job, Tayken my friend. I fail to understand the relevance of your question in bold above. You said to me:

Just be careful. As an enlisted member of the military you may be under obligation by contract not to make liable statements against the military and the positive opportunities it provides to families as a career. You wouldn't want to expose anything that puts the military and service in a bad light as an enlisted employee.

So I told you I was a proud member of the Canadian Forces, not at all in need to expose anything that puts the military and service in a bad light.



Ever met a "mining engineer" with family? The work in very dangerous places, work in geographically isolated areas, are frequently away from their family, have high-risk employment (abductions, ransoms, murders) and often work in mine camps that get frequently attacked.

Also, you could put people who work in the fisheries into the same catagory under the same conditions of work.

Can't say I have met a mining engineer, with family or not. I'm aware that danger lurks in many other professions but that is not what my argument is about. I know some civilians with jobs similar to mine go to some pretty remote places, have been in aircraft crashes, some adrenalin rush... I can only speak for myself though here, I have only first hand experience of losing seven buddies in combat, and being shot at myself. Mind you, getting shot at seems a much more pleasant experience than separation ... honestly.

I personally know the difficulties of being away from my family on a regular basis, and the stress it caused my spouse. It was incredibly tough for her and our baby while I was overseas.

So, I don't see the relevance to the "military" being the problem in all the arguments being made in counter. The choice to be a mining engineer, work in fisheries, forestry, on an oil rig, military, are all personal choices. One has to live with the choices they make and adapt when necessary.

I disagree. The "military" relevance is as stated:

The military environment, however, presents additional challenges for families. Geographic isolation, postings, frequent time away, high-risk deployments, and unpredictability are unique aspects of military life that put stress on members and their families.

Whether it is a 'uniqueness' that applies to other trades and professions, that is not really a concern to me in this argument as the poster related to her husband's difficulties as a 'military' member.


Mining engineer wanting to work in Toronto/Ottawa?
Oil rig worker wanting to work in Toronto/Ottawa?
Fisheries worker wanting to work in Toronto/Ottawa?

Can they get "posted" (a job) in Toronto/Ottawa as easily as say a "software engineer", "professional project manager", etc...?

That is exactly the point. Fishermen typically would live in there village/town/city and sail to sea from there. A miner would live close to the mine where he works. The fact that military members get posted and move around so much is precisely one of the main arguments how military life is tougher on families because home is not home for long in many cases.

Geography defines a lot of careers. Not just the military.

Yes, and? We are speaking about a military member as stated above.

Discipline learned through the military, which is one of their best aspects of training in ANY role can be applied to any future goal. The one thing that the military is VERY good at is training in discipline. If one leverages this discipline learned through their military experience, a lot can be done.

Leveraging? Like what? A rock in the air, a la Yoda? No, you're right, discipline helps but there are definitely a lot of once strongly-disciplined vets out there having one helluva time coping with civilian life back in Canada.


Life today is stressful. Veterans affairs has services to deal with that just like employers have Employee Assistant Programs (EAP) to assist employees with stress.

Please Tayken, don't give me the "life is stressful" crap. Seriously. Don't compare stresses we face here in Canada to those our soldiers have faced in Afghanistan or other places.

There are more "civilians" in Afghanistan dealing with day-to-day life working than military. Imagine their stress of day-to-day life trying to work there. They haven't been trained to "close with and destroy the enemy"... They don't even know who the "enemy" is... Imagine the stress they must feel trying to get the infrastructure back together? They get shot at, have bombs thrown at them and they have no training. Are they not brave?

Oh, so the civilians are having a tougher go in these hotspots than the soldiers? Have you ever worked with NGOs? I have on multiple occasions and let me tell you, for the most part they have it much, much better than the soldiers do. I speak in terms of living conditions, pay and exposure to risk. They don't get ordered to be put in harm's way. They actually have a say in the matter, lucky for them. And if they don't know who the enemy is, imagine us. I admire some of them, I was offered a job there myself and I feel there is a great need for them. There are definitely some brave civilians over there, you bet. A few got killed, and some brutally.

It is not easy for anyone in any industry be they a "civilian", "private citizen", or in the "military". But, change often comes in life and the adaptability to change is in one's own control and to project blame on any employer one has chosen to on their own free will to work for isn't going to win you favor in a custody and access dispute.

The tone of your argument I found annoying Tayken, the lecturing about adaptability and control. The argument presented is not about projecting blame on any employer, it's about realizing there are a certain set of circumstances that exist in the poster's husbands job description that make his ability to deal with .

