Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Honourable Madame Justice - Continued

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Honourable Madame Justice - Continued

    Often, parents come stating that their children do not want to see the other parent. Justice Mossip in Reeves v. Reeves similar to the wise words of the wise words of the Honourable Justice Quinn in paragraph 38:
    Based on a significant number of studies and case law in this area, any support or encouragement by one parent that the children not have a relationship with the other parent simply demonstrated the irresponsibility of the parent who has the children and demonstrates that parent's inability to act in the best interests of their children. Children do not always want to go to school or want to go to the dentist's or doctor's. It is the responsibility of good parents to manage their children's health and safety issues without necessarily the consent or joy of their children. A healthy relationship with both parents is a health and safety issue that good parents ensure takes place.

    The above paragraph was cited in the following interesting case law:

    Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2012 ONSC 2727 (CanLII)
    Date: 2012-05-04
    Docket: 30336/08
    URL: CanLII - 2012 ONSC 2727 (CanLII)
    Citation: Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2012 ONSC 2727 (CanLII)

    [25] Mrs. Scrivo testified that she has encouraged and facilitated all the access; the boys simply chose often not to go and she respected their choice.

    [26] If Mrs. Scrivo was “encouraging” access, this appears to be the only area of their lives where they have not followed her lead.

    [27] I reject this aspect of her evidence. The language used to describe the father of her children alone is evidence of hostility and lack of encouragement of the father/son relationship. There is no justification for such conduct by the mother no matter how she felt about her former husband.

    [28] The evidence is that Mrs. Scrivo has been conscientious in signing the boys up for worthwhile activities and ensuring they attend and excel. She appears demanding of her sons, in a good way. But when it comes to priorities, the relationship with their father has slipped to the bottom of the list. In fact, she has made it an option only.

    [29] I conclude that the boys’ choice to not see their father has been heavily influenced, either consciously or unconsciously, by the extreme animosity the respondent felt for the applicant.
    For all those parents lamenting that they try to encourage their children:

    [34] The respondent does not dispute that the applicant loves his boys and that they love him. The respondent is critical of the applicant in not reaching out to the boys, not trying harder, not being more organized and that he has not established a relationship with them “on his own”. It is ironic that, while being critical of him not attending their rugby games and church confirmation suggesting he does not care about his sons, this trial had to be held to obtain court ordered access rather than on consent.
    The court again reminds everyone that they are only concerned with the "best interests" of the children and not your opinion ("feelings") about the other parent and their ability to parent, if you "feel" they are a good parent etc...

    [41] As will become apparent from my order, I am remaining seized of this matter and it will come back before me for review. I am extremely troubled by the stress these three children have been under. The court is only concerned with the best interests of the children. If it is found that best interests are not served by the present custodial arrangement then the court is always able to change same. Having a meaningful and healthy relationship with both parents is always in the children’s best interests.
    For those who want to see why lamenting on Facebook is not a good idea and is excellent evidence before the superior court and why it should be collected see paragraphs 14-16.

    Also, highly conflicted parents who force litigation such as the above are kindly reminded of the *costs* associated with unreasonable conduct such as this.

    Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2012 ONSC 3212 (CanLII)
    Date: 2012-05-31
    Docket: 30336/08
    URL: CanLII - 2012 ONSC 3212 (CanLII)
    Citation: Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2012 ONSC 3212 (CanLII)

    [1] I have reviewed the costs outline and submissions of the successful party, the applicant and find them to be reasonable. The applicant seeks partial indemnity costs of $32,263.24 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

    [2] I have also reviewed the 45 pages of submissions and attachments filed by the respondent which largely deal with issues unrelated to the issues litigated at trial, namely, access and household items. One of the attachments has an email by the respondent to applicant’s counsel dated March 23, 2012 stating that his client’s fees for trial could exceed $30,000.00.

    ORDER TO GO:

    [3] The respondent is to pay to the applicant costs of trial on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $32,263.24.
    Good Luck!
    Tayken

  • #2
    This is awesome. I'm going to print this off for my partner to read, because this applies to his situation. Thanks Tayken!

    Comment


    • #3
      Nice!!

      It is good to see that judges are starting to decide in this manner!

