Canadian Fathers

Family Violence Affects Men Too

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:59:00 +0000

Family Violence Affects Men Too

Original Air Date: Monday, February 04, 2013

Family violence is a constant problem, but the discussion is often limited to female victims. Many men also deal with violence and abuse, but perhaps lack access to the same resources. Does our approach to this issue need to change? Are solutions to family violence gender-specific?

We talk to Dustin Tkachuk, from Legal Aid Alberta and Earl Silverman, from the Family of Men Support Society.

there is a video on this page that I cannot copy and paste but check it out here

Family Violence Affects Men Too

this is a silent crime because men don't usually like to talk about it, but its a huge issue not only affecting men but children and families

Information about both these organizations can be found here:

http://www.legalaid.ab.ca/help/EmergencySituations/Pages/EPOP.aspx

http://www.familyofmen.com/

What Parents Need to Know to Protect Their Children in Divorce and Get Custody

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:21:00 +0000

What Parents Need to Know to Protect Their Children in Divorce and Get Custody

How to Save Our Children When
We Can't Save Our Marriage

Twenty Years of Research on Custody is Very Clear, But the Divorce Industry Continues to Do the Opposite!

There is only one proven way to get fair custody:

Submit solid evidence to the judge that they can NOT ignore.
Judges can legally ignore anything you say (testimony) but MUST legally act on physical evidence submitted.

You may also be able to avoid an expensive trial using this information to educate your spouse

For Years We Had Theories. Now We Have Real Answers!

This DVD summarizes the conclusions from over 200 scientific research studies conducted over 25+ years. It is the result of the largest compilation of research ever done on this topic. Many thousands of children were followed for 5, 10 and even 15 years after divorce to gather data. It took Dr. Warren Farrell over thirteen years just to compile this research from many researchers for his book.

This DVD provides the answers based on tens of thousands of real-life experiences and hard scientific evidence collected over more than 20 years. This is not about theories and highly charged emotions typical in divorce courts - it is hard science.

Learn why judges award sole-custody to ONE parent about 92% of the time and
how to avoid this damaging scenario for your children.
Every Judge, Lawyer and Parent Needs to View This Video!

Everything You Need to Understand the Ideal Custody Arrangement for Your Children - and Prove it to the Court too - is Contained in Our Evidence Kit.

Dear Parent,

Most judges and helping professionals know children of divorce do better when raised by both parents. However, when a mom feels “it would be best for my children to live with me,” even professionals assume she knows best, and miss cues that reveal her resistance to genuine shared parenting (such as saying “my children”).

Why is mom’s resistance to genuine shared parenting so easily missed? Because the understanding of the value of dad runs so shallow and because this massive system does what is easiest and most profitable for it. My 13 years of research which generated the book Father and Child Reunion, changes that. It creates such depth of understanding about the value of dad that it shocks even dads. For example, did you know that children raised primarily by dads do better than children raised primarily by moms? Neither does your attorney. Or your judge.

More importantly, this research will help you understand why dads are so crucial. For example, the more exposure to dad, the more empathetic your children are likely to be. Do you know why? Informed passion can inspire the right attorney and judge too. Dr. Farrell's research is likely to move the judge to prioritize shared parenting. However, an attorney appreciates this information in the form it will be given in court too.

After thirteen years of research Dr. Farrell produced a DVD, called In the Best Interests of the Child, that leads the attorney to the key questions to educate a judge as to why anything less than a dad’s equal involvement is putting the child at risk. At risk of everything from ADD to drugs, delinquency, depression, low self-esteem, teenage pregnancy, self-centeredness, poor social development, and underachievement in every academic area.

The practical result? Although this video is new judges in several states, who have not previously been inclined to equal father involvement, have already become committed to it.

Best Regards,

Dr. Warren Farrell, Author Father and Child Reunion

The Best Interests of the Child Two DVD Set

How to Save Our Children When We Can't Save our Marriage

An In-Depth Dialogue with
Dr. Warren Farrell , Author,
Father and Child Reunion, The largest meta study ever done on what is best for children of divorce.

Dr. Farrell may be the top expert on the state-of-the-art on what the true "best interest of the child" is today.

Testimonial

"Dr. Warren Farrell isthe greatest expert on the importance of fathers. His DVD, The Best Interests of the Child, is incredible. Just incredible. It is chock-filled with insights and information. It is priceless."

-- Steve Ashley, Director of Divorced Fathers Network and Radio Show, Santa Cruz, CA.

WHAT YOU WILL GET: Imagine hiring one of the world's top minds to spend years to discover the best research, analyze it, and in two hours, answer all these questions and more for you:

What three conditions must prevail if your child is to have the best chance of doing well psychologically, socially, academically and physically?
Is an excellent stepparent as good-or better than-- a so-so biological parent?
If one parent has a job opportunity that will allow for the child to be in a nicer home and better school district, but it is across the country from the other parent, will moving be helpful to the child?
If your child can be in a "new intact family" that's peaceful and loving, but at a distance from a biological parent, is that better than being shuttled back-and-forth from mom to dad?
Are there certain advantages to your child being brought up primarily by mom, or primarily by dad? Does it make a difference if that child is a boy or a girl?
In high-conflict situations can shared parenting work for the child? If not, should the child be with the parent with whom the child has been living, or are there more important considerations?
How far apart is optimum for parents to live?
At what age should a child's parental preference be important? Which explanations for preference are actually signs the child should have more time with the other parent?
How important is overnight time with the child?

Submit this as evidence at your trial using our complete evidence kit. This science practically requires judge's who are working under the "best interest of the child" doctrine to award equal/joint custody and shared parenting when there are two good parents. Anything else would be improper unless there is an unfit parent. Dr. Farrell is also available as an expert witness.

