Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Truisms Exposed: High Conflict Parents and the OCL

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by arabian View Post
    Simple answer - women who make more money then men are probably intellectually more intelligent and smart enough to settle things out of court.
    Once again Arabian you hit the nail on the head

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by arabian View Post
      Simple answer - women who make more money then men are probably intellectually more intelligent and smart enough to settle things out of court.
      So apparently it is acceptable to write sexis... oops, it is against men. That's cool. Carry on.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by arabian View Post
        Simple answer - women who make more money then men are probably intellectually more intelligent and smart enough to settle things out of court.


        My partners ex would NOT fall in this category.

        Some educated/higher earning women (and men) have the superiority complex which leads to high conflict because they feel right all the time. Having money or brains doesn't always make you smart.

        I think its empathy and a self awareness that allows people to settle. Understanding whats best for the kids and not wanting to waste hundreds or thousands help too.

        Comment


        • #19
          We should probably ask how these senses of superiority develop.

          Famous theorist Alfred Adler said the sense of inferiority is a problem in self-development…...you are threatened by the achievements and possible accomplishments of others, so you try desperately to position yourself above it somehow…with things like sexism, this is more apparent.

          For example, he would say not hiring a woman would cause you no threat that she might outshine you. He would say we often do the same types of actions with those of different racial backgrounds as well when we struggle with our sense of self.

          According to Adler (and I am inclined to agree), those who are secure in who they are, are not threatened by the achievements of others.

          So one might postulate that an individual didn't successfully transition through Eriksson's stages of psychosocial development Erik Erikson | Psychosocial Stages | Simply Psychology would be more susceptible to a superiority complex for a number of reasons.

          An unhealthy combination of genetics and life/learning experiences leads to a low self-esteem, self concept, self efficacy (all the self's) which in turn causes some to be threatened by the achievements of others and ultimately a heightened sense of self as a coping mechanism.

          These individuals make court "very" complex.

          Enough psychology for today.

          Comment


          • #20
            My post was supposed to be humorous...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by arabian View Post
              My post was supposed to be humorous...
              So was mine, thanks for feeding the trolls.... today is another day where trolls won't go hungry.

              Family Court is clearly a well-oiled functioning system providing an excellent service to the community.

              Some people say, their exists a concept of hypergamy, western women generally marry up. Not sure if it's true - anecdotally doesn't seem the case. Most couples seem of relatively equal value.

              Comment


              • #22
                I knew both the posts were tongue in cheek. I made my statement because I worried someone else would take it to be fact. High conflict people are that for a reason and money, employment, background, religion etc are simply excuses.

                Although I like Links' idea of a battle in court. It made me wish it was like roman gladiators and you fought each other. Ridiculous people who withhold children? Throw a tiger in there for good measure!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by arabian View Post
                  My post was supposed to be humorous...
                  Evidently you forgot the obligatory emoticon denoting such.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                    Evidently you forgot the obligatory emoticon denoting such.
                    ...and the humour.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by trinton View Post
                      Wrong. I'm not in the Hamilton Court House. I spoke with a lawyer in Hamilton. That does not mean I am in the Hamilton Court House. You must have not read my posts about retaining out of town vs local counsel. Making assumptions and jumping to conclusions now, are we?
                      Actually it is an assumption that is easy to make. Most people retain counsel in their local jurisdiction. As you have not disclosed this information the assumption is a safe one. Nor does the jurisdiction for which your matter is being heard in you are doomed anyways. Your attitude will be your downfall.

                      Originally posted by trinton View Post
                      As per eating me alive, I don't drink alcohol, I don't even drink, coffee. None of the things that the father in that case was critisied for are relavant to me.
                      Actually that was one of the things that the justice brought up. But, the conflict that the parents created was the major discussion in this case law. See the above quotes. Something you have again missed.

                      As a typical HCP you miss the relevant points for which you should be criticising your own conduct on. But, you also missed the spelling of those words so no doubt you will miss a lot of the "little things" that are going to drown your case in conflict.

                      Originally posted by trinton View Post
                      I'm in much better position.
                      Only you can know that right now as no one truly knows where you are in your case or what is truly happening. Like Justice Pazaratz says in this case law... I don't believe you.

                      Originally posted by trinton View Post
                      My offer to settle to the other party has everything that The Honourable Justice Pazaratz has ordered for the dad in the case you have psoted.
                      For yourself or for the other party?

                      Originally posted by trinton View Post
                      That man has more holiday access than I do - I don't have any. Gives me every other reason to continue to push through and marsh towards a trial.
                      I am not sure what you are "marshing" towards.

                      Originally posted by trinton View Post
                      That being said, if I was in fact before the Honourable Justice Pazaratz, quite to the contrary of your statement, OP would be getting eaten alive. Costs would be the icing on the cake.
                      You keep believing that and you are going to get a big shock to the system when you get your "day in court". My recommendation is that you need to reflect on yourself and your own conduct and stop trying to get lawyers removed from files with silly nonsense, focusing on the other parent, and start focusing on yourself.

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        You are doomed anyways. Your attitude will be your downfall.
                        Please tell me more about that.

