Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

pinkHouses · #1 10-21-2021, 02:52 PM

Without a medical diagnosis you know your ex is a narcissist but they do what they can to play victim. Women ::eyeroll::

When filling out an affidavit is it better to let a judge figure it out based on their behavior or is it OK to simply say Narcissist?

rockscan · #2 10-21-2021, 03:00 PM

Your affidavit should lay out facts only. Calling the other parent names or making inferences about their behaviour makes you look bad to the judge. They see crazy people daily, they don�t care.

pinkHouses · #3 10-21-2021, 03:27 PM

Thanks. Judges are smart enough to figure stuff out.

So saying the other parent went to disney world and left the kids at home but brought them back postcards should stay out of an affidavit?

(it was not that bad)

rockscan · #4 10-21-2021, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkHouses

So saying the other parent went to disney world and left the kids at home but brought them back postcards)

How is this relevant to the matter? Were the kids in danger? Were they left alone? Was there an emergency? Was it on the other parents time?

Petty shit that upsets you is not relevant. Sure going away without the kids isn�t nice but overall unless the kids were in danger (and you are using it as an example why the other parent shouldn�t have custody) then it really isn�t needed.

Ask yourself what is relevant proof to plead your argument.

LovingDad1234 · #5 10-21-2021, 04:32 PM

Facts only. As tempting as it may be, your briefs should contain zero mud slinging and zero opinions of the other person. Let the other person sling mud all they want. It just looks bad on them at the end of the day. Moreover, it shows poor judgement. If they cannot contain themselves in court documents that are being read by a judge, it really shows their true character...

pinkHouses · #6 10-21-2021, 04:40 PM

Thanks.
It is hard to tell what is relevant and not sometimes.
They slung a lot of mud and got what they wanted so it works for them. Works for lawyers too.
I don't see the point in mudslinging....for $50/hr there should be someone to help clean up affidavits.....instead the cash cows roll on.

rockscan · #7 10-21-2021, 06:39 PM

Not necessarily. It could be that there was mud slinging but their case was defended successfully. They could say all kinds of shit but if parts of it were true and relevant then that was why they won.

paris · #8 10-22-2021, 08:35 AM

Mudge slinging… she got mad and punched him in the head.

Relevant… she got mad and punched him in the head in front of the children during pickup.

I’m not sure what it is about this thread that has reminded me of that.

LMum · #9 10-22-2021, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkHouses

Without a medical diagnosis you know your ex is a narcissist but they do what they can to play victim. Women ::eyeroll::

When filling out an affidavit is it better to let a judge figure it out based on their behavior or is it OK to simply say Narcissist?

Narcissist seems to be the new trend lately and judges are most likely sick of hearing that word. I suggest to not use it unless there is a professional diagnosis.

Try using word to describe the behavior instead:

"she involves the children is adult conflict"
"he misrepresented the truth" - don't say lied
"she show lack of empathy and/or poor judgment which effected the children in a negative manner"
"He has a history of......"

Stuff like that as long as you have the facts to back it up.

Brampton33 · #10 10-22-2021, 09:36 AM

Agree with Lovingdad1234. Stick to facts and limit your opinions. Unless you are qualified to render such opinions. Judges do this for a living. They smirk when a plumber starts delving into psychology. Each day they read briefs where one parent calls the other parent a horrible human being. People doing internet searches and trying to diagnose their ex based on google searches. Judges are sick and tired of parents trying to punish the other parent by taking away kids from them. Its a maximum contact principle unless its not feasible (ie: due to distance) or if there is an actual and real threat for the children's safety (ie: parent is a fall-down drug addict and leaves kids home alone).

Let the judge draw their own conclusions on behaviours. This is their domain. Lmum is correct:

"He has a history of putting his own interests ahead of the children. Such examples include: x,y z."
"He has a history of not paying child support. Such examples include x,y,z."
"She has a history of neglecting her court ordered access. Such examples included x,y,z."

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wife moved kids without permission	Super dad	Parenting Issues	22	12-04-2019 05:40 AM
Parenting Plan- How specific should you be?	iona6656	Parenting Issues	40	03-24-2019 10:04 AM
Spousal/Child Support Question	Jenny	Divorce & Family Law	6	10-01-2013 12:01 AM
Brampton, Ontario court officials continue to obstruct justice by misleading and misi	logicalvelocity	Political Issues	0	05-23-2010 08:31 AM
Impact of Stocks on Child Support	peter8688	Divorce & Family Law	4	01-04-2006 07:51 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