Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question for StillPaying and Others Who 'Trust the Process'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Challenger View Post
    Dear MP, could you please lead initiate to criminalize Perjury in Canada and punish it up to 14 years in prison… But wait a second, it already exists, sections 131, 132 of Criminal code, so the law is there, just it isn’t being followed.

    And when it comes to judges, if judge ordered something and it isn’t being followed, if I was a judge, I’d probably find a way to motivate non complying party. I am talking specifically here on orders that I already issued.
    False allegations and perjury are not necessarily the same. Not to mention a judge in a family court case can't find perjury from the opposing party's claim alone. That requires additional work that is outside the scope of the case at hand. There's a level of investigation and corroboration. It takes months to see a judge for support and access, imagine what perjury will do!

    This is why I say there needs to be punishment for false allegations ESPECIALLY ones that lead to a false status quo. Perjury is like a unicorn, false allegations are much more blatant.

    As for your last point, judges need to order costs for people who don't comply and make them enforceable by FRO. My husband's ex had costs awarded against her for bullshit at a motion, she doubled down on her claims but finally got a lawyer to tell her to settle. If she kept going on her own she would have been schooled by the SC judge and lost more money.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rockscan View Post

      False allegations and perjury are not necessarily the same. Not to mention a judge in a family court case can't find perjury from the opposing party's claim alone. That requires additional work that is outside the scope of the case at hand. There's a level of investigation and corroboration. It takes months to see a judge for support and access, imagine what perjury will do!

      This is why I say there needs to be punishment for false allegations ESPECIALLY ones that lead to a false status quo. Perjury is like a unicorn, false allegations are much more blatant.

      As for your last point, judges need to order costs for people who don't comply and make them enforceable by FRO. My husband's ex had costs awarded against her for bullshit at a motion, she doubled down on her claims but finally got a lawyer to tell her to settle. If she kept going on her own she would have been schooled by the SC judge and lost more money.
      Rockscan, you bring up a valid point about the enforcement of costs through the FRO. However, I've found that even when costs are enforceable by FRO, the process isn't as smooth or prioritized as one might hope. In fact, I've found that pursuing costs through Small Claims Court can often be a faster and more straightforward path for recovering costs. FRO doesn't prioritize cost payments in the same way they do child support, and they're already dealing with a backlog of other issues.

      I appreciate your insights, as they help shed light on the intricacies of the system. My main interest isn't to complain about fairness or to change the system, but to foster an open discussion about its flaws and biases, including issues like perjury, costs, and contempt. A more transparent understanding of these aspects could better equip people as they navigate this complicated landscape. And let's not forget the 'elephants in the room'—there are numerous issues that many want to discuss but are often brushed under the rug or met with ad hominem attacks. An honest conversation about these topics is long overdue.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by newerwavers View Post
        My main interest isn't to complain about fairness or to change the system, but to foster an open discussion about its flaws and biases, including issues like perjury, costs, and contempt. A more transparent understanding of these aspects could better equip people as they navigate this complicated landscape. And let's not forget the 'elephants in the room'—there are numerous issues that many want to discuss but are often brushed under the rug or met with ad hominem attacks. An honest conversation about these topics is long overdue.;
        Hop on over to the political issues section and do some scrolling. Actually, do a lot of scrolling. It's been discussed a lot.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rockscan View Post

          Hop on over to the political issues section and do some scrolling. Actually, do a lot of scrolling. It's been discussed a lot.
          Rockscan, I appreciate the suggestion to explore the political issues section. However, I'm not entirely sure why you think this is primarily a political discussion. Could you point me to specific threads or topics that relate to our current conversation? My primary goal here is to gather evidence and data about court outcomes to help guide my actions going forward.

          Additionally, I'm a bit perplexed as to why some individuals in this thread are becoming so heated. The original questions I posted were aimed at gathering information and fostering a meaningful discussion. I'm unclear why there seems to be a reluctance to engage with those questions directly including by StillPaying.

          Comment


          • #35
            Your dodgy logic wouldn't understand the data even if you looked it up.

            Originally posted by Tayken View Post

            For anyone interested why you should ignore newerwavers posts see: https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/c...e%20conclusion.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by StillPaying View Post
              Your dodgy logic wouldn't understand the data even if you looked it up.



              StillPaying, thank you for your contributions to this thread. My initial aim was to better understand the differing viewpoints on the effectiveness of the family court system. While you've pointed out logical fallacies, I noticed you haven't answered the specific question I originally directed towards you. For a more meaningful discussion, it would be valuable to hear about your own experiences that led you to trust the system so deeply.

              On another note, I'm curious why conversations like these often become so heated. Instead of personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or posting random links to logical fallacies without contextual explanation, it would be more beneficial for everyone if we could focus on the substance of the topic at hand.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by newerwavers View Post

                StillPaying, thank you for your contributions to this thread. My initial aim was to better understand the differing viewpoints on the effectiveness of the family court system. While you've pointed out logical fallacies, I noticed you haven't answered the specific question I originally directed towards you. For a more meaningful discussion, it would be valuable to hear about your own experiences that led you to trust the system so deeply.

