A legal phenomenon called collaborative divorce is sweeping across North America and is being sold as the answer to the age-old question: “How can we get divorced quickly, fairly and cheaply?” Family law lawyers who have embraced the doctrine of collaboration are effusive in their praise and defence of this new process for divorcing couples. There are websites galore extolling its virtues.
Many of them list a myriad of reasons why separating spouses should reject traditional family law lawyers in favour of collaborative lawyers. Very few of these sites discuss the downside or the disadvantages of collaborative family law. At least one site declares there are no disadvantages to collaborative divorce.
So, what is collaborative divorce and where did it come from? In 1990 lawyer Stuart Webb of Minnesota decried the emotional and financial devastation experienced by many of his family law clients. He wondered if divorce could be done in a kinder, gentler way and thought it could.
He devised a process where a divorcing couple would each retain a collaboratively trained lawyer and sign an agreement that provided each spouse would enter into interest-based negotiations with the assistance of their lawyers. Meetings would be scheduled where spouses and lawyers would discuss and settle all issues related to their divorce including property, custody, and child and spousal support.
To experienced family law lawyers there was nothing new about four-way settlement meetings. They had been the basis for settlement discussions for decades. But the collaborative process introduced an additional feature. The agreement signed by the spouses and their lawyers stipulated if the collaborative process was not successful, their lawyers could no longer represent them and they would be compelled to “start over” with regular family law lawyers, otherwise known as litigators.
This “court is not an option” approach is a critical component of the process, expected to compel adversarial spouses to settle, rather than face the prospects of new lawyers armed for court battle.
It all sounds wonderful and for some divorcing couples it is effective. Whether it can be said to be less expensive is another issue, because the collaborative process also provides much-needed work for underemployed counsellors, child psychologists, domestic abuse specialists and financial experts.
It has also led to the growth of professionals who call themselves divorce coaches and parenting coordinators. With the addition of one or more of these “experts”, one can easily imagine spiralling costs. In one case involving a short marriage with no children, the collaborative process cost a couple $55,000.
This is not intended as a criticism of divorce coaches or parenting coordinators, who can each play an important role, however, to suggest this parade of professionals comes cheap is disingenuous at best and outright misleading at worst.
On website, “collaborativedivorce.net” the authors point out that “No one should be in a hurry to reach issues quickly because of time constraints”. This reminds me of the unspoken philosophy behind mediation, where couples could spend years with a mediator who was apparently skilled at bringing divorcing couples to “yes”, but not in a timely fashion. In certain instances, couples could be done and divorced for the same price-tag as the marathon mediation.
This same website encourages collaborative participants to “control the meeting”. This is a disturbing admonition for a process that is intended to promote fairness, cooperation and a level playing field.
But make no mistake. Despite what you may have heard, collaborative lawyers are still out to get the best deal they can for their clients. In one respect they are like “wolves in sheep’s clothing” as they implement strategies usually reserved for “bulldog” lawyers, including the dreaded “Nothing is settled until everything is settled” and “We refuse to counter”, driving one party to negotiate against him or herself.
As for me, the jury is still out. Oh yes, I have always practiced family law collaboratively, I just didn’t adopt the tag.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Judges pay cut might help with shortages
writen in July 28th, 2011 edition
Kamloops Daily News
by Robert Koopmans
COURT NOTES
Judges' pay cutmight help with (court) shortages
There's much ado these days about the lack of court resources, and how shortages of clerks, sheriffs, Crown lawyers and judges impact our right to timely justice.
In Kamloops, courtrooms are closing. Just the other day two courtrooms merged into one because there were not enough court clerks. Clearly, B.C.'s justice system is struggling through a financial crisis. What area of government isn't?
Judges lately have taken to criticizing government for the lack of resources. Not long ago a Kamloops judge denounced staff shortages while staying impaired driving charges in a case that had stretched out far too long.
Ironically, however, judges are part of the problem. Why? They are extremely expensive civil servants, and the way their salaries are determined ensures their compensation
Provincial court judges in B.C. make about $235,000 a year, while B.C. Supreme Court justices earn roughly $280,000. Federal judges are guaranteed wage increases equal to the cost of living, typically around one to three per cent per year.
Provincial judges want more pay equity with federal judges and continually push to close the gap. B.C.'s prosecutor salaries are directly tied to judges' salaries. As a result, the bill for the top end of justice services must always grow.
The argument for big judicial salaries suggests such money is needed to attract the best legal minds from the pool of lawyers but at the pace judicial salaries are rising, such an argument starts to run thin.
The average lawyer in B.C. makes about $100,000 a year, according to the stats. Yes, some lawyers make more - perhaps even much more - but not many. Judge's salaries have been powerfully attractive to lawyers for quite some time. As a further perk, judges don't have to manage offices, billings, bills, collections and other expenses.
Compare judges to other publicly funded professions. B.C. MLAs earn about $101,000 a year. The premier makes about $190,000. Federal MPs earn about $160,000, while Canada's prime minister earns $317,000.
We have only one Prime Minister. There are hundreds of federal judges in Canada, all of them earning nearly the same amount. Not far off, all those judges will make more than Stephen Harper...
Family doctors In B.C. bill the government an average of about $232,000 gross a year, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Specialists in B.C. gross bill on average about $308,000 per year. They must still pay their operational expenses, making personal earnings much less.
Do judges need to make so much more than everyone else?
If judges in B.C. want to make a meaningful contribution to the shortage of justice resources, here's a suggestion: volunteer a pay cut.
If each provincial court judge took a 20-per-cent cut - still an annual salary of more than $190,000 - the province could make up on many of those missing clerks and sheriffs and keep more courtrooms open.
As justice-system and community leaders, surely they can recognize the issue and make a sacrifice, with public service in mind.
Robert Koopmans covers the courts for The Daily News. He can be reached at
250-372-2331, or by email: rkoopmans@kamloopsnews.ca
Kamloops Daily News
by Robert Koopmans
COURT NOTES
Judges' pay cutmight help with (court) shortages
There's much ado these days about the lack of court resources, and how shortages of clerks, sheriffs, Crown lawyers and judges impact our right to timely justice.
In Kamloops, courtrooms are closing. Just the other day two courtrooms merged into one because there were not enough court clerks. Clearly, B.C.'s justice system is struggling through a financial crisis. What area of government isn't?
Judges lately have taken to criticizing government for the lack of resources. Not long ago a Kamloops judge denounced staff shortages while staying impaired driving charges in a case that had stretched out far too long.
Ironically, however, judges are part of the problem. Why? They are extremely expensive civil servants, and the way their salaries are determined ensures their compensation
Provincial court judges in B.C. make about $235,000 a year, while B.C. Supreme Court justices earn roughly $280,000. Federal judges are guaranteed wage increases equal to the cost of living, typically around one to three per cent per year.
Provincial judges want more pay equity with federal judges and continually push to close the gap. B.C.'s prosecutor salaries are directly tied to judges' salaries. As a result, the bill for the top end of justice services must always grow.
The argument for big judicial salaries suggests such money is needed to attract the best legal minds from the pool of lawyers but at the pace judicial salaries are rising, such an argument starts to run thin.
The average lawyer in B.C. makes about $100,000 a year, according to the stats. Yes, some lawyers make more - perhaps even much more - but not many. Judge's salaries have been powerfully attractive to lawyers for quite some time. As a further perk, judges don't have to manage offices, billings, bills, collections and other expenses.
Compare judges to other publicly funded professions. B.C. MLAs earn about $101,000 a year. The premier makes about $190,000. Federal MPs earn about $160,000, while Canada's prime minister earns $317,000.
We have only one Prime Minister. There are hundreds of federal judges in Canada, all of them earning nearly the same amount. Not far off, all those judges will make more than Stephen Harper...
Family doctors In B.C. bill the government an average of about $232,000 gross a year, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Specialists in B.C. gross bill on average about $308,000 per year. They must still pay their operational expenses, making personal earnings much less.
Do judges need to make so much more than everyone else?
If judges in B.C. want to make a meaningful contribution to the shortage of justice resources, here's a suggestion: volunteer a pay cut.
If each provincial court judge took a 20-per-cent cut - still an annual salary of more than $190,000 - the province could make up on many of those missing clerks and sheriffs and keep more courtrooms open.
As justice-system and community leaders, surely they can recognize the issue and make a sacrifice, with public service in mind.
Robert Koopmans covers the courts for The Daily News. He can be reached at
250-372-2331, or by email: rkoopmans@kamloopsnews.ca
One small paper talking about the court system
Justice System Won't Be Fixed With Only Money
July 26th, 2011 | Doug Collins
Our justice system is like our health care system - it's not going to be fixed by simply throwing more money at it. Critics are suggesting the appointment of five new provincial court judges won't be enough to address the serious crisis facing B.C.'s justice system. Delays in the court system are resulting in judges throwing out cases because of the length of time it takes to get cases to court. The B.C. Crown Counsel Association says the new appointments won't address other resource shortages, such as increasing the numbers of Crown Lawyers, sheriffs and court staff. And all of this is true.
