Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LF32 "need to see daughter" pt.2

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

  • Your learning quickly LF32.

    There are good lawyers that put children first, that understand they have a vulnerable emotional client in there office and educate, advise and counsel on what's best for the kids.

    Actually it's the cheapest way,the path of least confrontation and reduces further emotional damage to all concerned

    When a Family Law lawyer decides to take advantage of a vulnerable client and inflame the matter, without even trying to mitigate the conflict, he's basically a thief....in this case he's stealing from tax payers who wanted to help low income people have proper justice.

    The collateral damage is of course emotional, and it's spread to all concerned, even to that sick pathetic LAO scumbag lawyer himself (drinking harder..or snorting coke harder) who started down this path.

    Does the LAO scumbag lawyer understand his "position" on stonewalling you and prolonging litigation and forcing shrinks into a child's life, that the likelihood his vulnerable client will brainwash a child is 100 percent...is abusive to a child

    No.. he doesn't care about children, his client, his fellow lawyers, the Court System, he's a scumbag

    You have to learn too suffer fools, LF32
    Last edited by MrToronto; 08-17-2014, 10:27 AM.

    Comment


    • GOOD Legal Aid Document it's there strategy on Child Protection matters

      http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...nHb_qCeM1SrhTQ

      Comment


      • CanLII Connects - M.W.B. v. A.R.B.


        I think this case applies...curious what everyone thinks.

        My point here is that OP's litigation conduct (ie. threats etc...) may constitute "family violence" by definition.

        Comment


        • I think you had better get yourself on that supervised access centre waiting list, if it's so long. Your ex may have grown to dislike the supervisor she previously agreed on, but you're losing her anyway, and it's obvious that there is NO alternative that your ex would consider. But if they were to deny the access centre, they'd look like complete unreasonable idiots. And the access centre has neutral, trained staff, who will write reports on each visit. If your ex also has to register at the access centre and wait on a list too, any delays in her doing so will be obvious attempts at denying you access, which could help your case. And when the judge asks you why you felt the access centre was necessary, you can show the initial arguments over supervisor, their final opinion of the one they ultimately chose, and your belief that without the centre, they would deny access altogether. You do not believe it is necessary that you be supervised with your daughter, but you believe it is necessary that your daughter see you, and it had become clear to you that this was the only way her mother would do it prior to being ordered otherwise by a judge.

          I wouldn't worry too much about the OCL report. If it's favourable, awesome. If it's negative, you just point out that your access is very limited at present, is deliberately scheduled at your daughter's usual naptime by the other party, and that it's challenging to be a normal parent under those circumstances when you want to make every moment count. Therefore the OCL did not witness everyday parenting to evaluate. Not to mention your ex appears to be coaching the child for the visits based on the unusual things your daughter says lately, that only started happening when OCL became involved.

          Comment


          • I'm not going on a 4 month waiting list for a ctr. I ve just about completed 4 months of supervised access. Ive already proved myself over and over. Wheres her hair follicle? They can all go to hell if they think I'm going on a 4 month waiting list. No more artificial visits. A ctr now? No. She chose the supervisor. Enough already. Somebody show me where I'm a god damn harm to my child.

            Theres an aweful lot of decisions being made here about my daughter with NO explanations, NO disclosure, NO proof. I'm finished being their little puppet.

            My ex and her crazy mother need supervised access to stop this alienation, sneakiness, foulness in front of the kid. Why are the rules put aside for them?
            Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-17-2014, 03:00 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
              I'm not going on a 4 month waiting list for a ctr. I ve just about completed 4 months of supervised access. Ive already proved myself over and over. Wheres her hair follicle? They can all go to hell if they think I'm going on a 4 month waiting list. No more artificial visits. A ctr now? No. She chose the supervisor. Enough already. Somebody show me where I'm a god damn harm to my child.

              Theres an aweful lot of decisions being made here about my daughter with NO explanations, NO disclosure, NO proof. I'm finished being their little puppet.

              My ex and her crazy mother need supervised access to stop this alienation, sneakiness, foulness in front of the kid. Why are the rules put aside for them?
              Read the article I posted in my above entry LF33 and let me know what you think...

              Comment


              • These are the parts of the definition which the court considered to be the most relevant to the case, as emphasized by the judge:
                (d) psychological or emotional abuse of a family member, including
                (i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats (Losing My Job), including threats respecting other persons, pets or property,
                (ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or prevention of, a family member's financial or personal autonomy (need of supervision for no reason, restricted access), ...

