The "Process"

LovingFather32

LovingFather32

New member
The "process" is one of those words that insinuates that there will be an end. I believe defined as a particular steps to reach the end. As you've read, my ex believes that a "process" is abducting a child, making false claims, using all agencies to her financial/legal advantage, restricting access and prolonging this escapade of her's s long as she possible can.

We all know where I am now in the midst of this so-called "process". One day soon a judge will take the reins. She will see herself losing control of the situation. She's become used to this control. Used to calling the shots.

I hope she realizes that there are judges out there that do frown upon these behaviors and judge accordingly. It would be nice for justice to make an example out of my case. I've sat patiently, played by the rules and waited for 7 months for her to do the same. I'm still not even allowed to know where D3 lives, who she lives with, anything regarding health, etc.

She doesn't want me to be a father. She wants me to be a visitor. D3 doesn't want that though. I wish somebody in this process would think of her for once.

I thought I'd post this canlii case (below) as it motivated and inspired me as I sipped my coffee this morning.

Enjoy,

__________________________________________________________
URL: CanLII - 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII)
Citation: Vucenovic v. Rieschi, 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII)

3. At trial, both parties were seeking sole custody. And while each party had a plan for some access to the other; it was clear that the choice before the court was much starker: Whichever parent Emilee resided with, she could not, for very different reasons, have access to the other.

4. The trial was completed on September 5, 2012, the second day of the new school year. The parents now reside in different jurisdictions which meant the custody order would determine which school Emilee would attend. Given the urgent need for finality and stability for Emilee’s custody and schooling, I gave my decision orally to the parties and Emilee in court on September 6, 2012, placing Emilee in the sole custody of her father with no access to her mother; requiring that Emilee be enrolled in counselling; and providing for police enforcement, with written reasons to follow. I had asked that Emilee be brought to court for the decision due to the history in this case of the difficulty or even impossibility of access exchanges.

5. These are my reasons for that decision.
<TABLE class=ecxMsoNormalTable style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-TOP: 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1pt inset; BACKGROUND: rgb(233,233,233); BORDER-BOTTOM: 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt">62. It is clear that after considering all of the factors, it would be in the child’s best interests to be placed in the custody of her father. With respect to access, it most unfortunately is clear that it would not be in her best interests to have access with her mother as it would undermine the stability of her placement with her father and inevitably lead to a complete rupture in her relationship with her father as it has several times in the past, including most recently in the summer of 2012.

63. While Ms. Rieschi claims to support Emilee’s relationship with her father, it is clear that she does not really want Mr. Vucenovic to have access to Emilee because otherwise, she would not keep focusing on allegations that he always “lays his hands on her [Emilee].” She cannot on the one hand profess a wish for Emilee to have regular access with her father while on the other complain at length about Mr. Vucenovic’s deficiencies as a person and parent, including having him charged on the eve of this trial on spurious allegations of harassment, and expect to be believed.

64. Furthermore, it would not even be enough to have supervised visits with counselling as that was already tried and proved an insufficient safeguard. Ms. Rieschi would first have to demonstrate through individual treatment that she has changed.

65. I asked that Emilee be at court to hear the decision out of concern that the decision could not be implemented if she were in Ms. Rieschi’s residence. There has been a sad pattern in this case of access exchanges involving great upset at first for Emilee or even sometimes proving impossible, as with the recent attempt at an exchange at a police station July 2012. That pattern was borne out again on September 6, 2012. While Emilee was at first hysterical at the thought of going with her father, she eventually went with him willingly.

66. Emilee cannot be further subjected to the back and forth changes of custody, to the hysterical access exchanges, to this battle any further. She deserves stability, permanence and emotional security and she is most likely to achieve that in the care of her father with no access to her mother.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Resulting in the final order in section “5. ORDER (issued and entered September 6, 2012)” stating:


<TABLE class=ecxMsoNormalTable style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-TOP: 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1pt inset; BACKGROUND: rgb(233,233,233); BORDER-BOTTOM: 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt">1. The Applicant, Anthony Phillip Vucenovic, shall have sole custody of the child, Emilee Martina Rieschi, born […], 2002.

