Consequences of publicly posting legal details

[Tayken]

The more I read about people like that (BPD), they are in a CONSTANT state of internal turmoil.

Your ex probably doesn't have a personality disorder.

https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/...ality-disorder

This makes me cringe every time I see comments like these.

[Tayken]

.. and that's really the issue (including often on this forum) .. people spent too much time (and $$) trying to figure out how to "win" litigation against their nut-job Ex's.

I disagree. The purpose of this forum is to discuss things. Its not legal advice. Its not social justice. Its rando people on the internet with fake names.

Instead we get a lot of "just talk to a lawyer" , "just move on", or the (lie?) that the modern system is mostly fair and that 50/50 custody is all but guaranteed (if you were involved as a dad, both parties worked, and there's no abuse). All 3 get brought up this forum constantly.

You are no different than most of the exhausted and upset parents that come to this site after their matter is settled. Some times you are helpful and can provide some needed guidance but, you are falling into the common trap that all long time posters have seen over and over again.

1. Hi! I survived;
2. I can help;
3. I know lots of stuff;
4. I got 50-50;
5. My ex-partner is BPD!!!;
6. THE COURT SYSTEM IS RIGGED!!!; and then
7. SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR FULLY ENGAGED!!!!!!!!!

I for one see through your posts.

[alongjourney]

.. and that's really the issue (including often on this forum) .. people spent too much time (and $$) trying to figure out how to "win" litigation against their nut-job Ex's.

Where the play is really to litigate as little as possible (getting 50/50 aside).

I believe the play is to minimize "damage" and just doing that is costly. In some cases, litigation is the way to go since it shows that you have some boundaries and it will hopefully reduce future abuse. And yes, that is costly, you won't win, but at least you won't lose as much.

What if your ex takes a standardized test issued by a mental health professional and the results come up that your ex has BPD. Does that qualify?

Won't matter to most and the diagnostic doesn't really matter anyways Until people have lived through it, they don't understand. Heck, they can't understand because it is unfathomable. Yes BPD and NPD is just a few percent of the population, but it is present, and having to deal with that is a nightmare. Yet you get the "nah, youx ex doesn't have it, she's just angry". Yes there's a lot of "my ex has BPD because she got angry fast!" and that drowns the voices of the ones who are realyl stuck dealing with an ex that has a personality disorder.

Until you've experienced the suicide threats, unicorn glaze / glassy eyes while they want to kill you, smear campaign with no limit, not seeing the end in sight, having PTSD from the stupidest things ever due to your long relationship with them, wondering what happened with your life and why you ended up like that, i'm sorry to say but I doubt that you can remotely imagine how it is. It sure is easy to say "oh stop whining, just try to settle and play nice, your ex doesn't have BPD/NPD/whatever". And it's frigging annoying / invalidating to be told that, even though it might apply to most. Eventually you reach a few people to whom you make one hell of a difference because you've been through it, you undersand them, and it gives them the push they need to make it through.

[rockscan]

All courts have their issues. You're basically asking a stranger who understands laws as written to make decisions based on two arguments put forward. They have to consider evidence, things that are stated and testimony in some cases. Judges are not always going to get it right. Especially when they are using legislation that is old.

People also forget that lawyers are expensive full top. Many of them charge $400-600 and hour. When you are asking them to review material, meet with you, write responses, that adds up. In my experience on this forum, the bulk of the people who complain about “shady” and “greedy” lawyers are the ones who have racked up excess costs due to wanting to have the last word, fighting over nothing or not taking initiative to rein in their lawyers. Everything should be in a comprehensive retainer agreement and if it isn't ASK FOR IT!

The “my ex has a mental illness” attitude is really unreasonable. Your ex is probably just an emotionally charged, petty asshole. You don't need to have a mental illness to be angry and unreasonable. There are plenty of plenty of people who aren't certifiably ill who just lose their marbles over this process. Most of the time it's people who have lost control of their life and want someone to pay.

When people like me say get on with your life it isn't saying “don't ignore the trauma you experienced”. It's “is this worth your energy”. Because that's what it comes down to. Is holding onto your hurt and disappointment worth your energy? You spent years battling for things and you want to continue to expend energy on this? It's something I learned dealing with my mother and her refusal to let shit go. Nothing is going to change by holding onto that negativity so why carry it? All you do is continue to allow that person real estate in your brain. You made it through a shit storm. Take a shower, pour a drink and make plans for your future without that shit on you!