All citizens, be they military or "private" are seen equal under the Rules and Law that define custody and access.

No one here is saying the military is above the law. Any law. We are subjected to all civilian laws plus the Code of Service Discipline above and beyond. Again, your posturing here seems really out of place.


The fact is I still don't see how the military is any different than examples of possible employment provided in my thread. The problems the "military" poses is not all that different than other employers in private industry that "citizens" regularly do.

I see that as your opinion and not as a fact, based on my presentation of evidence. While there are certainly some distinct trades as you have pointed out, the military lifestyle is known to be problematic for families, hence the degree to which the problem is being addressed by government and other players.

The key element is that no person joining the military, mining engineering, fisheries, oil rig worker, et all was *forced* to do this work. Everyone has a choice and when you signed your employment contract you were informed of the facts of the terms of the contract.

The key element for me is actually the fact that the above noted characteristics of military life do have a stronger impact on family life than most job descriptions, not that "no person is forced to do this work". I strongly disagree with your analysis.


If you were conscripted and forced against your will to do any of these jobs against your will... My deepest sympathies.

Yes, it is a volunteer military we serve in. Your words appear obviously condescending, negative and petty I may add. I know you are capable of much more, some of your posts do demonstrate a higher level of expression.

I hope you might relate to some of the experiences our veterans, past and present, have gone through if you take a moment tomorrow to ponder on Canada's day to remember.

Lest We Forget.

wife#2
11-11-2012, 04:02 AM
Thanks Baldclub for responding! Well said.

Tayken
11-11-2012, 07:55 AM
Haha! I am glad to hear you are proud of your job, Tayken my friend. I fail to understand the relevance of your question in bold above.

A justice will explain it to you at trial and why your evidence is irrelivant and why your lamenting about being in the military is weighed before the civil court the same way as the other professions on the balance of probabilities.

Remember, you are not appearing before a military court but, the superior court who will see your career just as that with the same weight to all the other citizens who appear before the court.

You won't be giving any special consideration due to the fact you are in the military.

You said to me:

So I told you I was a proud member of the Canadian Forces, not at all in need to expose anything that puts the military and service in a bad light.

I hypothesize that you are going to attempt to argue that you should be given special consideration before the court for your employment choice. I am highly doubtful that it will change much on the balance of probabilities in a civil court matter.

Can't say I have met a mining engineer, with family or not. I'm aware that danger lurks in many other professions but that is not what my argument is about.

The difficulty is what is your argument?

Is it that you should be given special consideration / special order / sympathy from the Superior Court of Justice due to your personal decision prior to having children to join the military? That the custody and access of your children should be based on your "sacrifices" to join the military which you chose to do freely?

I know some civilians with jobs similar to mine go to some pretty remote places, have been in aircraft crashes, some adrenalin rush... I can only speak for myself though here, I have only first hand experience of losing seven buddies in combat, and being shot at myself.

What is the relevance though (which is my point in all this) to the Superior Court of Justice on determining custody and access of the children in question?

Mind you, getting shot at seems a much more pleasant experience than separation ... honestly.

Going out on a limb here but, you may be correct. In a conflict situation like that you have choices. You can retreat, you can leverage your skills and training to defend yourself. As an unrepresented litigant (or even represented) in any civil court matter you are required to respond, you can't retreat, and if you rely upon your military training it is to attack back possibly.

So, I can see why you would make a statement that family court feels worse than a military battle.

I personally know the difficulties of being away from my family on a regular basis, and the stress it caused my spouse. It was incredibly tough for her and our baby while I was overseas.

But, you do not see why this will impact the custody and access under Rule 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act?

I disagree. The "military" relevance is as stated:

The military environment, however, presents additional challenges for families. Geographic isolation, postings, frequent time away, high-risk deployments, and unpredictability are unique aspects of military life that put stress on members and their families.

Put that into an affidavit and due come back to let everyone know how it worked out for you at Trial and how successful your argument was before the Superior Court of Justice.

Whether it is a 'uniqueness' that applies to other trades and professions, that is not really a concern to me in this argument as the poster related to her husband's difficulties as a 'military' member.

What we are discussing on this message board is family law which is part of the civil court of justice and I believe you are in the Superior Court from past postings.

What we are discussing is "relevance" to an argument before the court. What you are trying to establish is unique relevance to your current job (military) and that a public court (not military court) should make special consideration to your job and set jurisprudence for "military families".