2. There shall be no access to the Respondent, Jessica Lilian Rieschi, pending further order of this court.

3. The Applicant shall enrol the child in counselling forthwith which shall not be terminated, pending further order of this court.

4. Peel Regional Police, Sheriff’s Officers and/or such other law enforcement agencies as may have jurisdiction are hereby directed and authorized to enforce this order.

5. Pursuant to section 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, police forces in the Province of Ontario, including but not limited to the Peel Regional Police, are directed and authorized:
a) To do all things that may reasonably be done to locate and apprehend the child, namely, Emilee Martina Rieschi, a girl, born […], 2002 and deliver her into the care of the Applicant, Anthony Phillip Vucenovic; and

b) To enter and search any place, at any time of day or night, where he or she has reasonable or probable grounds to believe the child may be, with such assistance and such force as are reasonable in the circumstances,

c) But this order to apprehend the child expires six months from the date of this order, unless extended or terminated earlier by further court order.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
60. Often cited in such cases are Justice Trussler’s comments in Tremblay v. Tremblay 1987 CanLII 147 (AB QB), (1987) 10 R.F.L. (3d) 166 (Alta Q.B.), paragraphs 9, 15 and 16:


9. I start with the premise that a parent has the right to see his or her children and is only to be deprived of that right if he or she has abused or neglected the children. Likewise, and more important, a child has a right to the love, care and guidance of a parent. To be denied that right by the other parent without sufficient justification, such as abuse or neglect, is, in itself, a form of child abuse.
 
Last edited:
Don't get too caught up in dramatic cases like this one. If you go to court trying to villify the other parent you will pay for it. This kind of judgment is only rendered after years of a judge's involvement when everything else has been tried repeatedly and there are no other alternatives remaining.
 
Thanks Strait

lol No need to worry. As time goes on I just get stronger. Mentally, I'm fine. They cant do much more to me than they've already done.
 
FightingForFamily said:
Don't get too caught up in dramatic cases like this one. If you go to court trying to villify the other parent you will pay for it. This kind of judgment is only rendered after years of a judge's involvement when everything else has been tried repeatedly and there are no other alternatives remaining.
Click to expand...

Yea. I know FFF. It was just nice to read. Don't spoil it for me. lol

But I have read other cases FFF where it wasn't only after years and years. The judge clearly saw the trend of mothers inability to include father in child's life and judged accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Exactly

" The judge clearly saw the trend of mothers inability to include father in child's life and judged accordingly."

That's why as time goes by the EX's real position becomes clearer even without HARD evidence.

Trouble is your now getting the evidence you need that "allegations" are fabricated to deny access and contact which OP is painfully aware of.

It's most likely whatever remnants of a position the OP had, may be turned into a settlement offer to avoid a Trial.

I'd watch for "wordy" offers which can be "be defaulted on by a insincere party" and this process starts again. so be careful.

If your going to read case law read the "sanctions" Judges put on the bad party.

There is no way the EX will come back to your town....even with an agreement.

They'll want the allegations swept aside...as a OPPS I'm sorry.

IF both parties make an agreement without going to Trial....then it's a consent agreement....and there's a distinction on "consent orders" and a Trial Order.

You cannot go back and redo everything "when the EX defaults on both parties acceptance of there agreement"

The strength of the "consent agreement" is in it's terms.

Remember the above....and also the EX plans everything in advance along with her LAO scumbag lawyer.

Your obtaining an excellent position for Trial....all your rights have been stripped away...but you have rights.

Don't sign off on your rights.







<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->
 
Mr. Toronto has made a compelling case for going to trial. Your ex has done you a huge favour by showing up front what she will be like for the next 15 years.

Don't let her idiocy be for nothing. Don't settle on consent for something that she won't even honour, and then find yourself starting this process all over again.

