advice

[janedoe99]

Thanks for reply. He did admit to all of this at mediation...but now he is saying it's not a problem and I'm way over exaggerating. That he just likes to have a cold one after work like everyone else. I think he's probably realized that it's impossible to stop and is just going to have his mother spend thousands defending his problem instead.
The thing that sucks is that I WANT to be reasonable, I want to co-parent and I want him hugely involved. It's not like I want revenge like a lot of people that choose to go to court. When him and I can get allong ..things can work. I want to do anything on my end but I can't ignore this problem and this is why we are going to court.

[Tayken]

We both have lawyers but he just got one on Friday. His visits are supervised and he agreed in mediation and his mother agreed that if she isn't there that she will notify me in advance. Even though it isn't legally binding..it is binding to some degree because if they weren't supervised then the mediators would call CAS. He admitted in mediation to driving with the baby drunk, threatening me and throwing things at me, jolting the baby, having a drinking and drug problem. They told him at the beginning that it was closed mediation..he thought that meant that NOBODY could know. However, if there is a safety concern...they are obligated to say something. They said if his mother isn't there...I don't drop her off. They said it is my obligation to ensure she's safe and with knowing what I have mentioned...I cannot. I'm hoping the courts make him go to treatment or something..I think that would be the only way he would stop..if he was forced.

Ok. Gotcha.

The courts can't compel him to seek help. What they can do is restrict his access (or remove it totally) if he cannot demonstrate that he is a good caregiver. They can order him to go to treatment and that access changes if he successfully completes treatment. But, in situations as described it only generally has a small chance of success.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

Thanks for reply. He did admit to all of this at mediation...but now he is saying it's not a problem and I'm way over exaggerating. That he just likes to have a cold one after work like everyone else. I think he's probably realized that it's impossible to stop and is just going to have his mother spend thousands defending his problem instead.
The thing that sucks is that I WANT to be reasonable, I want to co-parent and I want him hugely involved. It's not like I want revenge like a lot of people that choose to go to court. When him and I can get allong ..things can work. I want to do anything on my end but I can't ignore this problem and this is why we are going to court.

You did go to mediation. Which is more than most! The one thing that judges don't find funny (they are generally small "c" conservative) is alcohol and drug abuse in the absence of treatment.

There is a common saying among solicitors:

Any matter can be settled unless one (or both) parties are substance abusers or mentally ill. You are possibly stuck with option number 1... Substance abuse. Hopefully the solicitor the other party retained will shake him and get things back on track.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[janedoe99]

thanks tayken.
I sure know how to pick em . My lawyer is saying a system of graduation. Basically starting at maybe 2 access' a month starting off at an access center. While doing liver enzyme and hair folicle. After he graduates a brief time, he will go on to more supervised visits and if he is successful..he will get unsupervised. Currently he gets 3 supervised visits a week and I feel horrible if he has to go down to 2 per month...as a parent this would be devestating...but I trust my lawyer. She has had cases like this and the parent actually stops drinking.
I do see why the courts say that. Because dealing with someone with addictions is like dealing with someone mentally unstable. No rationalizing whatsoever.

Does anyone know if someone in my situation (ex with addiction) gets a very good shark type lawyer...is the lawyer going to defend his drinking? Or most likely tell him to get help? I'm sure he'll probably tell his lawyer the same as he tells everyone "I like a cold one after work" but not admit to the 10-20 additional cold ones. ugh

[Tayken]

thanks tayken.
I sure know how to pick em .

"Love is blind." It isn't your fault that the other parent has a substance abuse problem nor does it reflect on you negatively that the other parent does. What reflects positively on you is your willingness to work with the other parent.

My lawyer is saying a system of graduation. Basically starting at maybe 2 access' a month starting off at an access center.

Highly unlikely considering the current access schedule (3 times a week).

While doing liver enzyme and hair folicle. After he graduates a brief time, he will go on to more supervised visits and if he is successful..he will get unsupervised.

This is often hard to get. You must have some solid evidence (police incident report of driving while under the influence) etc... With the child present.