Remember, that you are walking into the "Superior Court of Justice" not the "Superior Military Court of Justice" and that the judge you will be before probably has no military experience and is expected to weigh your "evidence" against jurisprudence in CanLII and your "evidence".

My position in this debate is that you have very little relevant evidence that a justice could set jurisprudence on a special circumstance that elements of the "best interests" test should be persuaded by your choice in career.

That is exactly the point. Fishermen typically would live in there village/town/city and sail to sea from there.

They would also, depending on the type of fishing they do, go out for 2-3 week runs or even months during season. Which puts them into the EoW situation which you are defending against as well.

A miner would live close to the mine where he works.

Really? The only city for which is built upon a mine is the City of Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. It is the only city on this planet that has a mine shaft, smelter and other facilities in it. Furthermore, it is a limited market and the vast majority of Canadian mining engineers work in other countries and commute into sites on long rotations.

For example:

Raglan Mine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raglan_Mine)

The fact that military members get posted and move around so much is precisely one of the main arguments how military life is tougher on families because home is not home for long in many cases.

No different than what a mining engineer experiences or other professionals who have to travel for work. Say a sales executive / sales person who sells a product internationally.

Continued...

Tayken
11-11-2012, 07:55 AM
Yes, and? We are speaking about a military member as stated above.

Leveraging? Like what? A rock in the air, a la Yoda? No, you're right, discipline helps but there are definitely a lot of once strongly-disciplined vets out there having one helluva time coping with civilian life back in Canada.

Remember, that the other party may leverage your military experience, and your admission here against interest, that there are a lot of military "coping with civilian life" which includes raising children. I would not recommend putting this argument forward because it could impact a judicial decision on "best interests" as you would find yourself having to argue that you are not one of them who are struggling.

Please Tayken, don't give me the "life is stressful" crap. Seriously. Don't compare stresses we face here in Canada to those our soldiers have faced in Afghanistan or other places.

Standard military argument (egocentric) given all the time. Furthermore, welcome to the civilian world (public) where opinions and perspectives matter.

Oh, so the civilians are having a tougher go in these hotspots than the soldiers? Have you ever worked with NGOs?

Everyone in a "hot spot" has equal opportunity to die. It is a basic element to the psychology.

I have on multiple occasions and let me tell you, for the most part they have it much, much better than the soldiers do. I speak in terms of living conditions, pay and exposure to risk. They don't get ordered to be put in harm's way. They actually have a say in the matter, lucky for them.

They signed better employment contracts to be in the same place and work.

And if they don't know who the enemy is, imagine us. I admire some of them, I was offered a job there myself and I feel there is a great need for them. There are definitely some brave civilians over there, you bet. A few got killed, and some brutally.

Yet, you argue that their contributions and death are not equal as to someone in the "military"? I am of a different opinion on the value of "life". All people are equally important and any death is equally weighed.

The tone of your argument I found annoying Tayken, the lecturing about adaptability and control.

Curious, is the responding material from the other party sighting you as a "controlling" person at all?

It is unfortunate that you are expressing emotional distaste ("annoyance") for the argument being presented. Hopefully you do not cross examine and represent yourself before the court with a similar style of speech and is limited to "venting" on this message board. I can tell you that should you raise a comment like this about opposing counsel it won't bold well for you in the Superior Court of Justice.

The argument presented is not about projecting blame on any employer, it's about realizing there are a certain set of circumstances that exist in the poster's husbands job description that make his ability to deal with.

And there are multiple solutions to the posters problem.

No one here is saying the military is above the law. Any law. We are subjected to all civilian laws plus the Code of Service Discipline above and beyond. Again, your posturing here seems really out of place.

How is my posting "out of place". You are presenting an argument that military service should be considered by everyone, in contravention to your above statement, that it should be given some different and "special" weighting in family law. I am debating counter to your argument.

What really is out of place is how a message originally started to assist people on what defines urgency before the Family Court is a debate about the "military" and if it should be given special consideration by anyone in a family law matter.

I see that as your opinion and not as a fact, based on my presentation of evidence.

How? What supports your statement of "fact"? I respond on a paragraph by paragraph basis. Demonstrate your "fact" and how it is not based on "my (your) presentation of evidence."

The only evidence presented is your text to this forum and I respond to each paragraph.

