Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mediation vs. Offer to Settle

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

  • #16
    There’s a level of humility that is missing here. No I don’t think helenj should lose custody of his children. I DO think he shouldn’t be banging on about false allegations. He had a domestic violence case before the court. It ended because of a technicality.

    And people lie in affidavits all the time. If you think swearing the document stops that from happening you need to give your head a shake.

    Comment


    • #17
      [QUOTE=rockscan;248097]
      No I don�t think helenj should lose custody of his children[quote]

      Well you are saying he is guilty and yes, they are losing custody because of it so you are saying he should lose custody because you that seems to be what is happening here due to lopsided access.

      Originally posted by rockscan View Post
      I DO think he shouldn�t be banging on about false allegations. He had a domestic violence case before the court. It ended because of a technicality.
      So it ending in a technicality means he is guilty? NO.
      For all you know the prosecutors wanted it to go away and let things go, this was easy.

      True state of things: I see someone driving down the highway with their kids in the back seat and the driver gives his kid in the back a light slap on the knee to tell them to knock it off. I call the police and say the person was abusing their kids by hitting them, the cops take the report; don't charge the person.

      A year later the guy goes to cross the U.S. border and told they can't come in because of child abuse. No trial, no charges, no opportunity to clear their name.

      Is that fair? This is a true story by the way. The Star had a series on it.



      Originally posted by rockscan View Post
      And people lie in affidavits all the time. If you think swearing the document stops that from happening you need to give your head a shake.
      Affidavits are sworn statements, they are evidence and so you just admitted that such evidence can be untrue so why are you on about "false allegations" you haven't revealed why the allegations are true.
      He swore an affidavit saying he didn't commit violence, that is evidence too.

      Comment


      • #18
        You need to calm down. I never said he was guilty. I said he needed to show some humility. The last thing you want to do in court is show a level of arrogance and ignorance. He was formally charged and was on trial. His ex will use that. He needs to be very careful with claiming false allegations. A judge will view the police as more credible whether or not they are right. Cops are also officers of the court.

        As for your attitude about affidavits…you are extremely naive. People lie in affidavits which is why you provide exhibits to prove statements in them.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rockscan View Post
          You can do that. It really doesnt matter.

          They aren�t false allegations. You were CHARGED with assault. There is a big difference between someone saying their ex was abusive in an affidavit and saying you were charged with assault and the case was ended on a technicality. It�s no different than the case in BC where a man was charged with murder and then the charges were thrown out because he didn�t get his trial by a certain date. He still murdered someone, he just wasn�t found guilty due to a court technicality.

          You were charged because there was evidence against you. Stop saying false allegations. You had a criminal case that was ended due to a technicality.
          lol...ok there...you know everything....being charged doesn't mean anything. Only if you're found guilty is a person guilty. Even then there are mistakes that happen and they find out 40 years later there was a rogue cop or a lying victim seeking revenge.

          I will continue saying false allegations because that's exactly what it was.

          I'm not sure why that phrase triggers you so much. My question had nothing to do with the charges but mediation versus offer to settle. Thx for ur help anyway.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by helenj View Post
            lol...ok there...you know everything....being charged doesn't mean anything. Only if you're found guilty is a person guilty. Even then there are mistakes that happen and they find out 40 years later there was a rogue cop or a lying victim seeking revenge.

            I will continue saying false allegations because that's exactly what it was.

            I'm not sure why that phrase triggers you so much. My question had nothing to do with the charges but mediation versus offer to settle. Thx for ur help anyway.
            She's triggered by you being adamant of saying 'false allegations' because a LOT of what you've posted on here leans misogynistic. You've made multiple posts about how women are just as likely if not more likely to be the aggressors in intimate partner violence, coparenting in the context of family violence, etc etc.

            Each of us comes to this site with our own bias. I'm guessing rockscan- and mine too- skew to not believing you. Specifically that *all* the claims against you were false.

            We don't know the details of your case, no...but having been involved in a DV case and seeing how the crown operates- the fact that they didn't plead you out with a conditional discharge or offer you a deal if you attended PARS or something- makes me think that you did do something.