But what needs to be taken on is a complete review of the system and how it operates. It's fine for judges to throw cases out, but how much of the problem is created by the judges themselves? And they do create part of the problem. And how about the lawyers themselves? They're part of the problem too. So many delays are created because lawyers maybe take on too much and juggle too many cases and things continually get put off and put off for convenience sake. A lawyer tells the judge he'll be away or isn't ready, and the case is put over, and after that happens several times, the judge throws the case out. That's not the fault of a lack of resources - that's the fault of the people within the system.
I am not suggesting for a moment that more resources don't have to be committed. But those within the system already have to be accountable and own up to their part in the failure of the system to work. And the only way we can change things is for everyone to be a part of putting a new plan in place that will make significant changes. The same old same old, and just throwing money into an already broke system will do for the legal system what it's doing for the health care system-absolutely nothing.
July 26th, 2011 | Doug Collins
Our justice system is like our health care system - it's not going to be fixed by simply throwing more money at it. Critics are suggesting the appointment of five new provincial court judges won't be enough to address the serious crisis facing B.C.'s justice system. Delays in the court system are resulting in judges throwing out cases because of the length of time it takes to get cases to court. The B.C. Crown Counsel Association says the new appointments won't address other resource shortages, such as increasing the numbers of Crown Lawyers, sheriffs and court staff. And all of this is true.
But what needs to be taken on is a complete review of the system and how it operates. It's fine for judges to throw cases out, but how much of the problem is created by the judges themselves? And they do create part of the problem. And how about the lawyers themselves? They're part of the problem too. So many delays are created because lawyers maybe take on too much and juggle too many cases and things continually get put off and put off for convenience sake. A lawyer tells the judge he'll be away or isn't ready, and the case is put over, and after that happens several times, the judge throws the case out. That's not the fault of a lack of resources - that's the fault of the people within the system.
I am not suggesting for a moment that more resources don't have to be committed. But those within the system already have to be accountable and own up to their part in the failure of the system to work. And the only way we can change things is for everyone to be a part of putting a new plan in place that will make significant changes. The same old same old, and just throwing money into an already broke system will do for the legal system what it's doing for the health care system-absolutely nothing.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Ontario divore law takes bold new step... about time
..
Ontario to force couples seeking divorce to attend mediation session
.
.
By Chase Kell
Associate Editor
.Posts
Website
Email
.By Chase Kell | Daily Brew – Thu, 21 Jul, 2011.. .
.
tweet10
Email
Print
....
.
A two-year court battle, exacerbated by $15,000 in legal fees, brought Scott McLarty's 25-year marriage to a bitter end.
A decade later, McLarty finds himself in a familiar spot, up against his former wife as he attempts to restructure the terms of their settlement.
This time, however, McLarty and his ex-wife have been ordered to attend a two-hour mediation session - part of a provincial program aimed at finding an agreement to avoid bitter litigation.
After a couple formally files for divorce, each will be given a sheet pertaining to the mandatory session prior to court appearances. Attendance is confirmed with a stamp, a requirement that permits the divorce proceedings to move forward should the couple fail to reach an agreement.
"I think it would have been a catalyst for us to take a step back, take a deep breath, and see if there were things we could sort out on our own," said McLarty of his divorce, which was ultimately settled out of court, in a National Post story.
"When you're going through a divorce, you're angry, you're depressed, you're in an 'I want to win' mentality. The information session encourages you to try to work together and come to a solution."
Avoiding nasty court battles and saving thousands in legal fees are contributing factors, but reducing backlogs in court and limiting the effect on children played a substantial role in implementing the initiative.
An estimated 160,000 people make use of Ontario's family courts each year, creating scheduling conflicts and lengthy wait times.
"Some cases involve a long court fight," said Attorney-General Chris Bentley in the story. "This (mediation session) will give people a better sense of whether it's worthwhile having one."
When looking back at his divorce, hindsight suggests McLarty's two-year procedure was "probably not" worth it. And, in his opinion, the bulk of those he joined at his April session may come to the same realization.
"My impression, looking around at the room of 40 or so people, was that maybe 50 per cent of them could figure things out outside the courtroom," said McLarty in the story. "I'm hoping that this time we'll try to settle (the terms of our agreement) in mediation, but we'll see if (my ex-wife) agrees."
With the mandatory session, Ontario has joined an international effort to promote mediation and avoid lengthy, costly and often bitter litigation. The U.K. recently joined states such as Utah and Florida by enforcing these mandatory sessions.
Toronto-based divorce mediator, Deborah Mecklinger, practiced in Florida when mandatory mediation was implemented. After sharing her experience with couples wishing they had attempted mediation prior to court, Mecklinger explains not everyone is prepared for the amicable approach.
"Mediation requires two people who are interested in a win-win solution," she explained in the story. "That's not true of all divorcing couples."
(CP Photo)
Ontario to force couples seeking divorce to attend mediation session
.
.
By Chase Kell
Associate Editor
.Posts
Website
.By Chase Kell | Daily Brew – Thu, 21 Jul, 2011.. .
.
tweet10
....
.
A two-year court battle, exacerbated by $15,000 in legal fees, brought Scott McLarty's 25-year marriage to a bitter end.
A decade later, McLarty finds himself in a familiar spot, up against his former wife as he attempts to restructure the terms of their settlement.
This time, however, McLarty and his ex-wife have been ordered to attend a two-hour mediation session - part of a provincial program aimed at finding an agreement to avoid bitter litigation.
After a couple formally files for divorce, each will be given a sheet pertaining to the mandatory session prior to court appearances. Attendance is confirmed with a stamp, a requirement that permits the divorce proceedings to move forward should the couple fail to reach an agreement.
"I think it would have been a catalyst for us to take a step back, take a deep breath, and see if there were things we could sort out on our own," said McLarty of his divorce, which was ultimately settled out of court, in a National Post story.
"When you're going through a divorce, you're angry, you're depressed, you're in an 'I want to win' mentality. The information session encourages you to try to work together and come to a solution."
Avoiding nasty court battles and saving thousands in legal fees are contributing factors, but reducing backlogs in court and limiting the effect on children played a substantial role in implementing the initiative.
An estimated 160,000 people make use of Ontario's family courts each year, creating scheduling conflicts and lengthy wait times.
"Some cases involve a long court fight," said Attorney-General Chris Bentley in the story. "This (mediation session) will give people a better sense of whether it's worthwhile having one."
When looking back at his divorce, hindsight suggests McLarty's two-year procedure was "probably not" worth it. And, in his opinion, the bulk of those he joined at his April session may come to the same realization.
"My impression, looking around at the room of 40 or so people, was that maybe 50 per cent of them could figure things out outside the courtroom," said McLarty in the story. "I'm hoping that this time we'll try to settle (the terms of our agreement) in mediation, but we'll see if (my ex-wife) agrees."
With the mandatory session, Ontario has joined an international effort to promote mediation and avoid lengthy, costly and often bitter litigation. The U.K. recently joined states such as Utah and Florida by enforcing these mandatory sessions.
Toronto-based divorce mediator, Deborah Mecklinger, practiced in Florida when mandatory mediation was implemented. After sharing her experience with couples wishing they had attempted mediation prior to court, Mecklinger explains not everyone is prepared for the amicable approach.
"Mediation requires two people who are interested in a win-win solution," she explained in the story. "That's not true of all divorcing couples."
(CP Photo)
Arguing tips
Arguing Tips
Most of us learn how to fight from watching other people do it - usually our parents. And while we can't always blame others for our own faults, being disagreeable - believe it or not - is a learned behaviour. Kids who witness selfish and unhealthy arguments at home are much more likely to initiate disagreement or use anger to resolve problems in their own lives, and children who are surrounded by constant arguing often suffer from a lowered self-image and are more likely to have difficulties in school and in other social situations.
Nobody wants to harm their children, and we all want our own relationships to be happy and healthy. So what's the right way to fight?
Fight fair, and listen for the bell
No relationship is perfect, and every couple argues. However it's important to realize when our fighting has reached an unhealthy stage. What are the signs? When name calling, insults, and physical anger enter the scene, it's time to ring the bell and head to your separate corners.
When your words are being thrown out simply with the intent to hurt, then you've crossed the line into unhealthy fighting. For example, if you can't communicate your anger about the fact that your partner has failed to help with the household chores the day before your mother-in-law visits without calling him "useless and lazy" or highlighting his "momma's boy tendencies," then you aren't fighting fair.
It's also important to drop the words never, always, right and wrong from your fighting repertoire. Any time we group our relationship or partner into these categories, we are labelling it as black or white and unchangeable.
