I've read that case,
CanLII - 2011 ONSC 2101 (CanLII)
The case of Brown v. Brown,
CanLII - 2011 ONSC 2101 (CanLII)
appears to be an advertisement for her rather than a report.
When you see such long winded words of praise by a judge
about someone who authored a report, it begs the question
as to WHY did the judge do that?
Begging the question means making an assumption in your argument and then using the assumption to prove your argument.
petitio principii.
In any case, the judge does
not make "long winded words of praise," the judge briefly identifies how much experience the author has, which is required to establish whether or not they qualify as an expert witness. The judge is required to make such references in his decision.
Odds are, he did it because he had concerns about the objectiveness
of the report and wanted to bury the matter.
Exactly how do you calculate those odds? I strongly suspect you just make them up as you go along.
In this case, Levesque made serious criticisms of the mother's behaviour, pointed out that she and her fiance were taking active steps to alienate the children from the father, and the judge accepted this evidence.
So, please assume I am slow, explain to me in detail, step-by-step, what the issues were with objectiveness and what did the judge do to bury the matter?
So, What is in Brown v. Brown?
It seems you are last person one would want to ask, considering you either haven't read the case, or are distorting the contents beyond belief.
Sandra Levesque recommended "Supervised Access to the Father"
dressed up with "joint custody".
No, Sandra Levesque did not recommend
supervised access for the father. You are making that up.
The fact that you made it up calls into question your own objectiveness, your credibility, your honesty, and your mental competence. The case is linked several times in this thread, most people would have no problem clicking on the link and reading it for themselves, and would realize how much you are fabricating. Why on earth would you write such a blatant lie if you were mentally competent? One possible reason is that you are assuming that most people would not read carefully through the entire case decision, and so your lies would be accepted by at least a portion of the readers. So which is it, are you an idiot, or are you a manipulative liar?
Now, these reports often have no resemblance to reality.
According to you you, whom we already have evidence about, that you are a manipulative liar. Or mentally incompetent. Coincidentally, you don't provide any factual evidence to support your statement.
But, IF, we take some of the the judge said, I would not have given that
father anything more than supervised access either.
Where in this decision do find the words "supervised access" with regard to the respondand, Mr. Brown?
But wait, perhaps the problem is with your reading comprehension skills. The actual quote from the decision is,
"In addition she recommended that Mr. Bennett not be left unsupervised in the presence of the children." Now think carefully, even though I know this is hard for you. What is the name of the children's biological father? Is it Bennett, or is it Brown? Here is a hint: The case is
Brown v. Brown.
But,
these reports are often a work of fiction dressed up to sound objective.
(That is, if I believed the entire report was correct)
From what I've read, I'd like to know a lot more before I drew the same conclusions.
We are already very concerned about whether you have actually read anything, or managed to understand it. We are also concerned that you once again are making completely unsubstantiated assertions, blanket statements about "these reports." You seem to feel that your assertion should be accepted as truth for the simple reason that you have made it, and you have the gall to do so in the same sentence that you question the veracity of not just one, but every professional in the employ of the OCL.
There are some very disturbing aspects to the Brown v. Brown decision.
And you have yet to point out a single one of them.
It's so disturbing that it begs the question
You really need to stop using that phrase, it emphasises how uneducated you are.
as to if it was just another fabrication to get rid of a father, or, it could all be very true.
Again, did you actually read this case, or are you a compulsive liar. Here is a news flash:
The father won the decision.
The father was only seeking joint custody. That is what the OCL investigator recommended, and that is what judge ordered.
that you are either making all of this up, or you are so deluded that you actually believe your own nonsense.
decisions are all often based upon false allegations that could be nothing more that repetitions of "she said" without any corroboration.
Fascinating. The false allegation in this case was the mother's unsupported assertion - you and she seem to have a lot in common - that the father had a problem with drinking and drugs. The judge completely dismissed this as without any factual support, and refuted by the father's stable employment record.
Most of the reports like this are NEVER published.
You mean the reports that you make up in your mind so that you have fantasy scenarios to build paranoid consipiracy theories around?
My lawyer showed me several of her reports that were not published and NONE Of them were favorable to the father.
I defy anyone to come up with ANY report by Sandra Levesque
that does not favour the mother.
Your lawyer violated the privacy of his clients by showing you their unpublished personal information? What is the name of this lawyer?
Without exception, every report my lawyer could find out about was favorable to mothers only. That makes her a great choice if you are a woman.
I am curious exactly how it is that your lawyer has numerous . . . Oh, wait. You didn't say how many. I guess you mean two reports? And your lawyer broke confidentiality and showed you these reports? And we are to believe you for what reason, since you have so far shown yourself to be completely unreliable when it comes to writing truthful statements. A perfect example . . .
At the end of the day, this report, Brown v. Brown, in effect made serious allegations about the father, that somehow , warranted, that draconian solution of "supervised access", the classic weapon of choice used and justified with all the usual classic false allegations.
No, the report did not. The allegations were made about the mother's fiance, Mr. Bennett. The OCL investigator recommended that the fiance only have supervised access to the children, among other reasons for the fact that he, the fiance, not the biological father, had been speaking to the children about his pornography addiction.
So again, what we know is that your own statements are completely unreliable. What we don't know is if you are lieing mindfully to mislead us all, or if you deluding yourself to support your own paranoia, or if you are simply not capable of understanding what you read.
The mother most probably had her car and Trailer packed for the move to Arkansas with the three children just as soon as the order was issued.
The report from the OCL was to deny the mother the mobility order she had intitially requested. However, if you had actually carefully read and understood the judge's decision, the mother had withdrawn the application for mobility. If you were to read further, and understand what you were reading, you would have seen that the judge ordered that the mother could not take the children out of the country, even for a vacation, without the biological father's permission.
It's one of those remarkable "joint custody' decisions where the father was probably never ever going to be substantially involved with the children again. She had a lot at stake, three kids, child support, etc.
It's one of those remarkable reading comprehension failures, or possibly one of those remarkable manipulative lies on the part of yourself, we are still not sure which.
When the stakes are that high, lies and fabrications become the norm.
Well, you got that right, only you were really describing yourself.