            So when you go on about the false allegations- don't be surprised if some people don't believe you. But again- we each have our own biases.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by StillPaying View Post
              People with restraining/protective orders still do meditation, by using the shuttle service. Very common.
              ^
              Originally posted by Tayken View Post
              Technically, you shouldn't be going to mediation if the bold above is true. But, you do raise a good point about "shuttle mediation". I find that methodology to be "ok" but, it is time consuming. Ultimately if parties are not close then no mediation will work.
              they do it because they want to get it over with. that's what I tried, and one mediator sat me down, looked me in the eyes and told me not to do it. to get the OCL involved.

              shuttle mediation is stupid if one person is afraid of the other and there's been a historical imbalance of power in the relationship.

              in the OP's case- I think it would be a waste of time and money.

              Comment


              • #22
                My understanding is that you should always make an offer to settle. Your STBX may accept 9 of 10 clauses and then any mediation only has to deal with the 1 clause.

                I've heard others say that mediation only works if both sides want to reach an agreement. Otherwise you are only wasting time and money.

                Either way, send the offer. If there is no offer on the table, you have nothing to discuss.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by iona6656 View Post
                  We don't know the details of your case, no...but having been involved in a DV case and seeing how the crown operates- the fact that they didn't plead you out with a conditional discharge or offer you a deal if you attended PARS or something- makes me think that you did do something.

                  So when you go on about the false allegations- don't be surprised if some people don't believe you. But again- we each have our own biases.
                  This.

                  Maybe I have biases or maybe it’s simply that I have been around here long enough and seen enough of the people hammering on about shit that I have a pretty good bs meter.

                  I am related to two detectives with two different police forces who have explained in great detail how they go about investigating and charging people. I also have a good friend in the Crown Lawyer office who prosecutes criminal code offenses. I have a bit more knowledge on the court process and how it works than an average joe. They don’t throw them all at the wall and see if they stick. They also don’t invest resources (especially limited ones during a pandemic) in taking things to trial unless they believe they have a good chance of conviction. You had a technicality and it wasn’t your ex’s credibility. She can still use that you were on trial in her documents.

                  Then there is your unbelievable ignorance and arrogance about it all that leads me to believe there’s more.

                  Not to mention I’m married to a man who was “falsely accused” of domestic violence. Not charged, accused. I’ve read his ex’s statements in affidavits and read the transcripts where the judge completely shut her down.

                  Even the most arrogant posters on here (Links comes to mind) had a level of humility and caution in their matters. YOU may not like what people here have to say but you also need to realize that a judge may not like what you have to say either and they are the ones you really should worry about.

                  And PinkHouses, you can save your rage. I already know you’re not a fan of me. No sense wasting time on a keyboard. You can simply click block and save your temper for someone else.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                    And PinkHouses, you can save your rage. I already know you�re not a fan of me. No sense wasting time on a keyboard. You can simply click block and save your temper for someone else.
                    How ironic that you are claiming ideas of someone else temper and rage.
                    I am simply vetting your posts and here you moved on to a better sense of the truth. Your were accusatory and that isn't helpful.

                    Telling people they are virtually guilty because they were charged and a technicality ended the case is not helpful.

                    Informing them how a judge likely sees it and to step cautiously is a better advice. Perhaps they could put more effort into it and word the denial better, lawyers are good at that.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by NewDay View Post
                      Telling people they are virtually guilty because they were charged and a technicality ended the case is not helpful.

                      Informing them how a judge likely sees it and to step cautiously is a better advice. Perhaps they could put more effort into it and word the denial better, lawyers are good at that.
                      Ya I never said he was guilty. I said he needed to tread carefully and show some humility. It appears that he is approaching this with a more reasonable attitude. Judges don’t take too kindly to arrogance. Take a deep dive in canlii and you will see that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                        This.

                        Maybe I have biases or maybe it�s simply that I have been around here long enough and seen enough of the people hammering on about shit that I have a pretty good bs meter.

                        I am related to two detectives with two different police forces who have explained in great detail how they go about investigating and charging people. I also have a good friend in the Crown Lawyer office who prosecutes criminal code offenses. I have a bit more knowledge on the court process and how it works than an average joe. They don�t throw them all at the wall and see if they stick. They also don�t invest resources (especially limited ones during a pandemic) in taking things to trial unless they believe they have a good chance of conviction. You had a technicality and it wasn�t your ex�s credibility. She can still use that you were on trial in her documents.