Check your ego at the door
Yes, we all want to be right - it feels good, and it strokes the ego. That being said, if you are constantly fighting to win, you are putting your need to be right ahead of your relationship and your partner's feelings. The short feeling of vindication you get when you're "right" pales in comparison to the feeling of being in a healthy, stable relationship, where you are both communicating openly and honestly and growing together because of it. Next time you are in a heated debate ask yourself if you are fighting to win, or fighting for the relationship.
Take responsibility for your punches
Taking 100-percent responsibility for your part of the conflict, and how you react to any given situation, is important. It takes two to argue, but it only takes one to put on the brakes and change the direction of the fight.
The right way to confront disagreements is by speaking in an non confrontational manner. To do this, start by sharing a physical feeling and/or an emotion, then share the thoughts that inspired those feelings, then share a fact you know to be true, and finally state what you want. For example, bad communication would look something like, "You are so inconsiderate! You never call when you're late. I rang you three times but you were obviously too busy with your friends to answer." Good communication would look something like, "I feel sick to my stomach and worried when I don't hear from you late at night. I tried to call you three times but you didn't answer. I would like it if you could check in with me when you're going to be late so I don't worry as much."
Only by taking responsibility for our reactions will we minimize arguments and teach our children how to fight fair. After all, we all want our children to be successful in life, and sore losers and name callers never do well on the playground.
Most of us learn how to fight from watching other people do it - usually our parents. And while we can't always blame others for our own faults, being disagreeable - believe it or not - is a learned behaviour. Kids who witness selfish and unhealthy arguments at home are much more likely to initiate disagreement or use anger to resolve problems in their own lives, and children who are surrounded by constant arguing often suffer from a lowered self-image and are more likely to have difficulties in school and in other social situations.
Nobody wants to harm their children, and we all want our own relationships to be happy and healthy. So what's the right way to fight?
Fight fair, and listen for the bell
No relationship is perfect, and every couple argues. However it's important to realize when our fighting has reached an unhealthy stage. What are the signs? When name calling, insults, and physical anger enter the scene, it's time to ring the bell and head to your separate corners.
When your words are being thrown out simply with the intent to hurt, then you've crossed the line into unhealthy fighting. For example, if you can't communicate your anger about the fact that your partner has failed to help with the household chores the day before your mother-in-law visits without calling him "useless and lazy" or highlighting his "momma's boy tendencies," then you aren't fighting fair.
It's also important to drop the words never, always, right and wrong from your fighting repertoire. Any time we group our relationship or partner into these categories, we are labelling it as black or white and unchangeable.
Check your ego at the door
Yes, we all want to be right - it feels good, and it strokes the ego. That being said, if you are constantly fighting to win, you are putting your need to be right ahead of your relationship and your partner's feelings. The short feeling of vindication you get when you're "right" pales in comparison to the feeling of being in a healthy, stable relationship, where you are both communicating openly and honestly and growing together because of it. Next time you are in a heated debate ask yourself if you are fighting to win, or fighting for the relationship.
Take responsibility for your punches
Taking 100-percent responsibility for your part of the conflict, and how you react to any given situation, is important. It takes two to argue, but it only takes one to put on the brakes and change the direction of the fight.
The right way to confront disagreements is by speaking in an non confrontational manner. To do this, start by sharing a physical feeling and/or an emotion, then share the thoughts that inspired those feelings, then share a fact you know to be true, and finally state what you want. For example, bad communication would look something like, "You are so inconsiderate! You never call when you're late. I rang you three times but you were obviously too busy with your friends to answer." Good communication would look something like, "I feel sick to my stomach and worried when I don't hear from you late at night. I tried to call you three times but you didn't answer. I would like it if you could check in with me when you're going to be late so I don't worry as much."
Only by taking responsibility for our reactions will we minimize arguments and teach our children how to fight fair. After all, we all want our children to be successful in life, and sore losers and name callers never do well on the playground.
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Comeback - Shane Hodge
Well i recieved a surprise email this morning and decidied to check it out. It came from this guy named Sane Hodge from Austrailia, so he talks a little funny (kidding) but he makes a lot of sense. From what I have heard and read so far he is talking about divorce and how it affects our life and worse our kids lives and his responses are words to live by. So check out his website, he has a few youtube videos and a Facebook page as well, all very good information..
http://thecomeback.com.au/
http://thecomeback.com.au/
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The Good Karma Divorce
Ok, I know I talked about it before but I just like to keep it fresh. I think its a great idea and should be seriously considered by all family leagal systems
Why this Book?
After many years as a divorce attorney and family court judge, Lowrance has pioneered a new strategy for getting through the divorce process intact. The premise of this book? The American court system was not built to house or process the violent emotions unleashed by divorce. Attorneys are not trained to reduce the attendant suffering of their divorcing clients and families, and judges have a limited toolkit of remedies. Divorcing couples embark on this frightful journey, believing that the court will deliver justice, and that justice will deliver peace. Most discover somewhere during the process that they are achingly, horribly, alone. This book is the insurance policy against having the kind of divorce you always feared, while showing you how to protect yourself, your children, your finances, your soul, and your psyche.
Why this Book?
After many years as a divorce attorney and family court judge, Lowrance has pioneered a new strategy for getting through the divorce process intact. The premise of this book? The American court system was not built to house or process the violent emotions unleashed by divorce. Attorneys are not trained to reduce the attendant suffering of their divorcing clients and families, and judges have a limited toolkit of remedies. Divorcing couples embark on this frightful journey, believing that the court will deliver justice, and that justice will deliver peace. Most discover somewhere during the process that they are achingly, horribly, alone. This book is the insurance policy against having the kind of divorce you always feared, while showing you how to protect yourself, your children, your finances, your soul, and your psyche.
Murder is cheaper and quicker than divorce...
Boy, can I understand this.. Thank you again LawDive for your thoughts...
"Apr 23
Murder is Cheaper and Quicker than Divorce
Posted by LawDiva in Criminal Law, Divorce, Family Law. 2 Comments
Rosa Hill had a plan to spend more time with her two year-old daughter Elizabeth. A handwritten note set out the steps: “Go to mass… Go to confession… Get tasers… Target practice…”
Her google searches in furtherance of her plan, dubbed “operation custody”, were similarly telling: “How to get away with murder…How to make a silencer….”
Rosa Hill, age 35 and her mother, Mei Li, 57, faced a California jury this week for the attempted murder of Rosa’s ex-husband Eric Hill and the murder of his 91 year-old mother, Selma Hill.
Despite her accusations that her ex-husband had molested Elizabeth, a court awarded custody of the child to Mr. Hill, who lived with his mother Selma Hill.
Rosa and her mother were aghast when the custody order was made in the face of their allegations of his history of mentally instability and psychiatric hospitalizations.
After months of planning, Rosa and her mother went to the Hill home and tasered Eric Hill and his mother. Eric’s mother did not survive the attack. Her battered body was discovered by police stuffed in a trash can. Both Rosa Hill and her mother were arrested at the scene. Rosa’s father was charged as an accessory to the crimes.
An unusual one-off event? Not at all. The number of murders and murder-sucides linked to divorce disputes is frightening.
This week alone the media highlighted several of these stories including the case of Allan Schonenborn who murdered his three young children in British Columbia in a vendetta against their mother, was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and recently sought escorted passes to visit the mall and have coffee.
Cardiologist Dr. Guy Turcotte’s trial for the murder of his children, ages 5 and 3, began in Montreal this week. He and his wife, another doctor, had separated shortly before the murders and his failed suicide attempt.
And finally, a husband in Ft. Lauderdale this week was so incensed with the court’s orders that he began beating his estranged wife right in the courtroom before he was tasered by authorities.
The last word, however, goes to grandfather David White in New Zealand whose daughter was murdered by her millionaire husband, Greg Meads. This week Mr. Meads was sentenced to 11 years in prison and ordered to pay $65,000 in compensation to Mr. White, who would now raise his grandchildren. White bitterly remarked: “It’s cheaper to murder your wife than to divorce her.”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang"
"Apr 23
Murder is Cheaper and Quicker than Divorce
Posted by LawDiva in Criminal Law, Divorce, Family Law. 2 Comments
Rosa Hill had a plan to spend more time with her two year-old daughter Elizabeth. A handwritten note set out the steps: “Go to mass… Go to confession… Get tasers… Target practice…”
Her google searches in furtherance of her plan, dubbed “operation custody”, were similarly telling: “How to get away with murder…How to make a silencer….”
Rosa Hill, age 35 and her mother, Mei Li, 57, faced a California jury this week for the attempted murder of Rosa’s ex-husband Eric Hill and the murder of his 91 year-old mother, Selma Hill.
