Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Questions relate to a simple case (advice plz)

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by caranna View Post
    Lundy Bancroft has devoted almost 20 years to counselling over 2,000 abusers. He does state though that he is not an expert regarding being an expert witness in court. I have read "Why Does He Do That" and countless other books on abuse, and find this book excellent...one of the best. Thanks for providing the opportunity to mention his book.
    I have read his book and the counter arguments to his book written by qualified clinicians and the opinions given in case law on his "research". Lundy Bankroft falls into the same category as Alyce LaViolette. If you are not familiar with Alyce LaViolette she is a similar "expert" who testified that Jodi Arias, who was forensically diagnosed as being borderline and now a convicted murderer, was a victim of domestic violence and acting in self defense.

    So, I always cautiously approach the content of non-professionals who "research". As Mr. Bankroft is not a clinician nor professional qualified to work with any "domestic abusers" it is concerning that he claims to have worked with 2000 people. Furthermore, his past employment history with the courts and his past employment is quite questionable.

    Originally posted by caranna View Post
    Tayken, you sound like a "self-acclaimed expert" yourself. Perhaps defer to the thought of having people decide whether or not they like any book. I doubt you've even read "Why Does He Do That".
    Perhaps that just like you, I am allowed to have an opinion. But, I differentiate my opinion by presenting counter arguments based on other research and opinion. I am not saying that you can't like his book but, it doesn't mean I can't think critically about his book and share my perspective.

    Originally posted by caranna View Post
    You sound a little less conceited with a bit less of a grandoise idea of yourself this time around. That's good. We all have our faults and just have to keep working on them.
    I am sorry you feel this way but, it doesn't require you to verbally assault me in this way and attack me in such a manner. Your comments make me feel "unsafe" and you have drawn conclusions that are not based in fact or are truthful and only state your personal belief about me as a person.

    General Information to those Reading: Caranna is trying to apply Lundy Bancroft's "theory" against me. Bankroft holds that domestic abusers hold a "grandoise idea" (egocentric) view of self. Unfortunately, the readers and followers of his litigation strategy don't realize that they are making reference to a clinical ontology rooted in the diagnosis of NPD. They also don't realize that by making a bold assertion like that they are themselves being "verbally abusive" by Mr. Bankroft's own definition. Canarra is neither qualified nor trained to even make a statement like that about a person. Canarra didn't preface her statement with "possibly" which places her in the cross hairs of it possibly being a libel statement made against me.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken
    Last edited by Tayken; 05-15-2013, 06:30 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by arabian View Post
      Thanks Tayken but I don't think this is a just a gay-related issue but rather one that impacts individuals regardless of their sexual orientation.
      Not sure how you could twist what I said and try to state the above when I explicitly stated (my emphasis added):

      Originally posted by tayken
      Again, I state that intimate partner abuse knows no bounds, sexual orientation, gender, race or religion. Men, women, homosexuals, lesbians and the transgendered are equally capable of engaging in and being a victim of "intimate partner abuse".
      Originally posted by arabian View Post
      It's pretty basic - you don't make up bullshit and call the cops to leverage obtaining house/kids/money.
      Agreed. What do you propose the courts should do when it is found to be true that a litigant has done this though?

      Originally posted by arabian View Post
      My point is simply that people on this forum should not be coaching people to do this.
      I am of the opinon that people on this forum who believe this should also be writing to their local "domestic violence" shelters asking why men are not provided services? Why gay men are not provided services. Why lesbian women are not provided services? Why transgendered women are not provided services? Why their materials are gender biased towards one gender and sexual orientation? Why they don't equally help all victims of intimate partner abuse?

      Originally posted by arabian View Post
      I thought you were against dishonesty, manipulation, filing of false charges - didn't you just post something to that effect? Sorry if I'm wrong. Thought you presented moral indignity about those sorts of things. My mistake.
      You seem to have morals and ethics confused. I am concerned with the ethics of the Human Rights Code that provides that all services should be provided to citizens irrespective of gender, race, or religious belief. Law is about ethics and not morals. So you may have my position confused with your own personal "beliefs" about me as a person.