      Comment


      • #4
        This is great, and in 99% of cases a parent should not be denied access. The only time that should happen is here:

        Legal FAQ's, Cangrands, Ontario, Canada
        What could cause access and visitation to be denied?

        Usually the courts feel that it is in the child's best interests to have frequent and regular visits with both parents. It is rare for a parent to have no access and visitation. The court denies access when:

        • the child does not want to see the non-custodial parent for good reason (for example, this might happen in a family violence situation or if the child has not seen that parent for a long time)
        • there is a history of not returning the child to the custodial parent

        Again re-iterated here in regards to the child(ren)'s safety:
        http://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/pdf/Fam...ody_Access.pdf
        If parents can’t work out access themselves, the
        court or an agreement may set out the time,
        place and length of the access. Finally, if there
        are concerns about the parent’s behaviour or
        the child’s safety, a court may order that access
        visits be supervised or not allowed at all.



        Also, it is easy to find cases on canlii where access has been denied to both parents and the children have become crown wards.


        It is sad, but in rare cases, one parent, or both even, should not be allowed access to their children.


        Remember Jared Osidacz from Brantford, Ontario?
        If only the mother was properly listened to in court this angel would have not died at the hands of his apparently 'loving' father. He died because his father had a right to see him. Sick. This happens because of those who cry 'wolf'. Sick. This is just an example, so don't take that as 'man-bashing', because it was the father who committed this crime in a fit of rage.
        Tayken, I would imagine you hope I read this- but please, no more attacking me, on this subject. Let's try to keep this thread a little more on topic
        We can do it!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by madm82 View Post
          This is great, and in 99% of cases a parent should not be denied access. The only time that should happen is here:

          Legal FAQ's, Cangrands, Ontario, Canada
          What could cause access and visitation to be denied?

          Usually the courts feel that it is in the child's best interests to have frequent and regular visits with both parents. It is rare for a parent to have no access and visitation. The court denies access when:

          • the child does not want to see the non-custodial parent for good reason (for example, this might happen in a family violence situation or if the child has not seen that parent for a long time)
          • there is a history of not returning the child to the custodial parent
          Again re-iterated here in regards to the child(ren)'s safety:
          http://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/pdf/Fam...ody_Access.pdf
          If parents can’t work out access themselves, the
          court or an agreement may set out the time,
          place and length of the access. Finally, if there
          are concerns about the parent’s behaviour or
          the child’s safety, a court may order that access
          visits be supervised or not allowed at all.
          I don't agree with the bolded part. Here is what case law provides:


          Tremblay v Tremblay ,1987 CanLII 147 (AB QB), 1987 CanLII 147 (AB Q.B.)

          I start with the premise that a parent has the right to see his or her children and is only to be deprived of that right if he or she has abused or neglected the children. Likewise, and more important, a child has a right to the love, care and guidance of a parent. To be denied that right by the other parent without sufficient justification, such as abuse or neglect, is, in itself, a form of child abuse.
          My reason for not agreeing with the bolded part is, who is going to determine "good reason". If the parent has been denied parenting time for a long time, do you all the sudden have good reason to continue denying their parenting time?

          The only time that a parent should not be allowed their parenting time is if the parent is a danger to the child (ie. they show up drunk and expect to drive, or are otherwise under the influence), have been abusive to the child and/or neglectful of the child.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
            Nice!!

            It is good to see that judges are starting to decide in this manner!
            Family Law is changing but, it takes good solicitors, good litigants and solid evidence for things to change.

            The courts are not looking at the surface anymore of allegations and emotional reasoning. Simply stating that you know the other parent "loves" the children and then criticizing them in a verbally abusive manner such as demonstrated in the above jurisprudence just doesn't work anymore with the courts.

            It may work with a Section 30 "expert" or the OCL but, when taken to trial and the evidence is properly laid out and cross examinations are conducted WorkingDad and this barrister and solicitor in the above case law have demonstrated something quite different.

            So, in a general statement to all the Section 30 "experts" and OCL who threaten parents in their reports telling them that they will "tell it to the judge" that you are a "bad parent"... They should really consider all the sources of "evidence" including social media prior to doing so. It would only be a huge embarissment for them if they refused to review this cogent and relevant evidence during their "evaluation" and proceeded to make allegations against a parent that are only based on hearsay gathered.