Debunk that sole custody or "mother custody" is best for children - IT'S NOT!
Results are from over 200 carefully evaluated scientific studies
Put your judge on the spot for any biased and sexist custody orders driven by tradition, not science and evidence
Judges MUST legally rule on the facts, evidence and the law, not any personal bias - But you must put the facts into evidence. Your lawyer may not.

Dr. Warren Farrell is a best selling author of seven books and one of the world's top experts on what is REALLY best for children of divorce. He spent 13 years gathering, reviewing and compiling over 200 scientific research studies on children of divorce.

Dr. Farrell is the author of seven books including "Father and Child Reunion" and "Why Men Are The Way They Are". He has appeared on over 1,000 TV and radio shows, and been interviewed frequently by Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters, Larry King and Peter Jennings. He has been featured repeatedly on 20/20 and in The New York Times, in People and, in men's journals, The Wall Street Journal, and on the Today Show, the Tomorrow Show, and many others.

Dr. Farrell is the author of Father and Child Reunion, based on more than a decade of analyzing the most significant studies on what is best for children of divorce. He has trained psychologists for more than thirty years. His books on men and women (e.g., Why Men Are The Way They Are and Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say) and on family finances (Why Men Earn More) are published in more than 50 countries and 13 languages. He has taught in five disciplines (most recently the School of Medicine at the University of California in San Diego) and been chosen by the Financial Times as one of the world's top 100 Thought Leaders. Dr. Farrell lives with his wife and teenage daughters in Carlsbad, California.

The video explains what is now 100% clear scientific fact and by far the best for children - not by 10% or 50%, but by ALL measures a factor of 6 to 20 times better. Educate your judge and win your case on what is best for your child(ren) too!
Judges and the divorce system are living in the dark ages and ruling based on tradition, myths, money and outdated sexist traditions, not reality, facts or science. If you want your children to do well in life you need to see this video and use it as evidence. If you want your children to grow up with a balanced perspective and not repeat the divorce cycle themselves - you need to see and use this video. Just as one example: Children who grow up in sole custody homes without a father have a 93% divorce rate! Don't let your children's lives be ruined by the divorce system. Know the facts so you can help them be successful in life.

Force your judge to watch this at trial by submitting it as evidence and you will not only help yourself but
you will benefit many other parents and children coming behind you.

This Valuable Information to Save Your Children From the Ravages of Divorce and the For-Profit Divorce Industry is available in Three Packages. Just select one by clicking below:

A) Audio Double CD Set - Click Here to order - Only $27.95 + S & H

B) DVD Double DVD Set - Click here to order - Only $39.95 + S & H.

C) The Complete Evidence Kit which includes all of the following:

Three DVD sets (6 DVD's total) for submission to court, opposition and for your copy (Legally you need 3 copies to submit as evidence).
One Audio CD Set (we recommend you educate yourself, your spouse and/or your attorney by offering this easy to listen to CD while driving).
One copy of the hardcover book "Father and Child Reunion" with all the footnotes and research references.
A collection of appropriate case law governing parental rights with over 250 case citations in a MS-Word file to use in your case and include in your court submissions and conclusions of law.
A list of research showing the custody arrangement that is superior for children and making your parenting plan/proposal consistent with this research.
Updates by email as we add more information to this package over time.
Please provide your email address to receive this.

Click here to buy this evidence kit for only $119.90 + S & H
(The third DVD set is free and this 13 years of research and costs less than an hour of your lawyer's time).

. . . . . . .

A percentage of all sales goes to divorce industry reform efforts.

Frequently Asked Questions

More Background on Dr. Farrell

Dr. Farrell is the author of Father and Child Reunion. The goal of Father and Child Reunion was to determine what is best for children of divorce. Dr. Farrell's findings are based on an analysis of the most significant studies world-wide. The result, Father and Child Reunion, is the most extensive recent analysis in book form of what is really in the best interests of children.

Although Dr. Farrell has trained psychologists for thirty years, he looks at the family from every perspective. For example, he has been selected by The Financial Times as one of the top 100 Thought Leaders in the world, and has also taught in five disciplines (most recently, the School of Medicine at the University of California in San Diego). Warren Farrell's most recent book--Why Men Earn More-- is on family finances and economics. Why Men Earn More was chosen by U.S. News and World Report as one of the top four career books to be read in 2006.

Dr. Farrell can communicate complex ideas simply, which is why he has appeared repeatedly on Oprah and on 1,000 other TV and radio shows worldwide, and doubtless why two of his books-- Why Men Are The Way They Are and The Myth of Male Power -- became international best sellers. Finally, his Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say teaches everyone in the family how to communicate.

No matter what your perspective or background, you will be fascinated with how Dr. Farrell brings child development, parenting and communications together in a way that is both so new and so sensible. Maybe that's because his research is also grounded in his real-life experience with his wife and two teenage daughters. It is only when all this is considered that we know what is best for our children.

This site and video do not provide legal advice but Dr. Farrell is available as an expert witness.

Email webmaster@BestInterestofChildren.org for details.

Read about Getting a Divorce Coach

Dad must support kids not his: Court

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:46:00 +0000

Dad must support kids not his: Court

By VALERIE GONTHIER, QMI Agency

(QMI Agency file photo)

MONTREAL - A father has been ordered to pay child support to his ex-wife despite results of DNA testing that found three of the four children he helped raise are not biologically his, a Quebec Superior Court ruled.
The man learned the shocking news after he demanded DNA testing when he and his wife of 16 years separated in April 2010.
“Since I learned that I am a broken man,” the father told QMI Agency.
His daughters are aged 12, 14, and 16, and his son is nine. DNA testing revealed the son is his only biological child.