Currently he gets 3 supervised visits a week and I feel horrible if he has to go down to 2 per month...as a parent this would be devestating...but I trust my lawyer. She has had cases like this and the parent actually stops drinking.

You don't have to go with what your lawyer tells you on this one. You seem to be ok with the 3 visits a week. Also, it may be very difficult to change now that status quo has been established. Furthermore, reducing the access visits may cause conflict and more litigation that would be unnecessary.

I do see why the courts say that. Because dealing with someone with addictions is like dealing with someone mentally unstable. No rationalizing whatsoever.

The difference is that with addiction the rationalization is "impaired" by a known substance. So the challenge is that the linking mental health concern is determining why the person with the addiction problem is taking the substance. There is a fine line between chemical and mental need for addictions. It is a double edged sword on it all because you can argue both points and it often is. That is why we give heroin addicts methadone and often no mental health treatment... (Not that I agree just, that is the governing belief.)

Does anyone know if someone in my situation (ex with addiction) gets a very good shark type lawyer...is the lawyer going to defend his drinking? Or most likely tell him to get help? I'm sure he'll probably tell his lawyer the same as he tells everyone "I like a cold one after work" but not admit to the 10-20 additional cold ones. ugh

Yes, it happens all the time. Unless you have great cogent evidence fighting on allegations of substance abuse can often back fire. Make sure you have a really good solicitor to navigate through things. When you address the addiction you have to be very careful on how you state the identification. Remember that what you say is only 1/2 of the "balance of probability" that the judge is considering. No matter how many paragraphs you write... Unless you have cogent evidence in support of the allegations and something to support it more than what appears to be your own personal opinion... You could find yourself (and your solicitor) in a lot of hot water.

If you want more on how to approach the subject I highly recommend you read "Tug Of War" by Justice Brownstone. He covers it all in his book. You can find about 10-15 copies of his book in any book store in Canada generally. The section on mental health (all be it small) and substance abuse gives you some insight into the factors judges consider when making a determination on the "balance of probability".

Furthermore, no doubt that the other party in the litigation will raise a Section 30 or OCL evaluation. From the sounds of it the financials are too high for OCL to get involved... So Section 30. (Custody and Access evaluation)

Good Luck!
Tayken

[janedoe99]

Wow you sure know a lot, you must have gone through something similar or just have done a lot of research. Thanks a lot, it is very helpful.


[Highly unlikely considering the current access schedule (3 times a week).]

The reason why is because the current supervisor has on many occasions said "well there is nothing written that says I have to be present"
She has became harrassing towards my family and I..and she is now denying that her son has a problem. My lawyer says that if there are no other supervisors we can agree on, that we will have to use an access center. They are really booked so we may only get 2 visits a month to start.



[This is often hard to get. You must have some solid evidence (police incident report of driving while under the influence) etc... With the child present.]
Really? It is that hard? How else do they prove if someone is telling the truth about a drug or alcohol problem. Oh dear..that may not be good.
He has not had any DUI's in over ten years. I have documented evidence from myself being 3 months pregnant (I would send it to my e-mail to document with time and date) but really no proof that he has a problem (other than what others have seen). But I do have many witnesses of his temper and him throwing things and yelling in front of our baby. I am sure this is a consequence of drinking but obviously courts wouldn't consider it.
My lawyer says that because he has never been left alone with the baby because of these issues...that the courts won't take a chance with a baby so young.




[You don't have to go with what your lawyer tells you on this one. You seem to be ok with the 3 visits a week. Also, it may be very difficult to change now that status quo has been established. Furthermore, reducing the access visits may cause conflict and more litigation that would be unnecessary. ]
Yes I really agree with the current schedule. I think it's good that there isn't any long periods without them seeing eachother...however it's also not at night when he usually drinks. He is happy with it and it works with his busy schedule. However, when he is mad and fails at controlling me..that is when he starts saying he wan't 50-50 and then he won't have to pay child support etc. I'm not against 5050 but in this case...I am until he gets help..and I mean more than just seeing a cousellor once. But like you said...very rare



