Settlement Conference Question

[About_Time]

So I got a call from my lawyer's office today asking for dates upon which they can book a settlement conference. They are not getting any response from the lawyer for the bio-father of my son, and very slow responses from my ex's legal aid lawyer. Their hope is that booking a settlement conference will get them of their butts to do something.

My concern however, is that I don't want to do another settlement conference at this stage. Each time we have one, it costs me over a grand in legal fees. My ex is on legal aid so the threat of a conference isn't exactly going to scare her into action. My fear is that setting the date may actually IMPEDE negotiations, because she'll just say "screw it, I'll wait until the conference and we'll deal with it there".

In my conversations with the ex, she seems more eager to get something settled because she needs money for school. It's not in her best interest to let this slide forever. My hope is that we can get most of the issues settled prior to any conference via negotiation, or else we are just going to have to be endlessly going to them forever. At the same time, we can't negotiate if they are dodging us.

I don't know - it's all very confusing. I'm not sure what the best strategy here is... opinions would be appreciated. The lawyer's office seemed adamant that this was the way to go, but it seems to me like we are provoking a fight with a glass jaw.

[logicalvelocity]

Its better for case management get get beyond Settlement Conference stage so that the matter can proceed to trial if necessary. Once a settlement conference has been held, leave of the court is mandatory to bring forth any relief by way of motion. Don't leave yourself in limbo, move the matter forward. If the other side is serious about reasonable settlement then a trial can be avoided.


lv

[About_Time]

Can the judge make orders with respect to CS, SS, custody, etc. at a Settlement Conference, or is it like the Case Conference where they simply advise and mediate?

Beyond the practical concerns re: my ability to pay my lawyer, my main concern is that if an order is made giving her spousal, then there is absoluetly no incentive for her to mediate. She'll drag the entire thing out through the courts from then on in. The only leverage I have right now is that she needs spousal pretty much immediately - if that's given to her by the judge then I'm powerless.

[dadtotheend]

The judge is only likely to make procedural orders at a Settlement Conference. It would be unusual for a support order to be made there, but it could happen at a motion.

[About_Time]

Turned out to be a moot point in some ways, because she is apparently filing a motion to get spousal and child support decided ASAP... like in 10 days. I still haven't seen her financial disclosure or that of the bio dad, so I'm hoping the judge won't just order something in that short of a time frame and under those conditions.

She keeps talking the talk about negotation, but she isn't walking the walk. I think at this point it's fair to assume that she's just going to drag everything through the court.

[About_Time]

We only today got some financial disclosure from the ex and we have next to nothing from the bio dad, but I'm being dragged back to court Friday for this motion anyhow. She wants FULL child support from both me AND the bio dad (double dipping on support for my son) plus over $700/mth in spousal support.

Would a judge even resolve this matter given the unecessarily short time frame to formulate a response and lack of full disclosure? My assumption is that we will ask for and be granted an adjournment, meaning more wasted legal fees for me.

[dadtotheend]

Not sure what will happen at a motion, it's a bit of a roll of the dice, depends on the judge you get.

If a SS and/or a CS support order is made, it will be difficult to change later as a status quo will arise. You may want to counter offer a SS amount and time expiry that will give the judge something to hang his/her hat on, as opposed to just the other side's request. Consult your lawyer on amount and time horizon.

[About_Time]

Just spoke to my lawyer on all this and it's grim news all around.

Although we doubt she'll get as much as she is asking for, I could still be on the hook for a sizable chunk of SS and it will likely be for a period of at least 3 years. The idea of continuing to pay her to sit on her butt and do nothing for the next 3 years of my life makes me sick to my stomach.

On the plus side, my lawyer thinks she can argue it down to the minimum in my range and she also is hopeful we can get a reduction in the amount of CS I'll be paying, which will in part help lighten the overall load. If she actually gets a job at some point or if I move back out on my own, I may be able to get a reduction as well, but I'll have to go through the courts to do so.