To My Children

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:33:00 +0000

borrowed from
http://quotefind.blogspot.ca/2013/01/to-my-children.html

Divorce Myths Uncovered

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:16:00 +0000

Divorce Myths Uncovered

The 27 Most Common Divorce Myths

If you are getting your divorce advice at the corner bar, you will probably find many people who believe all of the following statements about divorce and marriage to be True. Joe the bartender may lend you a sympathetic ear, but for advice you are better off going to a lawyer.
Divorce myths are fictions people tell each other - the "conventional wisdom," as John Kenneth Galbraith once termed it. They are popular beliefs and notions, and they are wrong. Divorce myths thrive and propagate because some of them are comforting. These fictions work - that is, people believe them - because many of them often make a kind of intuitive sense. Some of them seem approachable via common sense; they are wrong nonetheless. People take comfort from them because they hold forth hope. In the human heart, hope does spring eternal.
What follows are an examination of a number of the most popular and enduring myths attached to divorce. Divorce myths perpetuate themselves because the sharp edges of divorce cut so deeply into the human condition.

1. It is OK to deny visitation if the other parent does not pay child support.

False. This situation comes up when the noncustodial parent, who is usually that father, falls behind in his child support, and the custodial parent, who is usually the mother, decides that his delinquency justifies shutting him out of his children's lives. This she cannot do. In the eyes of the judge, child support and child visitation are separate issues. Courts frown on parents even attempting to use one to leverage the other. Child support is not payment for the privilege of visitation. A custodial mother whose former husband fails to pay child support must go to court; she cannot take matters in her own hands with a lockout.
Denying visitation may make the equally ill-informed noncustodial parent feel justified about not paying child support.

2. By committing adultery you give up everything.

False. Increasingly, courts view divorce as the dissolution of an economic unit, and in many jurisdictions, bad conduct during the marriage - infidelity - is not even considered in the division and distribution of the marital estate. So if a couple is parting ways in a no-fault, no-contest action, adultery, even if it is the case, will not enter into the property settlement. In some states, judges may consider conduct during the marriage as a matter of judicial discretion, but bad conduct in this case usually deals with economic misconduct, that is, the dissipation or secretion of assets.
Some angry women may be tempted to use adultery as a ground for divorce, but most lawyers advise against it. Adultery, even when it is the case, must be proved, and if there is nothing to be gained, the effort is not worth it, particularly when there are children involved since the aftermath of such a court action is liable to be bitter.

3. A spouse can deny the other spouse a divorce.

False. In the old days before no-fault divorce, one spouse could make it all but impossible for the other to end the marriage. For a variety of reasons (usually related to money and social positions), loveless spouses in years gone by showed no end of ingenuity in ways to trap their partners in the shells of dead marriages.
Today, the liberalization of divorce, which began in 1970 in California, means that if someone wants out of a marriage, the other spouse cannot trap him or her. Put another way, no-fault in practice means that no one has to stay married if he or she does not want to.
This does not mean that divorce is easy. In the vast majority of cases, one spouse wants to end the marriage and the other does not—at least at the onset. And sometimes the reluctant spouse stalls the process of a divorce in the hopes of a change of heart or out of spite. But these dilatory tactics eventually come to an end.

4. The mother automatically gets the kids.

False. Mom does not automatically get the kids, but in 80 percent of the divorces, the mother ends up the custodial parent, and the father pays child support. In many cases, the divorcing spouses agree the children's best interest is with the mother. In contested cases, where both parents seek custody, the court refracts the question through the prism called the best interests of the child. That phrase means what a judge says it means. Despite enormous cultural changes, many judges remain in the sway of what is called Tender Years Presumption and the Maternal Preference, both of which work in favor of the mother.
Child custody disputes invite warfare between divorcing spouses. To win, one spouse must prove the other an "unfit parent." The contest becomes a zero-sum game, where the winner takes all.

5. You must have a lawyer to get divorce.

False. You do not need a lawyer to get a divorce. Everyone has a constitutional right to represent him or herself. And every state recognizes the right of anyone to appear in court pro se - for himself or herself. Some jurisdictions - those with summary or simplified divorce procedure - make it very easy for layman to file for an uncontested divorce. The necessary paperwork can be obtained online.
Pro se filing works very well in simple divorces - ones where there are no kids, no property, no arguments, and both spouses working.

6. You can get a same-day divorce in Las Vegas.

False. One spouse or the other must be a resident of Nevada for at least six week's before filing (which is one of the shortest residency requirements of any state), and it normally takes 60 to 90 days for the divorce to be final. However, unlike many jurisdictions, there is no waiting period to get married in Nevada.

7. You have to get a divorce in the state you married.

False. Normally, at least one of the spouses must be a legal resident of the state where the couple files. Jurisdictions often consider service members residents of the state for divorce purposes. Normally, a person becomes a legal resident of a jurisdcition by living there for a period of time, ranging from six weeks to a year, depending on the applicable state divorce laws.

8. You can take a smaller property settlement to avoid paying child support.

False. Property settlements and child support are separate issues. One cannot be used to leverage the other. Jurisdictions use a number of methods to calculate child support, such as income shares or percentage of income, and judges will permit deviation from these depending upon the unique circumstances of the case. However, child support is a moral obligation of the noncustodial parent, and no parent escapes his or her obligation to support the children in exchange for a smaller share of the marital pie.

9. The children get to choose which parent they want to live with.

In contested cases, the courts decide child custody based on the best interest of the child - the gold standard. In practice, this usually means that, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, the mother becomes the custodial parent. In general, judges are unmoved by wishes of the children, particular when the children are young. Courts may consider the expressed wishes of older children in deciding custody, but this is a matter of judicial discretion.

