Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Modernize Family Justice

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

  • Modernize Family Justice

    Hopefully the rules will be easier to follow.

    https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...683335701.html

  • #2
    ...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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Here's some more info:

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/libe...dren-1.4672597

      Comment


      • #4
        Coming from this government, and Justice Minister. Beware. lol.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Here is the actual Bill:

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

            (First reading)

            Reading it now.

            Good Luck!
            Tayken

            Comment


            • #7
              This is going to cause all sorts of logjams in the courts with false allegations:

              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

              [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

              Comment


              • #8
                This is an interesting one:

                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?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ok, they need to put the "family violence" stuff all in one section. This one is lost under the new "best interests".

                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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!

                    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!

                    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, 09:48 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      And here comes the boom:

                      Burden of proof — person who intends to relocate child
                      16.*93 (1) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, arbitral award, or agreement that provides that a child of the marriage spend substantially equal time in the care of each party, the party who intends to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child.
                      They just shifted the burden of proof in substantially equal time. Basically, you won't find anyone who has "substantially equal time" (60/40) attempting to move ever. That is a heavy burden to carry. 20% of mobility cases GONE.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        So far I don't disagree with much in it other than the need for better and expanded guidance on what constitutes "family violence" in such a way it addresses the "subjective nature" of some of the categories.

                        The new changes will reduce the number of mobility cases significantly. So they did a good job on that update.

                        But, I don't see it having a major impact on reducing the court caseload. It needs significant edits and should be more consumable to the public. As it is written its still too legally complex.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Oh how they scam....

                          The way I read this is they took the jurisprudential status quo and enshrined it law but that was just a cover.

                          Read carefully, they are changing the child support collection and methodology. What is going to follow is that child support agencies are going to do automated tax return lookups and auto increase child support. No more hoping an ex doesn't ask for an increase we will see it become an automated process.

                          Furthermore, they spat in the face of presumption of shared custody.

                          Theyve also now emphasized family violence so that time you yelled at your wife/stbx/ex is now legally grounds to lose custody.

                          Just look at this from the prism of feminist government and it will all make sense. Trudeau has been the most anti male leader in the world. Even him with his bipolar mother and prime minister as a father couldn't be honest enough and do what was right.

                          Keep fighting...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by youngdad91 View Post
                            how did you define substantially equal to be 60.40 ? are you aware they are getting rid of the shared custody term? I would think it would mean 50.50. and come on. how many of 10 dads that go to court come out with 50 50 or anything close to 50 50?
                            Mine did and many do.

                            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