The Vanishing Act of Quality Independent Legal Advice Online

[newerwavers]

Has anyone else noticed how it's become a Herculean task to find high-quality, independent legal information online these days, especially for those of us looking to self-represent? It's like since Covid hit, the well of resources has just dried up.

Take mensdivorce.com, for instance—it's recently gone dark. Worth mentioning, it was backed by a legal firm. Then there's this very forum (also backed by a legal firm), once a bustling hub of legal discourse and open dialogue, now seemingly a shadow of its former self. Arguably stricter banning policies have not helped.

Then theres Toronto Fathers Divorce Q&A Meetup (and related). What used to be an invaluable in-person exchange for dads is now a tightly regulated virtual session that feels more like a sales funnel, especially with its ties to the legal firm rickettsharris. It's a far cry from the open community it used to be.

DADS Canada? It looks like it was practically sued out of existence.

So, where does that leave us? It seems every turn leads to another dead end, with most available advice boiling down to the same old “talk to a lawyer” spiel, or rehashing the tired narratives of “deadbeat dads,” the “abuse epidemic,” or the biased system's unfairness (either way) —none of which offer the raw truth, real advice, or practical strategies we're actually seeking.

I'm talking about the kind of advice that addresses the realities we face: the fact that contempt, perjury, and costs are treated as jokes by the system, that stalling is a common tactic, and that agreements aren't worth the paper they're printed on without enforceability.

Are there any solid resources left that offer more than cliches, that provide genuine, actionable insight for those of us deep in the trenches? Is there a safe space left where we can discuss the realities of the system without fear of being banned or, worse, arrested, as seen in cases like this Indiana dad sentenced for criticizing a judge? The search for such a haven seems more daunting by the day.

[rockscan]

1. You are using some unhelpful sources for info. Forums that are dad or mom focused are never good locations for help since they cater to a specific audience. More than likely they have a lot more emotion rather than advice or support involved. Even in this forum I've found a lot more angry posters showing up looking for someone to give them a quick fix or to just let them vent. I've scrolled through the legal advice threads in reddit and am amazed at the terrible advice in some of them. If you go looking for help on an anonymous forum, don't expect to get good advice. (Also, mensdivorce.com is American, you won't get any good CDN advice there)
2. This forum was great in the beginning because there were a lot of people contributing to it with their various cases going on. We had a number of people who were self repping in difficult and complicated situations who had the law on their side. Once their cases resolved, they moved on. It could also be that not so many people who are involved in divorce are looking for advice or seeking out legal information. Either way, you can't compare the forum that was to the one that is now. I came to the forum looking for help for my husband who was dealing with a difficult ex who argued everything, refused to accept what she was entitled to and controlled his kids. Since I came here ten years ago (eep), I have shared whatever advice I got from his lawyer and what I found on canlii.

As for looking for good sources here are a few:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/family-law-services
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/
https://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/family-court/
https://lso.ca/public-resources/step...ice/family-law
https://stepstojustice.ca/legal-topic/family-law/
https://vslg.ca/photos/custom/familyla.pdf
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/990114

You could also google a subject and go to a law firm's site to see if they have a blog on it. example: https://www.nanda.ca/family-law/chil...on-7-expenses/ (There are a number of Toronto firms that have blogs that are quite informational.)

You aren't going to find specific legal advice on the internet. You will find a lot of advice about a topic and you have to determine what is or isn't right based on your individual case. This is why most of the laws are vague. Not every case is the same and there are some extenuating circumstances (ie. child abuse, supervised access, etc.)

If law or going to court was easy, the people who specialize in it wouldn't have to go to school for an additional three years, work for a year, write a really big exam to be licensed and then start working. It is also why lawyers who have more experience charge more than new lawyers and why judges are chosen from pools of lawyers who have been practising in their field for decades.

The backlogs in court and issues with FRO are because there are so many cases involving people who don't want to comply and choose to fight. If you were to do a survey of the cases in front of the court I can guarantee that the bulk of the cases related to support involve people who have either not provided proper financials or refuse to pay. Access and parenting time? They don't want to share time or give the other parent access or they involve abuse. Expenses? Don't want to adhere to the rules on how things are calculated.

Go and peruse through some of the cases on canlii. You will see what the issues are very quickly. One party (or both) is being unreasonable. Someone hasn't complied with an order. Someone hasn't provided documentation. They have been fighting back and forth on bullshit.