            The world of Family Law is changing. Social Media is changing the game plan. No longer can highly conflicted litigants say one thing in court and then verbally assault the other parent and criticize them (even to the point of libel) without repercussions. Social Media is persistent just like the continuing record. It is worse... Because it is a truly public forum where anyone can read what was written.

            Justice Quinn addressed the evolution of Social Media as evidence in Family Law in Bruni v. Bruni... We are now starting to see the results of "loving" parents who do nothing but criticize and verbally assault the other parent through channels they thought were "private" and couldn't be used as evidence in a civil proceeding.

            Suffice to say, considering the weight the justice put on the Facebook postings I again remind everyone (even the highly conflicted who regularly hate the other parent) to really evaluate what they write before sending it to any medium on the internet... You never know where your words are going to end up.

            Hopefully it isn't before the Superior Court of Justice, Family Division and before Mossip, Czutrin, Donohue, Pazaratz, Chappel, Lemon, Spies, Richetti, Quinn, et all... These justices hold no punches with those who miss represent themselves before the court and will order otherwise.

            Good Luck!
            Tayken
            Last edited by Tayken; 12-28-2012, 01:14 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by HammerDad View Post

              The only time that a parent should not be allowed their parenting time is if the parent is a danger to the child. If they show up drunk and expect to drive, have been abusive to the child and/or neglectful of the child.
              I wholeheartedly agree

              I just posted what was there.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tayken View Post





                Suffice to say, considering the weight the justice put on the Facebook postings I again remind everyone (even the highly conflicted who regularly hate the other parent) to really evaluate what they write before sending it to any medium on the internet... You never know where your words are going to end up.


                Good Luck!
                Tayken
                I wholeheartedly agree. Then again, I fail to understand why people post their personal up to the minute details on social media anyways

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by madm82 View Post
                  Tayken, I would imagine you hope I read this- but please, no more attacking me, on this subject. Let's try to keep this thread a little more on topic We can do it!
                  Unfortunately for you madm82 the world does not revolve around you. In fact, I am very concerned that you are projecting at me with this comment.

                  Due to your constant harassment and possible projection that I somehow posted this thread, which was intended for the benefit of all readers and not just you as you assumed incorrectly, you will be the very first poster of this site that I officially put on ignore in all my time posting to this site.

                  I am seriously also considering not contributing to this forum if you continue to make these libel allegations against me.

                  Tayken

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I agree as well.. But what is one supposed to do when the other parent does not take the (14 y/o) child on the weekends (and 1 week Christmas Break etc) - doesn't call, doesn't attempt any arrangement, hasn't seen child in months? Last communication was (to son) "let's have lunch in the new year and I'll give you your presents."

                    So what does one do with that? Sure, they'll go do the "lunch thing" (whenever) but in the interim, with all the months that have passed with father not seeing son (or even calling) - Child is not all that keen to see him and Father apparently is ok w/the long absences too. Note: father lives about 35 minutes away, so there's no distance issue, and he drives. (FRO hasn't suspended his license, yet).

                    So I'm curious: what is it that I should be encouraging to now 2 disinterested parties? (And I don't speak to my ex and haven't for several years). In what "ways" should I be attempting to facilitate/encourage etc this access?

                    PS: on the social media/FB topic - there is absolutely none of that and there has not been any in the past.
                    Last edited by hadenough; 12-28-2012, 02:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      PS: forgot to include - Father's total loss of interest timed up exactly with when the FRO became involved and started enforcement of significantly higher CS pymts than what he was previously paying for support.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        Family Law is changing but, it takes good solicitors, good litigants and solid evidence for things to change.

                        The courts are not looking at the surface anymore of allegations and emotional reasoning. Simply stating that you know the other parent "loves" the children and then criticizing them in a verbally abusive manner such as demonstrated in the above jurisprudence just doesn't work anymore with the courts.

                        It may work with a Section 30 "expert" or the OCL but, when taken to trial and the evidence is properly laid out and cross examinations are conducted WorkingDad and this barrister and solicitor in the above case law have demonstrated something quite different.

