Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mediation up in the air

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Thanks for all your comments. The other side is not agreeable to any stipulations in the agreement with regards to him having to show any accountability for his non self sufficiency. Nothing. Currently he wanders around unmedicated suffering from psychosis. We all agree he is sick. He has had an outburst at each case conference. He rambles on, talks about weird stuff and is volatile. I'm afraid of him. As he choked me once and that is how the marriage ended. It was no longer safe to live with him. Anyway, only option other side is giving me is no stipulations or they are happy to go to trial. The problem everybody sees like the mediator and both case conference judges is the lawyer and opgt from the other side. One word for them. Assholes because this would have been settled ling time ago. They are heartless. Ex is even getting half my pension but they won't back down from spousal. Only option I have is take it or go to court. And this isn't a broken family law system when a lawyer is allowed to get away with this instead of being geared towards what is in best interest of the children?

    Comment


    • #17
      Arabian, was this court ordered? He has not been compliant since day one. There is nothing I can do. It's his charter of right I've been told. I have also consulted with police many times. I am told he is free to roam unmedicated as long as he is not a threat to himself or anyone else. He was picked up by police a few times. Once he is assessed and not deemed a risk back out he goes. Health Care system can't force medication on him. He is not under the care of any doctor. He doesn't think he is sick. His symptoms sound like schizofrenia because of the psychosis. It's scary that there are many sick volatile people roaming around. It's another broken system and he becomes my financial liability.

      Comment


      • #18
        I personally have a line in the sand and would suggest that you contemplate the same: No diagnosis by specialist then no recognition or acceptance of disorder no matter how nutzoid he presents. If the other side can't get their client to assessment by a psychiatrist then they really have a problem don't they? When someone is a ward of the government they have an obligation to mitigate taxpayer obligation to support by exploring and pursuing any means (in your case this would be you). However, I think you are correct in pointing out that the biggest issue has somehow gone by the wayside: Best interests of the children.

        People game the system all the time. My ex was one of them. I stood firm in position that meeting the criteria of qualifying for provincial or federal assistance does not prove someone has a disability which would prevent them from paying support.

        "Best interests of the children" is something that would be weighed heavily come trial.

        My friend agreed to have the nurse come to her home - this was a condition the family made in order for her to receive money from family in addition to assured income for severely disabled money she receives from the government. And, yes, she had her lawyer representing her from the government. Family had no problem supplementing her government money but wanted to be sure that she obtained regular medical help. They presented it in a compassionate manner. No children in her situation thankfully.

        I would also add, when it comes to Spousal Support keep in mind that there is no scale or rigid rules as there is with Child Support. Perhaps you should remind your lawyer of this.
        Last edited by arabian; 05-06-2019, 09:01 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          It is already offset cs and section 7.

          Sorry, I just want to make sure I understand the numbers. You are saying you would be paying him $416 a month for 6 years and he would pay NO CS or Sec 7? Because I can’t see a judge agreeing that SS trumps CS

          Have you gotten a second option from another lawyer? Maybe a fresh set of eyes from a senior experienced lawyer would give you an idea of whether settling or a trial would be in your best interest.

          Comment


          • #20
            Sorry if I wasn't clear. He will be paying me lump sum child support and section 7 from imputed income. This money is coming from his share of the marital home. I am being asked to pay him lump sum for spousal $30,000 lump sum for 6 years. Or I go to trial. The mediator said if I went to trial 8 out of 10 judges would side with me. Problem is if I go to trial the legal fees would bankrupt me. I could never financially recover. My lawyer is a senior lawyer. 500 hundred dollars an hour. The legal fees from 2012 have killed me. Going to trial will wipe me out completely. If I had more money to fight I would take it to trial.

            Comment


            • #21
              Ok, that makes it a little clearer. And it makes me change my mind based on the info you have given us. Personally, I would not pay the spousal (I’m a little confused because you said the mediator got it down to $20,000 but you keep saying $30,000). SS means you acknowledge an entitlement that you may never be rid of.

              Asking for a second option from a lawyer doesn’t put down your current lawyer, any more than asking a doctor for a second option does. The opposing lawyer seems like a really good negotiator. Just because it is mediation does not mean you have to move from your position, or negotiate any more if their position is unreasonable. Say no spousal and they can label the ($20,000? $30,000?) as something else if it is so important - maybe have it locked into something for Sec 7 when the kids go to school - like an RESP, to pay his portion. If they don’t go to school/don’t spend it all he gets to have it when they have aged out of Sec 7.

              Keep in mind if you went to trial and won you may get some costs awarded from his equalization payment.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tilt View Post
                Ok, that makes it a little clearer. And it makes me change my mind based on the info you have given us. Personally, I would not pay the spousal (I’m a little confused because you said the mediator got it down to $20,000 but you keep saying $30,000). SS means you acknowledge an entitlement that you may never be rid of.

                Asking for a second option from a lawyer doesn’t put down your current lawyer, any more than asking a doctor for a second option does. The opposing lawyer seems like a really good negotiator. Just because it is mediation does not mean you have to move from your position, or negotiate any more if their position is unreasonable. Say no spousal and they can label the ($20,000? $30,000?) as something else if it is so important - maybe have it locked into something for Sec 7 when the kids go to school - like an RESP, to pay his portion. If they don’t go to school/don’t spend it all he gets to have it when they have aged out of Sec 7.

                Keep in mind if you went to trial and won you may get some costs awarded from his equalization payment.
                I agree with Tilt on this.
                If you had no home equity this wouldn't have gone as far as it has.
                If you are as broke as you say you are you could always self-represent. The money in your home may be tied up till after trial but then that might not be a bad thing. Something to contemplate. Would get rid of the leaches for sure.

                Comment


                • #23
                  At the start of mediation, other side was asking for 120,000 lump sum spousal. Mediator got it down to 20,000 for 10 years. Other side brought it up to 30,000 for 6 years. My lawyer is offering 30,000 for 8 years because I told him I need more of a break if he comes back. I questioned my lawyer about if I pay spousal in any amount if that meant I acknoledged he had need and would it make it harder for me to fight back should he come around in future. My lawyer said no, it would not make it harder. If he came back he would have to show need and I would show I have no means. Well he will show need because there is no way he is going to take meds and be self sufficient. I have to plan worst case that he still will have need so My plan is to buy a home and carry a mortgage so I woukdnt have any money sitting in the bank. This is why I want to settle without trial.
                  I may have some money from my half of the equity to use as a down payment. Going to trial will wipe out my equity money I then asked the likelihood of a judge ordering me to sell my home to pay him one day. My lawyer said he could not guarantee but that would be very unlikely given the kids would need a home to live in. I am a little nervous about that. You are so correct about the lawyers salivating over the home equity. It's disgusting. I had got a second consult and I was told not to worry ss and cs would even out. That is not true. Because we were married 20 years, rule 65 is screwing me over. Kids only need cs until 18. Rule 65 is indefinite spousal.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    You need a second opinion from another lawyer.

                    Comment

                    Our Divorce Forums
                    Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                    Working...
                    X