If you want a place to bitch about the system, the political section of this forum is all yours.

[newerwavers]

The resources you pointed out are precisely what I'm trying to avoid—the kind of high-level fluff that skims the surface without touching on the hard truths of navigating the legal system, especially for those of us considering self-representation. Occasionally, CanLII does offer insightful rulings, like Pazaratz's comments on the "Truisms of Family Court," but finding these gems requires sifting through a lot of material. Websites like www.realworlddivorce.com, even its coverage on Canada, delve into the nitty-gritty that lawyers often reserve for private conversations.

Moreover, legal firm blogs epitomize the type of guidance I find least helpful. They frequently round off their posts with the refrain "law is hard, you need a lawyer," a conclusion that conveniently serves their bottom line rather than empowering individuals to understand and navigate the system independently. Let's be clear: these blogs serve one primary goal—marketing. Their aim is to drum up business for their firms, not to facilitate a world where self-representation is more accessible and people need fewer lawyers.

Also, to argue that the law is inherently complex due to the extensive training lawyers undergo is not just misguided—it's patently absurd. In reality, navigating the legal system is more straightforward than the gatekeepers would have you believe, boiling down to adept copywriting, following specific procedural rules, and understanding precedent. A fact proven by numerous individuals on this forum, like StillPaying, and others who have successfully self-represented without formal legal education. The existence of overly restrictive policies on seeking legal advice—unique to only this profession—under the pretense of protecting the public, only serves to maintain a monopoly on legal support. There's no other industry where you're fully allowed to handle matters personally, often with significant success, yet so absurdly restricted from obtaining advice, whether from friends, paralegals, or lawyers outside your jurisdiction. And save me the patronizing rhetoric that these restrictions are for my “own good,” as if I'm incapable of assessing the credibility of advice on my own.

Your parting shot about bitterness and shuttling system gripes to the political section is ironically the closest thing to an answer about what happened to all the good resources out there, including this forum. It's a glaring example of how valuable dialogues are choked out by an atmosphere that can't stomach deviation from the party line. This forum's default response to immediately dismiss or deride contrarian views as mere bitterness has effectively muzzled meaningful discussion, pushing those seeking or offering unvarnished truths to the margins.

[rockscan]

If you want advice and guidance on how to self rep, go back and read posts from others who self rep. You can easily find them by searching self rep or self repping. Yes there are plenty of people who self repped and did so without extensive advice or instruction. If you need step by step instructions then it may not be a good path for you. Self repping means knowing how to follow the family law rules. All the sites I posted give you that info.

If you want information about what is right or wrong related to your specific case details, do a search on that. You aren't going to find an answer to “how do I make my ex follow the law” because the only answer that works is get an order and you have already posted about how backlogged the courts are.

Truly, to succeed in court, you need to learn how to put together an argument and prove it. Your posts here are all over the place with what you want and need and think. If the internet doesn't have an answer for you then why do you keep looking there? Toronto will have a FLIC office and you can go talk to them to help self rep or you can speak to duty counsel at court. If you need this much coaching then self repping may not be for you.

[newerwavers]

You seem to have completely missed the essence of my original query, and it doesn't look like you've fully grasped my situation. I’m not in search of assistance for self-representation. Like StillPaying, I’ve discovered the relative ease of handling legal matters pro se, despite it being time-consuming. I did an achieving a 50/50 custody (no small feat) , facilitated by legal insiders who offered straightforward truths over the sanitized, often misleading advice commonly found on the internet. They provided me with crucial documents like proper affidavits and offers to settle, which were indispensable, alongside revealing all the little dirty secrets and elephants in the room that no lawyer would dare post publicly.

My question stemmed from the frequent inquiries I receive about navigating Family Court. Unfortunately, there's little I can recommend beyond the generic advice you've echoed, which scarcely meets the needs of those earnest about self-representation.

Also, rockscan what's your deal on this forum? Your responses consistently and predictably show a rather clear bias, particularly a your animosity towards fathers and critics of the system, suggesting you might have a vested interest in the legal industry or unresolved issues with fathers. Your stance echoes the worn-out narratives we've seen from Kinso and others working in the legal field on this forum , reminiscent of Mark Twain's observation: “Tell me where a person gets his food, and I'll tell you what his opinions are." Your active role here is puzzling, given your direct experience with the court system seems limited to assisting your husband, who didn’t even self-represent (i.e. it seems like you never really had to deal with things yourself) . The tone you often take appears driven by a desire to control or belittle instead of actually helping, mirroring the dynamics I experienced with my NPD ex.