[rockscan]

To say that (Canadian Family) courts have their “issues” is an understatement. They are biased and broken — plain and simple.

They lack even the most basic of laws that determine outcome such as “the presumption of equal custody”. Speaking for GTA, this is the first thing lawyers will tell you … the evidence doesn’t matter as much as which judge you happen to get and their feeling / interpretations of that “best-interest”s of the child means. Publicly, few want to admit this .. privately lawyers will tell you the bias is real. Some even write books about this (like Vancouver lawyer Carey Linde).

Anyone thinking the system is generally fair and efficient is for a world of a surprise. No different than someone thinking that life is “fair”.

If anything that is my source of frustration .. not my ex, not my lawyer, not the system … but that we still refuse to acknowledge these truths.

It’s only setting up people for false-expectations, and only benefits the people that are part of this racket.

Which is strange because the six lawyers my friend spoke to were in GTA and they all told her she would only get 50/50 and to not expect more and they would not represent her to fight for more so…

The problem is that everyone has the right to file something regardless of whether they are right or not. My husband's ex refused to accept either their agreement or the law and interpreted both of them how she saw fit. She firmly believed (still does according to things she says) that she could do whatever she wanted and demand the financial amounts she wanted. She filed in court for $90,000 and he actually owed her $5000. But because she had the right to file and the family court process involves so many god damn conferences, it took three years to settle and by then it was $8000 which was what they settled on.

Truly the unfair issue is the way the court handles things. There should be orders at conferences and punishments for people who refuse to do things like file disclosure, attend meetings or pay costs. Judges are so flipping hesitant to penalize and I have a feeling if they just enacted punishment it wouldn't be an issue. ESPECIALLY when the delays mean a false status quo.

[iona6656]

They lack even the most basic of laws that determine outcome such as “the presumption of equal custody”. Speaking for GTA, this is the first thing lawyers will tell you … the evidence doesn’t matter as much as which judge you happen to get and their feeling / interpretations of that “best-interest”s of the child means. Publicly, few want to admit this .. privately lawyers will tell you the bias is real. Some even write books about this (like Vancouver lawyer Carey Linde).

Anyone thinking the system is generally fair and efficient is for a world of a surprise. No different than someone thinking that life is “fair”.

Oh- you mean this guy? https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/re...lic-eye/366594

Slowly but surely- the men's rights 'activists' always out themselves on these boards.

Also - while I think the system is not without flaws. I do think it IS generally fair and efficient. My first (shitty) lawyer told me I should just give up and accept that my abusive ex would get 50/50 with my kid. Then, I got a better lawyer.

The courts, CAS, and the OCL listened and helped me.

[rockscan]

My guess is the dad had the stronger case — hence he’s getting 50/50.

Nope, he's a high level shift worker who is always on call and suffers from PTSD and borderline alcoholic. It isn't about a stronger case, it's standard where they live and the lawyers weren't going to fight.

Also, iona was told 50/50 was going to go to her ex who threatened to kill the child.

I have a very strong feeling that there is a skewed sense of automatic 50/50 from the get go and holding on 50/50 because you are going through the court system. If a judge could order automatic 50/50 from the start (as in at the first conference) there would be “automatic” 50/50. Nothing gets done for years and that leads to nothing even close to automatic. Hence my comments that the time and conferences is such bullshit. At the first court date it should be ordered 50/50 if there are no other serious issues and then as the case moves on if it needs to be adjusted it is. It takes so freaking long for anything to happen that it is years before parents get to 50/50 and the fight adds to it.

[rockscan]

Many factors. I don’t know.

The shift-worker thing shouldn’t matter if you’re an involved dad (or mom for that matter).

The PTSD likely won’t matter, just like Personality Disorders likely won’t matter.

The borderline alcoholic thing sounds suspect, either he’s a serious alcoholic, it’s provable, and it’s having a seriously detrimental effect on his parenting … or it doesn’t matter and it’s just the mom trying to get a leg up in proceedings.

Dad’s may have lucked out with reasonable (non old school) judge such as Pazaratz too.

