Question for StillPaying and Others Who 'Trust the Process'

[newerwavers]

Hi all, particularly StillPaying,

I've noticed that opinions on the Family Court system vary widely. Some people, like StillPaying, advocate for a level of trust in the process and see it as largely just and effective. On the other end of the spectrum, some of us find the system to be deeply flawed and have had very different experiences.

For the sake of understanding this dichotomy better, I have some questions:

1. For StillPaying: You've expressed strong trust in the system. What was your specific experience that led you to this viewpoint? If you're comfortable sharing, I'm interested to know how your case turned out—specifically, what were the custody and child support outcomes?
2. For the broader audience: If you've had a positive experience in the Family Court system, what do you think contributed to that? Were there any specific circumstances that you believe influenced your outcome positively?

I'm genuinely interested in understanding what factors contribute to these divergent views and experiences.

[Tayken]

[*]For StillPaying: You've expressed strong trust in the system. What was your specific experience that led you to this viewpoint? If you're comfortable sharing, I'm interested to know how your case turned out—specifically, what were the custody and child support outcomes?

A review of jurisprudence (case law) can answer this question as to how many learned contributors have come to these conclusions. As well, a review of their massive history of contributions to this site should also guide you to these answers.

[*]For the broader audience: If you've had a positive experience in the Family Court system, what do you think contributed to that? Were there any specific circumstances that you believe influenced your outcome positively?[/LIST]

I'm genuinely interested in understanding what factors contribute to these divergent views and experiences.

I would recommend you search for "workingdad" on this forum and read this related case law:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...1onsc7476.html

Members of this forum contributed heavily to this case law that now is one of the largest referenced cases in Ontario. It has 39 citations! Lawyers often leverage this success and it has truly shaped the course of family law and the opinions of many on this forum as to the possible positive outcomes and the work that needs to be done (and the personal conduct required) to achieve it. This is just for this one outcome.

Now lets talk about the costs award that came from this case law which has 25 direct citations making both ESTABLISHED jurisprudence.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...1onsc7476.html

1. The popular beverage has a catchy slogan: “Red Bull gives you wings.”

2. But at this costs hearing, the self-represented Respondent father suggested a wry variation: “Legal Aid gives you wings.”

3. He now seeks costs in relation to a 17 day custody trial which resulted in my 606 paragraph judgment dated November 9, 2011. He won; sole custody. The Applicant mother was represented by counsel. Her poor finances qualified her for Legal Aid. Now she says those same poor finances should excuse her from paying costs.

4. The Respondent asks a valid question: Does she have wings? Can she do whatever she wants in court, without ever worrying about fees – hers or anyone else’s?

There is ample data on this site from direct cases, this one provided as the example being prime, that support the reason people say the system should be followed. It takes time but, if you conduct yourself in the manner that WorkingDad has and understand the relevance of evidence and invest the time... You can achieve the proper results.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[newerwavers]

Thank you for your detailed response, Tayken. I'm well aware of WorkingDAD and his contributions to this forum and jurisprudence. What I'm struggling to grasp is why he is often presented as the rule rather than the exception. In his case, it seemed that having Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz as the judge, an ex who was completely batshit off-the-wall crazy, ex's proven and imminent plans to abduct said child to Ukraine, and WorkingDAD investing an immense amount of his life were key to his successful outcome likely taking years of his life. All these stars aligned perfectly, but at a high cost. So while it's an important case, it's hard to see how this single instance should give us an overwhelming sense of confidence in the family court system as being generally just and effective.

I also see forum members like DadWhoDidntGiveUp or Brampton33, who, despite facing similar circumstances, find themselves in far different situations—often merely hoping for a 50/50 outcome. It seems to me that WorkingDad is more the exception than the rule, and the differentiating factor might be landing a judge like Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz. Would you agree?

Furthermore, I'm very curious about StillPaying 's experience. She seems to imply that she had quite a favorable outcome. What do you think was the differential in her case?

[d4k]

If you've had a positive experience in the Family Court system

If it takes few years before you even get to trial that is good chunk of your life, and even greater chunk of your kid childhood. Regardless who "wins" or "looses" you or your ex, your child loses.

[InsideOut]

Re: A review of the case law…

This isn't a representative sample. I believe the 'injustice' happens in the 99% of cases that never make it to a trial. Agreed that there are trials where 'the truth finally comes out at trial' and the situation is flipped.

Many people lack the tools and skills to navigate the system.

It's not a good system. If you do everything right, are persistent, don't get taken advantage of by a social worker, don't run out of money, don't get misled by your own attorney, etc, you can make it to a trial. Then it becomes a question of, even if you are in the right, do you have the stomach to risk costs and what are you willing to 'give up' to make sure you don't get costs.