I would assert that their strategy has been to beat you down until you settle, so that they can then turn around an fail to honour that as well. Your ex and her lawyer comitted to this strategy never wanting to go to court, because they hoped that these kinds of actions would shock and awe you into giving up early.

It was a huge gamble for them, because scumbag lawyer knew that if it didn't work, those same actions they took to win the early game would hurt them in the late game.

Of course, the only person that has lost the most in all of this is D3, because she will have lost almost a year of her time with her dad as a result.
 
Mr T. & Strait:

You got it. Remember in my early posts I described after the EM when I was speaking to her lawyer in the hallway. He saw the tears in my eyes. But Im not that same guy. I've grown stronger.

Yes, the wordy offers arn't far off now and yes they want to break me down.

No, I wont be signing my life away. I agree. They wont honor anything they suggest and will still maintain complete control.

I'm of the opinion that there needs to be orders and police enforcement for noncompliance .. although I'm cognizant judges don't always like to do the police enforcement thing.
 
Last edited:
They don't always want to, that is correct. You might have to get on your second appearance if they continue to fail to comply.

You can certainly request it and use the last 6 months as evidence that they don't intend to honour anything that is imposed. The worst that the judge can say is no.

One thing that I suggest is that whether you are dealing with a court order, or an unlikely agreement that you hammer out with her, to try and not get held up by the small things, no matter what. One such example is this whole business of phone calls and emails with the child when they are not with you. I have read up on all kinds of fights that people have with their exes over phone calls being refused, or one parent calling excessively, etc. Based on my own personal experience, I have actually found that LESS phone calls is better. It makes for one less thing to fight over, and forces each parent to respect the space and parenting time of the other parent.

For example, my kids are allowed to call me at any time. I am allowed to call them at any time. I make a concious decision, however, to maybe call them once, if at all, while they are at their mom's for the week. Of course, I do that because I get them for a week at a time after that, and not everyone hast that, but I find that as difficult as it can be, it makes for one less thing to wrangle with my ex, and it creates good boundaries. My kids can and do call me and my ex whenever they ask for it, but to be honest, they only maybe ask once a week.

One thing that my ex and I accomplished from this is that our kids don't treat calls to either parent as an obligation. It is something that is available to them when they want. Really, if the parent that they are with is doing their job properly, they shouldn't feel the need to call the other parent so much.

The nice thing about this whole business is that you are already used to not being able to talk to your daughter for a week at a time, so if you followed this tact, and focused on the big picture of access, and of consistent exchange times, you won't really miss the phone calls.

Just a little thought for you to consider as you move into the next phase of the process.
 
FightingForFamily said:
Don't get too caught up in dramatic cases like this one. If you go to court trying to vilify the other parent you will pay for it. This kind of judgment is only rendered after years of a judge's involvement when everything else has been tried repeatedly and there are no other alternatives remaining.
Click to expand...

FFF: Excellent point.

Much of the challenge that this poster faces is easily summed up by the Honourable Justice Pazaratz in some recent case law:

Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4707 (CanLII)
Date: 2014-08-14 (Docket: 2839/14)
Citation: Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4707 (CanLII)

[20] Thorough and even aggressive advocacy may at times be appropriate – even appreciated by the court – where there are serious factual disputes about the safety and best interests of children.

[21] But conversely, not every family law case justifies an immediate declaration of war.

[22] Recently separated parents are typically angry, frightened and resentful. Their aggressive and perhaps vindictive emotional stance may be understandable. They are at a painful turning point in their lives and in their children’s lives. It is all the more reason why our family law system should – wherever possible -- promote sensitivity and healing, rather than allow impaired judgment and hostility to prevail.

[23] In this case, the Applicant mother fought hard for her children because she thought she was right. The Respondent father was equally sure he was right. Except for those very few “bad faith” cases, all litigants in family court are convinced they are “right”. Judges have very little prospect of changing attitudes. All we can do is focus on behaviours...
Click to expand...

I again encourage you LF32 to look beyond "the truth" and/or being "right" and seek a solution like this father did with his solicitor. The results are much better than going to war...

