The "Process"

[LovingFather32]

You should really read the decisions cited from the case law that you and your associates all hold in really high regard...

Decisions cited

Andrade v. Kennelly, 2007 ONCA 898 (CanLII)
Bilopavlovic v. Bilopavlovic, 2008 ONCA 380 (CanLII)
Bromley v. Bromley, 2009 ONCA 355 (CanLII)
Caufield v. Wong, 2007 ABQB 732 (CanLII)
Garrow v. Woycheshen, 2008 ONCJ 686 (CanLII)
Graham v. Bruto, 2008 ONCA 260 (CanLII)
Hajkova v. Romany, 2011 ONSC 2850 (CanLII)
Hsiung v. Tsioutsioulas, 2011 ONCJ 517 (CanLII)
R.K.K. v. B.M.M. et al., 2009 YKSC 33 (CanLII)
S.S. v. E.S., 2011 ONSC 4246 (CanLII)
Ursic v. Ursic, 2006 CanLII 18349 (ON CA)
V.K. v. T. S., 2011 ONSC 4305 (CanLII)
Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC)

Thanks for the summary. I think you're right. It would be a good idea for my lawyer and I to revisit this case. My lawyer has already completed the factum/affidavits, it's still a good idea to have this case (and case law supporting it) fresh in her mind.

Thanks again

[Janibel]

Huh? Yes I can. So you feel that since she has our child full time, is dictating/restricting access that she shouldn't be trying to communicate maturely about D3? .

LF32 Yes you can, but she can't or won't for whatever reasons, and that is what a judge will be looking at. Trying to communicate with you for the sake of your D3 is the right thing to do - but she is clearly not willing to do that .... you can lead a horse to water ect .....

My Ex is batshit crazy, do you think that a judge can FORCE him to behave like a normal person? Good luck with that one ... at best family law can even out the playing field - what family law can't do is force a person to be rational. If you can prove without a doubt that your Ex has no valid reason for not communicating with you (bad faith) then you'll see some progress.

I'm sorry to disagree with you - but this seems to be the way things are. When one parent is unwilling to communicate, your options are very limited. You could go the bad faith route (very hard to prove), you could try portraying her as an unfit parent and go for sole custody (even harder to prove) or you can trust your lawyer and hope for the best.

[LovingFather32]

If you can prove without a doubt that your Ex has no valid reason for not communicating with you (bad faith) then you'll see some progress.

Of course she will say she can't communicate and it will be my fault somehow. Saying anything else may not help her case.

I believe post-separation to be a new phase in our lives though. A new type of relationship should be adopted. Not one of minimizing good qualities and amplifying bad ones. The day she left our lives changed and we both have mutual responsibilities now to ensure D3's interests are being met. I'm drama/conflict free. I'll always promote and respect her as the mother and other parent. I'm willing to be team mates in this. That would be in D3's best interest. I think a judge would agree and abhor her decisions not to even attempt it.

Discussing intimate details of a close relationship and at times arguing about them is now finished. Our common law relationship is over. This new phase (new relationship) should concentrate on D3. We should be able to discuss our child without any BS. I know I can.

The issue is that she won't even try. That's the problem. We weren't only a couple Janibel .. we were best friends. That's why this was such a slap in the face to me and that's why I may discuss things at length here sometimes....I'm still trying to make sense of it.

do you think that a judge can FORCE him to behave like a normal person?

Not sure about that. But a judge can enforce communication (communication book, OFW, e-mail, etc) and subsequently analyze which parent communicated more effectively.

I'm sorry to disagree with you - but this seems to be the way things are. When one parent is unwilling to communicate, your options are very limited

I'm in high hopes that this isn't true. It wasn't true in Justice Henderson's case I just posted as well as in some of Tayken's case laws just posted.
Perhaps I can understand if the parties attempted to communicate and all hell broke loose. But when parent absolutely refuses .. that must look bad to a judge. Is she scared? Where's the restraining order? 7 months and and not one word.

Perhaps when her LAO wings get cut and she has to start paying her own way through this her tune will change and realize we need to be resolution-focused.

[Janibel]

Perhaps when her LAO wings get cut and she has to start paying her own way through this her tune will change and realize we need to be resolution-focused.

Hopefully that day will come, but for now she is nowhere near that point. In time she may realize the harm she is causing your D3 - or she may not. I'm not trying to discourage you LF32, just giving you a different angle on your situation ... some people just never 'get it'.

I spent 28 years living with a man who I thought was a good father - now that we are divorcing, I can see how wrong I was and have little expectations that things will improve. The Ex tried using our son as a bargaining chip and it all backfired on him - mind you it took almost 3 years worth of hell for the truth to finally come out, but it did so don't give up.

Forget who she was .... now you are trying to communicate with a totally different person.

[LovingFather32]

Janibel,

That must have been hell for you. I don't think any of us come out of this unscathed. Kudos for being strong.

