Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-19-2018, 11:10 AM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,758
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default Blind justice

Im tempted to write a letter to Canadas justice minister about how the changes they recently made do nothing to “protect” children and that the government needs to a) put in place punishments for those who withhold access and b) demand that judges follow laws that have been decided.

Im specifically looking at the Farden factors and other case law where adult children had support terminated.

My partner was advised his kid is going for a victory lap. Theres no need for it, kid would have been accepted to school with plenty of scholarships. Ex just feels she needs more child support. Which also means that my partner is on the hook for additional years of schooling because they agreed initially that there would be a cut off on the premise kids would go to school after graduating. His lawyer has advised its a no won battle and he wont fight it. Now his second child who refuses to speak to him and his ex can continue to refuse to provide any information and he can simply throw money into the abyss.

Why is it a no win? Because judges are too chicken to follow laws that were successfully argued in the past. Several bold and brave judges determined that kids who have terminated their relationships with a support payor are no longer entitled to support and custodial parents who have played these games and alienated their kids are no longer allowed to play the system. But most judge don’t want to follow these cases and instead continue to punish good parents who want to do whats best for their kids but not be treated like a bank machine.

Justice is blind but only because judges want to turn a blind eye to this bs that keeps continuing.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-19-2018, 04:14 PM
CoolGuy41's Avatar
CoolGuy41 CoolGuy41 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 78
CoolGuy41 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
Justice is blind but only because judges want to turn a blind eye to this bs that keeps continuing.

Although justice is blind, it does feel up your genitals before rendering judgement.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-19-2018, 04:46 PM
banico.inc banico.inc is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 7
banico.inc is on a distinguished road
Default

can you provide the details for the case law regarding children not being entitled to child support if they don't see the parent???

I've researched this subject to the death and I've found nothing that says that anywhere
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-19-2018, 04:52 PM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,758
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

If you search Farden on can lii and then go through the references. There are limited cases.

My issue is that our lawyer said that kids who refuse to share information and say they want nothing to do with their parent get nothing but then on the other hand says that he can’t argue against the system its a no win high cost battle.

Why did the courts come up with Farden and/or decide cases (like Law v Law) if they arent going to continue to follow through?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-19-2018, 05:32 PM
kate331 kate331 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 538
kate331 is on a distinguished road
Default

http://familyllb.com/tag/law-v-law/
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-19-2018, 06:31 PM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,758
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kate331 View Post


Yes and most of those cases involved a child cutting off contact and a parent having to continue to pay support.

My partner has bent over backwards to work with this kid. She stopped speaking to him in 2014 why? Because he insisted on spending time with her. No lie. His ex refused him his agreed upon time and interfered in the two previous weekends he was with kid. He called his ex to task for it and kid decided since he was “mean to mom” she refused to speak to him. Since then he has sent cards, gifts, cash, cheques and called, texted and emailed. Nothing. Short of showing up on the porch (which could see him arrested) he cant do anything. He also saw her at an event and she told him to leave her alone and walked out. The only other thing she could possibly be angry about is his refusal to pay for a s7 expense which his ex couldnt afford either. He was unemployed and it was $1500.

I strongly disagree with the rule that divorced parents have to pay. If they were married he could tell them to go f themselves and no court would stop him.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-26-2018, 09:23 AM
ifonlyihadknown ifonlyihadknown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 183
ifonlyihadknown is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
His ex refused him his agreed upon time and interfered in the two previous weekends he was with kid.
I look forward to the day where FRO or the equivalent was able to fine, confiscate drivers license/passport, jail, or otherwise punish parents who prevent access to the child. IMHO, it's basically kidnapping. It's the equivalent or worse to the proverbial "deadbeat parent" who doesn't meet their CS or SS payment.

Somehow, I don't see this every happening.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:00 AM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,758
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

I sent a letter to justice canada telling them that their reforms do nothing to protect children because they simply place kids with a parent more likely to withhold and deny parenting time.

Back in the early 2000’s they had brave judges who made decisions relating to kids and parents who treated support payors as a bank. For some reason judges started moving away from that and continued to award support to parents who abused their power. If a kid is old enough to tell their parent to go f themselves then they are old enough to live life without their support.
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 Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Justice Craig Perkins of the Newmarket, Ontario court steps out of bounds as a judge logicalvelocity Political Issues 2 09-12-2011 08:28 AM
Ontario Justice Bruce Pugsley's recent comments in family court logicalvelocity Political Issues 7 09-22-2010 06:10 PM
Brampton, Ontario court officials continue to obstruct justice by misleading and misi logicalvelocity Political Issues 0 05-23-2010 09:31 AM
A long hello SillyMe Introductions 20 05-16-2008 01:30 PM
Justice Jack speak out about CAS interviews of children logicalvelocity Political Issues 0 02-28-2008 06:57 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:27 PM.