One thing to consider in your matter OP is this paragraph which was well written with regards to Rule 24.(3) ("Past Conduct"). Which may serve you very well to include in your own book of authorities (as well as the root case that this costs decision is related to.)

[15] The Applicant attempted to focus on conduct – or more precisely, allegations of misconduct by the Respondent father. I agree with the Applicant’s counsel that pursuant to section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act a person’s past conduct is relevant to a custody or access determination if the court is satisfied that the conduct is relevant to the person’s ability to act as a parent. But section 24(3) should not be misinterpreted as affording litigants an unfettered right to indiscriminately raise weak, historical or vague allegations which provide the court with little assistance with respect to a current best interests analysis. ...
Click to expand...

Finally... you should consider his wise words here about "going to trial" and the "success" you seek:

[24] In this case, I have made certain important determinations about the Applicant’s behaviours – both as a parent and as a litigant. My findings were summarized in paragraph 43 of my July 3, 2014 judgment: “It didn’t have to be this way.” It is somewhat disappointing that the Applicant’s response has been to predict she will be more successful at trial. Speaking plainly, I was trying to convey the faint hope that these parties will find a way to avoid going to trial.
Click to expand...

In the end it cost Catherine Haber's client, Candace Coe, $8,000 for not following simple, common and FREE advice that is easily found on this forum and attempting to vilify the respondent in this matter. Negative advocacy doesn't work in Family Law anymore... Time to read some William Eddy Ms. Haber.

I continue to have a strong regard for the Honourable Justice Pazaratz. He sees through the nonsense tactics of negative advocate solicitors and their high conflict clients. Making a claim in accordance with Rule 24.(3) and 24.(4) ("Violence and abuse") is not something that people should throw around easily.

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
Last edited:
Tayken, that is some good quality caselaw right there. One can only hope that LF32 will get in front of someone just like the Honourable Justice Pazaratz.

I have read this one a few times, and I am not sure exactly what it is that you are suggesting that the solicitor and the father did in this case that created their result.

Perhaps you could enlighten me? Your advice seems to imply that LF32 is defaulting to going to war, which runs contrary to virtually all of his previous posts. He has been comitted to working out a solution that respects the roles of both parents, and has had to act with considerable restraint in the face of ugly allegations and unfairly restricted access. LF32 is hoping for the best but preparing for the worst, because his ex partner has not demonstrated any reasonable behaviour to date.

What exactly would you suggest that he do, moving forward?
 
Also not quite sure how LF32s actions and stance to-date can be even considered remotely vindictive.

His case is pretty straightforward; he was an involved dad, and his ex then took the child out of the marital home. She has levelled numerous unproven and undisclosed accusations at him, and restricted him to either 0 or 3 hours of access per week. She has not disclosed where his own child is, and her lawyer has, in emails, threatened to use the unfounded allegations to try and get LF32 fired.

I don't think that outlining these behaviours will make him look vindictive. I think that someone exhibiting those kinds of behaviours (like his ex) are what is truly vindictive in this case.

To date, I have not seen LF32 demonstrate that he has a single vindictive bone in his body. He's just a guy that wants to be a dad to his kid. He hasn't even slagged the parenting of his ex in an anonymous forum, he actually thinks she's a good mom that has made bad decisions.

I think that reminding LF32 to keep his head above the murky waters of high conflict litigation is noble, but I don't think it is fair to imply that his going to court with someone who won't negotiate, or his pointing out the poor choices of his ex, is even remotely vindictive or combative.

It is disheartening and enlightening to see some posts from other parents (mostly dads) who come on here for advice many years after their own divorce, struggling with parental alienation, access issues, and financial challenges, and so many of them have explained the cause of their plight by using the following statements:

1) I thought that I had to leave the house because I was the dad and that's what I thought dad's did.
2) I didn't want to put my kids through a court battle, so I accepted EOW, but deeply regret that I took a backseat to so much of the parenting as a result.
3) I felt guilty about the end of the relationship so I gave her the marital home.
4) I gave up trying to see my kids because it made them upset everytime I finally got to see them after a few months of being denied access.
5) I didn't contest unfair provisions that bankrupted me because I didn't want my kids to 'go without', and now that my standard of living is so low, my kids don't want to be with me overnight.
6) I didn't contest my ex moving the kids so far away because she had already done it, and I didn't want to fight.

