Going to trial

[Janibel]

Sorry, I jumped the gun on that. I just hear so many people rushing to assume that domestic violence victims are exaggerating or putting the blame on them - "if you didn't end up in the hospital, how bad was it really?"- that I overreacted. Sorry again.

Don't be sorry Yep, I came across a lot of that even from people who knew us both - most victims are either ashamed or too afraid to tell even close relatives about what's going on. Maybe it's a natural reaction to unpleasant things - people would rather pretend it doesn't exist? Photos help a lot!

In cases of emotional abuse that's a different issue, he said/she said and the kids stuck in the middle of it all ... that kind of abuse is probably worse IMO.

[stripes]

I don't mind answering questions like that, if it helps others to understand that there is such a thing as real domestic violence allegations.
We hear so much in here about false accusations - which happens all the time - the other side of the issue is just as real, unfortunately.

Sorry, I jumped the gun on that. I just hear so many people rushing to assume that domestic violence victims are exaggerating or putting the blame on them - "if you didn't end up in the hospital, how bad was it really?"- that I overreacted. Sorry again.

[FB_]

Well for one thing I would not have had to go through a criminal trial and then through a divorce trial. If one judge could have ruled on the entire mess, I think that would have been simpler. Also, I feel it is horribly unfair when spouses (either gender) have to pay SS to a person who willingly broke their marriage vows?

If one spouse acts in bad faith, ruining the life of the other spouse, there should be consequences, financial and otherwise - this is especially true in long term marriages.

Well criminal and family court have nothing to do with the other.

I agree with your point on SS. Although I don't believe much in it to begin with so.

Thanks for your opinion.

[Janibel]

Why the f!ck does anyone ask a question like that? The ex has assault convictions. He's a bad man. Janibel doesn't need to prove that she was a "real" victim to anybody.

I don't mind answering questions like that, if it helps others to understand that there is such a thing as real domestic violence allegations.
We hear so much in here about false accusations - which happens all the time - the other side of the issue is just as real, unfortunately.

[Janibel]

Just curious, lets say it wasn't "no fault" what you expect to be different?

Well for one thing I would not have had to go through a criminal trial and then through a divorce trial. If one judge could have ruled on the entire mess, I think that would have been simpler. Also, I feel it is horribly unfair when spouses (either gender) have to pay SS to a person who willingly broke their marriage vows?

If one spouse acts in bad faith, ruining the life of the other spouse, there should be consequences, financial and otherwise - this is especially true in long term marriages.

[Franklin]

Yes the ER report made that a bad question. My appologies.

[stripes]

By the way were you injured in the assault and did you spend time in hospital, also were you able to fight him back by punching or scratching him or any other way?

Why the f!ck does anyone ask a question like that? The ex has assault convictions. He's a bad man. Janibel doesn't need to prove that she was a "real" victim to anybody.

[FB_]

I'm sorry about what you had to go through Franklin, and if you read some of the posts in here, this is sadly not uncommon. Family law is complicated and many Ex's abuse the system and use their children as weapons.

I also am upset that divorce is no-fault ... it doesn't seem fair, especially for the children involved. I may not be awarded costs, though there will be consequences for my Ex's bad behavior - his credibility will be next to zero in front of the judge.

Just curious, lets say it wasn't "no fault" what you expect to be different?

[Janibel]

Ok he was convicted so I didn't need to ask that question. You know how it is with restraining orders.
Cost should be the consequence for acting badly. God knows I was put through the ringer, Child abduction, restraining order , supervised access . If I din,t have OCL report to clear my name who knows what would have happend.

My ex paid no cost or consequences what so ever. I would like to see blame .

I'm sorry about what you had to go through Franklin, and if you read some of the posts in here, this is sadly not uncommon. Family law is complicated and many Ex's abuse the system and use their children as weapons.

I also am upset that divorce is no-fault ... it doesn't seem fair, especially for the children involved. I may not be awarded costs, though there will be consequences for my Ex's bad behavior - his credibility will be next to zero in front of the judge.

[Franklin]

Ok he was convicted so I didn't need to ask that question. You know how it is with restraining orders.
Cost should be the consequence for acting badly. God knows I was put through the ringer, Child abduction, restraining order , supervised access . If I din,t have OCL report to clear my name who knows what would have happend.

My ex paid no cost or consequences what so ever. I would like to see blame .

[standing on the sidelines]

By the way were you injured in the assault and did you spend time in hospital, also were you able to fight him back by punching or scratching him or any other way?

ok I will bite...what is the relevance for asking these questions?

[Janibel]

By the way were you injured in the assault and did you spend time in hospital, also were you able to fight him back by punching or scratching him or any other way?

Yes Franklin there was an ER report and police investigation, that's why the STBX was convicted in criminal court. No I'm not the punching/scratching type ---- does this answer your questions?

[Franklin]

By the way were you injured in the assault and did you spend time in hospital, also were you able to fight him back by punching or scratching him or any other way?

[Links17]

^^^ Check this out very thoroughly - I would be very surprised if there is a presumption in favor of the party with higher income being responsible for costs, no matter how they were incurred.

Not what I said, what I said that is if both parties are considered to be generally reasonable the party with the higher income will help out with the legal costs of the poorer party. Assuming hte poorer party is stretched to make the payments and/or there is a huge disparity.

If the poor person is CLEARLY unreasonable and have judicial warfare then NO the court won't agree.

This is not consistent with the principle of awarding costs, which is to discourage frivolous or unnecessary legal action by either party. Awarding costs also has nothing to do with spousal support. I think Links17 may be confusing cost awards with some form of support awards.

We're talking about Quebec in Janibel's case. Costs are almost never awarded in family law cases. It is called "provision for fees"...

It is similar to SS in that it is ALIMENTARY by nature and the means/needs of the parties are considered. I'm not confused.

Court costs will come out of the family patrimony

-The patrimony is frozen at the time of separation.
-Yes, this is how lawyers and judges live and eat, somebody has to pay them.

[Janibel]

Awarding costs also has nothing to do with spousal support. I think Links17 may be confusing cost awards with some form of support awards.

It does in a way. Having no other option but to settle in court (how many days who knows?) this will impact his ability to pay SS, regardless of my need. Court costs will come out of the family patrimony, impoverishing us both in the end. So basically I'm paying the price for his criminal conviction and lack of good faith?

That's what's wrong with no fault divorce. Sorry if this is turning into a rant.