Fingers Crossed :D

[Tayken]

HappyDays - I just re-read your thread and I'm finding it quite hilarious how you attempt paraphrase me. There is a "quote" button. All you have to do is hit "quote" then you use your mouse and block the statements I have made that you want to refer to.

Yes, it is excellent advice to use the {quote} {/quote} features Arabian...

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...tml#post137449

HappyDays, you are wasting your time with this poster. No matter how much you clarify the poster in question I suspect is a cyclic reasoner.

Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with". The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

http://books.google.com/books?id=WFv...al+thinking%22

Good Luck!
Tayken

[arabian]

HappyDays:

I have no desire to debate with you. I am sure you have had a tremendous struggle in your own litigation and struggle to seek out whatever it is that you hope to get in family court.

My ex was an absolute disaster in court - and continues to be his own worst enemy.

You don't have to like me or like my direct way of writing but you should at least acknowledge that sometimes it is advantageous to have someone give their unbiased opinions. That is what this forum does for many individuals. While I am very fortunate to have had an excellent lawyer to represent me throughout my divorce, many do not have that option. My ex has taken me to court at least 6 times. I have witnessed, first hand, the mistakes he has made. When I see someone making the same mistakes I am trying to help someone by giving them the benefit of my experience. It is in no way meant as an attack on that person rather as some simple advice based on my own personal experience.

I likely represent everything you dislike - a female who has demonstrated to the courts, over 6 times, entitlement to substantial SS. My ex tried to disparage me in every way he could think of. For some reason he thought it would help him. He has had excellent legal representation for most of our litigation. He was, to put it mildly, a "train wreck."

I wish that I had known about this forum the year of my separation. I was extremely fortunate to have the benefit of a good lawyer but I know many do not.

Prior to my divorce I used to golf with a few retired family court judges. Who would have ever known that I would soon be mucking around in their world? I do recall listening to conversations when the two of them would joke about how a man/woman would be divorcing and bitching about finances... just 4 months prior they were "renewing their vows" in Mexico and now the expense of the trip was part of the dust-up.

You have to step outside of your situation from time to time and look at things as how others, namely a justice, would view things.

If someone on this forum offers an opinion that irritates you I would recommend that you don't shrug it off but rather take a brief moment, step back from your situation, and think about what was said.

I only hope to give another, and hopefully insightful, perspective on some matters.

[arabian]

Tayken, thanks so much for your analysis of my psyche. Are you passing out business cards yet? LOL

[arabian]

Bored Tayken? I'm not going to dance with you this evening. Interesting stuff about breastfeeding nevertheless.

We had another thread going about annulment. I can't remember which one it was (think it was a poster who had only "done the deed" one time - short term marriage. I was hoping that you would use your talents to dig up information on that.

[arabian]

Wow TAyken - I did something I seldom do... I read your post LOL. You conveniently quoted posts I made about the time when you were going off the wall and accusing me of a distortion campaign against you. Wow.

Anyhow, that was then, and now is now. You took a break for a few months and now you're back fresh and revitalized. I hope you are feeling better now.

Kindest regards Tayken. Many are so happy you are back to your old self now.

[Tayken]

Note to all:

Not the number of posts from the poster in question. How random they are and odd. It doesn't take anyone with a business card to realize what they are dealing with when responding to the poster in question. The flow of postings to this thread from this poster is prime evidence in support of what Happydays and others (Mess, Blink, FaithAndMorals, myself and others) have all pointed out with regards to this poster in question.

Other than "conflict" not sure what the poster in question has actually "contributed" in this thread?

I'll let NBDad be the judge of that as he is an actually respected poster and his thread has been vandalized, as often happens when this poster in question offers "advice".

Good Luck!
Tayken

[dad2bandm]

Had the latest hearing on the imputation of income on my ex wife today. Bit of background for everyone...
...
/request for good vibes

Good luck NBDad. I hope you get a productive ruling.

[Mess]

Arabian, 4 posts in a ten minute span is spamming the message board. Please re-read the board rules.

Please do not instruct other members how and what to post. The moderators are fully capable of addressing anything inappropriate.

I have yet to see you use the quote function, so it is doubly inappropriate for you to be instructing others to do so.