[rockscan]

Also, rockscan what's your deal on this forum? Your responses consistently and predictably show a rather clear bias, particularly a your animosity towards fathers and critics of the system, suggesting you might have a vested interest in the legal industry or unresolved issues with fathers. Your stance echoes the worn-out narratives we've seen from Kinso and others working in the legal field on this forum , reminiscent of Mark Twain's observation: “Tell me where a person gets his food, and I'll tell you what his opinions are." Your active role here is puzzling, given your direct experience with the court system seems limited to assisting your husband, who didn’t even self-represent (i.e. it seems like you never really had to deal with things yourself) . The tone you often take appears driven by a desire to control or belittle instead of actually helping, mirroring the dynamics I experienced with my NPD ex.

That's the same take many of the other men who couldn't form an argument or who were angry at the system took. I expect Stillpaying will come in with his two cents since he isn't a fan of me either. Doesn't bother me.

I've actually helped a few dads on here navigate to successful outcomes offline and am still in contact with them. They will say differently. And if you look at my comments, you will also see that I have called a few moms out for their bullshit behaviour many times.

What makes me laugh about these comments is that they follow a theme: someone doesn't like what I have to say, they argue in circles and then pull the “you aren't even divorced” card. There are many spouses of divorced people in here posting and some of them give the same advice as me. A few of them left the forum because they got sick of being attacked. I stay because I still continue to get messages that say “I followed what you said and it worked” or “because of your advice, we were able to argue for xyz”. You can dislike me all you want, I find most of the dislike for me comes from people who either don't like my response or have their own issues with women, the system or being wrong.

[StillPaying]

I disagree with everything NW says and thinks. No one should pay attention to all the garbage!

I have no feelings against RS. Their contributions are valuable. I'll only jump in if I disagree. There's obviously more to your story, when you get greener with every correction, but that's not as important. I agree with what you're saying here and hat's off to you for putting up with NW.

[newerwavers]

Thank you both for chiming in, further illustrating the very points I've been making. It's particularly interesting how StillPaying, a figure who's previously supported the simplicity of self-representation, now appears to contest my views without offering detailed counterarguments. Maybe he hasn't fully read my comments, defaulting to his all-too-common kind of unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks that sidestep meaningful solution-finding.

Concerning StillPaying's legal background, his possible status as a paralegal (or less?) rather than a lawyer, could indeed shed some light on his optimistic views of Family Court. This nuance might explain the utopian perspective he often portrays, which doesn't always align with the harsher realities many of us have experienced.

My curiosity extends to understanding Rockscan's position here, as her impact seems to have driven more fathers away from the forum than encouraged their participation. Her level of experience and her motivations for contributing remain unclear to me, leading me to speculate that control might be a driving factor behind her presence. It's also noteworthy that the forum's peak of activity and utility seems to coincide with about 10 years ago—around the time Rockscan claims to have joined, which begs the question of the forum's evolving dynamics since then.

I expect the forthcoming reactions will be along the lines of "I disagree," accompanied by even more ad hominem attacks, showcasing the usual double standard: criticizing others for making assumptions while freely doing so themselves. This approach does little to advance the conversation or address the central issue—securing reliable, non-generic advice for effective self-representation.

In keeping with how I handle interactions with my high-conflict ex, I understand how crucial having the last word is for some, so I'll leave that privilege to you guys. Any further responses will likely continue in the vein of being non-productive, lacking real substance, or offering tangible help for those of us looking to self-rep. These kinds of exchanges only further highlight why engagement on this forum has dwindled. Rest assured, I won't expend energy replying to messages that fail to constructively contribute to the discourse on effective self-representation.

[StillPaying]

You're upset you lost your pity party groups and are now looking to recruit new members - the system isn't just against men, it's against everyone! Good luck with that.

[InsideOut]

You're upset you lost your pity party groups and are now looking to recruit new members - the system isn't just against men, it's against everyone! Good luck with that.

Statements like these discourage new people from posting. Requires more courage. When I was in the thick of my situation, one of my coworkers pointed out that my communication style had changed. Snapped me out of it.