[The difference is that with addiction the rationalization is "impaired" by a known substance. So the challenge is that the linking mental health concern is determining why the person with the addiction problem is taking the substance. There is a fine line between chemical and mental need for addictions. It is a double edged sword on it all because you can argue both points and it often is. That is why we give heroin addicts methadone and often no mental health treatment... (Not that I agree just, that is the governing belief.)]
You are so right. My ex never smiles...he's never happy in the moment. I've never had such a hard time bonding with someone. It's like he's flat inside. He never had a dad growing up...his mom left the dad and took off across the country

Alanon was helpful because I thought no one would understand. They basically said that it was all normal part of the addiction. example: , him saying I made him drink, going into serious debt just to drink, getting into a fight purposely on fri night so he could go party all weekend...then come back monday morning appologetic etc. The support people there basically defined my ex.



[Yes, it happens all the time. Unless you have great cogent evidence fighting on allegations of substance abuse can often back fire. Make sure you have a really good solicitor to navigate through things. When you address the addiction you have to be very careful on how you state the identification. Remember that what you say is only 1/2 of the "balance of probability" that the judge is considering. No matter how many paragraphs you write... Unless you have cogent evidence in support of the allegations and something to support it more than what appears to be your own personal opinion... You could find yourself (and your solicitor) in a lot of hot water.]
does this mean that he will probably just get unsupervised access without any treatment or being seen by a dr. That is so scary. I can't even place that in my thought process.

[If you want more on how to approach the subject I highly recommend you read "Tug Of War" by Justice Brownstone. He covers it all in his book. You can find about 10-15 copies of his book in any book store in Canada generally. The section on mental health (all be it small) and substance abuse gives you some insight into the factors judges consider when making a determination on the "balance of probability".]
I think that is the book my mom was telling me about..she has it.

[Furthermore, no doubt that the other party in the litigation will raise a Section 30 or OCL evaluation. From the sounds of it the financials are too high for OCL to get involved... So Section 30. (Custody and Access evaluation)]
What do you mean the financials are too high? Also, why would they want an evaluation? That could make it worse on them.

Good Luck!
Tayken[/quote]

[janedoe99]

sorry about that post...it's long and something went wrong with the quotations

[Access Dad]

thanks tayken.
I sure know how to pick em . My lawyer is saying a system of graduation. Basically starting at maybe 2 access' a month starting off at an access center. While doing liver enzyme and hair folicle. After he graduates a brief time, he will go on to more supervised visits and if he is successful..he will get unsupervised. Currently he gets 3 supervised visits a week and I feel horrible if he has to go down to 2 per month...as a parent this would be devestating...but I trust my lawyer. She has had cases like this and the parent actually stops drinking.
I do see why the courts say that. Because dealing with someone with addictions is like dealing with someone mentally unstable. No rationalizing whatsoever.

Does anyone know if someone in my situation (ex with addiction) gets a very good shark type lawyer...is the lawyer going to defend his drinking? Or most likely tell him to get help? I'm sure he'll probably tell his lawyer the same as he tells everyone "I like a cold one after work" but not admit to the 10-20 additional cold ones. ugh

I can tell you I have supervised access right now because of substance abuse. I want to change this so I sought treatment and got clean BEFORE I started my motion to change in court. I have been clean for 15 months and my first case conference is in mid March. The OCL has accepted the case so I figure I will actually be in front of a judge for a decision somewhere around 6-8 months from now, so I will likely have been sober for more or close to 2 yrs by the time the motion is heard. My ex's claim is that I have not been sober long enough and therefore access should remain supervised. I obviously dispute that. My lawyer told me from our first meeting (at which time I had been clean 4 months) that I ought to be EXTREMELY glad that I'm going into court having already completed treatment and been sober because a judge would've been far, far less impressed if he/she had to order me into treatment. My lawyer said "you have no idea how much your stock goes up having already done these things before meeting a judge..." This way, we were able to attempt negotiations with my ex, offer to provide her forensic evidence of my sobriety (hair follicle tests), proof of completed treatment etc... and she of course wouldn't have it, but it shows the judge that we tried to handle this out of court and cater to her concerns about unsupervised access. So I would think the first piece of advice your ex's lawyer would give him would be "if you really want this, stop drinking immediately...go into a treatment program...don't even have a sip of alcohol if you can help it..." But the lawyer can only advise his/her client based on the information and version your ex gives him/her. So if his lawyer asked "do you have a drinking problem?" and your ex said "no I do not" then that's what his lawyer will have to explain in court.