While there are certainly some distinct trades as you have pointed out, the military lifestyle is known to be problematic for families, hence the degree to which the problem is being addressed by government and other players.

The question posed continually is that how does the challenge facing the military make it unique and that it should be given special consideration by the family court?

Yes, it is a volunteer military we serve in. Your words appear obviously condescending, negative and petty I may add. I know you are capable of much more, some of your posts do demonstrate a higher level of expression.

How are they condescending? Provide the examples and I will address every concern you have and provide more insight. It is easy to jump to a conclusion and make a blanket statement like this to attack someone's character like this. Difficult to demonstrate it with cogent and relevant evidence, especially when none exists to do so.

I hope you might relate to some of the experiences our veterans, past and present, have gone through if you take a moment tomorrow to ponder on Canada's day to remember.

Lest We Forget.

I have all the deepest sympathies to the families of those who have served in the military and have lost loved ones. In fact, in my career, I make significant legislative and other changes in our medical system to insure that they get the support and help they need.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Tayken
11-11-2012, 07:56 AM
Thanks Baldclub for responding! Well said.

What in particular was "well said"? Just curious, as you have chosen to provide a blanket opinion without any contribution to the discussion.

Tayken
11-11-2012, 08:16 AM
Some observations to comments made and analysis with supporting clinical evidence.

Haha! I am glad to hear you are proud of your job, Tayken my friend. I fail to understand the relevance of your question in bold above.

I have highlighted for everyone in red the attempt to create an emotional reaction by "laughing". This is a common pattern of behaviour for which often highly conflict people attempt to use to generate an emotional response in an argument.

Those who are not trained in identifying conflict patters of speech and writing are often triggered by personal attacks like this. It is a common pattern of behavior deployed by negative advocate solicitors against unrepresented litigants. For the most part in my honest opinion, based on my personal observations of oral arguments before the SCJ it is quite a successful technique to demonstrate the other party (unrepresented) as overly emotional and gain attention to their arguments no matter how irrelevant they are.

Furthermore, one of the defense mechanisms of the highly conflicted is to attempt to "befriend" the other person counter to their argument. Not sure for what grounds the person in question would considering me a "friend". Or is the poster in question attempting to use similar terminology that barristers use before the court under professional courtesy?

For those who have spouses and opposing counsel that try to state that the argument you are presenting is "laughable" take note. In the materials presented by experts such as Mr. William Eddy these are key elements for which these experts track in responding arguments before the court. They collect them up and then present them back as counter evidence to the person in question (and often negative advocate solicitors) attempts to generate conflict where no conflict should exist.

Hopefully this link to the pages from Google Books works as it brings you right to what I am talking about with regards to Mr. Eddy. BPD Central used to have an excellent article which was the excerpt from "Splitting" on the topic I am discussing but, it no longer exists:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=vy7bjqY4WcoC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=%22negative+advocate+attorney%22&source=bl&ots=oSJgXeLwws&sig=8Cj-17y32d-W39R5bFxhRxKE4wc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fpmfUP-_KuGQ2AWJ64HAAQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

In light of the above, perhaps laughter could be most properly considered as a weapon against suffering and despair. If we can joke about a disappointing or traumatic event, we'll often find ourselves feeling that what's happened to us isn't so bad and that we'll be able to get through it. This expectation serves two vitally important functions:

1. It diminishes or even eliminates the moment-by-moment suffering we might otherwise experience as a result of a traumatic loss, which

2. Actually makes it more likely we will make it through a trauma unmarred and flourish once again


A key question about laughter remains, however: does it create the expectation that we'll be all right, or become possible only because we've found our way to a belief that things aren't as bad as they seem?

Furthermore:

When faced with adversity, some people exhibit a great ability for turning to laughter as a soothing balm, while others remain less able to do so. While this may be a result of differences in upbringing or genetics, I often wonder if it's equally as much a matter of intent. Perhaps many of us simply don't think to try to laugh, either because we're too overwhelmed by suffering or because we think laughter in the face of suffering is inappropriate.

Why We Laugh | Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201101/why-we-laugh)

Note the impact "laughter" has on a structured and logical thinker.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Tayken
11-11-2012, 08:23 AM
Dear Moderators,

Could you please partition off the portion of this message thread into a different posting. The reason I ask is that "emergency" (urgent) motions are a very important topic in Family Law and the purpose of this sticky as originally posted was to provide jurisprudence (case law) on what constitutes an emergency.

