Sending letters to MP to fix Family Law! Please provide feedback

I hate to say it, but the system will NOT change ! In my opinion, major reasons include....


1) MONEY !!!! Lawyers make a fortune from the divorce industry (among others) and guess what most politicians were in their "civilian" life ? You guessed it - lawyers ! Do you really think they'll pass fair laws which will result in less income for their industry ?


2) While I realize that women can certainly get unfair treatment under the law also, most would agree that for the most part men get punished the most. Bottom line, men garner little sympathy and quite frankly public opinion would much rather see a male rendered financially devastated and living in his car than a female. Similar to a sinking ship - "women and children" get the life rafts, the men can sink with the ship !


I think the only REAL solution, which the internet is helping with, is to make the general public, and men in particular, along with high earners in general, AWARE of how incredibly unfair Family Law is. This way, hopefully many more young people will NOT engage in marriage or common law (except Quebec lol). There is no reason not to simply date (for an extended period if desired) but maintain separate residences.


It would be ideal if, prior to marriage, both parties had to complete a MANDATORY course outlining in detail the hell they will go through via
Family Law if either party decides to divorce. Interesting how so many things in our society have formal waivers/warnings/courses to warn one of what could go wrong EXCEPT marriage. I strongly suspect that for many people, if they were FULLY aware of what inviting the state into their life meant, would back out and avoid marriage or common law. Of course, if this was implemented, the "divorce industry" would lose future revenue so I doubt you'll ever see that.


Bottom line, it's too late for us already entangled in the grip of Family Law but hopefully younger people will be made aware of what awaits them and avoid the whole mess. Anyone who has children should stress the danger of marriage and common law to them to help them avoid the nightmare we've had to endure.


In retrospect, knowing what I know now, I would have NEVER have married or lived common law. Hopefully younger people can avoid the same mistake !
 
MONEY !!!! Lawyers make a fortune from the divorce industry (among others)
Click to expand...

Family law is far less profitable than many other areas of law. Do not assume that because the hourly rate is high, the net profit is high.

$300/hr billable is not equal to $300/hr as a 'salary' job. (40 hrs a week x 52 weeks a year = $624,000). The most a family lawyer can expect to bill in a year is about 1100 hours or about $330,000.

From that, only a percentage is collectible (ideally 95%, so write off $16,500 in a good year, more like 15% or $49,500 in a bad year).

Less rent ($3,000 a month x 12 = $36,000) more if there's staff.

Law society and insurance = $6,000/yr

Accounting costs = $3,000/yr for filing.

Office manager = $50,000. If you want to bill 1000-1100 hrs a year, you need someone to manage the phone, book appointments, day to day bookkeeping, scan documents, assemble courier packages, respond to routine correspondence, and triage calls when three emergencies come in at once. Plus if you want them to stick around you'll need to give them a bonus so let's say $5,000 at Christmas.

CPD requirements can be $2,000 annually (for some it's more). Must keep that license in good standing.

Printing costs, some bill this out, other's don't. ($2,400/yr, but this might be recovered)

Telephones ($150/mo if you're lucky, $250/mo is more typical). Business lines are more expensive than personal lines. ($1,800 yr)

Marketing (donations to build your brand, advertising, website, tech staff when things crash, etc.) $3-5,000/yr This one is somewhat variable.

Travel (usually to regional courts) $100/mo or $1200/yr)

Credit card fees (interchange fees of about 2.25% assuming 70% of clients pay by credit card, that's $219,800 x 0.025 = $5,495/yr)

Other: internet, books, office supplies, computer equipment, coffee for clients and staff, insurance (non professional) - let's just call this $10,000

So now we've gone from $330,000 gross revenue to $156,000 - $189,000 net (variance is due to bad accounts). Now, that's still a pretty good income, but I wouldn't call it a 'fortune'. Keep in mind this is without any tax payable, which come next.

I mention the above because if you think cutting the costs of family lawyers is a silver bullet solution to the problem, you're quite mistaken. With $150/hr being the top line billing amount, the whole operation is simply break even. Why bother to work then if you make $0.00.
 
Last edited:
The rates charged by lawyers may be justified.
Noone says a lawyer should not be able to make a decent living.
The hours charged are not justified for many reasons.
The system is set up to make what should be straightforward solutions complex which means high costs for families and too many lawyers.
Some lawyers can tend to protract, fail to dissuade and create controversy.
If there is one lawyer in a town they are broke
If there are two they are both doing fine.
Add a third and they are all rich.
Conflict, confusion and protraction are issues as are over zealous participants.
 
The system is set up to make what should be straightforward solutions complex which means high costs for families
Click to expand...

This is true. The more informal we make the process the more 'rough' justice becomes. Quicker decisions means less informed decisions.

However, we much also acknowledge if people can't afford to get to the finish line, that rough justice is already the norm. What value is there in cross-examination and discovery if people can't afford to undertake the process?
 
Very germane point.
The law is not pragmatic. It treats every case like it is a detailed textbook example. So much of the process is overblown and fuels conflict.
Sure, questioning makes sense in civil litigation when appropriate but family law? Pitting parents against each other? Truly insane.
Justice? Who's version? And at what cost? Insanity.
 
It takes two people to settle things amicably, only one to inflame conflict.

What do we do when one party insists the easily obtainable evidence doesn't tell the whole story? That a custody assessment is required, or forensic analysis of bank accounts, or their ex is secretly working but not disclosing? Do we tell them 'too bad, it's too expensive to investigate'? Do we admit anything into evidence and ignore reliability concerns?