                On another note, I'm curious why conversations like these often become so heated. Instead of personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or posting random links to logical fallacies without contextual explanation, it would be more beneficial for everyone if we could focus on the substance of the topic at hand.
                Considering that your initial post referred to SP as a woman and that you haven't actually gone back and read his posts (which outline clearly his case), I can see why he has ignored your request.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rockscan View Post

                  Considering that your initial post referred to SP as a woman and that you haven't actually gone back and read his posts (which outline clearly his case), I can see why he has ignored your request.
                  Newerwaters questions and facts are still on point, regardless of SP's gender. Regardless, lets all be honest here. The MAJORITY of cases, are about money. Not the best interest of the child. Its, about, how much can I squeeze out of my ex? When you have a High Conflict ex, it can get really messy; as they go for Table CS for 18 years AND try to destroy you financially in the court system doing so.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by rockscan View Post

                    Considering that your initial post referred to SP as a woman and that you haven't actually gone back and read his posts (which outline clearly his case), I can see why he has ignored your request.
                    Rockscan, I'm finding it difficult to follow the logic here. Both StillPaying and Tayken have made generalizations about my situation, which have proven to be incorrect. For example, StillPaying seemed to imply that I hadn't been through the 'grinder' of Family Court, while Tayken suggested that my high-conflict ex isn't diagnosed with NPD. Both assumptions were inaccurate, yet nobody considered those points to be conversation-stoppers. Now, when I apparently make an incorrect assumption based on the limited information available to me, it's suddenly a reason to discontinue the discussion? That seems like a double standard, which I believe falls into the category of logical fallacies, given that Tayken and StillPaying are so keen on pointing them out.

                    Moreover, it's not productive to simply drop conversations when someone makes an inaccurate assumption. Mistakes or misunderstandings can serve as stepping stones to clarify viewpoints and improve the discussion, not end it.

                    Could you please provide a link to the posts where StillPaying outlines his case? I'm genuinely interested in understanding how his experience differed from mine, particularly as a father going through a divorce with a high-conflict individual and still speaking so positively of the system. I have to emphasize that the current user interface of this forum makes it incredibly difficult to easily view old posts, adding another significant layer of challenge to having a meaningful conversation here.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DivorcedDad51 View Post

                      Newerwaters questions and facts are still on point, regardless of SP's gender. Regardless, lets all be honest here. The MAJORITY of cases, are about money. Not the best interest of the child. Its, about, how much can I squeeze out of my ex? When you have a High Conflict ex, it can get really messy; as they go for Table CS for 18 years AND try to destroy you financially in the court system doing so.
                      DivorcedDad, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. The issue often boils down to money rather than the genuine best interest of the child, especially when dealing with a High Conflict ex. The lack of sufficient deterrents for bad behavior in the current system perpetuates these long, drawn-out, and costly battles. This happens regardless of the gender of the parties involved. Unfortunately, this serves no one well—least of all the children at the center of these disputes. Frankly, I'm not quite sure what we're disagreeing about here. Even Rockscan seems to concur on this point.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Newerwaves, you haven't even outlined your situation to provide additional context. Unless you are a previous poster coming back with a new name to avoid previous scrutiny or “bias”.

                        You are welcome to do a search of SP's name and his posts. I'm not doing it for you.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DivorcedDad51 View Post

                          Newerwaters questions and facts are still on point, regardless of SP's gender. Regardless, lets all be honest here. The MAJORITY of cases, are about money. Not the best interest of the child. Its, about, how much can I squeeze out of my ex? When you have a High Conflict ex, it can get really messy; as they go for Table CS for 18 years AND try to destroy you financially in the court system doing so.
                          I find this argument comes mainly from those who have to pay support and mostly from high income earners.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by rockscan View Post

                            I find this argument comes mainly from those who have to pay support and mostly from high income earners.
                            Rockscan, it's not constructive to make assumptions about where these arguments are coming from—especially when you're going to criticize me for making assumptions. Your statement could easily be countered with another assumption, such as saying your type of comment usually comes from women from broken homes with unresolved daddy issues where the dad didn't get custody, thereby harboring anger towards men. Or from women who were successful in court, managing to keep an otherwise excellent dad at 38% custody, and now need to rationalize their actions of depriving their children of a stable father figure due to the greed of wanting to secure full offset child support. I'm not sure if it's a fallacy, but it's certainly hypocrisy. Assumptions like these don't move the conversation forward; they merely perpetuate divisiveness.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                              Newerwaves, you haven't even outlined your situation to provide additional context. Unless you are a previous poster coming back with a new name to avoid previous scrutiny or “bias”.

                              You are welcome to do a search of SP's name and his posts. I'm not doing it for you.
                              Rockscan, my situation is similar in many ways to WorkingDad and DadWhoDidntGiveUp, which is why I find your comments about the lack of deterrents for bad behavior so relatable. I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you and StillPaying are becoming so heated about this topic. Additionally, I'd love to hear more about where you're coming from. Understanding your perspective could add valuable context to this ongoing discussion. The aim is to have a meaningful dialogue, not a confrontational one.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by newerwavers View Post

                                Rockscan, it's not constructive to make assumptions about where these arguments are coming from—especially when you're going to criticize me for making assumptions. Your statement could easily be countered with another assumption, such as saying your type of comment usually comes from women from broken homes with unresolved daddy issues where the dad didn't get custody, thereby harboring anger towards men. Or from women who were successful in court, managing to keep an otherwise excellent dad at 38% custody, and now need to rationalize their actions of depriving their children of a stable father figure due to the greed of wanting to secure full offset child support. I'm not sure if it's a fallacy, but it's certainly hypocrisy. Assumptions like these don't move the conversation forward; they merely perpetuate divisiveness.
                                Im not making an assumption. Im making an observation based on the posts that come up periodically on this topic as well as the background of the posters making them.

                                Your posts aren't moving anything forward. You don't like anyone who disagrees with you, refuses to do the legwork for you or doesn't meet your demands.

                                And saying your case is like others doesn't mean anything. Each of those cases had their own elements and those posters were willing to share.

                                As SP said, if you haven't made it to 50/50 by the SC, there's a reason.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X