A debate about if "military" service should be weighted different to any other career before the Family Court (either OCJ or SCJ) really isn't "urgent" or fit the original intent of the original posting.

Thank-you,
Tayken

Tayken
11-11-2012, 08:50 AM
I am proud of my job too. Does what I do make me less of a person than you? I am proud that I pay taxes that can be used to insure that this country can have an armed forces to protect our nation.

Haha! I am glad to hear you are proud of your job, Tayken my friend. I fail to understand the relevance of your question in bold above.

Per your request here is the relevance to the question:

It is a standard question that you would hear from a mental health worker when attempting to solicit information (evidence) to a personal "belief". One needs to establish how the person in question differentiates themselves from the rest of society.

Often, questions like this are injected into theraputic questioning to determine how the person in question sees themselves within the larger context of society.

So the question is posed in similar manners to see how the person differentiates themselves from the rest of society. Responses vary and the weight given at a therapeutic level would bring forward additional questions about how the persons "special" position, job, education etc... truly differentiates them.

Questions like this are used to scale and weigh "egocentricity" of the person in question. Is their belief that they are "special" (different, gifted, etc...) truly a special ability/position.

Your response, to question the question is an interesting one for sure. The question still stands though.

To pose it with more details:

Do you feel that your position in the military makes you a unique member of society and in particular different than other litigants before the Family Court?

Do you think/feel/believe that it should give you an advantage or disadvantages you? How does this advantage or disadvantage differ from others in society? Should the court weigh differently than other members of society than those who have volunteered for military employment before the family court?

Good Luck!
Tayken

wife#2
11-12-2012, 03:50 AM
What in particular was "well said"? Just curious, as you have chosen to provide a blanket opinion without any contribution to the discussion.

If any other member of this forum is in anyway unclear what 'well said' means directed at a poster, directly under his post, I would be happy to explain. I was also unaware that one could not comment on an on going debate if they were not directly involved in the debate itself.

Tayken
11-12-2012, 07:20 AM
If any other member of this forum is in anyway unclear what 'well said' means directed at a poster, directly under his post, I would be happy to explain. I was also unaware that one could not comment on an on going debate if they were not directly involved in the debate itself.

Just asking for feedback as to what elements of the argument you felt were "well said" that is all. Clearly you are unable to provide that information. It would be helpful in addressing the argument presented if you wanted to actually contribute versus generate conflict in a manner such as this.

Good Luck!
Tayken

baldclub
11-12-2012, 10:37 AM
What in particular was "well said"? Just curious, as you have chosen to provide a blanket opinion without any contribution to the discussion.

I'm pretty sure she likes the whole comment, Tayken!

baldclub
11-12-2012, 10:39 AM
If any other member of this forum is in anyway unclear what 'well said' means directed at a poster, directly under his post, I would be happy to explain. I was also unaware that one could not comment on an on going debate if they were not directly involved in the debate itself.

No, it's pretty clear I would say.

baldclub
11-12-2012, 10:43 AM
Just asking for feedback as to what elements of the argument you felt were "well said" that is all. Clearly you are unable to provide that information. It would be helpful in addressing the argument presented if you wanted to actually contribute versus generate conflict in a manner such as this.

Good Luck!
Tayken

How is it that she is clearly "unable" to provide that information? Because she doesn't feel the need to present to you why she approves of her support for my post? By stating her support for my post, you feel she is actually generating conflict? Maybe some people don't feel the need to explain further what for them is obvious, and furthermore entangle themselves in the vicious circle of arguing for arguing sake.

Tayken
11-12-2012, 10:50 AM
How is it that she is clearly "unable" to provide that information? Because she doesn't feel the need to present to you why she approves of her support for my post? By stating her support for my post, you feel she is actually generating conflict?

Nope, it is more "cheer-leading" but, I did ask for relevant feedback. For which none has been provided. Always looking to improve an argument in a debate that is all.

To demonstrate that they are an active participant and not an negative advocate they can simply provide a good and solid counter argument. Cheer-leading on an argument doesn't really benefit the development of the argument and leading it to a conclusion.

Maybe some people don't feel the need to explain further what for them is obvious, and furthermore entangle themselves in the vicious circle of arguing for arguing sake.

Too bad for some of those people your theory doesn't apply the same logic to their escapades before the Family Courts as well.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Tayken
11-12-2012, 10:52 AM
No, it's pretty clear I would say.