10. Keeping the house in my name only means it will always be mine.

No, this is not necessarily True. For example, a man who owns a house at the time of his marriage but continues to pay off its mortgage with marital funds may give his wife an interest in the house he owns in his name alone. Also, just living in a home as a married couple may constitute the property to be classified as marital. Most couples put the marital home in joint names (tenants by the entirety), but property acquired during a marriage, including the a house in the name of only one spouse, is subject to division and distribution.

11. An engagement and wedding rings are marital property.

That symbol of a future commitment - the engagement ring --- belongs to the wife. Courts have held that the engagement ring belongs is her separate property. Wedding rings are gifts from one spouse to the other, and they seldom end up on the table and subject to distribution in a marital settlement.

12. Lottery winnings are marital property.

True. Much to the dismay of many an estranged husband who imagined that a lottery prize would be a ticket up easy street after a divorce, lottery winnings are marital property and subject to division and distribution.
Courts have brushed aside all other arguments. Prizes won by married couples during a marriage are marital property, regardless of which spouse purchased the tickets.

13. Most contested divorces are settled in court.

False. Only a tiny fraction of all divorce cases ever go to court. In many contested cases, lawyers prepare for trial even as they continue to search for a settlement. This is part of their strategy because divorce negotiations often involve jockeying for the best position.
Reputable divorce lawyers always try to work for a settlement rather than a trial because going to trial escalates the cost of a divorce geometrically and also introduces the element of surprise. Moreover, a couple who end their marriage in a trial will part ways with a lasting hatred of each other that makes effective divorced parenting all but impossible.

14. A divorcing woman can always count on alimony.

False. In most cases, most women do not get alimony at all. Generally, permanent alimony is awarded to stay-at-home mothers whose contribution to the marriage was child rearing, woman who have been out of the marketplace for a long time and whose stale job skills make it very hard for her to find employment. A young employed woman in a short-term marriage stands a very good chance of getting no alimony.

15. Divorces normally end in battles that leave both spouses angry and bitter.

False. One way to insure that is to turn a lawyer loose and tell him or her to go for the throat. Another way is for one spouse to act in bad faith - secreting assets, poisoning the well with a whisper campaign against the other spouse, making threats.
Divorce is never easy, and it is one of life's most painful and dislocating experiences. However, the way the spouses handle themselves goes a long way in determining how the marriage ends.

16. No-fault divorce makes it easy for men to escape marriage.

False. Today, women initiate two-thirds of all divorces. According to sources, "some of the reasons for this may be women's tendency to monitor the marriage relationship more closely than their husbands, and the likelihood that men are involved in problematic behaviors such as drinking."
Back in the 1960s, when pressure was building for divorce laws, many argued that liberalized divorce would be a free pass for man to walk out on marriage. It didn't turn out that way.

17. Mediation means that the divorcing spouses still must hire lawyers to file the divorce.

False. Mediation may make it easy for a divorcing couple to file pro se.
Legal advice and strategy when couples cannot come to agreement about the terms and conditions of their divorce are the most expensive parts of what divorce lawyers provide (often because advice and strategy entail what is called discovery). Mediation means the husband and wife work out the terms and conditions of the divorce by themselves, with the help of the mediator. If a couple can come to agreement themselves, they can often file the divorce papers obtaining the forms online. Filing the paperwork is the least challenging part of divorce.
Mediators generally do not file divorce paperwork, although they may assist in its preparation. And sometimes, even with a mediator, some resolved issues may require the services of a lawyer, such as drafting highly specialized court orders associated with the property settlement.
In general, mediation reduces the amount of work a divorce lawyer has to do.

18. Equitable distribution means that both of the spouses get half and equal shares of the marital estate.

False. Equitable distribution means that the division of the property will be fair. That does not necessarily mean half or even equal. Equitable distribution takes into account the financial situation of each spouse. Equitable distribution is more flexible, and in many jurisdictions judges exercise a great deal of discretions in dividing the marital pie.
For example, in one common situation, a court may award the custodial mother the marital home and give her husband cash assets even when that distribution is not equal.
Courts can use equitable distribution to take into account liabilities that may accrue to one partner by virtue of the length of the marriage. For example, a court may favor a stay at home mother whose long years out of the workforce have made her employment problematic.

19. It's easier to be single because the freedom to come and go means less stress and more money for yourself.

False. "Married people are healthier emotionally and physically and they have more wealth too," says Dr. Diana Kirschner, writing in Agenda Magazine. "Study after study has shown that love relationships have a huge impact on our psychological, economic, and physical well being. Having a life partner can create a high sense of self-worth, provide intimacy and emotional support, which fulfills the deepest human need for connection, and lead to greater wealth and economic stability.
"As a result, married people may be happier, live more satisfying lives, and have fewer psychological problems, including depression. Many factors lead to better physical health, greater health-seeking behavior, and lower rates of alcoholism. Here's the big take away: for over 100 years studies around the world have shown that married people live longer and enjoy a higher quality of life than those who aren't partnered."

