Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 10-21-2021, 02:52 PM
pinkHouses pinkHouses is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 249
pinkHouses has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default calling out other parent in court

Without a medical diagnosis you know your ex is a narcissist but they do what they can to play victim. Women ::eyeroll::

When filling out an affidavit is it better to let a judge figure it out based on their behavior or is it OK to simply say Narcissist?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-21-2021, 03:00 PM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,203
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Your affidavit should lay out facts only. Calling the other parent names or making inferences about their behaviour makes you look bad to the judge. They see crazy people daily, they dont care.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-21-2021, 03:27 PM
pinkHouses pinkHouses is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 249
pinkHouses has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Thanks. Judges are smart enough to figure stuff out.

So saying the other parent went to disney world and left the kids at home but brought them back postcards should stay out of an affidavit?

(it was not that bad)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-21-2021, 04:19 PM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,203
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkHouses View Post
So saying the other parent went to disney world and left the kids at home but brought them back postcards)
How is this relevant to the matter? Were the kids in danger? Were they left alone? Was there an emergency? Was it on the other parents time?

Petty shit that upsets you is not relevant. Sure going away without the kids isnt nice but overall unless the kids were in danger (and you are using it as an example why the other parent shouldnt have custody) then it really isnt needed.

Ask yourself what is relevant proof to plead your argument.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-21-2021, 04:32 PM
LovingDad1234 LovingDad1234 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 309
LovingDad1234 is on a distinguished road
Default

Facts only. As tempting as it may be, your briefs should contain zero mud slinging and zero opinions of the other person. Let the other person sling mud all they want. It just looks bad on them at the end of the day. Moreover, it shows poor judgement. If they cannot contain themselves in court documents that are being read by a judge, it really shows their true character...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-21-2021, 04:40 PM
pinkHouses pinkHouses is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 249
pinkHouses has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Thanks.
It is hard to tell what is relevant and not sometimes.
They slung a lot of mud and got what they wanted so it works for them. Works for lawyers too.
I don't see the point in mudslinging....for $50/hr there should be someone to help clean up affidavits.....instead the cash cows roll on.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-21-2021, 06:39 PM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,203
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Not necessarily. It could be that there was mud slinging but their case was defended successfully. They could say all kinds of shit but if parts of it were true and relevant then that was why they won.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-22-2021, 08:35 AM
paris paris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 596
paris is on a distinguished road
Default

Mudge slinging… she got mad and punched him in the head.

Relevant… she got mad and punched him in the head in front of the children during pickup.

I’m not sure what it is about this thread that has reminded me of that.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-22-2021, 08:54 AM
LMum LMum is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 17
LMum is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkHouses View Post
Without a medical diagnosis you know your ex is a narcissist but they do what they can to play victim. Women ::eyeroll::

When filling out an affidavit is it better to let a judge figure it out based on their behavior or is it OK to simply say Narcissist?
Narcissist seems to be the new trend lately and judges are most likely sick of hearing that word. I suggest to not use it unless there is a professional diagnosis.

Try using word to describe the behavior instead:

"she involves the children is adult conflict"
"he misrepresented the truth" - don't say lied
"she show lack of empathy and/or poor judgment which effected the children in a negative manner"
"He has a history of......"

Stuff like that as long as you have the facts to back it up.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-22-2021, 09:36 AM
Brampton33 Brampton33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 192
Brampton33 is on a distinguished road
Default

Agree with Lovingdad1234. Stick to facts and limit your opinions. Unless you are qualified to render such opinions. Judges do this for a living. They smirk when a plumber starts delving into psychology. Each day they read briefs where one parent calls the other parent a horrible human being. People doing internet searches and trying to diagnose their ex based on google searches. Judges are sick and tired of parents trying to punish the other parent by taking away kids from them. Its a maximum contact principle unless its not feasible (ie: due to distance) or if there is an actual and real threat for the children's safety (ie: parent is a fall-down drug addict and leaves kids home alone).

Let the judge draw their own conclusions on behaviours. This is their domain. Lmum is correct:

"He has a history of putting his own interests ahead of the children. Such examples include: x,y z."
"He has a history of not paying child support. Such examples include x,y,z."
"She has a history of neglecting her court ordered access. Such examples included x,y,z."

Last edited by Brampton33; 10-22-2021 at 09:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wife moved kids without permission Super dad Parenting Issues 22 12-04-2019 05:40 AM
Parenting Plan- How specific should you be? iona6656 Parenting Issues 40 03-24-2019 10:04 AM
Spousal/Child Support Question Jenny Divorce & Family Law 6 10-01-2013 12:01 AM
Brampton, Ontario court officials continue to obstruct justice by misleading and misi logicalvelocity Political Issues 0 05-23-2010 08:31 AM
Impact of Stocks on Child Support peter8688 Divorce & Family Law 4 01-04-2006 07:51 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:37 AM.