                        Then there is your unbelievable ignorance and arrogance about it all that leads me to believe there�s more.

                        Not to mention I�m married to a man who was �falsely accused� of domestic violence. Not charged, accused. I�ve read his ex�s statements in affidavits and read the transcripts where the judge completely shut her down.

                        Even the most arrogant posters on here (Links comes to mind) had a level of humility and caution in their matters. YOU may not like what people here have to say but you also need to realize that a judge may not like what you have to say either and they are the ones you really should worry about.

                        And PinkHouses, you can save your rage. I already know you�re not a fan of me. No sense wasting time on a keyboard. You can simply click block and save your temper for someone else.
                        While you may be very knowledgeable, there are a few knots and bolts you're not seeing as to how the criminal justice system works. I can tell you that because I've lived it for several years years.

                        Why am I arrogant? Because I read the transcripts and it was so lavish the claims she was making and I had evidence that directly contradicted her statements.

                        If I was guilty, I would probably not come across as arrogant.
                        Anyways, I see your point about perception that the Judges may have and I appreciate your feedback. I know this is a hot topic and we all are suffering or know someone who is suffering as a result of some allegation.
                        Thanks for your help.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          100% agree with rockscan in this thread. pinkHouses, NewDay and helenj are naive in how they think family court will look at this. Accused vs charged is a world of difference on the balance of probability. Without the other side needing to say anything, the family court judge will remind you you were charged when you say nothing happened.

                          OP - your lawyer wanted to bring a motion before trial once the results were in. Now they're telling you to do mediation before offer, to not play your hand before the other side makes an offer which might be better for you. Are you really looking for resolution?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by iona6656 View Post
                            they do it because they want to get it over with. that's what I tried, and one mediator sat me down, looked me in the eyes and told me not to do it. to get the OCL involved.
                            Mediation? They do it either because they have to, hope the mediator will convince other side to settle for what they want, or are actually looking to settle. OCL/CAS has nothing to do with settling.


                            shuttle mediation is stupid if one person is afraid of the other and there's been a historical imbalance of power in the relationship.
                            That's the whole point of shuttle mediation. Helpful - not stupid. Would you prefer a parenting coordinator?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by StillPaying View Post
                              100% agree with rockscan in this thread. pinkHouses, NewDay and helenj are naive in how they think family court will look at this. Accused vs charged is a world of difference on the balance of probability. Without the other side needing to say anything, the family court judge will remind you you were charged when you say nothing happened.

                              OP - your lawyer wanted to bring a motion before trial once the results were in. Now they're telling you to do mediation before offer, to not play your hand before the other side makes an offer which might be better for you. Are you really looking for resolution?
                              Hi,

                              I told my family lawyer I do NOT want to do a motion as I don't have $10k lying around to pay for a motion. I am really looking for a resolution and I am saying just let's agree to every other weekend (instead of 50/50) which my understanding is that that's the normal parenting schedule for fathers.

                              Secondly, in regards to charges versus accused, it really depends on how devious/vengeful the complainant is. My ex had a family lawyer before she went to the police and I wasn't agreeing to 50/50. So She went there, no pictures or bruises or other witnesses, and brought up false historical allegations.
                              Like I said, this is a hot topic and I do not wish to continue this subject. I understand we all have unique experiences that makes us biased on our views.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by helenj View Post
                                I told my family lawyer I do NOT want to do a motion as I don't have $10k lying around to pay for a motion. I am really looking for a resolution and I am saying just let's agree to every other weekend (instead of 50/50) which my understanding is that that's the normal parenting schedule for fathers.
                                I would do the motion myself if I had to, according to what the judge said. Although they were more interested in shared parenting than you are apparently. Yes, it is extremely normal for fathers who give up to end with eow. Hopefully you'll have no problem getting that.

                                Secondly, in regards to charges versus accused, it really depends on how devious/vengeful the complainant is. My ex had a family lawyer before she went to the police and I wasn't agreeing to 50/50. So She went there, no pictures or bruises or other witnesses, and brought up false historical allegations.
                                Like I said, this is a hot topic and I do not wish to continue this subject. I understand we all have unique experiences that makes us biased on our views.
                                Bias aside, some of us have gone through this in court and understand the process. It's an uphill battle for you on a balance of probability.

                                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