20. Second marriages are more successful than first marriages.

Probably the most popular divorce myth in constant circulation concerns the durability of second marriages. It goes like this: "Because people learn from their bad experiences, second marriages tend to be more successful than first marriages." That seems to make sense. Moreover, since three-quarters of the men and woman who end marriages spin the roulette wheel of romance again within three years, it offers hope that the second time around the promised land of wedded bliss is at last in sight. Unfortunately it's wrong. "Although many people who divorce have successful subsequent marriages, the divorce rate for remarriages is in fact higher than that of first marriages," says David Popenoe, who heads the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Popenoe, who has codified many of the popular divorce fictions, says the divorce rate for second timers jumps to 60 percent and for those going to the altar again a third time, 73 percent.
Even before the grind of daily living begins, marriage, "the second time around," as the song goes, comes freighted with problems and liabilities. And even before that, people contemplating a second marriage seem particularly prone to selecting a new partner without thinking through what happened the first time. "Going into a second marriage without realizing why the first one failed is like NASA building another rocket before finding out why the last one exploded," observes one social commentator. In lieu of honest soul searching, very often former spouses assign blame to the first partner, and they think that the secret to marital happiness is simply a matter of finding Mr. Right or Mrs. Wonderful, mythical creations that exist nowhere except in their imaginations.
Very often, the monotony of daily living, which is a fact of life, includes the demanding management of unfinished business from the first marriage, for example, when a new husband stumbles in his perhaps unsought role of stepfather to his second wife's children, or when a mother finds herself in a tug of war between her children from the first failed marriage and the expectations of her new husband. When a second marriage begins with one or both partners having minor children from a first marriage, heroic adjustments must be made. This becomes even more complicated when additional children enter the picture. The Brady Bunch ("yours, mine and ours") looks funny on television; in real life, the success of a stepfamily demands hard work of all involved.
In second marriages, the climb becomes even steeper when a spouse finds himself caught, for example, between the financial demands of a former wife, who is the custodial mother of his children, and his new wife, who believes the first wife is just being greedy. Moreover, the management of money may not reflect the same level of trust had in the first marriage. In the first marriage, the partners think his money and her money is their money. This does not always happen in second marriages. Money management and agreement about it are fundamental to all marriages. When trust is absent, the marriage heads for trouble.
And finally, divorce the second time around does not hold the fear that divorce the first time does. As bad as divorce is, people do survive it. The "two-time loser," as one twice divorced woman put it, describing herself, "knows the ropes."

21. Living together before getting married provides a better chance of staying married.

Right after the myth of second marriages comes the myth of cohabitation. "Living together before marriage is a good way to reduce the changes of eventually divorcing." This idea, which has become very popular, appeals to common sense. Living together before marriage means fewer surprises for the couple later when they tie the knot. When people live together, the couple get used to one another. Some analogize cohabitation more prosaically: no one buys a pair of shoes without trying them on first.
For a variety of reasons, couples that at one time might have married now live together in informal and fluid cohabitation. While many couples eventually marry, many do not, and thus it is difficult to keep track of cohabitation relationships. Some couples cohabit for practical reasons and do not foresee marriage.
No one can doubt the surge in the number of co-habitating couples. Between 1960 and 1998, the number of unmarried, cohabiting couples increased from 439,000 to 4.2 million - a tenfold increase, and greater than the rates of marriage and divorce. These informal unions come into existence and dissolve much more easily than marriages and divorces. The formation and dissolutions increase the fluidity in American life. About half of the couples that first cohabited eventually marry, however.
A number of studies strongly suggest that those who live together before marriage have higher separation and divorce rates than those who do not. "The National Survey of Families and Households indicates that "unions begun by cohabitation are almost twice as likely to dissolve within 10 years compared with all first marriages: 57 percent to 30 percent." One study suggest that living in a non-marital union "has a direct negative impact on subsequent marital stability" perhaps because living in such a union "undermines the legitimacy of formal marriage' and so ‘reduces the commitment of marriage."
Of couples whose cohabitation ends without marriage, one writer suggests that those who cohabit "drift from one partner to another in search of the ‘right' person." So a caveat is in order. Evidence suggests that "when cohabitation is limited to a person's future spouse, there is no elevated risk of divorce."
Marriage is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Cohabitation typically does not bring the benefits—health, wealth and emotional well-being - that marriage does. Popenoe suggests "people who cohabit may be more skittish of commitment and more likely to call it quits when problems arise."

22. Children typically fair well during and after a divorce.

One of the more popular divorce myths goes like this: "Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly." From this, people unhappy about their marriages drew several postulates and corollaries. "When parents don't get along, children are better off if the parents divorce than if they stay together." And from that, "If I'm not happy in my marriage, my children may do better if I divorce, because they will be better in life if I am not so unhappy."
Until the liberalization of divorce in the 1970s, many couples unhappy about their marriages stayed married "for the sake of the children." Many spouses decided to endure a bad marriage to prevent children from growing up in a broken home.
The truth is, divorce hurts children, and even under the best conditions, it is traumatic for them.
Judith Wallerstein, the author of The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, suggests that children, once thought very resilient to the dislocations of their parents' breakup, struggle for a lifetime with the residue of a decision their parents made.
Wallerstein's 2000 study tracks a group of 131 children over 25 years. According to her, "If the truth be told, and if we are able to face it, the history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions that adults have made about children since because such assumptions are congenial with adult needs and wishes. The myths that continue to guide our divorce policies and politics today stem from these direct attitudes."
Some qualification is in order. Most therapists and counselors differentiate between what are called high conflict and low conflict marriages. In both, the partners are unhappy. High conflict marriages, however, are those where the home atmosphere is actually dangerous to wife and mother as well as the children. Most authorities agree that high conflict marriages must and should end. Low conflict marriages, the ones heading for the rocks because the partners cannot get along, sometimes can be turned around if the spouses want to save the marriage.
Cathy Meyer, who writes about marriage and family issues, suggests that the happy parent-happy children idea objectifies children. Unhappy parents fail to understand that, though they may be unhappy, "their children are probably quite content and don't care if their parents don't get along as long as their family is together."
"A child's happiness is not dependent on their parent's happiness. A child's happiness stems from routine, having a home, two parents, friends to play with, school activities to be involved in and being able to count on these things being constant day in and day out," Meyer writes.