      Good Luck!
      Tayken
      Last edited by Tayken; 05-15-2013, 06:12 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by arabian View Post
        I don't deal in hypothetical, rather facts, particularly when giving advice on this forum. That is what my remarks are directed at.
        I don't disagree with your statement. But, maybe you could provide insight why it is "ok" for domestic violence shelters to post the same generic information for clients to read and how that is different than the information posted to this forum?

        Originally posted by arabian View Post
        If the fellow feels the need to call the police because of a "perceived" threat on his person or because of what someone has told him to do on this forum then that is his decision.
        An over anxious person could gain the same "perception" reading Lundy Bancroft and the other generic posting to a domestic violence shelter's site and go to the police with a "perception" and not "fact". So, we should really explore all the opportunities to resolve this problem and not just focus on one individual.

        For example a case on point: "Bring Alice Home"

        Bring Alice Home: A Family Destroyed by Interim Place Shelter. - YouTube
        Bring Alice Home: - YouTube

        Originally posted by arabian View Post
        I repeat, no where has the OP implied that his person was threatened by his ex. My remarks are directed on what was posted not on what was conjured by someone's overactive imagination.
        The same could be said of the generic materials posted on domestic violence shelters that doesn't advise readers that false allegations of intimate partner abuse is psychologically abusive and in accordance with Rule 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act may constitute "violence".

        A child may be abducted in contravention of section 282.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada based on false allegations of domestic violence:

        Alice Caetano | Faces of Abducted Canadian Children | iCHAPEAU | Canada's iCHAPEAU Law

        Originally posted by Article
        The abducting mother used a Women’s shelter named Interim Place in Mississauga, Ontario as a shield to keep her daughter in Brazil by reporting violence without any supporting evidence or investigations by Canadian Police, Children’s Aid Agencies or by Doctors / Hospital records.

        The Interim Place shelter forwarded a letter and their own internal notes directly to Brazilian Court in support of the mother without verifying any of the facts or without providing a clear indication of the source of the allegations.

        Considering Interim Place is not an authority agency in Canada, the Brazilian Courts utilized these case notes and treated them as “fact” rather then allegations. In any reasonable court situation, this amounts to heresy testimony from the Abducting parent to justify their abduction and the preponderance of evidence, as required by the Hague Convention was not met, but still utilized by the Brazilian courts to harbour and retain Alice Caetano from being ordered returned to Canada.
        So, I am all for exploring the opportunities to improve the advice given on this forum in the context of "intimate partner abuse" but, I do strongly feel and hold the position that not only Mess should be the target of our complaints but, domestic violence shelters, Legal Aid Ontario, the Courts, Government, and others.

        I think there should be equal awareness of "false allegations of intimate partner abuse" and not just "domestic violence". People miss use "information" all the time and the services of organizations as well to get what they want. How can we help these organizations improve their materials so there is a better understanding of "intimate partner abuse" and "false allegations of intimate partner abuse" equally?

        Good Luck!
        Tayken
        Last edited by Tayken; 05-15-2013, 06:20 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          In addition to the evidence provided in support of my concerns regarding materials, advice, support and other advice provided by domestic violence shelters I present this evidence:

          Transcript of letter sent to Interim Place sent by the Minister of the Attorney General which can be publicly found at the following link:

          ALICE CAETANO CASE - Ministry of the Attorney General to Interim Place Shelter (September-29-2011).p
          Ministry of the Attorney General
          Central Autority for the
          Province of Ontario

          Hauge Convention on the
          Civil Aspects of
          International Child Abduction
          P.O. Box 640
          Downsview ON M3M 3A3
          Canada

          Tel.: 416-240-2411 (The Hague)
          Fax.: 416-240-2411 (The Hauge)