Despite her accusations that her ex-husband had molested Elizabeth, a court awarded custody of the child to Mr. Hill, who lived with his mother Selma Hill.
Rosa and her mother were aghast when the custody order was made in the face of their allegations of his history of mentally instability and psychiatric hospitalizations.
After months of planning, Rosa and her mother went to the Hill home and tasered Eric Hill and his mother. Eric’s mother did not survive the attack. Her battered body was discovered by police stuffed in a trash can. Both Rosa Hill and her mother were arrested at the scene. Rosa’s father was charged as an accessory to the crimes.
An unusual one-off event? Not at all. The number of murders and murder-sucides linked to divorce disputes is frightening.
This week alone the media highlighted several of these stories including the case of Allan Schonenborn who murdered his three young children in British Columbia in a vendetta against their mother, was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and recently sought escorted passes to visit the mall and have coffee.
Cardiologist Dr. Guy Turcotte’s trial for the murder of his children, ages 5 and 3, began in Montreal this week. He and his wife, another doctor, had separated shortly before the murders and his failed suicide attempt.
And finally, a husband in Ft. Lauderdale this week was so incensed with the court’s orders that he began beating his estranged wife right in the courtroom before he was tasered by authorities.
The last word, however, goes to grandfather David White in New Zealand whose daughter was murdered by her millionaire husband, Greg Meads. This week Mr. Meads was sentenced to 11 years in prison and ordered to pay $65,000 in compensation to Mr. White, who would now raise his grandchildren. White bitterly remarked: “It’s cheaper to murder your wife than to divorce her.”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang"
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Why its time to elect our Judges (in Canada)
Why it’s time to elect our judges
By Georgialee Lang, canada.com April 28, 2011 8:53 AM Comments (14)
Story
Photos ( 1 )
Georgialee Lang: "The election of judges would raise the public’s awareness of the importance of the judiciary and its role in society."
Canadians like to talk about fixing the criminal justice system, but are we ready for a radical overhaul?
Are we prepared to engage in a vigorous debate about the fundamentals of our justice system, about eschewing the appointment of judges and considering an elected judiciary, in rethinking the way we do justice? A 2007 Canadian poll revealed that 63 per cent of Canadians were in favour of elected judges.
Our appointed judges are forced to wade into highly politicized issues like abortion, euthanasia, polygamy, and the decriminalization of marijuana as litigants challenge the constitutionality of such laws under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Today’s judges are making decisions that should be in the domain of our elected representatives. Do we want a judge in British Columbia rewriting our 121-year-old law banning polygamy? Should an Ontario judge be responsible for the decriminalization of cannabis?
An elected bench would be democratically accountable to the public. Presently the only censure against a trial judge is the Court of Appeal or the Canadian Judicial Council, both institutions that shut out the public. If judges were elected they would undoubtedly be more sensitive to the pulse of the general public and less likely to cling to the ideology of their elite educations.
Elected judges would introduce a transparency to the now-cloistered ritual of judicial appointments, a practice that has been enshrined in Canadian legal history for too long.
The election of judges would also raise the public’s awareness of the importance of the judiciary and its role in society. Citizens who elect their judges may have more confidence in their judges, based on elevated levels of scrutiny from the public and the media. Certainly there would be a greater perception of public legitimacy.
On the other hand, critics of an elected judiciary refer to the “tyranny of the majority” and the possibility of corruption, including the merchandising of votes. A counter to this fear is the glare of the media spotlight that is clearly absent in the appointment of judges.
Japan has achieved a compromise worthy of investigation. In sweeping reforms to its criminal justice system, Japan has adopted a program of elected professional judges and lay judges.
This new model of adjudication consists of three professional full-time judges sitting with six citizen judges who participate as equals in the fact-finding and sentencing of criminals. Three back-up lay judges are also seated in case one or more of the lay judges is unable to continue. Citizen judges are chosen in a manner similar to the selection of Canadian jurors.
Japan has no jury system, so the introduction of the people’s views is an important step to lend credibility to its criminal justice system. While Canada has a tradition of jury trials, the reality is that civil jury trials have priced themselves into extinction and judges without juries hear 90 per cent of Canada’s criminal cases.
Citizen judges are only used in the most serious cases like murder, robbery and other offences that involve death or severe injury. The trials are streamlined so evidence may be heard in a much shorter time.
With extensive cooperation prior to trial between the prosecution and the defence, only the contentious issues are heard. One of the biggest complaints about criminal trials in Canada is the long delay to get them started and the enormous court time required to complete them. A political corruption trial in British Columbia that began with a raid on the legislature ended with a guilty plea after almost eight years in court. The final chapter of this saga saw the taxpayers of British Columbia saddled with the accuseds’ $6 million legal bill.
In a recent Japanese case a panel of nine judges, including six lay judges, convicted and sentenced the driver of a vehicle whose dangerous driving resulted in the death of two innocent victims.
More surprisingly, the panel also convicted the driver’s two passengers for aiding and abetting, by permitting him to drive while in a state of intoxication. The driver received 16 years in prison while the passengers received two years each, although the public prosecutor was asking for eight years.
A preliminary assessment of the effect of lay judges reveals they pronounce more severe sentences on sex offenders, grant probation periods for suspended sentences more often than professional judges alone did, and have garnered fewer appeals of their decisions.
We can create a made-in-Canada justice system to restore pride and trust in our courts.
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
By Georgialee Lang, canada.com April 28, 2011 8:53 AM Comments (14)
Story
Photos ( 1 )
Georgialee Lang: "The election of judges would raise the public’s awareness of the importance of the judiciary and its role in society."
Canadians like to talk about fixing the criminal justice system, but are we ready for a radical overhaul?
Are we prepared to engage in a vigorous debate about the fundamentals of our justice system, about eschewing the appointment of judges and considering an elected judiciary, in rethinking the way we do justice? A 2007 Canadian poll revealed that 63 per cent of Canadians were in favour of elected judges.
Our appointed judges are forced to wade into highly politicized issues like abortion, euthanasia, polygamy, and the decriminalization of marijuana as litigants challenge the constitutionality of such laws under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Today’s judges are making decisions that should be in the domain of our elected representatives. Do we want a judge in British Columbia rewriting our 121-year-old law banning polygamy? Should an Ontario judge be responsible for the decriminalization of cannabis?
An elected bench would be democratically accountable to the public. Presently the only censure against a trial judge is the Court of Appeal or the Canadian Judicial Council, both institutions that shut out the public. If judges were elected they would undoubtedly be more sensitive to the pulse of the general public and less likely to cling to the ideology of their elite educations.
Elected judges would introduce a transparency to the now-cloistered ritual of judicial appointments, a practice that has been enshrined in Canadian legal history for too long.
The election of judges would also raise the public’s awareness of the importance of the judiciary and its role in society. Citizens who elect their judges may have more confidence in their judges, based on elevated levels of scrutiny from the public and the media. Certainly there would be a greater perception of public legitimacy.
On the other hand, critics of an elected judiciary refer to the “tyranny of the majority” and the possibility of corruption, including the merchandising of votes. A counter to this fear is the glare of the media spotlight that is clearly absent in the appointment of judges.
Japan has achieved a compromise worthy of investigation. In sweeping reforms to its criminal justice system, Japan has adopted a program of elected professional judges and lay judges.
This new model of adjudication consists of three professional full-time judges sitting with six citizen judges who participate as equals in the fact-finding and sentencing of criminals. Three back-up lay judges are also seated in case one or more of the lay judges is unable to continue. Citizen judges are chosen in a manner similar to the selection of Canadian jurors.
Japan has no jury system, so the introduction of the people’s views is an important step to lend credibility to its criminal justice system. While Canada has a tradition of jury trials, the reality is that civil jury trials have priced themselves into extinction and judges without juries hear 90 per cent of Canada’s criminal cases.
Citizen judges are only used in the most serious cases like murder, robbery and other offences that involve death or severe injury. The trials are streamlined so evidence may be heard in a much shorter time.
With extensive cooperation prior to trial between the prosecution and the defence, only the contentious issues are heard. One of the biggest complaints about criminal trials in Canada is the long delay to get them started and the enormous court time required to complete them. A political corruption trial in British Columbia that began with a raid on the legislature ended with a guilty plea after almost eight years in court. The final chapter of this saga saw the taxpayers of British Columbia saddled with the accuseds’ $6 million legal bill.
In a recent Japanese case a panel of nine judges, including six lay judges, convicted and sentenced the driver of a vehicle whose dangerous driving resulted in the death of two innocent victims.
More surprisingly, the panel also convicted the driver’s two passengers for aiding and abetting, by permitting him to drive while in a state of intoxication. The driver received 16 years in prison while the passengers received two years each, although the public prosecutor was asking for eight years.