As clear as your argument before the Superior Court of Justice which by your own admission was "shushed" by a Justice in Oral Arguments in a past admission against interest in another posting to this message board?

baldclub
11-12-2012, 11:31 AM
Some observations to comments made and analysis with supporting clinical evidence.

I have highlighted for everyone in red the attempt to create an emotional reaction by "laughing". This is a common pattern of behaviour for which often highly conflict people attempt to use to generate an emotional response in an argument.

Well Sigmund Freud, it was just funny to me that you thought I was going to spill the beans and diss the military; and you actually felt the need to warn me of taking such a position. I've got plenty of time in the military and in life to not worry about crossing that kind of line, it was simply funny. That's why it was funny to me that you actually warned me and I was expressing that smile you put on my face when I read that. So I'm high conflict because I laughed out loud at your warning? :) Another smiley face.

Those who are not trained in identifying conflict patters of speech and writing are often triggered by personal attacks like this. It is a common pattern of behavior deployed by negative advocate solicitors against unrepresented litigants. For the most part in my honest opinion, based on my personal observations of oral arguments before the SCJ it is quite a successful technique to demonstrate the other party (unrepresented) as overly emotional and gain attention to their arguments no matter how irrelevant they are.

Well, you can bet that I will be representing myself with relevant facts and professionalism in court, everything is centred around the children's best interest and case law. A lot of my focus actually comes from your more positive posts.

Furthermore, one of the defense mechanisms of the highly conflicted is to attempt to "befriend" the other person counter to their argument. Not sure for what grounds the person in question would considering me a "friend". Or is the poster in question attempting to use similar terminology that barristers use before the court under professional courtesy?

Also, trying to befriend a person is a technique to reduce conflict by putting oneself at their level and showing that there are commonalities. Maybe your analysis is over analysis?

For those who have spouses and opposing counsel that try to state that the argument you are presenting is "laughable" take note. In the materials presented by experts such as Mr. William Eddy these are key elements for which these experts track in responding arguments before the court. They collect them up and then present them back as counter evidence to the person in question (and often negative advocate solicitors) attempts to generate conflict where no conflict should exist.

Sometimes one's arguments are "laughable". I've read here on the forum that people posting here should have "thick skin". My "haha" is a simple response to your suggestion, nothing more nothing less, definitely not an attempt to "generate conflict where no conflict should exist".

My understanding from posts here on the forum and reading CanLII is that while judges will raise a brow when presented with attempts to generate conflict, they go right back to what is concretely proposed in the children's best interest and take it from there.

Judges are so weary of all the bs, but I wished they would take more action to prevent it. My experience at a settlement conference over a year ago was that all it took were a few unsubstantiated accusations from my ex, with no burden of proof, and I was not allowed to increase the children's access to me although living five blocks from their school after material changes in circumstances. Well, the judge asked for the OCL's involvement but I'm still 20 months since any resolution.

Hopefully this link to the pages from Google Books works as it brings you right to what I am talking about with regards to Mr. Eddy.

I've read what Mr. Eddy has to say and I take note. However, I don't see my comments at all as "high conflict" based on your couple of citations of Mr. Eddy and Psychology Today.


P.S. The "Sigmund Freud" comment was sarcasm yes, the lowest form of humour. I urge you not to take offense to it. However, it is simply an attempt to highlight the overly analytical response you've demonstrated in some of your arguments. And it reminds me of my ex who claimed I was overly analytical, so maybe we share more in common my friend than we know.

baldclub
11-12-2012, 11:40 AM
Nope, it is more "cheer-leading" but, I did ask for relevant feedback. For which none has been provided. Always looking to improve an argument in a debate that is all.

No feedback is required seemingly in her opinion. Are you really looking to improve an argument or maybe just argue for argument's sake?

To demonstrate that they are an active participant and not an negative advocate they can simply provide a good and solid counter argument. Cheer-leading on an argument doesn't really benefit the development of the argument and leading it to a conclusion.

Not sure her cheer-leading is getting us further from a conclusion then the constant back and forth. Any opinions on my doubt?


Too bad for some of those people your theory doesn't apply the same logic to their escapades before the Family Courts as well.

Not sure how to read that statement. At first impression, I agree with you that people need to be totally rational in their arguments for the best interest of the children. However, I have a lingering sense that your statement might be pointed at specific people here, and I'm not sure how constructive that kind of direction would be.

Tayken
11-12-2012, 11:45 AM
Well Sigmund Freud, it was just funny to me that you thought I was going to spill the beans and diss the military; and you actually felt the need to warn me of taking such a position.

