calling out other parent in court

[pinkHouses]

Without a medical diagnosis you know your ex is a narcissist but they do what they can to play victim. Women ::eyeroll::

When filling out an affidavit is it better to let a judge figure it out based on their behavior or is it OK to simply say Narcissist?

[rockscan]

Your affidavit should lay out facts only. Calling the other parent names or making inferences about their behaviour makes you look bad to the judge. They see crazy people daily, they don’t care.

[pinkHouses]

Thanks. Judges are smart enough to figure stuff out.

So saying the other parent went to disney world and left the kids at home but brought them back postcards should stay out of an affidavit?

(it was not that bad)

[rockscan]

So saying the other parent went to disney world and left the kids at home but brought them back postcards)

How is this relevant to the matter? Were the kids in danger? Were they left alone? Was there an emergency? Was it on the other parents time?

Petty shit that upsets you is not relevant. Sure going away without the kids isn’t nice but overall unless the kids were in danger (and you are using it as an example why the other parent shouldn’t have custody) then it really isn’t needed.

Ask yourself what is relevant proof to plead your argument.

[LovingDad1234]

Facts only. As tempting as it may be, your briefs should contain zero mud slinging and zero opinions of the other person. Let the other person sling mud all they want. It just looks bad on them at the end of the day. Moreover, it shows poor judgement. If they cannot contain themselves in court documents that are being read by a judge, it really shows their true character...

[pinkHouses]

Thanks.
It is hard to tell what is relevant and not sometimes.
They slung a lot of mud and got what they wanted so it works for them. Works for lawyers too.
I don't see the point in mudslinging....for $50/hr there should be someone to help clean up affidavits.....instead the cash cows roll on.

[rockscan]

Not necessarily. It could be that there was mud slinging but their case was defended successfully. They could say all kinds of shit but if parts of it were true and relevant then that was why they won.

[paris]

Mudge slinging… she got mad and punched him in the head.

Relevant… she got mad and punched him in the head in front of the children during pickup.

I’m not sure what it is about this thread that has reminded me of that.

[LMum]

Without a medical diagnosis you know your ex is a narcissist but they do what they can to play victim. Women ::eyeroll::

When filling out an affidavit is it better to let a judge figure it out based on their behavior or is it OK to simply say Narcissist?

Narcissist seems to be the new trend lately and judges are most likely sick of hearing that word. I suggest to not use it unless there is a professional diagnosis.

Try using word to describe the behavior instead:

"she involves the children is adult conflict"
"he misrepresented the truth" - don't say lied
"she show lack of empathy and/or poor judgment which effected the children in a negative manner"
"He has a history of......"

Stuff like that as long as you have the facts to back it up.

[rockscan]

We had to order transcripts from a motion to confirm what the judge said in their endorsement. When I read them I was amazed and entertained at how the judge handled my husband’s ex. The ex claimed abuse and all this other shit as a reason for kid and her lying. The judge actually said to her that if this case went to trial and he was opposing council he would cross examine both her and kid calling out their lies. He also noted the abuse allegations were irrelevant and he would not be giving them any weight. That was pretty much what my husband’s lawyer said about all the bs in her affidavits. Truly judges don’t care.

[pinkHouses]

"He has a history of putting his own interests ahead of the children. Such examples include: x,y z."
"He has a history of not paying child support. Such examples include x,y,z."
"She has a history of neglecting her court ordered access. Such examples included x,y,z."

There are accusations/conclusions at the start of some of those like "he has a history of putting his own interests ahead of the children" I would have thought going to Disney world and leaving your own kids behind would be just that.

I really do know my ex but I get that judges have to listen to over reaching people every day so they shutdown on all of it.

[rockscan]

My husband’s ex actually argued orally that she did not understand his financial priorities when he spent money on things when it could have gone to his kids. The judge said to her “I dont care if he goes to Jamaica every month, as long as he is paying his support and providing updated income, none of that it relevant.”

So while your ex is saying “he puts himself first” it really isn’t relevant. Do you pay your ordered support and section 7 expenses? If yes then nothing else matters. She’s basically spending her money on empty statements.

Let her say whatever she wants. Calling you selfish means nothing. All the judge cares about is a) you disclosed your income; b) you paid the relevant support on that income; and, c) you aren’t abusing the kids in any way.

It’s expected that ex spouses hate each other. That’s why good affidavits simply list the issue and the proof. As in “my income in 2020 was xyz, my support obligation was abc. I have paid abc as shown in exhibit A and have nothing else owing.”

[Tayken]

Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/g7w9n

1. Breaking Bad, meet Breaking Bad Parents.

2. The former is an acclaimed fictional TV show whose title needed a bit of explaining: “BREAKING BAD: A southern U.S. expression for when a good person suddenly loses their moral compass and starts doing bad things”.

3. The latter is a sad reality show playing out in family courts across the country. “BREAKING BAD PARENTS: When smart, loving, caring, sensible mothers and fathers suddenly lose their parental judgment and embark on relentless, nasty litigation; oblivious to the impact on their children”.

4. SPOILER ALERT: The main characters in both of these tragedies end up pretty much the same: Miserable. Financially ruined. And worst of all, hurting the children they claimed they were protecting.

5. To prolong the tortured metaphor only slightly, the “urgent” motion before me might be regarded as this family’s pilot episode. Will these parents sign up for the permanent cast of Breaking Bad Parents? Will they become regulars in our family court building, recognizable by face and disposition? Or will they come to their senses; salvage their lives, dignity (and finances); and give their children the truly priceless gifts of maturity and permission to love?

6. Stay tuned.

...

13. The basic themes advanced by the parties are straightforward:



14. The father says “let’s be friends”. The mother says “I can’t be friends with an abuser”.



15. Both parties urge me to maintain the status quo, but they have diametrically opposed views of what that entails:



a. The mother says she has always been the primary caregiver, so she should continue to be the primary caregiver.

b. The father says there was never any “primary caregiver”. They both took turns doing everything, at various times. Not necessarily in equal or consistent proportions. But they are both equally experienced and competent to address all issues in the children’s lives.

c. The mother counters: It’s not a question of whether the father is capable of doing things. He didn’t do them in the past. The children are used to mom doing everything. That should continue because we know it works.



16. The father says both parents are equally loving; equally emotionally bonded to the children. The children need both parents equally.



17. The mother questions whether a truly loving parent would behave the way she says the father has behaved.



18. The mother wants to focus on conduct. The father disputes allegations of misconduct; correctly identifies that factual determinations are extremely difficult based on untested affidavit materials; and proposes an emphasis on parenting skills and opportunities to make separation less traumatic for the children.

To what has been said by Brampton33... He is bang on. Just adding actual evidence to how transparent the silly conduct is to a judge.

[Donald Duck]

Could you please explain maximum contact as it pertains to the changes this year in March.

Is this still relevant and the way things are, as you explained it please