                        So, in a general statement to all the Section 30 "experts" and OCL who threaten parents in their reports telling them that they will "tell it to the judge" that you are a "bad parent"... They should really consider all the sources of "evidence" including social media prior to doing so. It would only be a huge embarissment for them if they refused to review this cogent and relevant evidence during their "evaluation" and proceeded to make allegations against a parent that are only based on hearsay gathered.
                        First of all I want to thank you Tayken for posting this, so important to see these fundamental issues being addressed. It's about the children's best interest not you, the dumbass parent(s) with hate and animosity.

                        The part I bolded is important, I've experienced this directly and I was somewhat caught off guard by the tone of the OCL in our case when she made a somewhat similar remark to me after the settlement conference. As you point out, cogent and relevant evidence is very important, and I wonder how much the OCL actually understands that. We'll see how willing judges are to scratch the surface of appearance.

                        Again, another great piece of judicial rulings in the right direction for the children.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's a tough question that hadenough poses, I can't answer it specifically except for maybe the blanket advice we've heard around this forum before:

                          Rise above the challenge for your children, do what you can do to facilitate access to the other parent. Do your best and keep your sanity doing it.

                          There is no doubt in my mind that more training/preparation/accountability must go into becoming a parent. hadenough's situation is sad, wrong and part of a vicious cycle as the one posted by Tayken above, Scrivo v. Scrivo.
                          Last edited by baldclub; 12-28-2012, 03:44 PM. Reason: Clarity

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Again, this case posted by Tayken has some important solutions that I was unaware of, most importantly how the judge rules on the use of family counselling:

                            5. The applicant and respondent shall within 30 days from the date of this
                            Order attend and engage the services of Lourdes Geraldo, M.S.W., R.S.W.
                            for family therapy involving all three children by entering into the Family
                            Treatment and Intervention Agreement attached hereto as Schedule ďAĒ
                            for the following purposes:

                            (a) To facilitate the implementation of the access schedule referred to
                            herein;
                            (b) To restore adequate parent functioning, parenting and roles;
                            (c) To restore and/or facilitate contact between the children and the
                            applicant;
                            (d) To work with each parent and the children toward the goal of
                            identifying and separating each childís needs and views from each
                            parentís needs and views;
                            (e) To assist the parents to fully understand the needs of each child and
                            the negative repercussions for the children of severed and/or
                            compromised relationship with a parent in their young lives and as
                            adults;
                            (f) To work with each family member to help them form more appropriate
                            parent-parent and parent-child roles and boundaries;
                            (g) To assist the applicant and respondent to resolve relevant parent-child
                            conflicts;

                            (h) Any other goals or purposes as recommended by Lourdes Geraldo.


                            I would love to have that applied to my situation.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yes it is a vicious cycle. A boy of 14, mature in many ways but still a child. Dad recently msged him (via my phone b/c he cut off service to son's) "you have tried unsuccessfully to ruin my life" etc etc. Goes on to say "no trust, no relationship" _ then out of nowhere he calls Xmas day (on home phone) to say "let's meet for lunch soon and I'll give you your gifts."

                              I suspect this was partly for show - he was calling from his inlaws. I'm sure he had an audience to "witness" the heartwarming call. Conversation lasted less than a minute. Needless to say, S14 thinks "dad" is a colossal ass. He's even said that his Dad acts very immaturely. He's said more too, rest assured.

                              Given that I don't speak to the OP (and yes I do despise him) - I have in the past recognized the importance of a child having their dad in their lives. But seriously, it's got to the point with this one that there's just no denying he's a total disappointment. (I'm doing my best to use polite terms).

                              S14 sees right through him and to put it bluntly, is not impressed. He often cracks off jokes about him (a couple of his friends are raised by one parent only).

                              I was all for the access etc as per our Order - it gave me some free time and relieved some financial stress too. Now, I often have S14 and his friends over and need to feed all of them, be it snacks or pizza. But having said all that, imo the time that S14 and Dad used to spend together - is over. I cannot force Stupid to be a good parent, and I can't whip out the pink fuzzy bunnies and glitter farting unicorns (NB dad's line) and make S14 think Dad walks on water and that he ought to go hang out with him. The fact is: neither is interested in the other.

                              Comment

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