Fluffy

[Janus]

From the most entertaining (and insightful in my opinion) judge in Ontario

http://canlii.ca/t/gt08x

The first paragraph, and then paragraphs 67-74. It is worth a read.

[arabian]

The only thing the judge agreed with the Respondent on was the dog bite....

Must be devastating for the the father to read this judge's decision.

Thanks for posting this case.

[Rioe]

Must be devastating for the the father to read this judge's decision.

No, someone who could behave like that is not devastated, just infuriated. He will probably hate the judge now, as much as he already hated his ex.

[figuringthisout]

Why would a man do that to his kids stuffed animal?
Especially while going through litigation? How could any person think that wouldn't look crazy in front of a judge?

[arabian]

I dunno. I personally don't particularly like this decision or rather the manner in which it was written. I usually enjoy reading this judge's decisions but I didn't particularly enjoy this one.

[figuringthisout]

I don't know if its more unfortunate that this guy stooped that low to get back at his ex, or if the judge used that simplicity of a thing to sway their order.

[arabian]

More "fluff" in the extraordinarily long judicial decision than was necessary. These people have to get on with their lives and co-parent.

I'm a devout English-speaking western Canadian but I recognize that legally we have 2 official languages. Language/culture are important issues and I don't believe the judge paid enough attention to this. If anyone requests a French OCL investigator and then receives an English one I think that is wrong and the testimony of the OCL investigator should have been disallowed. The part where the OCL investigator makes recommendations struck me as a cut-and-paste decision from another case on CanLii.

I was hoping to read more "legalese" in this decision as opposed to things about a stuffed animal. I also really felt that there was little substantive evidence. I "get" that the judge clearly disliked the father. All in all I felt it was an annihilation of a parent rather than a wise, judicial decision.

Hopefully the two individuals can find a way to get along in the future.

[Janus]

Upon a reread of the decision, I have to agree with you Arabian.

I even can empathize a bit with the fluffy incident. I bet the father saw it as the mother trying to have her presence around when the kid was with the father. The father saw it as an intrusion into his time, and overreacted.

The takeaway lesson is that while you are before the courts, you have to be super nice, because judges can use anything.

For the schooling, it seemed that the mother did NOT speak french, so placing the kid in a french school would not have been appropriate. French immersion was the obvious middle ground.

And yeah, if I was the father, I would be devastated.

[Links17]

The takeaway lesson is that while you are before the courts, you have to be super nice, because judges can use anything.

This only applies to fathers. Mothers get away with murder.

The dad is an idiot and he needed a forum like this.

That mother is a trained con artist, she already had 2 kids with another guy 20 years ago and has been collecting child support since then. Considering it was going to run out, she hooked up with this loser (50 yr old male flight attendant??? ultimate loser job) and now is going to live the high life while her older kids take care of the baby.

[YYZDaddy]

This only applies to fathers. Mothers get away with murder.

Oh I can attest to this being false in my case.

That mother is a trained con artist, she already had 2 kids with another guy 20 years ago and has been collecting child support since then. Considering it was going to run out, she hooked up with this loser (50 yr old male flight attendant??? ultimate loser job) and now is going to live the high life while her older kids take care of the baby.

Seriously? Hoping this is tongue in cheek.

[YYZDaddy]

I dunno. I personally don't particularly like this decision or rather the manner in which it was written. I usually enjoy reading this judge's decisions but I didn't particularly enjoy this one.

I mostly agree with the decision, however, completely agree that this was written as more of a piece of entertainment targeting (and humiliating) the father. He does sound like a dick, however, that's not illegal.

[Tayken]

I mostly agree with the decision, however, completely agree that this was written as more of a piece of entertainment targeting (and humiliating) the father. He does sound like a dick, however, that's not illegal.

It was written for a large audience of readers I assume. To help a parent from behaving in a similar manner. To do this you have to outline all the odd behavior.

The non-custodial parent would have benefited from having their "evidence" and "arguments" tested on this forum.

Justice Pazaratz could have quoted Yoda for most of this decision.







Etc...

[stripes]

I mostly agree with the decision, however, completely agree that this was written as more of a piece of entertainment targeting (and humiliating) the father. He does sound like a dick, however, that's not illegal.

I think the judge nailed it when he said the father was a good father but an awful co-parent (who on earth takes away/damages their toddler's stuffed animal because they're mad at Mom? She's going to be telling a therapist about this in twenty years).

And I agree with whoever said that this judgment probably wouldn't "devastate" the father, like it would a reasonable person, but would just give him more fuel for his fire of grievances. He's probably off on some other internet forum telling like-minded souls about how he was victimized by The System and his evil ex. He sounds like the kind of crazy you can't fix.

[trinton]

Taking the child's favorite toy and throwing it in the trunk was definitely not child focused, but he didn't commit any crime, and to not grant him custody because of a teddy bear I imagine will only make things worst. Who knows what he will do now in retaliation of the judge and how that would effect the "best interests" of the child.

Would he be more swayed to co-parent with mom if he was given equal custody rights? Or will he better co-parent now that he has no custodial rights and that the judge humiliated him? I don't see the father behaving any better now then he would have if he was given equal custody rights.

I am disgusted that the judge would even waste these parents time and money because of a teddy bear. This is all I can say:

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.

[trinton]

Anyone else think that if the mother had not consented to those access terms that the father would not have gotten anything more than every other weekend and maybe a mid-week visit?

Why is it that the court won't see it in the best interest of the child to grant 50/50 unless the mom agrees to it? It's not in the best interest of the child to have that amount of time with dad unless mom says so? I don't get it.