Thank you for the negative complement but, I am no "Sigmund Freud" at all. Your attempt at "sarcasm" is noted.

Think Sarcasm is Funny? Think Again | Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/think-well/201206/think-sarcasm-is-funny-think-again)

What’s more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity. After all, when you come right down to it, sarcasm is a subtle form of bullying and most bullies are angry, insecure, cowards.

I've got plenty of time in the military and in life to not worry about crossing that kind of line, it was simply funny. That's why it was funny to me that you actually warned me and I was expressing that smile you put on my face when I read that. So I'm high conflict because I laughed out loud at your warning? :) Another smiley face.

See my above link and quote...

Well, you can bet that I will be representing myself with relevant facts and professionalism in court, everything is centred around the children's best interest and case law. A lot of my focus actually comes from your more positive posts.

That is unfortunate for your case that you are depending on case law that I provide. I highly recommend you retain a qualified barrister and solicitor to represent you in the Superior Court of Justice.

Also, trying to befriend a person is a technique to reduce conflict by putting oneself at their level and showing that there are commonalities. Maybe your analysis is over analysis?

There are few "commonalities" between us possibly other than gender.

Sometimes one's arguments are "laughable". I've read here on the forum that people posting here should have "thick skin". My "haha" is a simple response to your suggestion, nothing more nothing less, definitely not an attempt to "generate conflict where no conflict should exist".

And the purpose of this response is?

My understanding from posts here on the forum and reading CanLII is that while judges will raise a brow when presented with attempts to generate conflict, they go right back to what is concretely proposed in the children's best interest and take it from there.

Actually, depending on how much conflict and the frivolity of the argument presented the judge will weigh in their custody and access decision the impact that the person in question (the conflicted ones) impact to the ability to joint parent and share equal residency.

Judges are so weary of all the bs, but I wished they would take more action to prevent it. My experience at a settlement conference over a year ago was that all it took were a few unsubstantiated accusations from my ex, with no burden of proof, and I was not allowed to increase the children's access to me although living five blocks from their school after material changes in circumstances. Well, the judge asked for the OCL's involvement but I'm still 20 months since any resolution.

You are not barred from bringing forward a motion to resolve temporary issues. As often stated on this site by not just me but, many others, a Conference is a mediated solution and no justice can make an order on a substantive issue. You have to bring that to MOTION or to TRIAL.

Your expectations of what can be done in a Settlement Conference by a justice is puzzling considering the amount of time spent on this site.

I've read what Mr. Eddy has to say and I take note. However, I don't see my comments at all as "high conflict" based on your couple of citations of Mr. Eddy and Psychology Today.

You can interpret the materials any way you want. Hopefully you take the advice of Mr. Eddy and other

P.S. The "Sigmund Freud" comment was sarcasm yes, the lowest form of humour. I urge you not to take offense to it. However, it is simply an attempt to highlight the overly analytical response you've demonstrated in some of your arguments. And it reminds me of my ex who claimed I was overly analytical, so maybe we share more in common my friend than we know.

Just wait to see how a judge writes up your upcoming trial decision and the analytical review against Rule 24 of the CLRA that will come as a result. It makes my "analytic" light in comparison.

Also, I don't take offence to much. But, thank-you for admitting against interest that your intent was to leverage sarcasm a tool often leveraged by high conflict people to solicit an emotional response.

Some advice: Don't use sarcasm before a judge. They don't find it "funny".

Good Luck!
Tayken

Tayken
11-12-2012, 11:50 AM
No feedback is required seemingly in her opinion. Are you really looking to improve an argument or maybe just argue for argument's sake?

Improve an argument. Often "military" people coming to this forum with expectations that their service should give them special rights before the Superior Court of Justice. That their time spent, employment and signing of an employment contract with an employer should grant them "special consideration".

It is often hard to explain the need for "relevancy" on their argument before a civil court where both parties are equal in standing and a decision is made on a balance of probability and not whom employs them.

Not sure her cheer-leading is getting us further from a conclusion then the constant back and forth. Any opinions on my doubt?

That is because we have put out the arguments in the the debate. You have your opinion, I have mine. The court will order appropriately in accordance with the Family Law Rules and existing jurisprudence in support of or against the argument presented.

Not sure how to read that statement. At first impression, I agree with you that people need to be totally rational in their arguments for the best interest of the children. However, I have a lingering sense that your statement might be pointed at specific people here, and I'm not sure how constructive that kind of direction would be.