My point is this is just 2 examples … if you look at the forum as a whole, you’re not going to see a pattern of 50/50, but instead you see :

A bunch of moms that got either primary or 50/50, but still end up complaining that things are unfair and engage in overly ridiculous gatekeeping behaviours like hiding in bushes with video cameras recording the dad’s parenting time.

A lot of dad’s fighting tooth and nail to JUST get 50/50, often via graduated, and often not getting it at all.

An extreme edge case or 2 (Working Dad comes to mind), where after years of gruelling litigation, losses of jobs, parental alienation, CAS abuse accusations, threats of kidnapping, ex’s with genuine and serious personality disorders, and most importantly luck with getting the right judge (Pazaratz) … they then might get primary.

A bunch of posters that seem to ignore these realties, and resort to childish name calling and dad shaming when said realties are called out. Behaviour that I suspect is driving away genuine discussions, and viewership on this forum in general.




Yep.. huge part of the problem (the lack of presumption of 50/50 at the start).

Also, I have yet to be able to find any data that shows that 50/50 results have become the norm.

CAS was called by a teacher and a kids therapist due to things the kids said about drinking and driving. And he's not involved or there much. I'll leave it at that. The lawyers asked her these questions and told her no he would get 50/50 and she didn't like that.

Again with the presumption of 50/50, is it presumption of the court or the other parent because I firmly believe the court does believe in 50/50 but you can't get it ordered until you've either reached a SC a motion or trial. The presumption needs to be by the other party's lawyer and also at the first appearance. If it is going to be awarded anyway you shouldnt have to wait several years and spend thousands. The other party should be told straight off it's 50/50 automatically.

[rockscan]

What you firmly “believe” in ( that what I gather is you implying that things generally tend to be 50/50) doesn’t seem to line up with actual stats that I’ve seen, the outcomes on this forum, and my experiences. But feel free to prove me wrong.

This forum is not a legit data source. Even canlii isn't one. My husband was the first person I had met who didn't have 50/50 (I know way more people than I should who are divorced) and that was because he moved.

[rockscan]

Here's a good site: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/...017/nov02.html

Although the data source is 5 years old and tracks data up to 2016, it has some good info.

“physical custody 2012-2015 (n=2,986)), 51.8% of the column is 'primarily mother', 8.9% is 'primarily father', 26.5% is 'shared', 6.5% is 'split', 0.4% is 'other', and 6.2% is 'no arrangement”

legal custody 2012-2015 (n=3,562)), 18.4% of the column is 'primarily mother', 2.4% is 'primarily father', 65.4% is 'shared', 1.5% is 'split', 0.4% is 'other', and 12% is 'no arrangement'.

There are also some good charts that show custody on consent 66% shared in 2014/2015 and contested at 55% joint..

Google also comes up with biased data that should be disregarded.

[rockscan]

The data actually show a lot and you also have to keep in mind this:

“In some cases, a judge makes an order for custody and access arrangements. Based on all the data found in the SFC, 50% of the orders were made on consent and 12% were decided by judges in contested cases. The remaining 38% were made on an uncontested basis, which means that one parent made the application, and the other parent neither contested nor consented.”

In the note: Uncontested orders are where all issues are unopposed (i.e. no reply is submitted).

So in almost 40% of cases, one parent doesn't reply.

Which is something a lot of people have said here and in other avenues. A lot of parents don't want to parent. They don't want shared custody. They are ok with seeing their kids every other weekend or they simply take off and never look back. If you want to use the “data” from this forum, how many moms have you seen here asking how to get their ex to see their kids or ones who have been frustrated at having to disappoint their kids. Not every parent wants 50/50 which means there will never be true shared custody.

But, if you look at the tables and rate of change, it appears to be on average an increase of 3% per year. Which means that by 2022, if the rate held, the % of shared custody orders on consent is 49. For contested orders it averages to 2.5% increase per year (although the jump between 2013-2015 was 7%, the highest in the data) so looking at that 2.5% increase, if the rate held, the % in 2022 would be 41% but if there was a significant increase in the rate like the jumps in 2013 and 2015, it would be closer to 50%+.

I will also note that this data is a moment in time and does not consider graduated parenting time. How many of the orders considered in 2015 were graduated access? Those types of decisions are not included.

