No announcement yet.

Blind justice

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blind justice

    Im tempted to write a letter to Canadas justice minister about how the changes they recently made do nothing to “protect” children and that the government needs to a) put in place punishments for those who withhold access and b) demand that judges follow laws that have been decided.

    Im specifically looking at the Farden factors and other case law where adult children had support terminated.

    My partner was advised his kid is going for a victory lap. Theres no need for it, kid would have been accepted to school with plenty of scholarships. Ex just feels she needs more child support. Which also means that my partner is on the hook for additional years of schooling because they agreed initially that there would be a cut off on the premise kids would go to school after graduating. His lawyer has advised its a no won battle and he wont fight it. Now his second child who refuses to speak to him and his ex can continue to refuse to provide any information and he can simply throw money into the abyss.

    Why is it a no win? Because judges are too chicken to follow laws that were successfully argued in the past. Several bold and brave judges determined that kids who have terminated their relationships with a support payor are no longer entitled to support and custodial parents who have played these games and alienated their kids are no longer allowed to play the system. But most judge don’t want to follow these cases and instead continue to punish good parents who want to do whats best for their kids but not be treated like a bank machine.

    Justice is blind but only because judges want to turn a blind eye to this bs that keeps continuing.

  • #2
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    Justice is blind but only because judges want to turn a blind eye to this bs that keeps continuing.

    Although justice is blind, it does feel up your genitals before rendering judgement.


    • #3
      can you provide the details for the case law regarding children not being entitled to child support if they don't see the parent???

      I've researched this subject to the death and I've found nothing that says that anywhere


      • #4
        If you search Farden on can lii and then go through the references. There are limited cases.

        My issue is that our lawyer said that kids who refuse to share information and say they want nothing to do with their parent get nothing but then on the other hand says that he can’t argue against the system its a no win high cost battle.

        Why did the courts come up with Farden and/or decide cases (like Law v Law) if they arent going to continue to follow through?


        • #5


          • #6
            Originally posted by kate331 View Post

            Yes and most of those cases involved a child cutting off contact and a parent having to continue to pay support.

            My partner has bent over backwards to work with this kid. She stopped speaking to him in 2014 why? Because he insisted on spending time with her. No lie. His ex refused him his agreed upon time and interfered in the two previous weekends he was with kid. He called his ex to task for it and kid decided since he was “mean to mom” she refused to speak to him. Since then he has sent cards, gifts, cash, cheques and called, texted and emailed. Nothing. Short of showing up on the porch (which could see him arrested) he cant do anything. He also saw her at an event and she told him to leave her alone and walked out. The only other thing she could possibly be angry about is his refusal to pay for a s7 expense which his ex couldnt afford either. He was unemployed and it was $1500.

            I strongly disagree with the rule that divorced parents have to pay. If they were married he could tell them to go f themselves and no court would stop him.


            • #7
              Originally posted by rockscan View Post
              His ex refused him his agreed upon time and interfered in the two previous weekends he was with kid.
              I look forward to the day where FRO or the equivalent was able to fine, confiscate drivers license/passport, jail, or otherwise punish parents who prevent access to the child. IMHO, it's basically kidnapping. It's the equivalent or worse to the proverbial "deadbeat parent" who doesn't meet their CS or SS payment.

              Somehow, I don't see this every happening.


              • #8
                I sent a letter to justice canada telling them that their reforms do nothing to protect children because they simply place kids with a parent more likely to withhold and deny parenting time.

                Back in the early 2000’s they had brave judges who made decisions relating to kids and parents who treated support payors as a bank. For some reason judges started moving away from that and continued to award support to parents who abused their power. If a kid is old enough to tell their parent to go f themselves then they are old enough to live life without their support.


                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.