[beenthere]

Hope it all goes well for you ( and your kids) NBDad.
Cheers

[Fedupwithcrap]

NBDad, fingers and toes crossed everything goes good for you.

[arabian]

Arabian, 4 posts in a ten minute span is spamming the message board. Please re-read the board rules.

Please do not instruct other members how and what to post. The moderators are fully capable of addressing anything inappropriate.

I have yet to see you use the quote function, so it is doubly inappropriate for you to be instructing others to do so.

I use the quote function frequently.

Thank you for information regarding spamming. In the future I will limit my responses in a more time-sensitive manner which adheres to the forum rules.

Insofar as instructing members how and what to post. That certainly wan't my intention. I guess I should merely use the alert button in the future if something is offensive. Again, thank you for pointing this rule out to me and others.

[NBDad]

Thanks to everyone that offered good vibes....to clarify some of the points that were made:

I'm sure when she was 'popping' out those children of yours, you were fully involved in the decision to have children and endorsed her staying at home to care for them at the time

I did not endorse her staying home. She always returned to work shortly after the birth of any of our shared children. She was working up until October 2010, the final divorce order was signed November 2010. It had a clause in there that in hindsight should not have been worded the way it was. (She gave birth in Dec. 2010 to her oldest children with her new husband, she had JUST come off of a round of being homeless,and was back on social assistance while she "waited for her mat leave to kick in".)

The clause states that "no cs would be paid until she becomes employed". The understanding was that she would be on assistance until her mat leave began, and would be seeking to return to work after her mat leave ran out. That never happened.

She has not worked since, breaking the past pattern that was established with the other children.

You might also want to be careful about referring to "mat leave" as welfare

Her words, not mine. I know how the system works, there are a total of 10 children full time in my household. She claimed she was on assistance until her mat leave kicked in...however she owes EI a significant sum of money and is disqualified from those programs until it's paid back.

[NBDad]

WOOT....income imputed at 18000/year. The judge was very fair, and obviously put a lot of thought into his ruling.

He accepted the sequential pay stubs of hers that I submitted as evidence, despite her denials of them. (Mind you I have HER affidavits from 2 years ago that match the employer and the hours).

He basically gave her 30 days to offer proof to refute the paystubs and prove them incorrect. (Which she won't be able to do, hence why she has resisted releasing the info from that employer).

It was further indicated once she was employed, that we would use her current income (if it is lower, she has to prove that it's reasonable under the circumstances, and if she can offer sufficient evidence of this we are to adjust it. On the other hand, if it's higher than 18000/year we use the new income) Again, it gives her a BIT of an out, but in order to get it she has to provide proof that it's "reasonable". Since the lack of proof and support documentation is like 99% of the issue anyway, I can live with this requirement.

He stated he was forced to conclude that the information she had provided re: her NOA's were done to "deliberately mislead the court".

I did not get costs, despite being successful, nor did he order retro. As he put it, he is cognizant of the fact she is not currently employed, and this at least doesn't place her at an undue disadvantage. Fair enough, I can live with that. Something is better than nothing.

He also iterated that a parent's choice to stay home, while it may be what's best for the parent, does not trump the best interests of the children, who deserve their support. As she provided no evidence that either of her new children had an established "need" that precluded her from seeking employment, that argument was out the window.

A couple of points I take away, and offer as advice for any other seeking to impute an income:

1. Make sure you show evidence of available jobs in the area that your ex would qualify for. Neither I, nor she did so, and it was noted that this evidence was lacking in the judge's decision.

2. I included a couple of email chains where she indicated things like she would "not pay me a dime". If I had to do it over again, I would NOT have included these, as the judge noted they were not relevant.

3. I DID have an email chain where she offered support in exchange for more time with the kids. Emails like this ARE relevant as they show an ability to pay, on at least an implied level.

4. Her past ability to find jobs, even if they were at the low end of the pay scale, were noted. Basically she changed jobs a lot, but she WAS able to find work, even in the current economy.

[Exquizique]

Very happy for you that the outcome was favourable!!! Thanks for sharing the takeaways too!

[arabian]

Sounds like a fair and reasonable decision. Heartening to hear the judge focused on relevant facts (pay stubs) rather than conjecture. I think it was a good move for the judge to give her time to defend her position denying income (30 days). All in all a good day for you.