Love this article..

[trying2learn]

If somebody else has posted this, my apologies...

Family court judge's book a caution to warring couples - thestar.com

Where the proceeds of this book are going and why should make some people stop and think.

Worth a read...


Cheers to all!

[Johnny888]

what do you do if you can not afford lawyer and the other side is not willing to compromise on anything?

[epinecone]

Judge Brownstone the Lawyers

Rather than put his energy into reforming divorce law, Judge Brownstone did as a typical member of his chosen proffession would do.

Judge Brownstones focus is on how stupid us commoners trying to find justice are.

Maybe a better us of his time would be if he used his priveleged position as a lawyer who recieved a political appointment to the judiciary to comment on the inequity and injustice that has been legistlated into our divorce courts.

Judge Brownstone is the problem, or a good indication of it.

The problem lies in the divorce act, the legal profession, and the attitude of those priveleged few in which we have placed the responsbility to be judges.

We should be able to find Justice and Equitable treatment in our courts, instead we find arrogant judges like Brownstone who treat people as if they are an inconvenience.

When he falls off of his pedestal, maybe he will realize that he has done nothing to stop the suffering of children, or fathers, or mothers.

[HappyMomma]

My ex sent me a copy of this book. Made me laugh for a number of reasons. Anyway, I read it. Isn't pertinent to our situation as we aren't going to court.

[Mess]

epinecone, judges are forbidden by law to comment on what you want him to comment on, mainly the law. You see enough flack in the op-eds about judges "rewriting" legislation at the appeals or supreme court level, judges are forbidden to lobby for changes to law or make the public comments you seek. I suppose he could cut into lawyers, but really he doesn't see what goes on in private between a client and lawyer and can only guess from the results (a lawsuit). The judge's decisions on the suits themselves reflect on the quality of case presented, and if you read them they often make the lawyers look bad.

I do have a problem with book and Brownstone's attitude of blaming the parents/litigants for the problems. Brownstone is well aware, and mentions in his book, that the vast majority of divorces are settled without a trial. What he sees in the courtroom are the 2% most toxic relationships, and where one or both parties have such extreme personality types that they cannot reach a settlement. So Brownstone is stating the obvious, people who go to trial have problems. Often mental problems, certainly emotional problems and attitude problems or they would be able to reach a settlement on their own. And mind, it takes two to negotiate, and even if one party is reasonable the other party can force a trial for no good reason other than obstinacy.

Statisticly, at trial, lawyers are right only 50% of the time. This should be obvious, one side wins and the other loses. The losing side's lawyer was wrong, and often both sides were wrong on different points. The lawyers have to depend on the stories the clients tell them, they weren't living with them for 10 years.

You can't change the litigants by waving a wand or writing a book. So thanks, Brownstone, tell us that we have to stop being immature. How helpful.

I think the book is good for parents (and childless couples, but it is primarily directed at custody battles) who are lost without knowledge of the law and don't have a perspective (we have all been there) and it can help them avoid the pushing by relatives or aggressive lawyers who say, Take everything you can! Brownstone would do more good to walk in detail through the mediation and collaborative processes and explain the differences, but he can't because that's not what he does for a living. The people he sees either avoided those routes or failed at them.

I got a lot out of the book on the first reading, and I still recommend it, but every time I reread a chapter I feel like Brownstone is blaming it all on the couples. Well, face it, we are human beings and we are flawed and in situations like this we need outsiders to help us sort it out and that's what you're paid to do. So don't tell us to stop being flawed, that's not helping.

When I read his interviews or listen to CBC broadcasts were he's speaking or answering questions, he is just repeating the same few things over and over, and really only has two messages: Stop being immature; get a lawyer. He's a broken record anywhere I've come across him, and of course as I say, he is very limited in what he can say publicly, I get that. But I also get that his message is useless. My ex could have read that book , smirked at me and blamed me for going to court, and never looked in the mirror. Because it's never looking in the mirror that makes us screw up our relationships and lives.

Most of the content of Brownstone's book, probably 90%, is a decent, readable guide to family law and the separation and divorce process, but it's also the same content you find books like Surviving your Divorce and Canadian Family Law. You could pick any of them and learn the same things. Brownstones's unique message is that we're all fuckups, really. And I guess I can understand how he came to feel that way, from the characters that end up in his courtroom, but it doesn't help.