                (iv) intentional damage to property (damages townhouse), and(e) in the case of a child, direct or indirect exposure to family violence (coaching, alienation, making messenger, disallowing to see father OR EXTENDED FAMILY)

                [199] I find the [wife's] litigation conduct, related both to the selling of the commercial property and to parenting arrangements, considered in their totality, is a form of emotional abuse and harassment that constitute a form of family violence.

                [200] The [wife's] conduct and needless litigation has forced the [husband] to incur litigation expenses, damaging his financial well-being and health. This hindered his capacity to preserve parenting time with the children. Litigation has used up much of his emotional and financial resources. ...

                Yep!!

                [204] The best interests of children suffer when abusive oppositional behaviour and litigation fomented by one parent’s conduct harms the health and financial well-being of the other parent. This in turn harms the children’s economic safety and security.

                __________________________________________________ _______
                The other point is that the Family Law Act appears to have introduced at least three mechanisms to address misconduct in the litigation process, in addition to the existing provisions for frivolous and vexatious litigants set out at s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act.
                1. either court may make an order prohibiting someone from taking further steps in a case where the party has made an application that is trivial, is conducting the case in a manner that is a misuse of the court process or is otherwise "acting in a manner that frustrates or misuses the court process," under s. 221 of the act;
                2. either court may strike all or part of a claim or application or adjourn a proceeding until an order is complied with, under s. 223; and,
                3. following the reasoning in this case, either court may also determine that a party's conduct is "a form of emotional abuse and harassment that constitute a form of family violence" under s. 1, which may be taken into account in determined a child's best interests and, of course, in making a protection order under s. 183. See the interesting discussion of "court harassment" provided by the Legal Services
                Very good read Odinn. It is a form of family Violence. I am seeing my lawyer tomorrow. I will see if this can perhaps be an angle to discuss.

                Thank you.

                I really enjoy [204]
                Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-17-2014, 03:57 PM.

                Comment


                • How do we know D3 didnt say somehtign about ex? Or someone in ex's family?

                  What if D3's in CAS care? Reading Mr. T's document on the child protection process got me thinking about that. It's just all so odd.

                  Comment


                  • Your welcome. I'm arguing a motion one week prior to yours. I wish you the best.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                      How do we know D3 didnt say somehtign about ex? Or someone in ex's family?

                      What if D3's in CAS care? Reading Mr. T's document on the child protection process got me thinking about that. It's just all so odd.
                      I considered that, but wouldn't you have heard by now? Unless it was Quebec CAS?

                      Comment


                      • I like this...especially when a custody fight is going on.

                        Family Services Act
                        Duty to report
                        23 (1) Every person who has information, whether or not it is confidential or privileged, indicating that a child is in need of protective services shall forthwith report that information to an agency.
                        (2) No action lies against a person by reason of that person reporting information pursuant to subsection (1), unless the reporting of that information is done falsely and maliciously.
                        (3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and upon summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both.
                        (4) No proceedings shall be instituted pursuant to subsection (3) more than two years after the contravention occurred.
                        (5) Every person who falsely and maliciously reports information to an agency indicating that a child is in need of protective services is guilty of an offence and upon summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by paris View Post
                          I considered that, but wouldn't you have heard by now? Unless it was Quebec CAS?
                          Doubt it. His document also says they have 5 days of apprehension then contacts the parent that has charge (why do I think thats not me?...oh yea..my rights have been stripped) or custody order for the child. Call was made last friday. Worker was not in on friday when I called. Sounds like I'll be notified when theyre ready to notify me.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
                            I like this...especially when a custody fight is going on.

                            Family Services Act
                            Duty to report
                            23 (1) Every person who has information, whether or not it is confidential or privileged, indicating that a child is in need of protective services shall forthwith report that information to an agency.
                            (2) No action lies against a person by reason of that person reporting information pursuant to subsection (1), unless the reporting of that information is done falsely and maliciously.
                            (3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and upon summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both.
                            (4) No proceedings shall be instituted pursuant to subsection (3) more than two years after the contravention occurred.
                            (5) Every person who falsely and maliciously reports information to an agency indicating that a child is in need of protective services is guilty of an offence and upon summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both.
                            Holy crap. Nothing happened. This will get found out. Wonder if same rules apply to shrinks? Or are they exempt?

                            Comment


                            • Yes that's the section below 23 ...it's in Section 24 of Family Services act under professionals...same fine

                              here's the Tools CAS uses to investigate

                              Child Protection Standards in Ontario

                              Comment


                              • And you continue to make my shit life (at the moment) just that much better.

                                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