Actually, the arguments should be rationalized to assist the justice in making a determination on the best interests of the children. Two parties who have entered the public court system have requested a justice make the ultimate decision on custody and access.

You can have all the "lingering senses" you want.

Good Luck!
Tayken

baldclub
11-12-2012, 12:58 PM
Improve an argument. Often "military" people coming to this forum with expectations that their service should give them special rights before the Superior Court of Justice. That their time spent, employment and signing of an employment contract with an employer should grant them "special consideration".

I can't specifically deal with how often 'military' people come to the forum with those special rights as you say, because such an investigation of facts is not very interesting to me. I would highly doubt such a position would be taken as it is contrary to the strong relationship we soldiers, airmen and airwomen, and sailors have with duty and service to our country/society.

It is often hard to explain the need for "relevancy" on their argument before a civil court where both parties are equal in standing and a decision is made on a balance of probability and not whom employs them.

Yes, everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law, no doubt about that. However, as there are many, many factors that paint one case differently than another, and the law itself is vague or not specific in some respects ('the best interest of the child', spousal support). Cases need to be analysed on a case by case basis.

And what has been argued to you in this post is the fact that military families exist in a very different set of conditions compared to most of society. The point that was brought up was not that military personnel need laws twisted in their favour, but to answer your initial question earlier in your posts:

The real hard question... moving parents never answer is why move? Why move if it is going to impact the child's access to you? Is *your life* that much more important than *your relationship* with the child?

The facts surrounding the uniqueness of military service was presented to you by the relevance of the study:

Family Resilience: An Annotated Bibliography ", which you can find http://cradpdf.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc78/p530519.pdf

baldclub
11-12-2012, 01:06 PM
There are few "commonalities" between us possibly other than gender.

Tayken my friend, I have been to places where people have done unspeakable things to each other, all in the name of differences. In my three tours in that part of the world, I really didn't see those differences as unsurmountable as they stated. Furthermore, they shared a lot more in common than they would ever admit to. A shame and a weak reason for the death.

Let me tell you, we have a ton of commonalities between us, other than gender.

This is my last post here on this topic.

wife#2
11-12-2012, 06:11 PM
Some advice: Don't use sarcasm before a judge. They don't find it "funny".

So when I say 'my step son is under emotional distress', you ask me if I am a health professional. As you are clearly commenting on what all judges ('they') will think, I think it is fair to ask, are you a judge? What is your background of study to comment on what all judges would find funny or not funny? You very frequently ask it of others, but continue to avoid the question yourself. It is somehow 'relevant' to you when you ask, but in your mind, not relevant to others.
Judges are human. In my limited experience in family court, and only by what my husband and his lawyer (who is a friend I know personally) tell me, judges laugh, lawyers and judges joke, yes, in court. No, its not all fun and games, but humor is used and accepted. My husband has always come home from court with a funny story of something the judge said or something the lawyer said to the judge. Judge laughed. No big deal.

wife#2
11-12-2012, 06:26 PM
Specifically, I did not get involved in the debate because I felt I had nothing to add to it. Both sides were making the points that I was thinking myself. I at no time felt that any military member was suggesting that they should get special treatment. I would love to see the military member's post's that suggest this though, that Tayken is referencing (past and present). I believe the argument was simply the uniqueness of military life and believe that this was demonstrated. Also that others who are not military may also encounter similar circumstances, but generally, different to the vast majority of society.
Do I think military should get special treatment on custody and access? Yes and no. No they should not simply because they are military. But yes to them and ANYONE who works shifts, is sent away to work and all the other issues discussed already on this thread. My feeling is, the purpose, or so I thought, of family court is to mimick what would have happened as closely as possible had the family stayed intact. So if you chose to have a child with someone who works military or anyone who works in the conditions discussed, then I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the child move and spend a few years in one province, then a few years in another. If it is ok to do this to children in intact families, why is it suddenly not in a child's best interest when there is a divorce? This would have been the reality for the child if the parents were together, so why not now? Just my thoughts, since you asked.

Unevenplayingground
11-13-2012, 11:08 PM
Baldclub and wife#2, a lot of great points, I appreciated reading them.

The military is a unique career choice, of course there are many others. I don't know if people so much expect special treatment, but I think they should expect to not have their law abiding, tax paying, career choice held against them.

Anyway, this discussion appears to have ended.