I could go on for a while. We are a forum that sees extremes from the parents that have been mentioned here. We've got deadbeat parents that dodge the system, parents that unfairly restrict access, parents that alienate their kids from the other parent, parents that are too protective, parents that are serial daters, high conflict parents, etc. etc. etc.

I think its terrible when one basically gets bullied into submission by these kinds of people. LF32, I am glad that you are standing up for your rights and the rights of your daughter in such a restrained and dignified way.
 
I'm going to point out something fairly obvious yet painful to digest:

In Canada you can only have as much Justice as you can afford.

In many cases that is the fundamental reason why people give up or lose in family law cases. The other party may be cruel, vindictive and in the wrong, but even judges can't order people to have common sense.

It's naive to put people down for being unwilling to go to war. People have to survive these times. They need to sleep, eat, go to work, pay their bills. I could have chased my ex to the court house any number of times already... but I don't because I don't see value in either of us being bankrupt, stressed out, fired from our jobs, etc while lawyers and other "professionals" take resources away from our family.

I want to be able to own a vehicle. It would be nice to be able to own a house some day again. I like my job. I also love my son, but if I go to war I risk losing it all (probably including him).

From what I can read LF32 is handling it the best he can, and he has a pretty good attitude all things considered. He's indulging in the fantasy of these extreme cases but I think he is realistic enough to know his will probably never fall into that category.
 
Oh, I'm not putting anyone down for not going to war, and I agree with you 100% that we can only get the justice that we can afford.

I'm simply pointing out that it is very telling how the system and the bullies can beat people down, and I think that it is good that LF32 has declined to roll over.

Was also pointing out that he is not being unreasonable by refusing to let his ex walk all over him, especially considering how young his daughter is. The stakes are clear, he won't see his daughter more than a once or twice a month for a few hours if his ex wins this.

This is the reason that I have previously told LF32 that she has somewhat done hilm a favour by hitting him with all of this now. He knows what she is capable of, and is going into this with eyes as wide open as they can be.
 
Straittohell said:
I have read this one a few times, and I am not sure exactly what it is that you are suggesting that the solicitor and the father did in this case that created their result.
Click to expand...

The non-conflicted parent retained reputable counsel. The non-conflicted parent didn't counter claim nonsense. The non-conflicted parent took a very positive position. Re-read the case law again as Justice Pazaratz highlights the conduct of the non-conflicted parent in this matter quite well.

The non-conflicted parent didn't post thousands of messages to a message board about legal strategy. They didn't seek negative advocates that would rally at every point they make and rattle sabres...

The non-conflicted parent was able to weed the good advice from bad advice...

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
Last edited:
Tayken

I've been calm, collected, amicable, child-focused and settlement-focused within my case. Vindictiveness doesn't apply to me here .. sorry.

Im not seeking negative advocates. People are expressing opinions. We discuss them. It's a forum. I respect ALL opinions, even if I don't agree with some.

I do weed the good advice form the bad advice. I've taken yours on a few occasions.

I haven't seen D3 much so of course Im counter claiming with tests, etc to clear my name.

I do have reputable counsel.

I have taken a positive position. Ive taken the high road this far. I've put her in a positive light since the beginning in the courtroom/legal doc's, etc (as hard as it was). I haven't batted an angry eyelash...even in the midst of the beatings and even the new false allegations.

Not sure what you're talking about. But Im not gong to clang swords with you. I'm cognizant of your stance with me.

The ex wants to move to QC and put D3 on school there. She is attempting to erase me from her life. Im the only one sending offers Tayken. I AM the one trying to avoid trial. It's not working.

Anyhow .. thanks for the case law.
 
