Family Law Reform Idealism

[Rioe]

So what needs updating about family law? What should the new 'default' be?

I'd like to see:

50-50 custody entrenched in law as the standard, and to deviate significantly from it requires a signed agreement or court order.

Full financial disclosure required prior to marriage.

I do not think those two would be that hard to implement. Any other dreams?

[standing on the sidelines]

no long term SS for either party. Use it as a transition thing only with definite stop dates.

Make agreements iron clad when party had legal advice before signing.

[standing on the sidelines]

limit the amount of times a person can take another back to court. Maybe that would clear up some of the backlog also.

[Tayken]

So what needs updating about family law? What should the new 'default' be?

I'd like to see:

50-50 custody entrenched in law as the standard, and to deviate significantly from it requires a signed agreement or court order.

Full financial disclosure required prior to marriage.

I do not think those two would be that hard to implement. Any other dreams?

This all boils down to a better definition of what defines a child's "best interests". The "best interests" test is too easy to adapt in a wide variety of different ways.

If a child's "best interests" is truly to have both parents equally involved then the best interests test needs to call this out. Specific details of when it is not in a child's "best interests" to be in the care/custody of both parents equally needs to be the objective.

Instead of having to prove "why" it is in the best interests of the child for both parents to be equally involved it should be the onus on the moving party requesting sole custody to prove with a much higher balance of probability that the other parent should not have equal joint custody with access on a 50-50 basis.

Any moving party on an "emergency" ex-party motion should have a defined evidentuary requirement when bringing the motion. Any emergency ex-party motion in Family Law should require that both parents go for full mental evaluations.

Reason being, if the party bringing the motion has been abused (especially the children) the test of evidence needs to be evaluated from a mental health perspective. This protects both parties (you can't blow hot and cold at the same time) and puts the onus on both parties to be transparent to the court.

This will insure that if the matter involves "true" abuse the party that is the abuser can get help and work towards meeting the child's "best interests".

Also, equally important the party who brings false allegations is just as abusive as a party that is "truly abusive" and needs mental health help so they can meet the child's "best interests".

Penalties for false allegations should equal that of what "true abusers" get before the court. False allegations of domestic and child abuse should carry the same weight as true incidents before the Family and Criminal Court.

Perjury should be a focus of investigations before the court. This would eliminate the "hearsay hoopla" that is Family Court. Rules of "hearsay" need to be clearly stated and enforced. Honesty in Family Matters need to be a key element to the litigation.

Relevance and not hearsay should be the focus of Family Law. A better description of the rules which constitutes "abuse" need to be defined.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[WorkingDAD]

limit the amount of times a person can take another back to court. Maybe that would clear up some of the backlog also.

Well, you can not really do that unless there is real issues. What would really clear back log IMHO is 0 ZERO tolerance to the lies in court papers and especially during the trial.

[WorkingDAD]

So what needs updating about family law? What should the new 'default' be?

I'd like to see:

50-50 custody entrenched in law as the standard, and to deviate significantly from it requires a signed agreement or court order.

Full financial disclosure required prior to marriage.

I do not think those two would be that hard to implement. Any other dreams?

well I agree obviously with 50/50 custody and time sharing but why would you need full disclosure PRIOR to the marriage? I would think all what person has prior to the marriage has nothing to do with marriage and especially when it end.

[hadenough]

I agree w/WorkingDad. There should be ZERO tolerance for outright lies. Zero Tolerance and CONSEQUENCES!

[fireweb13]

Reason being, if the party bringing the motion has been abused (especially the children) the test of evidence needs to be evaluated from a mental health perspective. This protects both parties (you can't blow hot and cold at the same time) and puts the onus on both parties to be transparent to the court.

This will insure that if the matter involves "true" abuse the party that is the abuser can get help and work towards meeting the child's "best interests".

Also, equally important the party who brings false allegations is just as abusive as a party that is "truly abusive" and needs mental health help so they can meet the child's "best interests".

Penalties for false allegations should equal that of what "true abusers" get before the court. False allegations of domestic and child abuse should carry the same weight as true incidents before the Family and Criminal Court.

Perjury should be a focus of investigations before the court. This would eliminate the "hearsay hoopla" that is Family Court. Rules of "hearsay" need to be clearly stated and enforced. Honesty in Family Matters need to be a key element to the litigation.

Relevance and not hearsay should be the focus of Family Law. A better description of the rules which constitutes "abuse" need to be defined.