[janedoe99]

Thanks Access Dad for your reply. If you don't mind me asking, what proof did the ex have on you to say you had an addiction? If you got sober, couldn't you have just said that she was lying and you could prove it?

I don't know if you would know this but if my ex admits something to his lawyer (thinking that it gets kept a secret) does his lawyer then lie to cover it up? Or does the lawyer have an obligation to be truthful if there is a risk?

Now that my ex has a lawyer, he is acting very different. He wants to come to my daughters dr appointments and he's being polite. I really hope it's sincere. I really hope the lawyer told him that he was acting unreasonable.
I get such bad anxiety when I am around him..I hope that gets better over time.

[Access Dad]

janedoe99: My ex already knew I was an addict when we were together. The CAS intervened and I was forced to leave their lives and see my daughter only under her supervision or they would've taken my daughter away from both of us instead of just me. She knows I'm sober. Her argument is that I haven't been sober long enough. She has since re-married and my daughter's step-dad is an important part of her life. He raised her and has been a father-figure to her since she was 22 months old.

Your ex's lawyer's obligations do not involve judging whether his/her client is telling the truth or not. If a client gives a version of events, then that's how the lawyer proceeds. It's not a lawyer's place really to try and force the truth out of his/her client. There is no liability for a lawyer that acts upon his clients' version of events. I wouldn't worry. If your ex is sober and does not have a problem with alcohol or drugs, that will be revealed in court. You can bet on that. The allegation is a serious one and I would think a judge would give your ex the opportunity to prove that he does not abuse drugs or alcohol. This can be done by way of a hair follicle test (like I got). The test can trace the smallest amount of drugs or alcohol in the last 6 months (sometimes longer depending on the length of hair). I have had two hair tests done, both combined show a period of 11 months completely free of any and all drugs. Family court have really come to prefer and rely on hair tests. Let him take a hair test and comes out clean, you'll know he's telling the truth and so will the judge, and if so, I assume the court will remove the supervision of his access, that is unless there are additional problems such as mental health or anger/violence issues. If that's the case, then I would assume he will have to complete some type of counselling (anger management probably).

[janedoe99]

well, I know that he had a problem. I watched him try and try to fight it but he couldn't. We've been seperated for almost 4 months and anytime we've talked about it and I ask if he's been drinking everyday he replies "not really". I know he does drugs but only pot to my knowledge and although he used to be a daily smoker..he seems to be able to control the pot. It's the drinking he has no control over. Whatever is in the fridge will be ingested. I don't know how courts will prove that unless they do a liver enzyme but most ppl on the forum says it's almost impossible to order that. I just worry that somehow he will slip through the cracks and my daughter will be in danger. I wish he could get sober just long enough to be able to see how different he is and why it's a concern.

[janedoe99]

That is crazy that you were supervised for that long even after recieving treatment. I wish you luck in getting unsupervised! Hopefully your ex will be understanding considering how far you've come.

[Access Dad]

janedoe99: Yes I agree that a court is not likely to order a liver enzyme. That's too intrusive. Like I said, a hair follicle test can test for alcohol usage. Maybe your ex is telling the truth about his drinking. Maybe he does only drink in moderation which is perfectly fine. I mean, like you say, you haven't been together in 4 months. If he's never been arrested for alcohol related crimes and otherwise functions normally and there's no independent proof that he actually is an alcoholic, I don't see how a court wouldn't give him supervised access. You must understand if he's as bad as you say, there's usuallly some other evidence that his life is inmanageable because of alcohol abuse.

[Access Dad]

janedoe99: I don't see how a court wouldn't give him supervised access.

Sorry I meant "un" supervised access

[janedoe99]

Access Dad,
What is considered a moderate drinker? He can drink 15-20 beers without stumbling and he does that about 3 days a week. The rest of the week about 6-10 beers a night.