Last edited:
That's okay, LF32, I don't mind clanging swords. :)

I read that caselaw and found that if anything, LF32 very closely resembled the respondent. You have implied that he is acting more like the applicant, which is ludicrous. He has been monumentally patient in dealing with a completely unjust situation, yet you seem to think that his venting here completely erases that important detail.

LF32 has attained counsel, but neither you nor I would know if it is reputable.

LF32 took as positive as a position as one could considering that his own child was abducted from him. He has made every effort to avoid court, and has been punished by an opportunistic lawyer and ex partner as a result. The fact that he is going to court should not be interpreted as a failure to take a positive position.

If he chooses to post messages to an anonymous message board, I fail to see how this makes him conflicted. He will be judged by what he presents at court and the manner in how he presents it. Venting and bouncing ideas off of others might tip off the opposing party as to what he is doing, but that is merely akin to him providing timely disclosure.

To date, he has not levelled any accusations or named his partner in the forum, or attempted to sully her reputation. Ironically, that is something that his partner has attempted to do. So far, your advice for him has been to get a lawyer that he already has, to not seek support from an online forum designed to support people, and to 'weed out good advice from bad advice', with you being the sole arbiter of what is considered 'good advice'.

I find your classification of certain parties as 'negative, sabre rattling advocates' to be amusing if not completely disingenuous. Myself and the vast majority of people have simply advised LF32 of the following:

1) Don't sign away your rights
2) Try to settle if both parties are prepared to be reasonable
3) Document everything
4) Take advantage of your competent legal counsel
5) Be prepared to go to court if the mother continues to try and cut you out of your daughter's life
6) Educate yourself with caselaw but don't assume that it will be your story
7) Don't do anything rash like keep your daughter longer during an access visit
8) Stay positive, take care of yourself and your health

No one here has tried to encourage LF32 to fire false accusations at his ex and play dirty pool. No one here has tried to sugar coat his situation and only tell him what he wants to hear. We are all aware of what he is up against, and have no illusions about what he is at risk for losing. I haven't seen any advice that would be considered "bad" from anyone here, including you. Your advice is condescending and redundant, but not necessarily bad. We all have vastly different experiences and perspectives to offer, and have shared those perspectives in an effort to help LF32 realize the full range of his options.

Your disdain for his approach and those who sympathize with his position is quite apparent, but very curious. Perhaps you have forgotten your own experiences with the system, and have lost any sense of empathy? Perhaps you have never had to experience the agony of having your children unjustly taken from you, despite what your name implies? Perhaps your own approach is so vastly different than others, that you cannot accept any other version that is different in any way from your own?

I struggle with the advice you post, not because I don't understand it, but because it has such a myopic feel to it, and appears ignorant of many of the developments in the situation. You either forget or disregard many of the fundamental facts at hand in LF32's case, and then you float in every month or so with a useful caselaw reference, and tag advice to it that seems to be based on you having read the last two pages of posts, and that's about it.

If you don't want to keep up with "the thread that never ends", then don't, but I think that you should refrain from making sweeping statements about a situation that you are only 10% up to date on. You can do so much better.
 
Tayken just did me the courtesy of specifically telling me that he is adding me to his ignore list.

I consider that the most positive feedback that I have ever received. If someone wants to quote me on that so that he can see this, they are more than welcome.

:)

LF32, I think that the positive manner in which you handle Tayken is a good indicator that you truly do take a positive approach out there in "the real world". Well done, sir, I wish that I had your fortitude in this department.
 
Strait ..

I respect Tayken. I have zero issues. I get what he/she's saying. Like you I agree that he may not fully comprehend the "wrong's" I've been dealt.

I don't see you all as cheerleaders. I see you as intelligent individuals who may have been through something similar in the past and are offering your thoughts. You don't have pom poms .. you have empathy. You feel for my situation and are trying to help me. And I don't view that as negative.

At the same time Tayken, whether or not I agree on your advice does not matter. I like to see things from a multidimensional, holistic perspective. You help me accomplish this. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top