Forget who she was .... now you are trying to communicate with a totally different person.

Yes. You're correct. She's not the same person. I just hope her change in character doesn't affect my access/custody and relationship with D3.

[Headwaters1]

You should really read the decisions cited from the case law that you and your associates all hold in really high regard...

Got it. Joint, joint, joint, joint, joint...

[Headwaters1]

Actually the Caufield v. Wong is kinda funny in a sad way.

The mother seems like a really wack-a-doodle. You have to read it to get the full appreciation.

The judge says:
She views life through the unique prism of her own experience. She excludes all other possible points of view. They cannot exist in her world. She is right. They are wrong.

I like that, in fact I stole it for my own notes... But I bet the judge was dying to finish off with a "Wong" there instead.

[Headwaters1]

Perhaps when her LAO wings get cut and she has to start paying her own way through this her tune will change and realize we need to be resolution-focused.

That would cut out 80% of the BS honestly. A tighter assessment upfront for LAO would go a long way in cutting their expenses. Even if they got students articling to do a once over on every fresh case....before a new certificate on any new case is opened have them read through and look for these 5 things...

Then escalate the ones they flag to a review board. What a great experience for law students...what a chance to substantially reduce LAO outlay on the dung flinging that goes on in these cases...

I know a first year law student could have identified the wild arguments in my ex case.

And nobody is saying they can't go to court...just not having the government pay for someone's nonsense. Find your own money to waste.

[LovingFather32]

I enjoy the words of this judge as well.

Garrow v. Woycheshen, 2008 ONCJ 686 (CanLII)

The difficulty with Ms. Garrow and her claim for sole custody is as follows. She remains hostile to Mr. Woycheshen. She may recognize that he should have some involvement with their daughter, but her actions reveal clearly that it is her view that his involvement should be on her terms and under her control. Her emotions towards Mr. Woycheshen make it impossible for her to objectively assess the benefits to her daughter of an active, involved, caring father. She cannot recognize the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child. Her desire to control Mr. Woycheshen’s involvement with the child makes her blind to the overall issue of best interests of the child. I find that Ms. Garrow is the source of much of the conflict between the parties. An order of sole custody in her favour would create a real risk that Mr Woycheshen’s involvement with his daughter will be minimized or eliminated.

As pointed out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ursic v. Ursic, 2006 CanLII 18349 (ON CA), 2006 CanLII 18349, 32 R.F.L. (6th) 23, [2006] O.J. No. 2178, 2006 CarswellOnt 3335, one cannot be the instigator of high conflict and then argue in favour of sole custody.

That's what I was trying to say above. This judge said it for me.


[21] In my view, the best interests of Sarah require some assurance that her father may remain involved in her life to the degree that he wants to. A joint shared custodial arrangement will also maximize the time that Sarah spends with both parents and minimize the time that she spends with third-party care providers.
[22] There will be an order granting the parties joint custody with respect to the child Sarah.

[MrToronto]

interesting light reading

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...Kb1EZJvvBtpJPQ
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...Xd07u0mxi0d3qQ

one item will flow with a pm u sent me LF32

[LovingFather32]

interesting light reading

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...Kb1EZJvvBtpJPQ
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...Xd07u0mxi0d3qQ

one item will flow with a pm u sent me LF32

WOW! That first one was startling.

The same individual who wrote that letter is mentioned in this light reading as well. Which by the way is also a stellar read.

Parental Alienation (Canada): The good divorce

[Tayken]

WOW! That first one was startling.

The same individual who wrote that letter is mentioned in this light reading as well. Which by the way is also a stellar read.

Parental Alienation (Canada): The good divorce

See the posting: Truisms Exposed?: The difficulty with the term “abuse”... (Case Law)

[13] Allegations of abuse may be a symptom of the failure of a relationship. Blame is an inherent part of the allegation. Sometimes it is wholly warranted; other times it is not. When parties are not communicating, any slight or criticism is magnified. There is a tendency to minimize the other spouse’s good qualities and maximize the bad. Warring spouses are rarely in a position to step back and evaluate the other’s behaviour with objective eyes. Nor are they able to critically assess their own behaviour...

The challenge with Rule 24.(4) "Violence and Abuse" is that it is subjective in that the evidence is weighed on the "balance of probabilities".

For example, a lot of people screw up and write aggressive affidavits, and dwell on details in their arguments that have no relevance. They try to turn their legal matter into a forum for trying to address the systemic issues with the legal system. Judges often see this form of conflict and place (on the balance of probability) weight on the idea that the aggressive party who has gone off topic as potentially being "abusive".

Remember, the balance of probabilities works this way. If it is a 50-50 split the evidence is dropped. If the balance works 51-49 the evidence is weighed to the party that presented the 51%.