Good Luck!
Tayken

I agree with everything you say here, the only reason I think that it would not be implimented is that they do not want to discourage real abuse victims from coming forward, as if they do not have all the evidence they could be in alot of trouble. Its a very hard thing to be able to get our heads around as its not always easy to prove real abuse, but you do not want an abuse victim to feel they cannot come forward as they could get in trouble. If only people would not make false claims and take away from the real people who need help.

[WorkingDAD]

I agree with everything you say here, the only reason I think that it would not be implimented is that they do not want to discourage real abuse victims from coming forward, as if they do not have all the evidence they could be in alot of trouble. Its a very hard thing to be able to get our heads around as its not always easy to prove real abuse, but you do not want an abuse victim to feel they cannot come forward as they could get in trouble. If only people would not make false claims and take away from the real people who need help.

I do not know... I tend to think it very easy to have "real evidence" with "real abuse". If you have a black eye - what else do you need? Problem here I think that people tent to call abuse what is not.

It getting to the point that it's just crazy.
1. Do not want to leave with me - abuse
2. Asking me to go and find a gob - abuse
3. called me liyer (proven in court) - abuse
4. I want you to leave - ABUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE becase I want to stay

I know what is real abuse. I saw it. I felt it on my skin ... and yes you should be scared to go to jail if you make false accusation. Just because of all that crazy amount of false accusation real abuse more often overlooked. Becouse even in court judges start think that it just lie to get upper hand in court.

What you would think if you a judge and after 17 days trial where you made conclusion that all that abuse trash is a lie and than the same person keep coming back and saying - I am domestic violence victim.

Just my 5 cents
WB

[fireweb13]

I agree in principal, but I also understand that we cannot set up a system that actual victims are afraid to come forward. Its a very sharp edge that we are walking on between protecting victims and stopping false allegations. Not all abuse leaves a black eye, and a person can punch themselves in the eye to create a black eye so that they are more credible. I think teaching people about morals and raising them in families that are supportive so that our children grow up with a sense of whats right and wrong is the best way to go. Unfortunatly that is not where we are heading anytime soon.

[WorkingDAD]

there is no such things as perfect system ... at least to my knowledge - everything made by human has it's defects.

It basically boiling down to the simple balance between what is more acceptable to put 10 people in jail and ruin their (and thous who live with them) lives (or at least part of it) base on false accusations or give one real abuser another chance?

Read case V.K. v. T. S. (referenced in my case). Guy went through 2 courts Criminal and Family. All lies... any repercussion to the lier (mom in this case)? Not as of now from what I know (I am in contact with father as he found me after read my case).

Just recently I have heard about case when mom make accusation that she was raped and that how she got pregnant. Guy charged with rape. DNK came back negative - child not his. What possible should keep this liar out of jail?

In country like Canada this should never ever happened. It's a shame. (sorry if it sounded harsh)

Look what happened with my case.... Now we are heading to another trial (if nothing happened with me considering what kind of people decided to join the "party" from her side). I just hope Judge will make really really big case after we come to the answer what I and not only know very well - she is lying again. If people will know that they can lie in court and nothing will happened (or very likely) it will never end.

PS:
BTW it not very easy to punch yourself in eye

[gettingtakenforaride]

One of the problems is the very broad, and lets face it open definition of abuse. Arguably even a fight between a couple can be defined as abuse. Unfortunately it's difficult to discern the real cases of abuse from those using it as another means of gaining an "upper hand" in custody.

Not to mention at the end of the day in most cases one party wants out. The other doesn't the hurt and anger throws fairness and right out the window and it becomes a how to hurt them most, not what is best for the parties involved

[Rioe]

why would you need full disclosure PRIOR to the marriage? I would think all what person has prior to the marriage has nothing to do with marriage and especially when it end.

My logic was that it would help educate engaged couples about the contract aspect of marriage that most people don't even realize when they sign on, and that it would be a previously recorded starting point in the event of divorce. Then when it's done again at separation, there are fewer arguments about what asset/debt belongs to whom, and what the value was.

Not to mention that some marriages fail because one spouse hid their true financial situation from the other.

[Nadia]

I would definitely support the idea of a full financial disclosure before marriage. Unfortunately, in my case, my ex "forgot" to disclose that he had a line of credit amounting to $200,000. (He'd borrowed the money to launch a limousine service) . It would have been "useful" to know this information going into the marriage.

Any debt brought into the marriage is going to ultimately have an impact on "family" finances. Anyone thinking otherwise is a fool. It also has huge implications in respect to trust. How can you trust someone who didn't think to mention something so important?

[mumster1964]

i would like to see spousal support abolished. it is one thing to support your children but to support an able bodied adult just because you were married is insane.