A preliminary assessment of the effect of lay judges reveals they pronounce more severe sentences on sex offenders, grant probation periods for suspended sentences more often than professional judges alone did, and have garnered fewer appeals of their decisions.
We can create a made-in-Canada justice system to restore pride and trust in our courts.
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
I Quote
When the people are afriad of the government, it is tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people there is democracy and freedom.. Thomas Jefferson
When will we get back to this? Time to change things back!!!!
When will we get back to this? Time to change things back!!!!
Monday, April 18, 2011
An Ontario Family Justice Petition
Here is a link to a petition to fight Ontario Family Justie System, I am going to see if there is one for BC or make one.. please participate
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/6/stop-the-corrupt-family-law-court-of-ontario/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/6/stop-the-corrupt-family-law-court-of-ontario/
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Corrupted Family Servises
Child Protection Services are too corrupt to overhaul and beyond reform..
by Cess Ssec on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 7:28pm
.
Why the government won’t tell you the truth.
April 12, 2011
Child Protection Services along with all other Social Service reform is not possible...
We have no choice, but to shut the entire system down.
There is an undisclosed consensus among the federal, state, and provincial governments of both Canada and the USA that agree that, every social service sector particularly, the “Mental Health Services” and the “Child Protection Services” have been taken over by organized crime.
The knowledge that these “antiquated and defective” organizations cannot serve the public good other than create a profit for their benefactors, are kept secret by those within the government that are aware of the truth.
An ominous fear of massive litigation's, a complete breakdown of the order of public social services and a threat to throw the social service system into chaos is the real reason why our government will not release this information to you.
What this means is that children will continue to be stolen from their families by social services. Then, farmed out for profit to foster homes where they could be raped, starved, deprived, sold as sex toys to the elite, prostituted, sold to pharma-companies for experiments or brought into the system through fraud for adoption.
As long as our government refuses to admit what they know to be factual, our children will remain vulnerable to the child predators that populate Child Protection Services.
In the meantime, family organizations, similar groups, child advocates and parents of means must implement plans to unite as grassroots organizations in order to protect our children and combat this corruption.
Malicious social workers having found to have taken advantage of a “purposely designed weak system” to commit crimes against children for profit, must be brought to justice and prosecuted accordingly.
Nicolas Stathopoulos
Social service crimes researcher
[SSEC] Social Service Economic Crimes (research)
Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved.
by Cess Ssec on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 7:28pm
.
Why the government won’t tell you the truth.
April 12, 2011
Child Protection Services along with all other Social Service reform is not possible...
We have no choice, but to shut the entire system down.
There is an undisclosed consensus among the federal, state, and provincial governments of both Canada and the USA that agree that, every social service sector particularly, the “Mental Health Services” and the “Child Protection Services” have been taken over by organized crime.
The knowledge that these “antiquated and defective” organizations cannot serve the public good other than create a profit for their benefactors, are kept secret by those within the government that are aware of the truth.
An ominous fear of massive litigation's, a complete breakdown of the order of public social services and a threat to throw the social service system into chaos is the real reason why our government will not release this information to you.
What this means is that children will continue to be stolen from their families by social services. Then, farmed out for profit to foster homes where they could be raped, starved, deprived, sold as sex toys to the elite, prostituted, sold to pharma-companies for experiments or brought into the system through fraud for adoption.
As long as our government refuses to admit what they know to be factual, our children will remain vulnerable to the child predators that populate Child Protection Services.
In the meantime, family organizations, similar groups, child advocates and parents of means must implement plans to unite as grassroots organizations in order to protect our children and combat this corruption.
Malicious social workers having found to have taken advantage of a “purposely designed weak system” to commit crimes against children for profit, must be brought to justice and prosecuted accordingly.
Nicolas Stathopoulos
Social service crimes researcher
[SSEC] Social Service Economic Crimes (research)
Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved.
Monday, April 11, 2011
School 1957 and 2009
Subject: HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2009
Sometimes we don't see the ridiculousness of policies until we're confronted with them. These showcase it well, you make the call.
HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2009
Scenario 1:
Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2009 - School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario 2:
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins.. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2009 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario 3:
Jeffrey will not sit still in class, he disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2009 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario 4:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt..
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.
2009 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.
Scenario 5:
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.
2009 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario 6:
Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.
2009 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario 7:
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2009 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated.
Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario 8:
Wally falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Nancy. Nancy hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Wally feels better and goes on playing.
2009 - Nancy is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison... Wally undergoes 5 years of therapy.
This should hit every email inbox to show how stupid we have become!!
Sometimes we don't see the ridiculousness of policies until we're confronted with them. These showcase it well, you make the call.
HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2009
Scenario 1:
Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2009 - School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario 2:
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins.. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2009 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario 3:
Jeffrey will not sit still in class, he disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2009 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario 4:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt..
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.
2009 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.
Scenario 5:
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.
2009 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario 6:
Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.
2009 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario 7:
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2009 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated.
Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario 8:
Wally falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Nancy. Nancy hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Wally feels better and goes on playing.
2009 - Nancy is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison... Wally undergoes 5 years of therapy.
This should hit every email inbox to show how stupid we have become!!
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Finaly a female lawyer with some good logic
Canada Fathers
I really like this writer and its great to she is female, a lawyer and seems to understand our plight with the injustices in the Canadian Family leagl system
here is her blog; http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/
and her web page: http://www.georgialeelang.com/
...
I really like this writer and its great to she is female, a lawyer and seems to understand our plight with the injustices in the Canadian Family leagl system
here is her blog; http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/
and her web page: http://www.georgialeelang.com/
...
Thank you Canada.com
I found this aricle on Sunday April 11th 2011 front page when I went to their website, can you imagine my surprise and happiness to see the media actually looking at such a story? here is what I saw;
" With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter. "
here is the link; http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/real-agenda/story.html?id=4585240
and here is the story copied and pasted "just in case it dissaperas"
http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/images/banner_real_agenda.jpg
Georgialee Lang: "Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse."
Canada’s system of family law is decimating us, one family at a time. With nearly 40 per cent of Canadian marriages ending in divorce, our next government needs to stop the bleeding, financial and emotional.
Our adversarial court system pits husband against wife in a dangerous game that all too often spirals out of control, taking whole families down and destroying children’s lives in the process.
Custody cases are among the worst. Separating parents, usually fathers, are caught in a black vortex, fighting for the ability to remain an active part of their children’s lives, sparring with mothers who too frequently use their hurt and anger to alienate their partners from their children.
To date, our governments have refused to make the changes that most jurisdictions in North America have already adopted: a move to a presumption of joint custody, in which parents continue to participate in their children’s lives on a level playing field. With a rebuttable presumption of joint custody as the law of the land, a significant group of potential family law litigants could bypass the court system.
Regrettably, our system does neither parent any favours. With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter.
Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse.
What Canadians face is a shortage of judges and court staff, who gamely try to administer an underfunded bureaucracy that cannot meet their needs, and a process where the battle lines are drawn before they get there — the beginning of their long wait for justice.
Legislators, law reformers, judges and lawyers have long recognized that court is no place to resolve family law disputes. Ontario’s Law Commission released a report last September entitled “Voices From a Broken Family Law Justice System” decrying longer trials and increasing court and legal fees that are crippling a system that cannot deal with the intense emotional fallout of personal disputes.
In a recent family law case, Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568, Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn of Ontario began his Reasons for Judgment with a feigned cry for help—“Paging Dr. Freud, Paging Dr. Freud”—a provocative introduction to a bizarre family law case that was ill-suited for court intervention. Justice Quinn referred to the “roulette of family law.”
The case took seven days of court time over a period of several months; not unusual since judges are routinely overbooked. Much of the evidence had nothing to do with the two legal issues: a claim to set aside a separation agreement and an allegation that Ms. Bruni had alienated the children from their father. The level of vitriol stunned Justice Quinn, who refused to set aside the agreement and admonished the parties for their childish, bordering on criminal, behaviour. Justice Quinn took the brave step of denying Ms. Bruni spousal support as a rebuke for the wedge she had driven between the children and their father.
My solution? Take family law out of court and move it to Family Centres with a one-stop shopping approach. Provide education, counsellors, child-development professionals, mediators, arbitrators, divorce coaches, parenting coordinators and financial experts. These services should not be free, but should be paid for by those who access the programs on a sliding scale commensurate with their family income. For the poor and working poor, legal aid should be provided.
For those cases that will never settle without judicial intervention, appoint highly experienced judges who want to be there, as opposed to judges who find family law work a grind they would rather avoid.
Is there a political party that will heed the cries of millions of Canadians?
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Share this Article
STORY TOOLS
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Comments (13)
Share this Article
Font:
RegisterLogin or
What Do You Think?