23. Children of divorced parents are more likely to get a divorce.

The pain and suffering of first divorces, which does not improve the odds for second marriages, appears to have no transfer value to the children of broken marriages. In fact, the reverse is true; parental divorce also reduces the odds of marital success for the children of divorce. Many people believe that living through a marital failure as a child improves the odds for that child in his or her marriage as an adult. This divorce myth goes this way: "Because they are more cautious in entering marital relationships and have a strong determination to avoid the possibility of divorce, children who grow up in a home broken by divorce tend to have much success in their own marriages as those from intact homes."
According to David Popenoe at Rutgers, this intuitive observation, though comforting, is wrong. "Marriages of the children of divorce actually have a much higher rate of divorce than children from intact families. A major reason for this...is that children learn about marital commitment or permanence by observing their parents. In the children of divorce, the sense of commitment has been undermined."
"Divorce does not doom children, but children have a leg up on life if their parents have a reasonably healthy marriage and make it work," says Scott M. Stanley of the University of Denver and the author of The Power of Commitment: a Guide to Active, Lifelong Love.
Stanley suggests that divorce raises the risk of "various negative outcomes for children by a factor of two or three. For example, the likelihood of children from intact homes having behavior problems is 10 percent while it is roughly 30 percent for children from divorced homes. So, most children of divorce do not exhibit behavior problems but the odds are significantly greater that they will."
Children of divorce have "more difficulties, especially in the relationship with the father: 70 percent of the children of divorced parents report having a poor relationship with their father" against 30 percent of the children from intact homes.
Stanley says the children of divorce have a "[g]reater difficulty believing their own marriage will last, not matter how much they want it do..." His numbers appear to support his argument. When one marital partner is a child of divorce, the odds of divorce in his or her marriage double. "When both partners are children of divorced parents, their odds of divorce are nearly triple that of other couples."
Popenoe suggests that divorce appears to be a learned response and that when faced with marital problems, the children of divorce respond the way they have seen their parents respond. Seen this way, divorce in families could almost be seen as an inherited behavior response.

24. Children are better off in step-families than single families.

According to sources, some 1300 new stepfamilies are launched each day, yet despite the hopes of the second timers who make these new ventures, the marriages of these new partners fail even more frequently than first-time couples. Yet despite this, many people believe this divorce myth: "Following divorce, the children involved are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families."
"Stepfamilies tend to have their own set of problems, including interpersonal conflicts with new parent figures and a high risk of family breakup," said Popenoe of Rutgers.
Elizabeth Einstein, a marriage and family therapist and the co-founder of the National Stepfamily Resource Center, suggests that many couples "need to slow down the marriage train" until the new partners resolve critical issues about the blended family. "People bring emotional baggage that's never been dealt with, and that only gets more complicated" in the stepfamily. Unresolved loss, grief and anger, jealousy over the new person in the house and disagreements about discipline work against the stepfamily and the second (or third) marriage that supports it.
"While many families manage it pretty well, the evidence is pretty convincing that, on average, children often do not fare better in step or blended families," says Prof. Stanley.
Stepfamilies are not like nuclear families, and stepparents are not replacement parents. This statement contains dynamics that make step parenting, even under the best of conditions, very difficult.

25. Is there such a thing as a "friendly divorce"?

The idea of the "friendly" divorce seems plausible to people who have never been divorced. Sometimes couples married a year or so realize they made a mistake and more or less agree to end it - or at least they agree to jointly in a summary divorce. Or, long-married couples decide, correctly, that fighting and conflict between them worsens the divorce trauma on their children, so they make a special effort - at least at the onset - to avoid conflict with each other. Hence, the idea of a "friendly" divorce.
Very often, the search for the friendly divorce becomes the pursuit of a mirage. "Divorce, at it's best cannot be considered an amicable process. No matter how hard we try there will be bad feelings," writes Cathy Meyer.
When there are children, bad feelings infiltrate the divorce process. "One or the other parent is going to feel betrayed and hurt. Those feelings will trickle down to the children no matter how hard we try to conceal them. To think that all will be fine as long as the divorce process goes off without a hitch is unwise for all involved."
Of course, divorcing spouses can take steps to avoid a nasty divorce. Keeping a lawyer on a tight leash means that he or she won't use the slash and burn tactics that so often escalate and make divorce more difficult.
However, the search for the "friendly" divorce very often disguises the quest of a painless divorce. No such animal exists. Even the simplest divorces - no children, no significant property, no alimony, both spouses working - entail pain and suffering. In truth, a "friendly" divorce is an oxymoron, like "friendly fire." A man or woman who made a good faith commitment and good faith effort finds it very difficult to not take a divorce personally.
Under the best conditions and outcomes, couples can manage a civil divorce, which is the more reasonable way to think about ending a marriage.