I agree the system is broken. Nearly every lawyer does. This is evidenced by the number of self-reps and the obscene cost of litigation. But there are also reasons the rules of evidence, and the entire litigation process, evolved the way it did.

---

In my view, the fix is at the start. It makes no sense to commence a process where you serve and file pleadings, documents designed to make one side look good and one side look bad, then enter a process designed to 'bring them back together'.

It's akin to punching someone in the face and then saying 'now let's talk about our differences and sort them out'.

I suggest a mandatory informal process first. More akin to an admin tribunal. With the social worker, lawyer, accountant (or financial expert) as the tribunal members. Give them the power to order disclosure, and make interim arrangements. Have them supervised by a Judge for quick informal appeals where necessary. Make this process mandatory before it's possible for people to run off to court and spend $100K in fees.

Start with Case Conference Briefs, not pleadings.
 
You are absolutely right. Treating family law like civil litigation is wrong in many instances. It is an adversarial assumption. Yes there are absolutely cases of bad faith, malfeasance and risky conduct. The vast majority are not. The start should be the separation agreement. This should be statutory with predefined elements that are mandatory and carry sever penalties for fraud. Like tax returns. Detailed enough to catch complexity without burdening simple cases. Form 13 is atrocious. It confuses more than it informs. Stitch on Divorce Mate and spit out a form for FRO. Make annual updates online mandatory. Numbers spit out. Anyone that does not want 50-50 for whatever reason goes to a panel for binding decision.
Briefs should have mandatory sections rather than free form mayhem.
Big penalties for lawyers that proceed with nuisance claims or responses.
You need to get elected and make these changes. You would make more as Minister of Justice and get a juicy pension and a nicer office.
 
"I want a fat pension and a nice office" will complement my other slogan well: "I'll be the first honest politician you've ever voted for"
 
All - thank you for the great feedback and many notes.

I have taken your feedback and incorporated it, specifically, removing the child support portion and a few other changes.

I have sent the email to a couple of MPs, Rob Ford, and Canadian Bar Association.

Everyone here is saying the same thing which I agree with, too many parties DO NOT want to change the current system as it is BIG MONEY for Lawyers.

I am one of the victims. I've spent $50k in 6 months and I have no access to my kids. This does not include the $50k I will need to pay my criminal lawyer to defend me against my wife's false allegations.
 
SCC Judgement that ought to make some people think

SCC Judgement that ought to make some people think

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Judgement that ought to make some people think is D.B.S. v. S.R.G.

In this judgement, the SCC stated:
Per McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.: Parents have an obligation to support their children in a manner commensurate with their income, and this obligation and the children’s concomitant right to support exist independently of any statute or court order.
Click to expand...

Forget about the rightness or wrongness of child support per say and look at the larger picture for a second (this will be difficult for some members of this forum). In this judgement the SCC asserts that it has the authority to bestow rights on one group at the expense of another group without any actual statutes (laws on the books) serving as a foundation of that. As long as they can do that, it sort of renders irrelevant legislative debate, democracy, elections, writing letters to MP's and all that bullshit.
 
rvalentines said:
I am one of the victims. I've spent $50k in 6 months and I have no access to my kids. This does not include the $50k I will need to pay my criminal lawyer to defend me against my wife's false allegations.
Click to expand...

Except you are partially a victim of your own stupid actions. You DID have time with your kids and you didn’t like what you had and pushed for more—against advice from many people. You did damage to your case yourself.

It is really disingenuous to lump yourself in with thousands of dads who have done all the right things, followed their lawyer’s advice and don’t make boneheaded decisions. Yes the system is messed up but there are a number of people who are true victims of the system and what a lot of you don’t get is that many of those people are kids. The ones who aren’t getting support or have been kidnapped or alienated.
 
Yes - I admit I made stupid decisions. And yes I admit I went against the advice of this community and my OWN lawyer who predicted this would happen. I dismissed it as "fear-mongering".

But it came from a good place. I wanted to see my children 50/50. I was upset that I was only a "weekend dad". It didn't come out of anger but love for my kids and to be more involved.

Should I have been punished for that? Have my access removed? How is that fair to the kids?

I have learned my lesson. I need to listen to experts around me and folks who have already experienced what I've gone through.
 
rvalentines said:
Yes - I admit I made stupid decisions. And yes I admit I went against the advice of this community and my OWN lawyer who predicted this would happen. I dismissed it as "fear-mongering".

But it came from a good place. I wanted to see my children 50/50. I was upset that I was only a "weekend dad". It didn't come out of anger but love for my kids and to be more involved.

Should I have been punished for that? Have my access removed? How is that fair to the kids?

I have learned my lesson. I need to listen to experts around me and folks who have already experienced what I've gone through.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure if you're an abusive dick or not. Some of your posts have suggested you are...but maybe not.

We all make mistakes during the divorce process. It's a given. Sometimes it's a financial blunder, sometimes it hurts your chances with securing time with your kids. Nothing cannot be undone. Even my ex who threatened to kill his own kid- he gets a second chance at 50/50 and shared custody- he will continue to get that if he listens to his therapist and the people around him (his lawyer). This board is a great wealth of advice- big time. Some of the best advice that got me through my divorce came from people on here- and two pieces come to mind when I read your posts- divorce is a marathon, not a sprint, so pace yourself. Also- divorce is a like a giant apple- take small bites, and don't try to shove the whole thing in your mouth at once.

And this one is from me- emotion will cost you money. Tame your emotions. Emotions means worry- and it means calls and correspondence with your lawyer- probably unnecessarily. Which is going to cost you money - as well as tax you mentally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top