          September 29, 2011

          Sharon Floyd
          Interim Executive Director
          Interim Place
          Box 245 Port Credit,
          Mississauga ON L5G 4L8
          Tel: 905-403-9691 Ex. 2224
          Fax: 905-403-9808

          RE: Hauge Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
          Applicant: CAETANO, Cesar Pimenta
          Respondent: CAETANO, Luciana Drumond Pires
          Child: CAETANO, Alice Pires (d.o.b. June 18, 2003)

          Pursuant to our responsibilites as the Central Authority for the Province of Ontario for matters under the Hauge Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, we are hereby sending you this letter to obtain some assistance in the abduction of the abve noted child.

          The respondent, mother as named above has absconded with the child, and has made claims abroad that she was abused due to the fact that she was in your facility.

          Traditionally, women who are factually being abused by their partners seek refuge in facilities such as yours, attend court to obtain the appropriate court orders and file a report with the local police. Records have been checked and there is no relevant report with respect to abuse against the mother. She also did not obtain a court order or consent to take the child out of the country; however you housed her and the child and have not provided any causes for your involvement.

          Your mission states, "Interim Place provides shelter, support, counseling and advocacy to help abused women and their children break the cycle of abuse. Interim place provides serviecs in a manner that honours the diversity of women and children. We are committed to a philosophy of feminism, anti-racism and anti-opression." Although the safety of the mother is surely paramount, the interests of the child was not at all considered when assisting this mother.

          The respondent mother is a repcat abductor and should your facility conduct sufficient checks on the clientele, that information would have been realized.

          Our office has been advised that you have been contacted by the applicant, father's attorney for clarification on your involvement. Although your mission is to help women being abused at home, do you also shelter women and children who simply do not have a place to live? Secondly, the mother has made many claims against the father to the Ontario Court and has not been able to prove the violence against her. What recourse is taken to prove a woman claiming to be abused by her partner prior to your assistance? What advocacy was applied with the mother; did you help her in court or attend the police station to support her while making a police statement?

          Kindly advise if there is a legal department that can be contacted in this instance, if you cannot provide any details as the Executive Director.

          Kind regards,
          Signed: Amira Ali
          Case Manager, Ontario Central Authority
          Tel/Fax: 416-240-2411

          cc. Aida Pasha, counsel for C. Caetano

          Good Luck!
          Tayken

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by caranna View Post
            Mess, please don't tell me what I "mean to say". That sounds very minimizing and condescending.
            Yet, this is "ok" for you to do to me? Lets all rise above this and respect each other.

            Originally posted by caranna View Post
            I thought I stated my thoughts clearly. You were giving information about drastic actions to take when the OP did not even hint at any thing of the kind that would "merit" your advice.
            Interesting, this is the challenge I have when reading most of the comments you make to this forum. As well, it is equally difficult as they are mostly hearsay statements made against me and others for which you now are claiming against Mess.

            Originally posted by caranna View Post
            In spite of your inflammatory advice, the OP remained calm and kept on track. Good for him.
            Inflammatory is defined as:

            "(esp. of speech or writing) Arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings."

            Not sure how what Mess wrote aroused or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings? Please clarify your use of the term in relation to what Mess wrote. If you are unable to then I can only accept it as "emotional reasoning" from you to support your argument against Mess and hearsay based on personal belief and no facts.

            Good Luck!
            Tayken

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by arabian View Post
              Originally posted by Mess View Post
              At no time did your husband get a locksmith and move back in with his girlfriend.
              no Mess. This must be something you fantasized. Where you get this stuff is beyond me. Please do check all 2800 + of my posts and show me where my ex got a locksmith and moved into our home with his g/f.
              He may have possibly mistaken it with your advice from these examples:

              http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...24/#post118272

              Originally posted by Arabian
              change the locks - she has another place now
              or

              http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...57/#post101754

              Originally posted by Arabian
              change your locks immediately.

              "pimple on her ass" is probably some desperado lawyer she hired in the US.