26. Once a marriage is destine for divorce, there is no turning it around.

Most married couples come to know that the road of marriage goes uphill and downhill. For them, even the word divorce never passes their lips. Others, however, accept the divorce myth of unhappiness. This one goes like this: "Being very unhappy is a good sign that the marriage will end in divorce." In the chemistry of married life, for many spouses who don't divorce the memories of the rough stretches - the uphill climbs - very often, in hindsight, make the marriage and the commitment that goes with it even more worthwhile.
"All marriages have their ups and downs," says Popenoe. He cites recent research using a large national sample that found that 86 percent of the people who were unhappily married in the 1980s, "and stayed with the marriage." Five years later, three fifths of the formerly unhappily married couples rated their marriages as wither "very happy" or "quite happy."
This 2002 study by University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite challenged what is termed the "divorce assumption," that is, "that a person stuck in a bad marriage has two choices: stay married and be miserable or get a divorce and become happier."
Waite's researchers also found that two-thirds of the unhappily married spouses reported that their marriages were happy five years later. In addition, the most unhappy marriages reported the most dramatic turnarounds: among those who rated their marriages as very unhappy, almost eight out of 10 who avoided divorce were happily married five years later."
"The study found that on average unhappily married adults who divorced were no happier than unhappily married adults who stayed married when rated on any of the 12 separate measures of psychological well being. Divorce did not typically reduce symptoms of depression, raise self esteem, or increase a sense of mastery...Even unhappy spouses who had divorced and remarried were no happier on average than those who stayed married."
Says Waite, "Staying married is not just for the children's sake. Some divorce is necessary, but results like these suggest the benefits of divorce have been oversold."
In a general way of course, married people who divorce are unhappy, but the outcome of divorce is not necessarily the end of unhappiness, let alone the beginning of happiness. No married person who contemplates divorce can foresee the avalanche of changes a marital breakup causes -- "processes and events over which an individual has little control that are likely to deeply affect his or her emotional well-being." These include the response of one spouse to divorce, reactions of children, disputes and disappointments about child custody, support and visitation, and financial worries and woes.

27. Having children helps preserve or maintain a marriage.

One of the most enduring myths is that the arrival of children shores up a failing marriage. This myth, according to Popenoe, goes like this: "Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce."
On its face, this seems intuitively reasonable. According to Popenoe, many studies have shown that the most stressful time in a marriage is after the first child is born. "Couples who have a child together have a slightly decreased risk of divorce compared to couples without children, but the decreased risk is far less than it used to be when parents with marital problems were more likely to stay together ‘for the sake of the children.'"
Dr. John W. Jacobs, a doctor who writes about what he calls the lies of marriage, puts it more forcefully: "Children are an enormous threat to your marriage. It's very, very difficult to admit that the children you love so much can drive a wedge into your life as a couple, especially if one of the reasons you got married in the first place was to have a family.
"Even when you love your children fiercely, even when you thought you were prepared for the tremendous dislocation they would cause...your natural devotion to your children will tear your marriage down to its bedrock.
Jacobs puts it bluntly: "If you want to preserve your marriage, your children cannot always come first. As counterintuitive as it may sound, in your marriage, your spouse must come first, not only for your sake but also so that your children can grow up within an intact family."
The stresses of child rearing cannot be ignored, particularly "[i]f you have a child with any kind of additional difficulty –a physical or mental disability, a challenging temperament, ADHD..."
And yet, the parents of autistic children, who once faced reports of an 80 percent marital failure rate, seem no more prone to divorce than the parents of non-autistic children, according to a recent study. The study suggests that there "really weren't any significant differences in terms of family structure when you consider children with autism and those without," says Brian Freedman, clinical director of the Center for Autism and Related Disorders at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore.
On balance, the arrival of children who are welcomed by their parents probably makes a strong marriage better. But the patter of little feet in lives of a couple who think the child will do for them what they cannot do for themselves is often a preliminary to divorce.

Conclusion

Divorce myths, like all myths, are part of the culture, and rightly or wrongly they give people hope because without it, life dead-ends in the box canyon of failed experience. Divorce, which is among life's most painful experiences, is a bad outcome to marriage, which rewards most people who give it a good effort. Life, after all, is very tough, and most people don't want to go through it alone. And it's wise to remember that there are always exceptions. Many second marriages do work very well; many stepfamilies function beautifully; some couples do end their marriages cleanly and civilly; sometimes a child does save troubled marriage. It is the exceptions, however, that engender the myths.

Technology can lift Canadian courts out of the dark ages. So where is it?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 03:21:00 +0000

Technology can lift Canadian courts out of the dark ages. So where is it?

By Allison Jones, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – Sun, 28 Oct, 2012

MONTREAL - Technology is transforming the legal landscape in many countries, cutting down on lawyers' fees, saving time for just about anyone who sets foot inside a courthouse and making justice more accessible.

But in Canada, most courts are still stuck in the dark ages, buried in mountains of paper and only now beginning to wake up to the digital world.

"The state of court technology is abysmal," said Ontario Superior Court Justice Fran Kiteley. "We're decades behind other sectors."

A fellow Superior Court judge, David Brown, caused a bit of a stir in the legal community with a recent decision bemoaning the lack of technology in courts.

"From the perspective of the members of the public who use this court, delays caused by our antiquated, wholly inadequate document management system impose unnecessary, but all too real, costs on them," he wrote.

"What if our court had an electronic case management system," Brown mused.

"Yes, Virginia, somewhere, someone must have created such a system, and perhaps sometime, in another decade or so, rumour of such a possibility may waft into the paper-strewn corridors of the court services division of the Ministry of the Attorney General and a slow awakening may occur."

A recent conference in Montreal by the Canadian Centre for Court Technology, a group Kiteley heads up, could perhaps be considered the "slow awakening" for which Brown hopes.

There are pockets of innovation from Canadian courts — British Columbia is widely touted as the leader — but for the most part the glimpses of how modern the courts could be come from south of the border.

A county in Texas started a project that made jury duty more convenient for residents, and the results were startling. People who received jury notices by mail could go online to fill out their questionnaires and select a time that they would be available to report for jury duty.

Only about 50 per cent of people who receive notices show up for jury duty in the U.S., and in some areas it can be as low as 10 per cent, said Jim McMillan, with the National Center for State Courts based in Williamsburg, Va.

Meanwhile, Travis County saw 90 per cent of people show up at their personally selected time, he said. The county also won an environmental award as it was estimated they saved 160,000 kilometres in car trips.

McMillan's proposal to electronically schedule some court appearances elicited oohs and excited nods at the conference. In certain levels of court dozens of cases are scheduled to be heard at 9 a.m. Then, as the judge or justice of the peace works their way down the list, it may take several hours — meaning several hours in lawyers' fees for some — before a case is briefly heard.