Want to rate posts and get your own personalized user name? Please register an account today!Questions? - Visit our FAQ
Post My Reply
14 comments
Sort:
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:56 AM on April 10, 2011
Thrusting divorce on children is the most common form of child abuse. Its the right of every child to have their parents around and taking care of them for their entire childhood. Have any divorced 'losers' asked their children how they felt? It should be illegal to divorce if there are children under 18. If you are unhappy or just want to start test driving again, wait until the children grow up. That is the sacrifice expected of every parent.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:32 AM on April 10, 2011
Wow! Another well thought-out, thoroughly researched and timely article by Ms. Lang. When will the politicians get it? As soon as we the electorate get energized ton make it Ana election issue. Ms. Lang is doing her part, do yours.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:16 AM on April 10, 2011
Family Centers make a lot of sense to ease the process of divorce - especially when custody of children is involved. But what about prevention? Could these Family Centers offer pre-marriage services? Is it possible to prevent the destruction of Canadian families by giving couples the tools they need to solve their issues? While I agree with the approach of taking this process out of court unless absolutely necessary, the generalizations provided by Me. Lang are tiresome and border on offensive. I agree that fathers are often the ones fighting for more time with their children. Mothers tend to be primary caregivers. But to paint mothers as embittered harridans who want nothing more than to punish their ex and their children is an over-used and inaccurate generalization that has no place in this process. Every woman I know who has faced a custody battle in her divorce has acted honourably with her children's best interests at heart.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:51 AM on April 10, 2011
this is a great idea, just make sure to charge the users for the expense....
start paying to take care of your own children, and I am certainly not paying for your failed relationship.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:32 AM on April 10, 2011
The lawyers (vultures) do not wish to change anything as it is very profitable to remove the assets of clients.
Questionable liens, writs, caveats, judgments and other tools these lawyers use are given to courthouse taxation officers for the purpose of removing the real estate assets of clients who have been bilked by their lawyers.
The divorce act is just another piece of laughable federal legislation being circumvented by lawyers and courts in every province in Canada.
Lawyers should not be able to participate in any real estate transactions and this should be left for other professionals far removed from the national lawyer gangs.
Lawyers govern themselves using Law Societies (self governance) and this is more of a protection racket than anything else.
Law Societies provide no value to Canadians and their self governing power needs to be removed from them.
There are many more courthouse liars than you think.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:25 AM on April 10, 2011
Harper can fix this. He can fix anything. Just ask. http://www.Canada-Elections.blogspot.com
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
9:26 AM on April 10, 2011
Unique among the authors in this series, this woman actually makes sense.
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:57 AM on April 10, 2011
Growing up Iwas kept from my father & & the stories were perpetuated to justify his absense to me. I was 27 before I saw him again. He mwas not perfect but he was my father. I carried resentment to my mothers death. I did not want this for either.
at 27 my waife decided to take advantage of the new divorce laws introducded in the mid 80's. she was stepping outside the marriage and wanted out. I came home to an empty two todlers that were everything to me gone. I was prepared to do anything not to put my children through what I had gone through.
3 years 10's of thousands bankruptcy and 5 lawyers later I found out thatthe system was not fair and I lost contact with my children for ten years.
My children are now grown with their own children. I do not speak poison, but I beg both my daughter and son and spouses not to repat my history again..
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:47 AM on April 10, 2011
The court system right now is very biased against men. I know of a man who is non custodial but tries to be very active in his children's lives. He pays an exorbidant amount of child maintenance every month. Yet another man I know has custody for a very good reason and has had to fight tooth and nail to get any child maintenance and when it did get ordered it was next to nothing. His ex has used the system to the hilt and gets away with it yet hurts the child because the child seens to have no rights in this matter! I was always told the good of the child is always uppermost in the minds of lawyers and judges. I have not seen it yet! What has been shown to be important is the money which would look so much better in the child's education account instead of some lawyer's bank account!
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
8:43 AM on April 10, 2011
You had my attention up until the part that said "let's create a monolithic tax-funded program to assist people in getting a divorce"
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:40 AM on April 10, 2011
What we need to do is to start letting the children have a voice. They know what they need and they also know when and who is using them in this terrible game. I am tired of seeing children hurt because of one vengeful parent!
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:33 AM on April 10, 2011
Long overdue.
thanks again canada.com
" With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter. "
here is the link; http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/real-agenda/story.html?id=4585240
and here is the story copied and pasted "just in case it dissaperas"
http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/images/banner_real_agenda.jpg
Georgialee Lang: "Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse."
Canada’s system of family law is decimating us, one family at a time. With nearly 40 per cent of Canadian marriages ending in divorce, our next government needs to stop the bleeding, financial and emotional.
Our adversarial court system pits husband against wife in a dangerous game that all too often spirals out of control, taking whole families down and destroying children’s lives in the process.
Custody cases are among the worst. Separating parents, usually fathers, are caught in a black vortex, fighting for the ability to remain an active part of their children’s lives, sparring with mothers who too frequently use their hurt and anger to alienate their partners from their children.
To date, our governments have refused to make the changes that most jurisdictions in North America have already adopted: a move to a presumption of joint custody, in which parents continue to participate in their children’s lives on a level playing field. With a rebuttable presumption of joint custody as the law of the land, a significant group of potential family law litigants could bypass the court system.
Regrettably, our system does neither parent any favours. With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter.
Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse.
What Canadians face is a shortage of judges and court staff, who gamely try to administer an underfunded bureaucracy that cannot meet their needs, and a process where the battle lines are drawn before they get there — the beginning of their long wait for justice.
Legislators, law reformers, judges and lawyers have long recognized that court is no place to resolve family law disputes. Ontario’s Law Commission released a report last September entitled “Voices From a Broken Family Law Justice System” decrying longer trials and increasing court and legal fees that are crippling a system that cannot deal with the intense emotional fallout of personal disputes.
In a recent family law case, Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568, Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn of Ontario began his Reasons for Judgment with a feigned cry for help—“Paging Dr. Freud, Paging Dr. Freud”—a provocative introduction to a bizarre family law case that was ill-suited for court intervention. Justice Quinn referred to the “roulette of family law.”
The case took seven days of court time over a period of several months; not unusual since judges are routinely overbooked. Much of the evidence had nothing to do with the two legal issues: a claim to set aside a separation agreement and an allegation that Ms. Bruni had alienated the children from their father. The level of vitriol stunned Justice Quinn, who refused to set aside the agreement and admonished the parties for their childish, bordering on criminal, behaviour. Justice Quinn took the brave step of denying Ms. Bruni spousal support as a rebuke for the wedge she had driven between the children and their father.
My solution? Take family law out of court and move it to Family Centres with a one-stop shopping approach. Provide education, counsellors, child-development professionals, mediators, arbitrators, divorce coaches, parenting coordinators and financial experts. These services should not be free, but should be paid for by those who access the programs on a sliding scale commensurate with their family income. For the poor and working poor, legal aid should be provided.
For those cases that will never settle without judicial intervention, appoint highly experienced judges who want to be there, as opposed to judges who find family law work a grind they would rather avoid.
Is there a political party that will heed the cries of millions of Canadians?
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Share this Article
STORY TOOLS
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Comments (13)
Share this Article
Font:
RegisterLogin or
What Do You Think?
Want to rate posts and get your own personalized user name? Please register an account today!Questions? - Visit our FAQ
Post My Reply
14 comments
Sort:
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:56 AM on April 10, 2011
Thrusting divorce on children is the most common form of child abuse. Its the right of every child to have their parents around and taking care of them for their entire childhood. Have any divorced 'losers' asked their children how they felt? It should be illegal to divorce if there are children under 18. If you are unhappy or just want to start test driving again, wait until the children grow up. That is the sacrifice expected of every parent.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:32 AM on April 10, 2011
Wow! Another well thought-out, thoroughly researched and timely article by Ms. Lang. When will the politicians get it? As soon as we the electorate get energized ton make it Ana election issue. Ms. Lang is doing her part, do yours.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:16 AM on April 10, 2011
Family Centers make a lot of sense to ease the process of divorce - especially when custody of children is involved. But what about prevention? Could these Family Centers offer pre-marriage services? Is it possible to prevent the destruction of Canadian families by giving couples the tools they need to solve their issues? While I agree with the approach of taking this process out of court unless absolutely necessary, the generalizations provided by Me. Lang are tiresome and border on offensive. I agree that fathers are often the ones fighting for more time with their children. Mothers tend to be primary caregivers. But to paint mothers as embittered harridans who want nothing more than to punish their ex and their children is an over-used and inaccurate generalization that has no place in this process. Every woman I know who has faced a custody battle in her divorce has acted honourably with her children's best interests at heart.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:51 AM on April 10, 2011
this is a great idea, just make sure to charge the users for the expense....
start paying to take care of your own children, and I am certainly not paying for your failed relationship.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:32 AM on April 10, 2011
The lawyers (vultures) do not wish to change anything as it is very profitable to remove the assets of clients.