              She didn't file her objection in time. I believe, however, that a person has 30 days to object after day judge signs order to appeal. Then there is a process where she would have to go to appeals court.

              I'd do nothing. Let her rack up her legal bills trying to figure out which court to file what where.

              Change your locks.
              In particular, I find the advice to "don nothing" and to "let her rack up her legal bills trying to figure out which court to file and what where" rather puzzling. But, best left for another thread possibly.

              Good Luck!
              Tayken

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by arabian View Post
                Originally posted by Mess View Post
                At no time did your husband get a locksmith and move back in with his girlfriend.

                no Mess. This must be something you fantasized. Where you get this stuff is beyond me. Please do check all 2800 + of my posts and show me where my ex got a locksmith and moved into our home with his g/f.

                Ok - it's not cocktail hour there where you live then it must be smokin hour.
                Of course it is perfectly alright for you to dismiss my point by implying that I've been drinking or smoking. You are being demeaning, you are not supporting your own points with any information or logical point. You are seeking to avoid the actual discussion by being insulting.

                That is just so much like you, I don't know why I expected anything different. But just so you can't continue to squirm and avoid answering a question, I will spell it out in simple terms that you will be able to understand:

                You, Arabian, are trying to make the point that having an ex let themselves into your home unexpectedly months after they have moved out is not threatening.

                You, Arabian, then go on to say that you protect yourself from this with locks, alarm systems, and the courts.

                I am asking you, Arabian, why you need recourse to courts and alarms if you don't find such a situation threatening?

                If it is not threatening, what would you charge them with in court?

                Show some courage, take a stand, and make an unequivocal statement. Don't just post saying that other people are wrong, implying they are drunk or stoned. Give us some factual statements for a change.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by caranna View Post
                  Mess, please don't tell me what I "mean to say". That sounds very minimizing and condescending.
                  Caranna, what you said to me was minimizing and condescending. Please do not put yourself on a throne and decide when I am being reasonable and when I am not. My comment to you was to point this out.

                  If you disagree with me, stick to facts about the question, do not judge my reasonableness. If you can't think your way through the question, then don't bother answering me.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Just my two cents;

                    IMHO I believe the upset from posters was that the advice given was extreme in nature given the circumstances. It is highly unlikely that the other party in this case would move back in..

                    There are always what if's and possibilities and knowing all options is good. Fabricating evidence is another matter entirely and destroys future credibility.

                    We have all complained at some time that family law is full of fabrications and extreme fears/anxieties of parties and that it clogs the system. Providing advice to further this is interesting. It does not help us improve our family law system.

                    What domestic violence shelters etc suggest on their posters doesn't make it any more righteous or warranted. Placing blame, or finger pointing as to 'what others are doing' is not an excuse. I doubt this would go very far in a court of law. 'Your Honor, the domestic violence shelter had a poster that told me to do it.'

                    Yes, it would certainly feel threatening if a stbx appeared in your home after having vacated it for several months, however enough to warrant a call to the police when legally he or she has every right to be there? Unless there is/was a history of domestic violence it wouldn't.

                    Many ODF posters are ridiculed for making false accusations. It is surprising when advice given is suggesting to do it. Other posters have advised similar things and they have also been torn apart for it. In the end following this advice will only heighten and prolong the conflict of the parties.

                    Rather then getting any ODF posters further emotionally charged on this issue, most should look at it in the way they wish and accept that we are all entitled to our opinions. How the family court would view it is what really matters here.

                    It would be of interest if this debate is to continue to see further case law regarding what actually happens when this advice is taken.
                    Last edited by OhMy; 05-15-2013, 10:16 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                      IMHO I believe the upset from posters was that the advice given was extreme in nature given the circumstances. It is highly unlikely that the other party in this case would move back in.
                      But, Mess was providing advice on a full scope of potential issues. This is often the challenge with this forum and the advice given. People often come in, tell you half the story, advice is provided, then rejected and new information is provided that would have changed the original advice if this information would have been provided in the first place. This doesn't make the advice "bad" per-say, just really hard to give when all you have is a few paragraphs (if they even use paragraphs!) to respond to.

