Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

“Emergency Order” threatened if I don’t consent during Case Conference?

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

  • “Emergency Order” threatened if I don’t consent during Case Conference?

    During negotiations prior to my case conference I had informed my ex’s lawyer that I had no plans on consenting to the terms they wanted (going from sole custody, majority parenting time and residency of my son to only having every other weekend). After I informed the lawyer of this, she threatened to submit an emergency motion because I am “unwilling to consent to terms during the case conference”. Don’t know what motion can be ordered but is this a thing if I choose not to agree to terms?

    For people that know my case knows there is no cause for an emergency motion at all. No child protection matters. Financial disclosure actually shows ex is now required to pay more CS.

  • #2
    Its a scare tactic. Ignore.

    Comment


    • #3
      They can bring a regular motion after the matter has been discussed in case conference without resolution but what you describe does not qualify for an emergency motion. Also in the case of an actual emergency ( I.e. life threatening situation) you would go to court immediately without a cc first. I have brought two successful emergency motions forward myself in which my children’s lives were in imminent danger from my ex. In an emergency your ex doesn’t even get notice. The judge hears your evidence, makes a ruling and then requests you return to court in X date ( usually within a week or so) and that your ex is now served with papers and can at that time respond.

      In my case the judge made a ruling that my ex have no access to the children at all. Once we returned to court the ruling was changed to strictly monitored supervised access with multiple conditions. 10 years later we have a rare order of permanent supervised access in place.

      Comment


      • #4
        I go back to my previous advice to take a breath and not let things get to you. I have a feeling your exs lawyer is simply trying to scare/bully you into doing what they want. Hoping you will say fine and agree to lower support to keep custody. Dont fall into their trap. Take a deep breath, go to your cc tomorrow and listen to what the judge says. Truly the judge is the one who will give the best indication of what will happen.

        Not to mention that the other side can file and say whatever they want, it doesnt mean they will win/get what they want. Stop letting their threats impact you.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Hide on Bush View Post
          she threatened to submit an emergency motion because I am “unwilling to consent to terms during the case conference”.
          Hopefully the threat was in writing. If so keep it in case it becomes useful later. My (limited) understanding was that nothing comes out of a case conference unless both sides agree to it. It's perfectly normal that one side will be asking for something that the other will never agree to. If the other side's lawyer is threatening you will something that isn't legally possible it certainly makes them look bad.

          The benefit of the case conference is that if one side is being unreasonable or unrealistic, the judge/master will probably mention this.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
            Hopefully the threat was in writing. If so keep it in case it becomes useful later. My (limited) understanding was that nothing comes out of a case conference unless both sides agree to it. It's perfectly normal that one side will be asking for something that the other will never agree to. If the other side's lawyer is threatening you will something that isn't legally possible it certainly makes them look bad.

            The benefit of the case conference is that if one side is being unreasonable or unrealistic, the judge/master will probably mention this.
            Communications between a lawyer and a self-represented party are always in writing.

            What I would do but haven't done before is take a very brief statement with evidence to Duty Counsel and ask them to be present for the Case Conference to prevent you from being taken advantage off by such a poorly behaved lawyer.

            Is your CC in front of a judge or DRO?

            Comment


            • #7
              I would think that it would be fairly easy to overturn anything you agreed to under coercion as they are clearly not negotiating in good faith if they are saying "agree to our terms or else". That being said, if there is no merit to their claims that a substantial change in custody is in order and there are grounds for an emergency motion, I would say proceed on the path you're currently on and let the courts turn them down.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
                I would think that it would be fairly easy to overturn anything you agreed to under coercion as they are clearly not negotiating in good faith if they are saying "agree to our terms or else". That being said, if there is no merit to their claims that a substantial change in custody is in order and there are grounds for an emergency motion, I would say proceed on the path you're currently on and let the courts turn them down.
                responses:
                1. No Response
                2. Play with them and never commit.
                3. Ask questions about their position
                4. Deny say "no"

                3 of them use up billable hours and in some cases upset the aggressive party, lawyer letters are not cheap.

                What are the best types of responses by self-represented parties to lawyers that are playing unfair like this?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Best response is to acknowledge and respond to anything valid or necessary with simple, clear answers that state your position and nothing more. No back story, explanations or justifications, those usually degrade into an emotionally based response rather than a simple professional response.

                  If you must respond to baseless claims or flat out lies, again, keep it simple and clear "I do not agree/consent' or "I disagree with this assertion/claim." For situations such as the above mentioned, a simple statement of " the applicant's requests do not meet the threshold for an emergency motion" or "there is no material change to warrant a change in custody/schedule/parenting time, as such the status quo remains in the best interests of the child"

                  Do not get drawn into pointless debate, and do not see every mention of the other party exercising their legal rights to pursue a motion/change etc as a threat. If their position and filings are baseless and unnecessary, they will not likely go anywhere.

                  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