                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        you also missed the spelling of those words so no doubt you will miss a lot of the "little things" that are going to drown your case in conflict.
                        I'm going to be missing a lot of the "little things" because of a typo. It's starting to sound like you're the HCP - one that makes real petty accusations.

                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        Only you can know that right now as no one truly knows where you are in your case or what is truly happening. Like Justice Pazaratz says in this case law... I don't believe you.
                        No point in me even seeking any help from you if you're not going to "believe me". We all have our biases. But if you want to know where I am in my case, I have gone past the case and numerous settlement conferences. I won my disclosure motion and there is a hearing coming up. My request for OCL was dismissed as "premature". It will be re-requested at the hearing. The hearing, if I am successful in, will be followed by an amendment and a trial.



                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        For yourself or for the other party?
                        The access terms dad got in that case are the access terms I offered for myself - except for that the summer will be divided equally.

                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        I am not sure what you are "marshing" towards.
                        Marching** - Marching towards a hearing and/or trial.


                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        You keep believing that and you are going to get a big shock to the system when you get your "day in court". My recommendation is that you need to reflect on yourself and your own conduct and stop trying to get lawyers removed from files with silly nonsense, focusing on the other parent, and start focusing on yourself.
                        I'm not trying to get lawyers (plural) removed from cases with silly nonsenses. I inquired on this forums opinion on whether I should remove OC (singular) and the feedback was "don't do it". You can exaggerate things out of proportion all you want. But I did receive the same feedback from some lawyers - that OC can say that the information was shredded. Other lawyers said if that lawyer comes off record then a real asshole lawyer could come on the other side making things even worst.

                        You've got to understand, removing a parents lawyer almost 2 years into a court proceeding is not a pleasant situation for anyone. It takes time time to find a new lawyer and to get them up to speed and you have to defend yourself during that time since you don't have a lawyer. That is what the courts did to me and there should really be no "unfairness" if it happened to the other parent as well. What's fair to "mom" should also be fair to "dad".

                        Doesn't matter, I've found a new lawyer that I like. Retaining him today. Should detach me from the legal aspect so perhaps you could tell me more about this: focusing on the other parent, and start focusing on yourself.

                        At the end of the day, I'm here to share, learn, and reflect. But if you're going to be the grammar police and make petty accusations about typos and then call my accusations of conflict of interest "non-sense", then I will most certainly respond.
                        Last edited by trinton; 11-18-2016, 12:17 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          As per the case - going back on topic - it seems like the OCL was appointed and the smart lady figured out what was going on- Her supervisor wouldn't let her do her job and was breatging fire over her shoulder: "WE'RE NOT DOING 50/50! WE'RE GIVING CUSTODY TO MOM!! THAT MAN IS ABUSIVE! SHE IS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE" - the regular non-sense used to gain advantage in court by mother's that have mental health issues.

                          OCL report get's all fudged up, the OCL person get's frustrated with her supervisor breathing fire over her shoulder, and the report get's dismissed.

                          OCL assigns someone else who supports women that allege to be "victim of domestic violence" takes her side and with bias, rules in her favour.

                          The judge, throws out the first report and gives credit to the second report, not realizing that the parents are at rage and will continue to be so if custody is not jointed:

                          Doctor Frank Williams, director of the Family and Child Psychiatry Programs at Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles was referring in a recent address to the American Bar Association[1] when he stated: (as quoted by His Honour Provincial Judge Alan P. Ingram in his address of 4 March 1989 to the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario)

                          There is the myth in some mental health, legal and judicial thinking that joint custody can only be effectively undertaken by co-operative parents. To the contrary, joint custody provides one of the best methods of stimulating a degree of significant and meaningful co-operation in warring parents who would otherwise continue years of battling to the detriment of their children.


                          Our experience leads to the conviction that parental identity — if strengthened in both parents — can increase co-operation and that co-operation should not be a criteria for joint custody vs. sole custody schedules for children. During the ensuing years, after custodial orders are in place, children of parents who remain highly unco-operative suffer greatly, and suffer just as much in unilateral sole custody as in joint custody arrangements.

                          Judge Ingram commented:

                          He stated that he found that the essential minimum co-operation needed by parents in maintaining a relationship between each parent and the children, develops more rapidly under a joint custody order or agreement. In sole custody situations, the non-custodial parent feels a loss of parental identity or a victim of psychological or “legal parentectomy”, resulting in feelings of powerlessness, depression and rage.

                          (See page 18 of Judge Ingram’s address).

                          https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/do...resultIndex=36

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            They started living together in January 2000.
                            d. They separated on July 4, 2014
                            62. DeGeer testified about his recommendation that the Applicant be granted sole custody. He explained:

                            b. Taylor has been residing with the Applicant since separation.
                            166. The bottom line for the Respondent (and for all litigants):

                            a. When a court makes orders in custody/access cases, those orders have to be obeyed.
                            b. If you don’t like the order, appeal it.

                            Based on a different case:

                            [14] The status quo is the one that existed prior to separation and not what is created after separation. See Kimpton v. Kimpton, 2002 CanLII 2793 (ON SC), 2002 CanLII 2793 (S.C.J.)
                            Dad should appeal. Status quo prior to seperation was 50/50. Judge told him he should if he doesn't like it - I would.

                            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