I'll probably have to relent to giving her decision-making powers with regards to the kids as well - at least temporarily until custody is determined. Of course, once SS starts rolling in and with the temp order in hand, the odds that she will grant me joint custody are as slim as the courts granting it to me.

So basically, the only way I'm going to come out of the motion hearing on Friday without being screwed is if she gets hit by a bus on the way in. Hooray for Family Law!

[dadtotheend]

Just spoke to my lawyer on all this and it's grim news all around.

Although we doubt she'll get as much as she is asking for, I could still be on the hook for a sizable chunk of SS and it will likely be for a period of at least 3 years. The idea of continuing to pay her to sit on her butt and do nothing for the next 3 years of my life makes me sick to my stomach.

On the plus side, my lawyer thinks she can argue it down to the minimum in my range and she also is hopeful we can get a reduction in the amount of CS I'll be paying, which will in part help lighten the overall load. If she actually gets a job at some point or if I move back out on my own, I may be able to get a reduction as well, but I'll have to go through the courts to do so.

I'll probably have to relent to giving her decision-making powers with regards to the kids as well - at least temporarily until custody is determined. Of course, once SS starts rolling in and with the temp order in hand, the odds that she will grant me joint custody are as slim as the courts granting it to me.

When a spouse has primary residence for the children, it can affect the duration of the spousal support in a way you won't like, the argument being that the kids need their primary residence to be maintained via spousal support in addition to the child support.

You might be well advised to offer a little better than the minimum spousal support so that the judge sees you as being reasonable and therefore doesn't order to you to pay it for as long as the child support.

[logicalvelocity]

Can the judge make orders with respect to CS, SS, custody, etc. at a Settlement Conference, or is it like the Case Conference where they simply advise and mediate?

Beyond the practical concerns re: my ability to pay my lawyer, my main concern is that if an order is made giving her spousal, then there is absoluetly no incentive for her to mediate. She'll drag the entire thing out through the courts from then on in. The only leverage I have right now is that she needs spousal pretty much immediately - if that's given to her by the judge then I'm powerless.

Judges can make orders at a Settlement Conference and sometimes do if orders are on consent of the parties or more or less procedural orders. Other orders can be made as well, but if they have a significant effect on the outcome, the Judge will generally make them on a without prejudice basis.

Keep in mind that a Justice that hears a Settlement Conference cannot hear the final adjudication of trial.

[logicalvelocity]

Turned out to be a moot point in some ways, because she is apparently filing a motion to get spousal and child support decided ASAP... like in 10 days. I still haven't seen her financial disclosure or that of the bio dad, so I'm hoping the judge won't just order something in that short of a time frame and under those conditions.

She keeps talking the talk about negotation, but she isn't walking the walk. I think at this point it's fair to assume that she's just going to drag everything through the court.

A good move on your part is to name the BIO parent as a party when the motion or fothcoming hearing occurs for child support. IE: Bring your own motion to name them! The law provides that you may add a party on motion.

[About_Time]

A good move on your part is to name the BIO parent as a party when the motion or fothcoming hearing occurs for child support. IE: Bring your own motion to name them! The law provides that you may add a party on motion.

He's already been added. In fact, my lawyer just advised me that he is now challenging paternity and wants a blood test done before they decide on his contribution. My hope is that they wind up delaying the entire thing but my guess is that they will just keep the status quo on CS (me paying 100%) and make a temporary determination on SS which can be re-assessed once CS is sorted out.

Thanks for the advice everyone BTW, and for letting me vent lol

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

I have been reviewing cases where a person in place of a parent has applied to add the biological parent as a thrid party to a case. In many they were dismissed for something as simple as not serving notice of the motion on the biological parent. There have also been cases where the application was dismissed to avoid further complication of the case and increase court costs, how horrible a thought. The courts not allowing this based purely on keeping things simple.

However, here is an interesting one that could easily have been turned aournd.

