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 05-22-2018, 11:09 AM
kate331 kate331 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 646
kate331 is on a distinguished road
Default Modernize Family Justice

Hopefully the rules will be easier to follow.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...683335701.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-22-2018, 11:47 AM
Janus's Avatar
Janus Janus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,010
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

...and still no presumption of shared parenting.

(sigh)

Glad to see they still don't care about custodial fathers too. You would think that there were not enough of us to specifically exclude from the caring, but I'm impressed... they still talked about feminization of poverty.

Doesn't say what the changes will be, but it doesn't bode well. They are clearly hinting at higher levels of CS.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-22-2018, 01:16 PM
kate331 kate331 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 646
kate331 is on a distinguished road
Default

Here's some more info:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/libe...dren-1.4672597
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-22-2018, 01:59 PM
dad2bandm dad2bandm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,837
dad2bandm is on a distinguished road
Default

Coming from this government, and Justice Minister. Beware. lol.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-22-2018, 04:51 PM
ifonlyihadknown ifonlyihadknown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 206
ifonlyihadknown is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
...and still no presumption of shared parenting.
It's potentially worse then just "no presumption."

From the article: "Lawrence Pinsky, a Manitoba family lawyer and CBA's family law section chair, welcomed the proposed bill but said it's too early to measure its overall impact.

"It will depend on how judges in various jurisdictions interpret the bill ... But overall we see it as positive," he said. "We've been advocating for years that the best interests of the child needs to be the test, that all family law dealing with children has to be seen through the eyes of the child."

Pinsky said that focus turns away from a "drift" in jurisprudence toward treating shared parenting as the starting point."


If they want to reduce conflict, I think that a presumption of 50/50 parenting would be a good start. Also to have clear and strict guidelines for spousal support. Throw in something about denying a parent access to be be as severely punished as non-payment of support. Finally, have a mandatory mediation process before any lawyers get involved.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-22-2018, 09:07 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,997
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Here is the actual Bill:

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en.../first-reading

(First reading)

Reading it now.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-22-2018, 09:25 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,997
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

This is going to cause all sorts of logjams in the courts with false allegations:

Quote:
family violence means any conduct, whether or not the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, by a family member towards another family member, that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person — and in the case of a child, the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct — and includes
(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect themselves or another person;
(b) sexual abuse;
(c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;
(d) harassment, including stalking;
(e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life;
(f) psychological abuse;
(g) financial abuse;

(h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and
(i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property; (violence familiale)
Section (f) and (g) are very subjective. They are going to need to define this out.

Re: https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/...ad.php?t=16809

Quote:
[12] The difficulty with the term “abuse”, as it is used in affidavits filed in family law cases, is that it is used subjectively. It is an emotionally coloured term. It is not limited to describing physical violence but may be also be used to describe a range of conflicts including arguments, differences of opinion or values, or hurt feelings. For example, one partner may consider himself or herself as a good money manager while the other partner may perceive close budgeting as coercive control. One partner may consider an end-of-day inquiry about how the other spouse’s day went as an indication of love or interest while a disaffected spouse may deem the inquiry intrusive and controlling.

...

[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 additional wording won't stop the logjam unless judges are given the ability to punish those who use false allegations in an attempt to create a false status quo. It happens too often.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-22-2018, 09:34 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,997
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

This is an interesting one:

Quote:
Definition of collusion
(4) In this section, collusion means an agreement or conspiracy to which an applicant for a divorce is either directly or indirectly a party for the purpose of subverting the administration of justice, and includes any agreement, understanding or arrangement to fabricate or suppress evidence or to deceive the court, but does not include an agreement to the extent that it provides for separation between the parties, financial support, division of property or the exercise of parenting time or decision-making responsibility.
Does this mean that witnesses that support false allegations and other stupid stuff could face a penalty? Like how like the Izyuk brother and sister try to do it in both of their own family law cases?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-22-2018, 09:41 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,997
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Ok, they need to put the "family violence" stuff all in one section. This one is lost under the new "best interests".

Quote:
Factors relating to family violence

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)*(j), the court shall take the following into account:

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor.

Past conduct

(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.
Again, that section in bold is highly subjective. Too subjective. The court needs strict criteria to follow... Not just lobbing everything at the OCL or similar service provider.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-22-2018, 09:43 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,997
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

They are fixing relocation... I haven't any complaints about it. They set a very detailed set of things you have to do before you can even apply!

Quote:
Form and content of notice
(2) The notice must be given in writing at least 60 days before the expected date of the proposed relocation and must set out
(a) the expected date of the relocation;
(b) the address of the new place of residence and contact information of the person or child, as the case may be; and
(c) a proposal as to how parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, as the case may be, could be exercised.
Failing to do this will cause an automatic return of the child. Interesting. Good. There are too many cases where children just move without consent. This places a significant burden on the moving parent to be open and forthcoming. But, it only gives the left behind parent 60 days to act. It should include a notice that the moving parent needs to advise the left behind parents that they have 60 days to dispute this and have to include the necessary forms to dispute it.

Yowch. This is good stuff for mobility issues!

Quote:
Notice — significant impact
(2) If the change is likely to have a significant impact on the child’s relationship with the person, the notice shall be given at least 60 days before the change in place of residence and shall set out, in addition to the information required in subsection (1), a proposal as to how contact could be exercised in light of the change.
No more lobbing the change at the other parent without a reasonable recommendation. LOL. Man that is going to be some interesting stuff if this change hits. You go in front of a judge like Pazaratz with a shitty plan... You will be eaten alive.

Really makes the moving parent think LONG AND HARD.

Last edited by Tayken; 05-22-2018 at 09:48 PM.
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
Family Matters with Justice Harvey Brownstone is an online TV WorkingDAD Divorce & Family Law 3 04-26-2011 03:39 PM
Justice Brownstone: Divorce law and the family (Mar. 03, 2009) WorkingDAD Divorce & Family Law 0 04-19-2011 12:04 PM
Ontario Justice Bruce Pugsley's recent comments in family court logicalvelocity Political Issues 7 09-22-2010 05:10 PM
A long hello SillyMe Introductions 20 05-16-2008 12:30 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:05 AM.