Questionable liens, writs, caveats, judgments and other tools these lawyers use are given to courthouse taxation officers for the purpose of removing the real estate assets of clients who have been bilked by their lawyers.
The divorce act is just another piece of laughable federal legislation being circumvented by lawyers and courts in every province in Canada.
Lawyers should not be able to participate in any real estate transactions and this should be left for other professionals far removed from the national lawyer gangs.
Lawyers govern themselves using Law Societies (self governance) and this is more of a protection racket than anything else.
Law Societies provide no value to Canadians and their self governing power needs to be removed from them.
There are many more courthouse liars than you think.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:25 AM on April 10, 2011
Harper can fix this. He can fix anything. Just ask. http://www.Canada-Elections.blogspot.com
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
9:26 AM on April 10, 2011
Unique among the authors in this series, this woman actually makes sense.
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:57 AM on April 10, 2011
Growing up Iwas kept from my father & & the stories were perpetuated to justify his absense to me. I was 27 before I saw him again. He mwas not perfect but he was my father. I carried resentment to my mothers death. I did not want this for either.
at 27 my waife decided to take advantage of the new divorce laws introducded in the mid 80's. she was stepping outside the marriage and wanted out. I came home to an empty two todlers that were everything to me gone. I was prepared to do anything not to put my children through what I had gone through.
3 years 10's of thousands bankruptcy and 5 lawyers later I found out thatthe system was not fair and I lost contact with my children for ten years.
My children are now grown with their own children. I do not speak poison, but I beg both my daughter and son and spouses not to repat my history again..
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:47 AM on April 10, 2011
The court system right now is very biased against men. I know of a man who is non custodial but tries to be very active in his children's lives. He pays an exorbidant amount of child maintenance every month. Yet another man I know has custody for a very good reason and has had to fight tooth and nail to get any child maintenance and when it did get ordered it was next to nothing. His ex has used the system to the hilt and gets away with it yet hurts the child because the child seens to have no rights in this matter! I was always told the good of the child is always uppermost in the minds of lawyers and judges. I have not seen it yet! What has been shown to be important is the money which would look so much better in the child's education account instead of some lawyer's bank account!
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
8:43 AM on April 10, 2011
You had my attention up until the part that said "let's create a monolithic tax-funded program to assist people in getting a divorce"
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:40 AM on April 10, 2011
What we need to do is to start letting the children have a voice. They know what they need and they also know when and who is using them in this terrible game. I am tired of seeing children hurt because of one vengeful parent!
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:33 AM on April 10, 2011
Long overdue.
thanks again canada.com
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Should Common Law be treated as equal in a split?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/common-law-couples-deserve-fair-share-court-20110218-210956-344.html
Monday, January 31, 2011
I was asked what my solution was to the Family court system is... here you go
Canada Fathers What i would like to see is lawyers virtually eliminated from the picture, mediation to be the norm, and when children are involved then an approved (preferably by both sides) familly cousillor spen a week to a month involved with each side..., talking to friends, co-workers, etc, and in the living environment itself, who will then make suggestions to both parties and the judge as to how to preceed. As for support and alimoney, an accountant would take all factual information in from both parties, all debt, all living costs, possible future jointly agreed sports/activituies (estimated) , payroll dedustions and debt left after the breakup then come up with a fair and equtable payment schedule. With no/minimal lawyer involvment the animosity and anger would be greatly reduces, the courts time hearing all the fighting would be reduced the costs in the end would be reduced, and with a little luck and teh councillor being involved maybe teh parties can be friendlier in the end making life for the kids better.. just my two bitsSee More
2 seconds ago · LikeUnlike.
2 seconds ago · LikeUnlike.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
We need more sites like this, and more action
copied from http://civilrightsblog.org/FMEP-BC%20Canada.html
Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, FMEP of British Columbia, Canada
FMEP is a third party interloper debt collector, an extortion racket that is ripping away human rights from the majority of males that are involved.
The majorities that are enrolled into these types of programs have no say and are contracted in without CONSENT.
The bases to any payment program are a statute or act that many provincial courts act upon, but yet, there has been no consent prior to adjudication for any action(s) to commence.
Easy terms to remember for court actions to commence:
Civil Action = Breach of contract – None Exist in the majority of cases.
Criminal Action = Injured Party – There is no injury here, it has to bodily harm.
Now where does this child support payment come in, criminal or civil ?
Is this a democracy or dictatorship ? Based on the above information I just mentioned, what do you think ?
Now if I tell you that you owe me $100 and there is no contract in place, how can you enforce that ?
Yet it happens all the time, without contracts and without consent.
I'm not saying parents of a separation or divorce should not take care of their children, but it is a private affair.
Why should children of a divorced marriage have more than children of a so called intact family unit ?
Let me explain, it is happening, and has been happening for so many years. The woman (which is about 98 % of the time) of a divorced will have primary residence and the non custodial parent is granted access. The woman is allowed to go out and get work and make a certain amount of income, entitled to benefits, tax breaks , collects child support that is not taxable, getting remarried and having another contributor.
So he/she makes a good income, the non custodial parent makes ok “money” and has to pay into the pot of the custodial parent.
Custodial parent = Income 40k per year
Non Custodial parent = 40k per year
Custodial parent = 40k per year plus let say $370.00 per month per child, annual income now is 44,440k per year, and entitled to relief. The consideration of a new contributor is never taking into account. Take into consideration, when married, the mother may be a stay at home Mom and the annual income for the family would have been only 40k per year.
Non Custodial parent = 40kper year minus 4,440k per year = 35,560k per year, not entitled to relief.
Do those numbers make any sense ? And they call it a monthly award, so does the government encourage separation or divorce? Because it seems that way to me, they get an award if they get a divorce. Check the child support guidelines online, yes this may seem a play on words, but isn’t everything a PLAY on words.
Also, the non custodial parent only has "access", what is that ? The non custodial parent has now become a visitor in their child’s life ?
The non custodial parent has a right (100%) to their child, and there should be no adjudication from a private corporation that called themselves PROVINCIAL COURT doing business in Canada.
Yes that is correct, the law society and Provincial courts are a private organization forcing business onto citizens or “persons”. Park your vehicle in front of a court house one day and check out the times of operation, probably would say Monday to Friday from 9:00am to 4:00pm, a business, YES.
Why does this so called society have its own dictionary, and why must you hire a lawyer to decipher it ?
The meanings in their dictionary are not on par with a normal English dictionary. They have purposely created this book to have its own meaning which may look to be the same word, but not have the same meaning.
Look up the legal definition of “person” then tell me if that is what you are, a corporation ?
Are we actually basing anything on LAW, and who’s law is it anyway ? The court system is basing decisions on opinions, and opinions of people doing business as the legislative body. They are making this decision by gaining jurisdiction in a deceptive way.
Yet if you check the criminal code closely, you will see a few sections in there that can rectify these issues, yet, the system will not even recognize their own rules or obey them. I will not get into specific sections of the criminal code that is a whole other topic.
Now, get behind on your “payments” and you are in a world of trouble, drivers licenses suspended, passports revoked, jail time and many other wonderful things. This is cruel and unusual punishment, and for what ? MONEY ? I call it another form of slavery !!!
Several things happen when you fall into a so called category of “dead beat parent”:
1. You either run, which causes you to lose contact with your child, and for what ? The fear of being put in jail. This one comes under section 279 of the criminal code forcible confinement against the persons will. What more is there to say ?
2. You try to make up the “payments” by getting another job, now having even less time with your children or your new family, you basically burn out.
3. You try to negotiate with the non negotiators (FMEP), which leads to more stress.
4. Many men will not come forward for the fear of being called “dead beat” thus putting a strain on their mental health.
5. Forced to take public transit, but if you are self employed, it is impossible to take your tools on public transit.
6. Your credit report gets destroyed.
7. Not entitled to go on vacation, and how could the non custodial parent have a vacation anymore, unless he/she is rich. Does not help getting your passport revoked.
8. You lose your job because of emotional stress.
9. There is an increase in male suicide, out of desperation. Many say men have no emotions when it comes to certain things, so why an increase in suicide ?
There is much more, but the media only exposes what others will see as being unfair to a child or making the non custodial parent look bad to create hatred amongst ourselves. You see this all the time, and now steps in the Attorney General to be the hero in these situations, getting tough on Dead beat parents, everyone laps it up, pathetic we are. If the media is controlled by corporations and if the media can expose issues that will keep the eyes off the corporations so the corporations can gain control and have their way, then they will do it, and are doing it. The children are being used as pawns to exploit humans, fashion, life styles the food they eat, you name it, it is a big target for the media, so why not USE them, just like in our judicial system.
