Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

rockscan · #21 05-24-2022, 10:16 PM

At the risk of having this thread closed I think the mods need to step in and do something about the hijacking that has happened. Which is sad because cases like these should be celebrated as examples of change that is needed. Not to mention that the female survivors on this forum who could benefit from knowing these cases get punished further by having these discussions stopped because a small group didn�t like being asked to stop trashing them. Which means that instead of being reprimanded for hijacking a topic unnecessarily, the thread will be closed to further IMPORTANT discussion and case sharing.

It is ironic that the people accusing the women of male bashing are, in their own posts, female bashing.

This thread is also an example of why these cases are important�survivors of domestic violence having their trauma acknowledged by the courts and survivors of domestic violence kindly asking that their vindication not be diluted on this forum.

blinkandimgone · #22 05-24-2022, 10:20 PM

Agreed.

This thread doesn't need to be hijacked with 'whataboutisms'.

If anyone would like to discuss false accusations or other topics, please make your own thread and discuss it there.

Jeff · #23 05-24-2022, 11:03 PM

Thanks.

Yes, please keep the thread focused on the issue being discussed.

I have moved the off topic posts to a separate thread in the forum.

I have sticky'd this thread.

pinkHouses · #24 05-25-2022, 02:04 AM

Ok. But what certainly is not off topic is the insinuation (directly implied by example of a man being a victim because another man did the violence) that only men commit violence and it isn't all physical.
The definition of violence in Family Law is different. So also watch what you say to avoid being caught up in it.
I also think that this was an extreme case and only time will tell if this gets applied to cases more in the norm.

blinkandimgone · #25 05-25-2022, 06:37 AM

Not one person has said or implied only men are abusers.

Stop trying to minimize the importance of this case, and devalue the accomplishment of the self repped mother.

Stillbreathing · #26 05-25-2022, 09:50 AM

I think allowing the mother to bring a tort claim under the umbrella of family litigation and making this monumental ruling, the judge is sending a strong message that:
1. Domestic Violence is real and does exist in all its ugliness
2. Society and the courts will no longer tolerate intimate partner abuse
3. If you are an abuser, beware because the court is willing to impose serious financial consequences against you
4. Domestic abuse is not a victimless crime and victims should be compensated

I also feel this case may help in other ways as well. My lawyer discouraged me from focusing too much attention on the domestic abuse during the marriage or litigation. They felt that given the current court atmosphere it would be best to use other arguments to advance my case.
The aforementioned case may now give lawyers ammunition to bring to light domestic violence suffered by their clients versus shying away from it!

blinkandimgone · #27 05-25-2022, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stillbreathing

I think allowing the mother to bring a tort claim under the umbrella of family litigation and making this monumental ruling, the judge is sending a strong message that:
1. Domestic Violence is real and does exist in all its ugliness
2. Society and the courts will no longer tolerate intimate partner abuse
3. If you are an abuser, beware because the court is willing to impose serious financial consequences against you
4. Domestic abuse is not a victimless crime and victims should be compensated

I also feel this case may help in other ways as well. My lawyer discouraged me from focusing too much attention on the domestic abuse during the marriage or litigation. They felt that given the current court atmosphere it would be best to use other arguments to advance my case.
The aforementioned case may now give lawyers ammunition to bring to light domestic violence suffered by their clients versus shying away from it!

I think many, many people have been discouraged from adding any focus on DV in their cases for a very long time, especially when there are kids involved. Keeping the focus on the kids is important, however having recourse for DV is equally important.

pinkHouses · #28 05-25-2022, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blinkandimgone

Stop trying to minimize the importance of this case, and devalue the accomplishment of the self repped mother.

You just made that up.
Never did I devalue the accomplishments of the self-repped LITTIGANT. I don't understand why them being a mother is important here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blinkandimgone

Not one person has said or implied only men are abusers.

It is like this board has its own personal definition of DV; Family Law be damned.

Here there is the acknowledgement that men can be abused if another man does it. Implication by exclusion.

Why not say be more inclusive and quicker by saying "Intimate partner violence can be committed by any one partner against the other, period":

Quote:

Originally Posted by iona6656

Intimate partner violence- which happens in every context, e.g. committed against the husband in a cisgender marriage; same sex unions, etc- all of them are important and as a society we need to start doing more to recognize this issue and the impact on family court proceedings.

blinkandimgone · #29 05-25-2022, 12:00 PM

Neither this thread nor this case are about defining DV to suit a particular person, or male vs female abusers.

If you don't have anything of value to add to the original topic, please take those comments to a thread dedicated to those topics.

StillPaying · #30 05-25-2022, 12:16 PM

I don't see this as amazing, and certainly not a reason to go back to record more abuse which will always come as a perceived setup. This family court IPV acknowledgment is nothing more than a money grab while you still 50/50 coparent with this person.

IMO, criminal court and protective orders are available. If you decide to forgive and stay with them, asking for money later does nothing. Family court has always dealt with abuse, so I don't see a payout making it better.

It was hard, but I could understand paying my ex ss along with the equalization payment. To turn around and take that money back for how my ex treated me throughout the marriage, although glorifying would make no sense.

Unless you're dealing with someone wealthy, I don't see this going far and wide. Does a slap from RS cost more than Blink? Physical vs emotional, rich vs poor, old vs young, male vs female, disabled vs able-bodied? Most of the items Iona mentioned would be covered under a ss claim; and I could understand the tort claim against CAS/accuser. But a spouse... I see this going really bad. I'd rather get my cost awarded.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Case Law, Case Conference and Mediation	Free-spirit	Divorce & Family Law	5	09-30-2012 09:55 PM
Costs in Bad Faith	mom2three	Financial Issues	1	10-24-2011 04:19 PM
Postponing Case Conference	frustrateddad1970	Divorce & Family Law	2	06-18-2011 11:38 AM
No doc been served from Respondent for case conference	nick2009	Divorce & Family Law	6	01-22-2010 08:38 PM
Citing Case Law	justafool	Common Law Issues	29	09-18-2009 08:17 PM

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

User CP

New posts

Advertising

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name
Password