I think this statement could have been made using nicer language. The first part doesn't add to the effectiveness of persuasion. The last sentence is also not necessary. This is not a blunt letter to a lawyer.

In my view, I think the system is not necessarily against men or women. It's heavily skewed towards the largest financial transaction. Unfortunately, this often means the higher income earner. Which often is the father. Also, I think the proportion of adjacent professionals (custody assessors, ocls, etc) that manipulate a false narrative happens more often with men than with women.

I found the following article quite interesting to read regarding gender, alienation and parenting outcomes:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...833?via%3Dihub

The approach misses the fact that, there's probably a bias with court cases that make it to a trial. I think the higher income earner tends to settle before a trial more often than the lower income earner.

[Tayken]

You're upset you lost your pity party groups and are now looking to recruit new members - the system isn't just against men, it's against everyone! Good luck with that.

Slight modification and I agree with StillPaying on points provided already in this thread.

"it's against everyone"...

I would change this statement to:

"it's against bitter angry parents who attempt to use the system to get what they *believe* is justice"

Those being:

1. Mothers who believe that they are primary caregivers by default;
2. Fathers who believe the system is against them;
3. Parents who believe that their interests are more important than those of the children and their rights;
4. Parents who do not truly understand the "best interests" test and cannot put their children first.

[Tayken]

Statements like these discourage new people from posting. Requires more courage. When I was in the thick of my situation, one of my coworkers pointed out that my communication style had changed. Snapped me out of it.

All message forums such as these have a decline in users as those who use them age-out. Millennials, who are now the main wave of people going through family law do not use technologies established in the mid-to-late 90s for information. They are on Reddit and other social media platforms. This style of platform is going extinct in all areas of use.

What discourages people from posting is good advice. There is a massive knowledge base and if you watch the # of people reading this site what I suspect is happening is that they are finding answers with no need to post. There is decades of good information on this site. It is fully indexed by Google as well and other search engines. So I would put forward a significantly different theory that is backed by significant research that this style of forum is going extinct or its massive database of knowledge answers a number of questions which do not require a "post" to ask. Especially common questions that have been answered ad nauseam.

I think this statement could have been made using nicer language. The first part doesn't add to the effectiveness of persuasion. The last sentence is also not necessary. This is not a blunt letter to a lawyer.

Having participated on this site for a very long time you are wrong. As well, I put everything on this site through a neurolinguistic analysis. The score from the AI engine on what your complaining didn't even register to the level of "sentiment" you are implying in your response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiment_analysis

In my view, I think the system is not necessarily against men or women. It's heavily skewed towards the largest financial transaction. Unfortunately, this often means the higher income earner. Which often is the father. Also, I think the proportion of adjacent professionals (custody assessors, ocls, etc) that manipulate a false narrative happens more often with men than with women.

How do you explain Legal Aid and the issues that Justice Pazaratz has identified with Legal Aid in a number of cases already? I don't disagree that those with the largest coffer can weather the storm but, in most of those cases persistence matters. Take the matter of Izyuk which this forum participated in heavily in support of the father. Just search for WorkingDad and start reading (and educating) yourself prior to responding.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

Concerning StillPaying's legal background, his possible status as a paralegal (or less?) rather than a lawyer, could indeed shed some light on his optimistic views of Family Court. This nuance might explain the utopian perspective he often portrays, which doesn't always align with the harsher realities many of us have experienced.

My curiosity extends to understanding Rockscan's position here, as her impact seems to have driven more fathers away from the forum than encouraged their participation. Her level of experience and her motivations for contributing remain unclear to me, leading me to speculate that control might be a driving factor behind her presence. It's also noteworthy that the forum's peak of activity and utility seems to coincide with about 10 years ago—around the time Rockscan claims to have joined, which begs the question of the forum's evolving dynamics since then.

Some advice:

Stop worrying about anonymous posters on a legacy message board with fake names and focus on your family law dispute. Be like WorkingDad and take the time, which is thousands of hours, to gain the appropriate knowledge and get a judge to say this about you:

47. The Respondent (WorkingDad) was one of the most skilled and well-prepared self-represented litigants this court has seen. He was meticulously organized, and consistently demonstrated a working knowledge of the relevant provisions of the Children’s Law Reform Act, Family Law Act, the Courts of Justice Act and the Family Law Rules. Under cross-examination he was responsive but unflappable. His own cross-examination of the Applicant and the OCL social worker was respectful, understated – and at times devastating.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...1onsc6451.html

You are wasting time in the 1000s of hours you will need to be like WorkingDad with this nonsense. Why engage in any of this as it doesn't assist you in resolving YOUR family law matter. With every conflicted response and attack you are only building more negative emotions that will only have a negative impact on the road you should be: To being like WorkingDad.