Many of the negative advocates who rely upon Rule 24.(4) and 24.(3) to try and "win" a case are failing. Suffice to say, the internet has exposed the common "truisms" that used to exist 10 (even 5 really) years ago. As well enough case law (see example above) has been published and read that the influence of nonsense from folks like Lundy Bancroft no longer permeates our family court systems as it once did.

If you want to look at really awful unresearched nonsense you can read Lundy Bancroft books. But, I would really recommend LF32 that you focus on the evidence in your case and not waste your time reading his materials. It will only waste your time which is better focused on resolving your personal legal issues.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[LovingFather32]

See the posting: Truisms Exposed?: The difficulty with the term “abuse”... (Case Law)



The challenge with Rule 24.(4) "Violence and Abuse" is that it is subjective in that the evidence is weighed on the "balance of probabilities".

For example, a lot of people screw up and write aggressive affidavits, and dwell on details in their arguments that have no relevance. They try to turn their legal matter into a forum for trying to address the systemic issues with the legal system. Judges often see this form of conflict and place (on the balance of probability) weight on the idea that the aggressive party who has gone off topic as potentially being "abusive".

Remember, the balance of probabilities works this way. If it is a 50-50 split the evidence is dropped. If the balance works 51-49 the evidence is weighed to the party that presented the 51%.

Many of the negative advocates who rely upon Rule 24.(4) and 24.(3) to try and "win" a case are failing. Suffice to say, the internet has exposed the common "truisms" that used to exist 10 (even 5 really) years ago. As well enough case law (see example above) has been published and read that the influence of nonsense from folks like Lundy Bancroft no longer permeates our family court systems as it once did.

If you want to look at really awful unresearched nonsense you can read Lundy Bancroft books. But, I would really recommend LF32 that you focus on the evidence in your case and not waste your time reading his materials. It will only waste your time which is better focused on resolving your personal legal issues.

Good Luck!
Tayken

The truism you speak of has been added to my caselaw as "loud arguing" has been her main case against me and the reason Ive seen D3 for about 24 hours in 7 months. The arguing was mutual and blown way out of proportion and never involved the child or around the child. My good qualities were indeed minimized. It was indeed a failing relationship which diminished any chance an objective outlook. Arguing shouldn't always require judicial intervention I agree. That's what counselling, etc is for.

[LovingFather32]

I am also very glad that my affidavit illustrates no aggression. Even some points that I was SURE would help my case my lawyer helped me realize I had to leave out. Need to leave e - "motion's" out of motions (or any court materials). That's why this forum is so great. Different perspectives. Different angles. TONS of opinions. Some love my threads/story .. some hate them. Either way it provides a little release from the stressful separation and all that Im going through.

Believer's, haters, cheerleader's, skeptics, .. whoever the posters are .. you all are contributing in a unique way. Some more constructive than others. Regardless, I thank you all.

In the end, court will be this:

Ex: mud sling, attack, war
Me: Child-focused/resolution-focused/respecting mother's role

There will only be one person seen as hostile and high conflict in this case. And it won't be me. The sooner ex relaxes (or her LAO wings fall off) the sooner she can focus on resolution OR do what Im doing and pay my way through. Right now she gets somebody to hide behind, fight her battles and pay the way. It won't always be that way.

I really do hope she is searching for a job. They say mother's with toddler's don't have to look for work but I don't understand that. I have the flexibility and support to look after D3 while she works. Looking for work should be a goal for her. Just my opinion. Not going to bring this up in court (think it goes without saying to a judge)

[Once.is.enough]

I am also very glad that my affidavit illustrates no aggression. Even some points that I was SURE would help my case my lawyer helped me realize I had to leave out. Need to leave e - "motion's" out of motions (or any court materials). That's why this forum is so great. Different perspectives. Different angles. TONS of opinions. Some love my threads/story .. some hate them. Either way it provides a little release from the stressful separation and all that Im going through.

Believer's, haters, cheerleader's, skeptics, .. whoever the posters are .. you all are contributing in a unique way. Some more constructive than others. Regardless, I thank you all.

In the end, court will be this:

Ex: mud sling, attack, war
Me: Child-focused/resolution-focused/respecting mother's role

There will only be one person seen as hostile and high conflict in this case. And it won't be me. The sooner ex relaxes (or her LAO wings fall off) the sooner she can focus on resolution OR do what Im doing and pay my way through. Right now she gets somebody to hide behind, fight her battles and pay the way. It won't always be that way.

I really do hope she is searching for a job. They say mother's with toddler's don't have to look for work but I don't understand that. I have the flexibility and support to look after D3 while she works. Looking for work should be a goal for her. Just my opinion. Not going to bring this up in court (think it goes without saying to a judge)

Or ex is successful with the judge and you discredited.

We only get your side here. I have no doubt that things are not always as they are presented


I am sure that will all be part of the conspiracy and either way we will get detailed play by play here.


The drama is killing me..... And I didn't even read the entire thread.