Discussion of Perceptions of divorce and our children.

[Tayken]

Cannot answer a simple question... and I am the high conflict one

Thank-you for your detailed analysis and as always relevant participation in this forum. I am sure you will get lots of positive feedback from members who have leveraged your advice in their family law matters and the positive impact it has had.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[fireweb13]

Thank-you for your detailed analysis and as always relevant participation in this forum. I am sure you will get lots of positive feedback from members who have leveraged your advice in their family law matters and the positive impact it has had.

Good Luck!
Tayken

In the past you have provided alot of help for people, but lately something has changed.
I guess maybe you do not have a past? Or maybe afraid to talk about it?

[Tayken]

In the past you have provided alot of help for people, but lately something has changed.
I guess maybe you do not have a past? Or maybe afraid to talk about it?

Still providing advice. Don't see what you are discussing. What you are seeing is the "divorce cycle" actually as it waves in on the this board. There are key points in which the Family Court is jam packed with stuff.

We are approaching the "holiday rush". There is the "school rush" (which we just got through).

So what we are possibly witnessing on this message board is an influx of people coming with questions prior to their motions/etc... The site does reflect the widely known and studied pattern of divorce/custody/access/equalization filings before the court.

Also, what "bad advice" am I dishing out? Feel free to counter the advice and provide your perspective. You appear to be "obsessed" with me as a poster for some odd reason.

To "answer" your question... Who I am as a person is irrelevant to anyone on this board. Hopefully someone somewhere has benefited from the case law and perspectives I try to provide. The green bar at the top right of my postings hopefully reflects positive feedback (reputation).

If you don't like me feel free to counter the reputation provided by independent readers of this website. I am sure it will effect the what appears to be 11 green boxes. (Which I think is a software bug really as it was two green boxes just a few days ago.)

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Mess]

CanLII - 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII)

Para 119 through 127.

Judicial notes can be found in paragraphs 247, 248, 495, and 486.

Sorry, I honestly don't understand your point with cases. In this case, the mother was quoted once referencing "my child." The judge did not comment on this, and actually used several other examples from her testimony instead to indicate her lack of concern for the child's best interest.

The judicial notes you reference in paragraphs 247 et al do not remark on the phrase at all, and specifically point to other behaviour of the mother in determining the varacity of each party's claims.

I think Nadia put it well above, but there is no reason to suppose that an otherwise calm, rational, and child-supportive parent who says "my child" will be villified by a judge. Judges will look at the whole picture and supporting facts in a case, not put undue emphasis on a single phrase.

[Tayken]

Sorry, I honestly don't understand your point with cases. In this case, the mother was quoted once referencing "my child." The judge did not comment on this, and actually used several other examples from her testimony instead to indicate her lack of concern for the child's best interest.

Negative inference... Maybe I haven't been explicit. Compounding negative inference is a death knell to someone in Family Law. If the judge can collect enough negative inference against a party in what they do/say it will result in a significant change in custody and access. There is not going to be any single occurance, for which you and others are looking for, in jurisprudence.

The judicial notes you reference in paragraphs 247 et al do not remark on the phrase at all, and specifically point to other behaviour of the mother in determining the varacity of each party's claims.

They are cumulative observations on negative inferences across the entire matter before the court. This example is loaded with them. Veracity and identifying it directly is identification of the negative inferences cumulatively weighed against the litigant in question.

What I am advising people is to not feed the justice easy to make "negative inferences" in their materials at all.

I think Nadia put it well above, but there is no reason to suppose that an otherwise calm, rational, and child-supportive parent who says "my child" will be vilified by a judge. Judges will look at the whole picture and supporting facts in a case, not put undue emphasis on a single phrase.

Now, when applying the person in question, their own statements made in this thread, and the statements made against the other parent in question ("abusive" etc...) those can all become cumulative negative inferences and greatly sway a custody and access dispute. That is all. Better to litigate from a position where by you don't allege abuse without evidence, bring frivolous claims before the court, take feedback from the OCL and improve your situation rather than continue alleging and then adding to the pile of possibly already gathered negative inferences that could be made against you as a litigant.

Especially when no one believes your allegations... Wouldn't want anyone to have to have a large table in their case law with every instance and details of the negative inference made by the justice hearing the motion and the costs award against them...

Compound the allegations... Negative inference will impact the balance of probabilities potentially and the custody and access order.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[wife#2]

Could not help but notice Tayken, you have suggested in the past 24 hours that three members of this forum are 'high conflict' individuals. And this is just the past 24 hours! The one thing all these 'conflicts' have in common is you! Just something to think about. I see very few members engaged in such constant 'conflict' on an almost daily basis here.
I agree with Mess and see no relevance to the case law you posted. By your own admission, it was the first case law you got when you entered the search criteria. Hardly a good research method to support an argument.
Your methods and knowledge of research is questionable to me, as in a post a few weeks ago (thread was closed down before I could comment, but wanted too), you suggested that 'peoples feelings is not research' (paraphrasing). As a matter of fact, this method of research is called qualitative research (vs. quantitative) and it is a real method of research and is used in medicine, social sciences and I'm sure many more area's that I cannot speak too.
You must see that whether or not it is intensional, people are perceiving you as attacking them. If you truly are not intending for this, perhaps it is you that should try a different approach. Perhaps you could ask members first if they want you to dissect every word of every sentence they write.
I also call into question your timing of dissecting my post here on this thread. You waited almost a week to comment on my post, but had posted on this thread previously, so clearly you must have read it. I do not believe it is a coincidence that your post here was directly after one of my posts on another thread that did not agree with your point of view.
The way I write on a forum does not suggest the way I would speak in a court room. Again, thank-you for looking out for my interests in a trial situation, but you can from this point on consider me 'warned' of such.

[fireweb13]

The way I write on a forum does not suggest the way I would speak in a court room. .

If only people could understand this...