                      There are often a lot of hypothetical in responding with advice on this forum.

                      Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                      There are always what if's and possibilities and knowing all options is good. Fabricating evidence is another matter entirely and destroys future credibility.
                      Exactly. (See my next post to this thread.)

                      Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                      We have all complained at some time that family law is full of fabrications and extreme fears/anxieties of parties and that it clogs the system. Providing advice to further this is interesting. It does not help us improve our family law system.
                      No it does not help. But, Mess provided ample post and pre warnings to his advice. (See my next post to this thread.)

                      Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                      What domestic violence shelters etc suggest on their posters doesn't make it any more righteous or warranted. Placing blame, or finger pointing as to 'what others are doing' is not an excuse.
                      I don't recall any finger pointing, projection of blame, etc? I was relating the advice given to other sources of similar advice that are not governed. Shelters being one example of organizations that provide "generic" advice. Contrary to the advice they provide, Mess at least pre and post conditioned his advice with warnings. (See my next post to this thread.)

                      Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                      I doubt this would go very far in a court of law. 'Your Honor, the domestic violence shelter had a poster that told me to do it.'
                      Nor was this proposed by anyone as a litigation strategy?

                      Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                      Yes, it would certainly feel threatening if a stbx appeared in your home after having vacated it for several months, however enough to warrant a call to the police when legally he or she has every right to be there? Unless there is/was a history of domestic violence it wouldn't.
                      Exactly and on point. To add to your point and bring some additional thought to the matter. Mess did put pre and post conditions on his advice to "think" about it etc... (See my next post to this thread.)

                      Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                      Many ODF posters are ridiculed for making false accusations. It is surprising when advice given is suggesting to do it.
                      I take issue with this statement. (See my next post as to why.)

                      Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                      Other posters have advised similar things and they have also been torn apart for it. In the end following this advice will only heighten and prolong the conflict of the parties.
                      I don't disagree but, when you advise someone to "think" about the advice provided it falls into their responsibility to act accordingly. In contrast my complaint about the publicly funded and distributed materials from shelteres and Legal Aid Ontario is that it doesn't often pre and post condition a warning to "think" about the situation before "applying" the advice.

                      Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                      Rather then getting any ODF posters further emotionally charged on this issue, most should look at it in the way they wish and accept that we are all entitled to our opinions. How the family court would view it is what really matters here.
                      See my next post to this thread and my opinion on this.

                      Originally posted by OhMy View Post
                      It would be of interest if this debate is to continue to see further case law regarding what actually happens when this advice is taken.
                      I provided some in the thread. Shaw V. Shaw. I am currently working on a "Legal Truisms" article on false allegations of "domestic violence" gone wrong in Family Law. It is rather long and I need to reduce the size as there is so much supporting case law to cite.

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Lets bring this back to what was originally asked (Question 3) by the original poster:

                        Originally posted by RainB
                        It has been almost 5 months since we separated. I have been living in my one-bedroom home and she has been renting in the city where she resides. As said before, she never paid any bills relate to this home. I moved all her stuff to the locker and gave her access. If later on she wants to move into the one-bedroom home, can I refuse her and keep her out? At minimum, can I keep her out until judge makes a decision who has the exclusive right to access this home?
                        Now, lets bring this back to what Mess ***actually*** recommended in his response versus what people ***assume*** he said, intended, or "felt" he said:

                        Originally posted by Mess
                        Pay close attention: If she enters the premises, you feel threatened. Don't forget that. This will give you cause for a restraining order. Don't argue, don't hesitate, don't be strong and tough, just call the police and state that a crazy ex-girlfriend just broke into your house and is threatening you. Don't say anything about being married, just get her out and file for a restraining order immediately. Don't be brave and calm and explain that this is your separated wife and you would like the police to tell her to leave. Think about what I'm saying here.
                        So, analyzing the response from Mess I note the following statements in the above factual evidence drawn from Mess' response from this thread:

                        1. The original poster is recommended to "pay close attention".
                        2. The statement "If she enters the premises, you feel threatened " is in bold and italics drawing attention to the situation in which Mess is describing.
                        3. Mess reminds the original poster to not forget that explicitly stating: "Don't forget that."
                        4. Then Mess again warns the original poster to "Think about what I'm saying here."