[newerwavers]

I completely agree with you, InsideOut. There seems to be an elephant in the room when it comes to the effectiveness and fairness of the family court system. Publicly, many legal professionals assert that the system is unbiased and just, but privately, the narrative often changes. To me, that discrepancy speaks volumes.

In my observation, the only parties who seem to be praising the current system are those who have a vested interest in maintaining it as is—essentially those who benefit from its shortcomings and complexities. This certainly raises questions about how just and effective the system truly is for the people it's supposed to serve. But that's just my observations.

As for the WorkingDad example, I fail to see how his case—despite its successful outcome—can be cited as evidence of an effective system. If anything, the extreme circumstances and substantial resources he had to invest underscore the system's limitations rather than its virtues.

[Tayken]

Thank you for your detailed response, Tayken. I'm well aware of WorkingDAD and his contributions to this forum and jurisprudence. What I'm struggling to grasp is why he is often presented as the rule rather than the exception. In his case, it seemed that having Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz as the judge, an ex who was completely batshit off-the-wall crazy, ex's proven and imminent plans to abduct said child to Ukraine, and WorkingDAD investing an immense amount of his life were key to his successful outcome likely taking years of his life. All these stars aligned perfectly, but at a high cost. So while it's an important case, it's hard to see how this single instance should give us an overwhelming sense of confidence in the family court system as being generally just and effective.

If you understand how our system of Jurisprudence work you would understand the massive impact that case law has had. Every lawyer worth their salt has read those cases. They are part of submissions every day in the court. When you consider that only a small portion of cases go to trial and that matter went 2 times to trial it is even more profound of an impact. If you read caselaw you will see the impact it has had overall in Family Law (in Ontario) and shaped a major change.

The pure number of references demonstrates it massive reach. In addition all the case law reviews and other articles that get into lawyers hands. I would suggest that many of the people on this forum, who complain about the system that have 50/50 residency, joint custody and off-set child support don't understand the overall impact of that case law and the other case law it references on their own results.

If only 1% of cases are reported and this case has about 100 references in CanLII that is a huge impact. It isn't a one-off result. It probably has impacted 10's of thousands of cases. It totally changed the way Legal Aid Ontario manages files. It put those who were using the system improperly to stop. There is a lot less of that and I have personally had to contribute far less because of the impact of that case on Jurisprudence.

The impact on the "practice of wisdom" (Jurisprudence) from that case alone has made things better for many people. Just the reference to the case law demonstrate that.

Subsequently I believe all justices in the family law system probably have read that case law. It shapes things. Before the battle for "majority access" through bad conduct was massive. Hundreds of people posting to this forum all with the same patterns of behavior happening. It has changed dramatically on all the various forums I participate on. To the point that my time is very rarely spent contributing to forums.

Also, that case law is being fed to various AI platforms now... Which will have an even larger impact across the whole justice system.

It is used as the case-on-point often because it is actually referenced as that by Justices all the time. Almost weekly!

[Tayken]

I completely agree with you, InsideOut. There seems to be an elephant in the room when it comes to the effectiveness and fairness of the family court system. Publicly, many legal professionals assert that the system is unbiased and just, but privately, the narrative often changes. To me, that discrepancy speaks volumes.

In my observation, the only parties who seem to be praising the current system are those who have a vested interest in maintaining it as is—essentially those who benefit from its shortcomings and complexities. This certainly raises questions about how just and effective the system truly is for the people it's supposed to serve. But that's just my observations.

As for the WorkingDad example, I fail to see how his case—despite its successful outcome—can be cited as evidence of an effective system. If anything, the extreme circumstances and substantial resources he had to invest underscore the system's limitations rather than its virtues.

That is your perception as a litigant in your very narrow and personal case. But, most matters never make it to court and the vast majority of people settle their matters without even going to court. Court is a last resort so you are in a last resort situation. That comes with a pile of emotions for the litigants in the matter. It often takes those people a long time to realize some of their own shortcomings that lead to the conflict possibly?

Family Law is very personal to litigants. This site is an unfair representation of the whole system. It is mostly unrepresented litigants who are mad at the system. Its like being a police officer and thinking everyone is a criminal because, in your job all day long, all you deal with are criminals. But, the majority of society is not criminals... Just the ones that the police have to deal with every day.

Pull back your horse blinders and look broader than this small forum for how the system of Family Law works and you will find MORE balanced results... But, settlements are not public... They don't go to court... With 50% of relationships ending there would be significantly MORE posts on this forum and a true crisis. But, most people don't even go to court to resolve Family Law matters.

You need to account for that as well.

[StillPaying]

Definitely agree with Tayken! I'd also say while most court cases will settle right before trial, that is because most of the issues were dealt with on an interim basis through motions and your case management judge. These orders follow the facts, although may take months to a year to get right. Then the HCP has less incentive to keep pushing. If you still have a couple hours access/no overnights by the time trial comes - there's good reason for it.