CanLII - 1998 CanLII 14932 (ON S.C.)

See paragraph 19-
[19] The respondent on this motion seeks an order adding the biological father, Mr. Broderick, as a party. I am unaware of any provision in the Divorce Act or the Rules that would permit Mr. Broderick to be added as a party. No authority was cited. It is clear, however, that the court, nevertheless, must direct its attention to the obligation of Mr. Broderick to contribute to Christopher’s support. Section 5 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, provides:

5. Where the spouse against whom a child support order is sought stands in the place of a parent for a child, the amount of a child support order is, in respect of that spouse, such amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to these Guidelines and any other parent’s legal duty to support the child. [Emphasis added.]

Another one of interest,

CanLII - 2003 ABQB 15 (CanLII)

[34] In any event, the biological father’s responsibility does not extinguish the obligation of a step parent deemed to be in loco parentis. Mr. Rolls has advanced no reason why he believes that adding the biological father would assist the court in resolving matters before it.

[35] It is open to the court in any event to consider the obligation of the biological father and that information as to his situation is before the court. Mr. Rolls is at liberty to examine Mrs. Rolls on the information she has provided about the biological father’s circumstances with maintenance enforcement in the ordinary course pursuant to the Rules of Court. Adding the biological father at this stage would, in my view, unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and add to the costs.

[logicalvelocity]

He's already been added. In fact, my lawyer just advised me that he is now challenging paternity and wants a blood test done before they decide on his contribution. My hope is that they wind up delaying the entire thing but my guess is that they will just keep the status quo on CS (me paying 100%) and make a temporary determination on SS which can be re-assessed once CS is sorted out.

Thanks for the advice everyone BTW, and for letting me vent lol

Nothing like opening a can of worms. I do think the claim against you for Child support will be stayed until the court has time to examine the results of the paternity test with respect to the apparent Bio parent.

[logicalvelocity]

I have been reviewing cases where a person in place of a parent has applied to add the biological parent as a thrid party to a case. In many they were dismissed for something as simple as not serving notice of the motion on the biological parent. There have also been cases where the application was dismissed to avoid further complication of the case and increase court costs, how horrible a thought. The courts not allowing this based purely on keeping things simple.

However, here is an interesting one that could easily have been turned aournd.

CanLII - 1998 CanLII 14932 (ON S.C.)

See paragraph 19-
[19] The respondent on this motion seeks an order adding the biological father, Mr. Broderick, as a party. I am unaware of any provision in the Divorce Act or the Rules that would permit Mr. Broderick to be added as a party. No authority was cited. It is clear, however, that the court, nevertheless, must direct its attention to the obligation of Mr. Broderick to contribute to Christopher’s support. Section 5 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, provides:

5. Where the spouse against whom a child support order is sought stands in the place of a parent for a child, the amount of a child support order is, in respect of that spouse, such amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to these Guidelines and any other parent’s legal duty to support the child. [Emphasis added.]

Another one of interest,

CanLII - 2003 ABQB 15 (CanLII)

[34] In any event, the biological father’s responsibility does not extinguish the obligation of a step parent deemed to be in loco parentis. Mr. Rolls has advanced no reason why he believes that adding the biological father would assist the court in resolving matters before it.

[35] It is open to the court in any event to consider the obligation of the biological father and that information as to his situation is before the court. Mr. Rolls is at liberty to examine Mrs. Rolls on the information she has provided about the biological father’s circumstances with maintenance enforcement in the ordinary course pursuant to the Rules of Court. Adding the biological father at this stage would, in my view, unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and add to the costs.

FL,

Nice research!


Very Interesting. Two decisions and the court ruled in opposite directions. It appears it is going to roll on the courts discretion and what particular mood the Judge is in for said hearing.

Because multiple families and multiple obligations are becoming commonplace, I suspect there is more jurisprudence out there dealing with this issue. If it was me, I would be researching it and submitting cases that stay the matter.