Review all his posts on this forum. Review all his case law. Go to Hamilton and have his massive 15+ box case file pulled and read every page. Understand how he assembled his case. Stop bothering people on this forum with nonsense.

Jeff and blinkandimgone I am of the strong opinion that this thread should be closed and provides no value to anyone on this forum and will just spiral out of control.

[StillPaying]

There is a massive knowledge base and if you watch the # of people reading this site what I suspect is happening is that they are finding answers with no need to post. There is decades of good information on this site. It is fully indexed by Google as well and other search engines.

100%! This is the benefit of a decades old forum. The answers are all there if they search - instead some users choose to ignore their issues and waste time asking about free quality advice from strangers, to which they ignore to read the links/answers provided.

[InsideOut]

Hi Tayken,

Agreed, discussion forums in general are in decline. At the same time, I haven't seen a comparably valuable alternative on Reddit or social media.

Agreed, that many topics have been discussed in depth and many users (myself included) benefit from the historical dialogue and don't need to post.

What discourages people from posting is good advice.

This is a very subjective statement.

For many people, getting good advice communicated in a respectful way, even if it does not agree with what they wanted to hear, would not discourage them (from posting).

I would say good advice given in a condescending manner discourages (some) people from posting. Makes others get their back up….

I agree that for some people, good advice even when given respectfully, will be evaluated in light of what they wanted you to hear. These people would get discouraged.

Having participated on this site for a very long time you are wrong.

Don't necessarily agree that I am wrong because you have participated in this forum for longer than me.

My feedback was concerning this post specifically. Not the whole site.

I'm also weary putting weight on sentiment analysis.
I work with them on a daily basis. I would caution that there are very few NLU based sentiment analytics use cases which can be considered stable. They require significant tuning to get reliable results. The tech is still maturing and still struggles with hallucinations. Can you please point me to the linguistic assessment you're referring to for the site?

How do you explain Legal Aid and the issues that Justice Pazaratz has identified with Legal Aid in a number of cases already? I don't disagree that those with the largest coffer can weather the storm but, in most of those cases persistence matters. Take the matter of Izyuk which this forum participated in heavily in support of the father. Just search for WorkingDad and start reading (and educating) yourself prior to responding.

Legal aid gives you wings?

Absolutely agree that persistence matters.

Absolutely agree with Justice Pazaratz's perspective and some of the issues I've read him very directly scrutinize in his decisions.

I don't see the contradiction here. If anything it supports my assertion. Isn't the improper conduct (at times) by the party with a smaller coffer leveraging a legal aid lawyer?

PS - I read WorkingDad's posts and the Canlii records quote closely when I was dealing with my own OCL dispute. I used his case in my own casebook along with a few others that opposed OCL.

I don't think that model is realistic anymore. If I was posting publicly about my case on a forum, OC would have had a field day characterizing those actions.

I also don't think it's not an appropriate comparison because both of the parents in that situation had relatively smaller incomes than some of the high conflict cases that are taking place today.

The example I'm thinking of is:
- 40 year old couple separating from a 5 year marriage with one child aged 4
- Spouse A makes 200k
- Spouse B makes $35k
- Shared custody means Spouse A pays ~ $5,419 monthly for 14 years =$910,392
- Spouse A primary means Spouse A pays ~$1,290 monthly for 14 years =$216,720
- Spouse B primary means Spouse A pays $5,475 monthly for 14 years =$919,800
- Then if Spouse B gets a legal aid lawyer that convinces them to quit their job and try to get a bigger settlement based on $0 income and primary custody due to DV: Spouse A pays $6,796 for 12 months $1,141,728

The swing gets larger if there's more than one kid or a longer marriage. In this situation, I think the court and its adjacent parties would tolerate a lot more bad behaviour from Spouse B pre-trial than from Spouse A. Even if Spouse A is well behaved, it would still be an uphill battle.

I don't think it's even the one with the larger coffer. It's the one with more potential at trial for a large financial transaction.