It is stressful enough going through a separation or divorce and trying to start over, and providing for your child, which, if living with the custodial parent has food, a roof over their head and clothing already. Yet the non custodial parent has to sacrifice his/her life to support him/her and pay on top of it. Heaven forbid the non custodial parent gets into a new relationship, so now he/she has to support 2 families.
There are many issues to be dealt with, when you are being deceived right in front of your eyes. Once again, that would be a topic all on its own, to really show Canadians why and how they have been mislead on purpose.
So you see, it is not just about child support, it is about the so called system that its primary goal was to serve and protect. I see none of this happening, only to charge and administer force against a person’s for the purpose of collecting money or control.
Is this how humans were intended to live their lives, under the control of another ?
The government or the system is telling everyone that they are not competent to handle their own affairs, yet clearly many do have the capability to handle their own affairs, PRIVATELY.
The only OBLIGATION you have to your CHILD is to be in his or her life and make sound decisions as a parent that could affect their future and to make sure their needs are met.
Yours Truly,
Remaining anonymous for now ,
Peace
You may contact us by writing to editor@civilrightsblog.org with any comments or ideas for this forum site.
Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, FMEP of British Columbia, Canada
FMEP is a third party interloper debt collector, an extortion racket that is ripping away human rights from the majority of males that are involved.
The majorities that are enrolled into these types of programs have no say and are contracted in without CONSENT.
The bases to any payment program are a statute or act that many provincial courts act upon, but yet, there has been no consent prior to adjudication for any action(s) to commence.
Easy terms to remember for court actions to commence:
Civil Action = Breach of contract – None Exist in the majority of cases.
Criminal Action = Injured Party – There is no injury here, it has to bodily harm.
Now where does this child support payment come in, criminal or civil ?
Is this a democracy or dictatorship ? Based on the above information I just mentioned, what do you think ?
Now if I tell you that you owe me $100 and there is no contract in place, how can you enforce that ?
Yet it happens all the time, without contracts and without consent.
I'm not saying parents of a separation or divorce should not take care of their children, but it is a private affair.
Why should children of a divorced marriage have more than children of a so called intact family unit ?
Let me explain, it is happening, and has been happening for so many years. The woman (which is about 98 % of the time) of a divorced will have primary residence and the non custodial parent is granted access. The woman is allowed to go out and get work and make a certain amount of income, entitled to benefits, tax breaks , collects child support that is not taxable, getting remarried and having another contributor.
So he/she makes a good income, the non custodial parent makes ok “money” and has to pay into the pot of the custodial parent.
Custodial parent = Income 40k per year
Non Custodial parent = 40k per year
Custodial parent = 40k per year plus let say $370.00 per month per child, annual income now is 44,440k per year, and entitled to relief. The consideration of a new contributor is never taking into account. Take into consideration, when married, the mother may be a stay at home Mom and the annual income for the family would have been only 40k per year.
Non Custodial parent = 40kper year minus 4,440k per year = 35,560k per year, not entitled to relief.
Do those numbers make any sense ? And they call it a monthly award, so does the government encourage separation or divorce? Because it seems that way to me, they get an award if they get a divorce. Check the child support guidelines online, yes this may seem a play on words, but isn’t everything a PLAY on words.
Also, the non custodial parent only has "access", what is that ? The non custodial parent has now become a visitor in their child’s life ?
The non custodial parent has a right (100%) to their child, and there should be no adjudication from a private corporation that called themselves PROVINCIAL COURT doing business in Canada.
Yes that is correct, the law society and Provincial courts are a private organization forcing business onto citizens or “persons”. Park your vehicle in front of a court house one day and check out the times of operation, probably would say Monday to Friday from 9:00am to 4:00pm, a business, YES.
Why does this so called society have its own dictionary, and why must you hire a lawyer to decipher it ?
The meanings in their dictionary are not on par with a normal English dictionary. They have purposely created this book to have its own meaning which may look to be the same word, but not have the same meaning.
Look up the legal definition of “person” then tell me if that is what you are, a corporation ?
Are we actually basing anything on LAW, and who’s law is it anyway ? The court system is basing decisions on opinions, and opinions of people doing business as the legislative body. They are making this decision by gaining jurisdiction in a deceptive way.
Yet if you check the criminal code closely, you will see a few sections in there that can rectify these issues, yet, the system will not even recognize their own rules or obey them. I will not get into specific sections of the criminal code that is a whole other topic.
Now, get behind on your “payments” and you are in a world of trouble, drivers licenses suspended, passports revoked, jail time and many other wonderful things. This is cruel and unusual punishment, and for what ? MONEY ? I call it another form of slavery !!!
Several things happen when you fall into a so called category of “dead beat parent”:
1. You either run, which causes you to lose contact with your child, and for what ? The fear of being put in jail. This one comes under section 279 of the criminal code forcible confinement against the persons will. What more is there to say ?
2. You try to make up the “payments” by getting another job, now having even less time with your children or your new family, you basically burn out.
3. You try to negotiate with the non negotiators (FMEP), which leads to more stress.
4. Many men will not come forward for the fear of being called “dead beat” thus putting a strain on their mental health.
5. Forced to take public transit, but if you are self employed, it is impossible to take your tools on public transit.
6. Your credit report gets destroyed.
7. Not entitled to go on vacation, and how could the non custodial parent have a vacation anymore, unless he/she is rich. Does not help getting your passport revoked.
8. You lose your job because of emotional stress.
9. There is an increase in male suicide, out of desperation. Many say men have no emotions when it comes to certain things, so why an increase in suicide ?
There is much more, but the media only exposes what others will see as being unfair to a child or making the non custodial parent look bad to create hatred amongst ourselves. You see this all the time, and now steps in the Attorney General to be the hero in these situations, getting tough on Dead beat parents, everyone laps it up, pathetic we are. If the media is controlled by corporations and if the media can expose issues that will keep the eyes off the corporations so the corporations can gain control and have their way, then they will do it, and are doing it. The children are being used as pawns to exploit humans, fashion, life styles the food they eat, you name it, it is a big target for the media, so why not USE them, just like in our judicial system.
It is stressful enough going through a separation or divorce and trying to start over, and providing for your child, which, if living with the custodial parent has food, a roof over their head and clothing already. Yet the non custodial parent has to sacrifice his/her life to support him/her and pay on top of it. Heaven forbid the non custodial parent gets into a new relationship, so now he/she has to support 2 families.
There are many issues to be dealt with, when you are being deceived right in front of your eyes. Once again, that would be a topic all on its own, to really show Canadians why and how they have been mislead on purpose.
So you see, it is not just about child support, it is about the so called system that its primary goal was to serve and protect. I see none of this happening, only to charge and administer force against a person’s for the purpose of collecting money or control.
Is this how humans were intended to live their lives, under the control of another ?
The government or the system is telling everyone that they are not competent to handle their own affairs, yet clearly many do have the capability to handle their own affairs, PRIVATELY.
The only OBLIGATION you have to your CHILD is to be in his or her life and make sound decisions as a parent that could affect their future and to make sure their needs are met.
Yours Truly,
Remaining anonymous for now ,
Peace
You may contact us by writing to editor@civilrightsblog.org with any comments or ideas for this forum site.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
BC Family law does not give a damn about family, its a $1billion a year business
Canada Fathers Any advice to save my house? I only found out Oct. 19, 2010 that my ex had sold my house and I was to be out buy the end of today, but I was never served or told by anyone, infact the person who told me was told explicitly not to tell me, so yesterday I went to the courthouse to file either a lien or a subject to pendi...ng litigation order only to find out that a judge had already approved the sale last friday. So i talked to a duty council who gave me the proceedure to to follow (an order w/o notice (F29), a request to a stay (F31) and affidavit stating I was not served, and that they sold the house for much less than I offered, and property value my kid is in depression because of this, etc. I then asked the duty council and court registry if anything else needed to be done and the all believed it was all in order and good. I show up in court today only to have the judge reprimand me and refuse to hear me because I did not serve the other party. Is there anything I can do?
Loosing my house and my life...
Why is the family legal system so messed up in BC? I understand that being a judge is not easy but set a system up to get facts and truths not lies and fabricated stories or adversarial as seem to be acceptable these days. How is it that a person who enters a relationship can verbally, mentally and physically abuse everybody in the family except for her golden child, cheat throughout the entire relationship on top of taking advantage of all that living with this partner had to offer, work if they wanted to, go to college "just for information" not for a career, then leave after the golden child gets drunk/stoned and threatens to kill all the kids in the house have so much power in court and ability to manipulate the legal aid system to destroy everything that was built for the "family" and leave those left behind basically broke, and lost? To make matters worse I found out Oct, 19 that my house that I have lived in since 1997 was being sold without notice to me, and I am to be out by Oct 22. Is this fair or just?
Lost and now homeless in Kamloops
Lost and now homeless in Kamloops
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)