                        It is hard to "jump to conclusions" regarding Mess' intentions. His comment has a preface of a warning, identifies the situation in which the recommendation is based on and concludes with a recommendation to the original poster to "Think about what I'm saying here."

                        There appears to be a situation that people are jumping to conclusions that Mess' advice is made with malice intent but, I have a hard time drawing the same conclusion as he has placed pre and post conditionals on his advice and advised the original poster to "think" about it.

                        This is not to say I agree with the advice but, providing my insight into why I didn't jump on the advice provided. I would have worded it differently myself personally but, I am not Mess.

                        It is well in the control of the original poster to determine how to use the advice provided and ample warning pre and post to the advice provided was given. Maybe the concern is that Mess didn't explicitly state enough for some posters that this is to only be done "If she enters the premises" and the original "feels threatened"? I personally thought ample information was provided in warning of when, how and why to do this and for what purpose and it was concluded with a statement that the original poster was to think about what was provided as advice.

                        What we may be experiencing here in this thread is commonly known as "jumping to conclusions". By analzying the exact elements of what was said I am hoping to bring attention to this common pattern of behaviour in many of the discussions on this forum. This is a similar pattern of behaviour that happens with "affidavit frenzies" between two parties for long motion hearings as well. Also, I am trying to demonstrate how a justice would possibly apply the "balance of probabilities" in the matter by weighing the intent of the message and if it can be concluded on the balance that Mess had malice intent.

                        I am no judge but, if I were on this matter... I wouldn't personally rule that Mess was at fault to the allegations being levelled against him. On the balance of probabilities I would be of the opinion that Mess' advice, although it may not be "perfect" as some demand of him (and other contributors), was not meant with malice intent as he is being accused of.

                        No could Mess be held accountable if the original poster used the advice with malice intent and then tried to project blame at him by stating "Mess of OttawaDivorce.Com told me to do it!" Nor could the original poster, as many false accusers of "domestic violence" often do as an excuse, state that the "didn't know what else to do". The original poster was told what else to do... to "think".

                        Good Luck!
                        Tayken
                        Last edited by Tayken; 05-15-2013, 11:55 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Yes, it would certainly feel threatening if a stbx appeared in your home after having vacated it for several months,
                          To add, many posters on this site have advised multiple times (mostly) men that have moved out of their marital homes ill-advisedly to move back in. (search "honey, i'm honey...you'll probably find a couple)

                          Just sayin'

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Is this the matrimonial home though?

                            If they both lived there, primary residence, then yes they would both have equal rights to it... and she could be ill-advised to move back in.

                            In this case, they both maintained different primary residences before, during and after the marriage. She lived in a different city before they got married, while they were married, and 5 months so far in the divorce process.

                            She would have no just cause to move into his house now. That action, although very unlikely of ever happening, would warrant a call to the police.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              There is a difference if someone moves to a shelter, or a friend's couch, or a hotel for a few weeks and all of their personal possessions are still in the matrimonial home. In this case the advice may be to return to the home, especially if there are children involved.

                              If someone has moved out completely, and has new principal residence, has taken their possessions, changed their address on their driver's license, etc. then they do not any longer reside in the original address.

                              You are going to read different advice based on the situation.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I never received any her letter mailed to my address. I suppose this is enough to prove my home is not her primary residence? She left some cloths and books at home but I stored them properly in the locker (this is a condo). I gave her key code so she can have access to her belongings at anytime.

                                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