Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Chat (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Family Law Reform Idealism (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12282)

Rioe 06-12-2012 12:55 AM

Family Law Reform Idealism
 
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 06-12-2012 07:47 AM

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 06-12-2012 07:50 AM

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

Tayken 06-12-2012 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rioe (Post 96850)
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 06-12-2012 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines (Post 96857)
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 06-12-2012 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rioe (Post 96850)
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 06-12-2012 11:35 AM

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

fireweb13 06-12-2012 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tayken (Post 96859)



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 06-12-2012 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireweb13 (Post 96871)
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 06-12-2012 03:05 PM

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:24 PM.