Again though, there are a lot of factors that play into custody and they can't be ignored. Not every father wants to fight for their kids. Not every father wants their kids 50% of the time. Not every father is present. How many times have people here said always fight for 50/50 or don't settle for less? As long as there are dads who don't make the effort or don't want it, you will never get to a high percentage of cases.

[rockscan]

Data is pretty clear .. it's still 6 to 1.

It WAS six to one in 2015. I didnt check the downward rate of mom custody.

Your reasoning is all speculation, and not backed up by data.

No its not, the info says 38% of cases had no response. You can't have a 100% split with 40% awarded by default.

There's really no point in debating what you "feel" the causes are.

You are debating what is felt. But ok.

Which is really the issue that I'm seeing with the forum, such a hard resistance and triggering to uncomfortable truths by some people on this forum.

Probably one of the reasons why this forum has gone down so much in viewership. That and how highly emotionally people seem to react to said stats / truths / etc.

I've been here since 2014 and there were a lot of great people here who resolved their matters and didn't feel the need to stick around. Or a few who had life get in the way of their posting time. There are still plenty of viewers but not as many posters and from the dms I get, there are a lot of posters who gave up saying anything because of the personal attacks on others here. They call it bullying, toxic and unhealthy and they are afraid to ask questions or post anything.

.. and how many of those moms already have primary to beginning with ?

Worse yet, how many of those mom's got the dad stuck at just about 5/14 ( which we all know what that's about ). Isn't that Iona's situation ?

Comments like this are what have driven people away. And it also demonstrates how you talk about how I need to open my mind but you refuse.

[iona6656]

Of-course you think it’s fair and efficient. You got primary, and I’m guessing full table.

Not to mention it seems from your posts you got the dad stuck at just under 40%.

You betcha. Don't forget full custody.

I had to keep him under 40, or else I would've had to pay him since I outearn him. The horror.


.....

Listen, I don't disagree that the family court system is inefficient as it stands now. Cases take too long to be heard- and in cases where one parent is withholding access with the child(ren)- that can be damaging to the relationship between parent and child. And in cases where CS isn't being paid- ESPECIALLY in this economic climate, it can be disastrous for the parent having all the financial burden of raising the kids. I think they way child support is apportioned leads to more fighting than is necessary.

That being said, I'm not sold that the system is completely bias to mothers anymore. This is just my 'feelings' on the matter- because I have no hard numbers to back that up.

Also- you talk about the money spent on legal fees like the mothers in most cases are funded by their legal fairy godmother. Sure some are on legal aid- but I'd guess most of us are not. My dummy ex had us both spend approx $40k each to get to exactly the same parenting schedule that I proposed a year before we settled. Like the exact same schedule- the exact same terms of settlement. But I needed the court AND the OCL to convince him he wasn't going to get 50/50. And before you start in- you can read my history in my posts. He could not, and should not have had 50/50- cause he's a ragey nutjob who needed to get help.

[iona6656]

Lol, thanks Iona for proving my point to Rockscan.

You didn't prove anything- other than you and Brampton are susceptible to me trolling both of you.

Edited to add: I know I shouldn't actively troll other posters- to the mods, I won't do that again. My bad.

[iona6656]

You are likely just oil and water with your ex.....remember this says alot on you as you married him. Maybe he doesn't mix well with passive-aggressive gatekeeping/controling types.

Question: So if your angry nutjob ex did some counseling and anger-management courses....and showed amelioration to your "concerns"...you would be supportive of 50/50 if he was requesting it, right? And with the added parenting time to your ex, you would certainly offer offset child support (which is the right of the child)? Right?

He tried to do counselling. He did the PARS course for abusive partners. He spent 1.5 years attempting to show that his threat to kill his own daughter was just a one time thing to make his ex mad. It didn't work. In 4 months of counseling, he forgot to tell his therapist that he had ever threatened to kill his own kid, or his ex-wife. He was disingenuous and frankly, stupid.

If he had taken accountability, IF he was willing to show that he could put his own kids needs above his dislike of me - then I would be open to 50/50. But he can't. So no, I am not supportive of it.

And yes, I did marry him. But if you read pretty much any book on abusive partners- you'll know that the abuse never starts until after the wedding. And the first time they hit you? Not until you're pregnant.

You're not the first poster to come for me. Try again.