Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child/ren adoption

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
    Who knew cats could spell so well??
    Now you gave her another idea... Oh man... How I am going to cross examine cat.

    Comment


    • #62

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Storm
        P.S for your information...We do have ORAL HEARING NOT TRIAL!!!!
        "Oral Hearings" are governed by RULE 14: MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY ORDERS to the best of my knowledge under Rule 14 sub rule 6 [14.(6)]:

        Originally posted by FLR 14.(6)
        OTHER MOTIONS

        (6) Subrule (4) does not apply to a motion,
        (a) to change a temporary order under subrule 25 (19) (fraud, mistake, lack of notice);
        (b) for a contempt order under rule 31 or an order striking out a document under subrule (22);
        (c) for summary judgment under rule 16;
        (d) to require the Director of the Family Responsibility Office to refrain from suspending a licence;
        (e) to limit or suspend a support deduction order;
        (e.1) in a child protection case;
        (e.2) made without notice, made on consent, that is unopposed or that is limited to procedural, uncomplicated or unopposed matters (Form 14B);
        (e.3) made in an appeal;
        (f) for an oral hearing under subrule 37 (8) or 37.1 (8); or
        (g) to set aside the registration of an interjurisdictional support order made outside Canada. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 14 (6); O. Reg. 56/03, s. 2; O. Reg. 91/03, s. 4; O. Reg. 89/04, s. 6 (6); O. Reg. 151/08, s. 3.
        Rule 37.(8) is "RULE 37: INTERJURISDICTIONAL SUPPORT ORDERS ACT, 2002".

        Originally posted by FLR 37.(8)
        REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING

        (8) The respondent may request an oral hearing by filing a motion (Form 14B) within 30 days after being served with the notice of hearing. O. Reg. 56/03, s. 6.

        Rule 37.1 is "RULE 37.1: PROVISIONAL ORDERS AND CONFIRMATION OF PROVISIONAL ORDERS — DIVORCE ACT, FAMILY LAW ACT"

        Originally posted by FLR 37.(1).(8)
        REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING

        (8) The respondent may request an oral hearing by filing a motion (Form 14B) within 30 days after being served with the notice of hearing. O. Reg. 56/03, s. 6.
        Not sure how these Rules would apply in the matter?

        Good Luck!
        Tayken

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Tayken View Post
          Not sure how these Rules would apply in the matter?

          Good Luck!
          Tayken
          I have no idea why would some one think that it will not be trial. Judge called it oral hearing in his endorsement but I think he meant trial considering his comment as of how it will change FINAL order that should be trial.

          Oral hearing or Trial it does not change much.

          Will know for sure soon.

          WD

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
            I have no idea why would some one think that it will not be trial. Judge called it oral hearing in his endorsement but I think he meant trial considering his comment as of how it will change FINAL order that should be trial.

            Oral hearing or Trial it does not change much.

            Will know for sure soon.

            WD
            The question is if "oral hearing" means a "viva voce" trial...? This is where someone like OrleansLawyer could fill in some blanks possibly in the gap on layperson's knowledge and would be kindly appreciated.

            Comment


            • #66
              Possibly interesting related case law:

              Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo Region v. L.M., 2012 ONCJ 238 (CanLII)
              Date: 2012-04-12
              Docket: 113/08
              URL: CanLII - 2012 ONCJ 238 (CanLII)
              Citation: Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo Region v. L.M., 2012 ONCJ 238 (CanLII)

              [270] When asked if she fit the facts to support a preliminary theory based on the documents provided by the CAS, Dr. McDermott said there was ‘no danger of that’. She indicated that when the mother described her history, Dr. McDermott was very concerned about her mental health and the patterns that were emerging.

              [271] In dealing with the elevations of personality traits, Dr. McDermott testified that an anxious parent may have difficulty parenting if they base their decisions on lessening the anxiety. Compulsive parents may be good parents depending on the degree and manifestation of the compulsiveness. Histrionic parents may be able to parent depending on how the flightiness and lack of judgment affects the parenting.

              [272] In the mother’s case, Dr. McDermott said that histrionic people cannot be good parents when they are histrionic to the same degree as Ms. L.M.. She described the mother as impulsive, dependent, resentful and not willing to take direction. She indicated that all of these elements conspired to create the situation in which she and the children were living. She found that the mother did not see the need for stability. She did not see the needs of the children clearly, and did not respond rationally or reasonably to issues.

              [273] Dr. McDermott confirmed during cross examination that the mother was theatrical and at times displayed shallow emotionality. For example when Dr. McDermott interviewed the mother, it was a period that should have been the worst of times. Yet the mother scored only 22 on depression. Dr. McDermott felt this showed a disconnect in that the mother had a high anxiety score and should have also endorsed depression at a higher level.

              [274] In describing a compulsive person Dr. McDermott indicated such persons feel intimidated or coerced into accepting demands and judgments of others. She said often such persons may be intensely angry. Although Dr. McDermott did not see the mother as intensely angry, she was described as elusive and flighty. What could show up in one person as intense anger could show up in another person as passive aggressive. Dr. McDermott said that the mother avoided issues. The workers were not able to pin her down on issues. While she did not get angry and appeared cooperative on the surface, there were resentments that played out when the mother did not do what she was asked to do.

              [275] Dr. McDermott testified that impulsive and histrionic characteristics are enduring personality patterns. She stated that the mother had interpersonal and emotional issues and her view of the world and how she responds to the world were well ingrained. Dr. McDermott opined that in order to change her personality patterns and world view, the mother would “need a heap of work”. Dr. McDermott did not believe that the mother had insight into her issues or her world view and how it hampered her life and the lives of her children.

              [276] Despite three days of extensive cross-examination, Dr. McDermott did not waver from her position that the mother’s stories and the actions she took were not rational, were likely exaggerated or were simply untrue. She claimed abuse at the hands of her step-father yet there were no records of investigations or steps taken. She fled her mother’s home, apparently because of the abuse, but then recanted and went back home. She could have remained in her father’s care. Dr. McDermott felt that a child might recant abuse but not then go back to the home where the abuse occurred.

              [277] With respect to the allegation concerning K.M.2 being sexually abused by Mr. B.D.2, Dr. McDermott felt the mother’s reaction to be odd. Rather than stay in the area and press charges against B.D.2, and get help for K.M.2, she went into hiding with the children for anywhere from 6 to 10 years. Dr. McDermott believed the mother exaggerated victimization, did not have actual details of the victimization she said she suffered and that nothing was followed through to what would be considered a normal outcome.

              [278] According to Dr. McDermott the mother consistently made decisions that were not in her best interests or the best interests of her children. She said during cross examination that hysterical people take bad situations and make them worse. She said she knew a personality disorder when she saw it and Ms. L.M.’s decisions were based on hysterical impulsivity, and that the mother did not see issues and those she saw, she minimized.
              This is probably one of the most detailed decisions posted in my opinion on the psychological impacts of a parent and their conduct. Dr. McDermott, unlike many mental health professionals, holds no punches in their evaluation, uses a wide range of criteria for assessment and in my opinion demonstrates a strong understanding of Axis II disorders of the personality, anxiety disorders and depression that I have not seen exhibited by any other professional in case law.

              This really should be a main thread posting for this case law. It is just too rich with details to have stuck in a thread possibly. It also demonstrates the vast difference between "evidence based medicine" in a parenting capacity assessment and generalized observations for which many parents are subjected to on "assessments" (be it OCL, or S.30).

              Good Luck!
              Tayken
              Last edited by Tayken; 09-11-2012, 06:15 PM.

              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