[Challenger]

While I do respect many posts by Tayken, I am to disagree here.
People who are divorcing need a process that would be as simple and accessible. You don’t read a manual for an iPhone? Yet I can assure you it is way more complicated inside than Family Court, just iPhone is user friendly and Family Court isn’t and is often used as a playground to harassing your ex, destroy your finance and future of your children.

It is enough for just one of parties to be high conflict, to make your life miserable for years. How many men are facing false criminal charges, so that their loving ex wife gets a joyride in family court?

Yes, the case you quoted is important for lawyers, but not for regular people. If I was told pay 200k legal fees and we divorce you within one day, I would’ve pay without a doubt. But paying same money to lawyers over many years is ridiculous. I am not interested in truth coming out years later. I live today and now.

And honestly, while there are knowledgeable lawyers, there are also those who aren’t. With an hourly rate 400-500 on average (my was way more), making arithmetic and other mistakes or confusing facts in court room is simply unacceptable.

[rockscan]

While I do respect many posts by Tayken, I am to disagree here.
People who are divorcing need a process that would be as simple and accessible. You don’t read a manual for an iPhone? Yet I can assure you it is way more complicated inside than Family Court, just iPhone is user friendly and Family Court isn’t and is often used as a playground to harassing your ex, destroy your finance and future of your children.

It is enough for just one of parties to be high conflict, to make your life miserable for years. How many men are facing false criminal charges, so that their loving ex wife gets a joyride in family court?

Yes, the case you quoted is important for lawyers, but not for regular people. If I was told pay 200k legal fees and we divorce you within one day, I would’ve pay without a doubt. But paying same money to lawyers over many years is ridiculous. I am not interested in truth coming out years later. I live today and now.

And honestly, while there are knowledgeable lawyers, there are also those who aren’t. With an hourly rate 400-500 on average (my was way more), making arithmetic and other mistakes or confusing facts in court room is simply unacceptable.

There are so many things now to help with the process. The problem isn't the family court process but lack of blowback for high conflict parties. People who make false accusations? Punishment. Withholding kids? Punishment. Wasting the courts time by not providing documentation? Punishment. There is no consequence for being difficult. Judges can award costs but that doesn't always happen and they don't sanction parties for their bs.

[StillPaying]

How many men are facing false criminal charges, so that their loving ex wife gets a joyride in family court?

Far, far less than the amount of people who now benefit from WD's work.

[newerwavers]

There are so many things now to help with the process. The problem isn't the family court process but lack of blowback for high conflict parties. People who make false accusations? Punishment. Withholding kids? Punishment. Wasting the courts time by not providing documentation? Punishment. There is no consequence for being difficult. Judges can award costs but that doesn't always happen and they don't sanction parties for their bs.

I agree with your point about the lack of consequences for high conflict parties, Rockscan. However, I would argue that it's precisely because of the problems in the family court process itself that we often see this lack of blowback. The absence of substantial consequences for perjury, contempt, non-compliance with agreements, and other forms of bad behavior contributes to the perpetuation of high-conflict situations.

In many cases, it seems that the legal system benefits from high-conflict cases, as they generate substantial legal fees and provide job security for various professionals involved. Without a presumption of equal custody and more substantial consequences for high-conflict behavior, it's challenging to see how the system will change, given the interests at stake for those involved in family court proceedings.

[newerwavers]

Absolutely, Tayken. While I understand the importance you place on case law and its ability to shape the legal landscape, I still struggle with your argument that this has definitively made the family court system better. My observation is that there's a significant disparity between people's opinions on the system's effectiveness, and this, coupled with a lack of transparent information, suggests that something might be amiss. When such disparities and suppression of information exist, it usually indicates that the full story is either not being told or is being actively concealed.

On a related note, do you have access to any recent statistical data that breaks down the outcomes in family court? Specifically, I'm interested in the proportion of rulings that result in 50/50 custody arrangements as compared to sole custody for the mother or father. This kind of data could be invaluable in truly understanding the current state and effectiveness of the family court system.

[rockscan]

I agree with your point about the lack of consequences for high conflict parties, Rockscan. However, I would argue that it's precisely because of the problems in the family court process itself that we often see this lack of blowback. The absence of substantial consequences for perjury, contempt, non-compliance with agreements, and other forms of bad behavior contributes to the perpetuation of high-conflict situations.

In many cases, it seems that the legal system benefits from high-conflict cases, as they generate substantial legal fees and provide job security for various professionals involved. Without a presumption of equal custody and more substantial consequences for high-conflict behavior, it's challenging to see how the system will change, given the interests at stake for those involved in family court proceedings.

The courts work on legislation or jurisprudence and are supposed to be fair for all. Unfortunately the fair for all means false allegations and bullshit actions. The court can't change itself, policy needs to be brought forward to become legislation. If you want new laws, talk to your local politicians.