"We could do things like reserve times, things like, you know, we do with restaurants and almost everything else in our lives," he said. "We don't make everybody come to the restaurant at 6 p.m. and say, 'Well, you're 400th in line.'"

Instead, McMillan said, what if people checked in at a kiosk and were given a time of 11:20 a.m., for example? They could go run a few errands then return, he suggested.

As for the reams of paper each court case generates, it will, by all accounts, be a while before courts can go completely paperless. But the paperless projects that are being touted are generating interesting results.

In Manatee County in Florida, they set out to determine just how much money they could save if they switched entirely to electronic documents. They found that when court documents were filed electronically and then printed by court staff for use and storage — an intermediary stage at which most Canadian courts find themselves — it cost 57 cents per page.

But when documents were filed, used and stored electronically it cost 11 cents per page.

"We can now take these numbers, give them to our funders and say 'Look, we are running six and seven times more expensively than we could potentially," said McMillan.

In B.C., a recent appeal case was run entirely electronically, saving hundreds of thousands of pages that would have had to have been printed for the five sets of lawyers and the five judges, said Andrew Clark, the project manager for B.C.'s e-Court program. Done electronically, the size of all the appeal documents was 1.8 gigabytes.

The lawyers involved found that it saved them a lot of time and money, savings that they were then able to pass on to their clients.

"We're talking about...a huge reduction in, particularly, public money," he said. "It reduced the cost of litigation."

The only downside those involved in the e-appeal reported? One of the judges quipped that he would have to start going to the gym more often because he wasn't lugging around massive binders.

It's hard to argue with cost savings, but it costs money to implement court technology projects. Governments generally haven't shown great interest in investing in the justice system, instead directing spending to politically popular areas such as health, suggested Kiteley.

"Between more money for justice and more money for MRIs, MRIs win hands down," she said.

Public demand for more modern courts could be what pushes governments to fund new projects, said Ontario Superior Court Justice Larry Whalen.

"When you look at our lives, we're surrounded by technology...so I think government has a responsibility of investing in technology to facilitate justice," he said.

People who choose to represent themselves in court cases perhaps have the most to gain from technology in court, said Whalen.

Nova Scotia created a website, with federal funding, dedicated to helping people through family law proceedings. Forms to file emergency applications, contacts for community agencies, steps toward mediation and information on what happens when children are taken into care are all easily found on the homepage.

That province has also webcasted Appeal Court cases, which allows anyone who can get on the website to watch a full court case.

Online court access expands exponentially south of the border, particularly in the U.S. federal court system. For a fee, people can search for case filings, motions and decisions. There are currently one million users of the system, said McMillan, and last year the courts received $41 million in fees.

The caveat, depending on one's viewpoint, is that more than 90 per cent of that revenue comes from commercial data aggregators, McMillan said.

"These commercial entities are in our courts now anyway, collecting this information whether it comes from manual input or whatever," he said. "It doesn't bother me that if they're reselling and making nice profits off that that they shouldn't help us facilitate (electronic access)."

The idea clearly leaves Kiteley unsettled, though.

While credit bureaus already send people to sift through court files and take note of who has judgments in areas such as bankruptcy against them, it might not be good for everyone to provide easy online access, she said.

"Do we want to have data aggregators reviewing every single application for divorce?" she said. "Say Jane Smith and Bob Smith are getting divorced and here's their addresses and here's the names of their children and the schools their children are at and do we want a data aggregator to send to these now separated spouses online dating information?

"Do we allow that to happen even though that would give money back to the courts?"

The judges involved with the Canadian Centre for Court Technology say that not only does the government need to provide funding, but the judiciary needs to show some leadership on the issue if any progress can be expected.

Kiteley suggested what put B.C. ahead several years ago was a "triumvirate of leaders," in the deputy attorney general, the B.C. Supreme Court chief justice and the provincial court chief justice.

McMillan, who has worked on court technology projects all over the globe, said Singapore is probably the world leader. He named South Korea as a close second. As for Canada?

"It's not terrible," he said.

Four Reasons Why BC’s New Family Law Act is Good for Fathers

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:42:00 +0000

Jun

Four Reasons Why BC’s New Family Law Act is Good for Fathers

Posted June 25, 2012 by Georgialee Lang in Divorce, Family Law. Tagged: access, contact, custody, denial of access, Family Law Act, Family Relations Act, Parenting Coordinators, parenting time. 5 Comments

British Columbia’s new family laws will be in effect on March 13, 2013. For husbands and fathers who have felt victimized and exploited by the Family Relations Act 1979, there is every reason to be optimistic that the new law will assist them to achieve the fairness and equality they have been fighting for.
The first bit of good news is that effective March 13, 2012 the new law will apply to everyone, even if they commenced a family law proceeding under the current Family Relations Act that has not yet been concluded, with one exception. Property claims made under the old Act will be governed by that legislation, unless both parties agree that the new law should be applied.
The changes in law that will assist fathers include:
1. Pejorative terminology is removed:
The language of “custody” and “access” used in the current legislation left many parents feeling marginalized and overlooked as fully contributing parents who provided value to their children’s lives. These terms also connoted an “I win, you lose” philosophy. The language of the new Family Law Act is “parenting time” and “contact”, words that do not imply ownership of children by one parent to the exclusion of the other.
2. Endless court applications regarding children can be avoided:
For fathers who are constantly struggling to see their children regularly, or have a vacation with their child, or obtain their child’s passport for travel, or the dozens of other irritants that require fathers to go back to court, the new law has introduced and codified the role of a Parenting Coordinator. This person, who may be a counselor or a lawyer, will be empowered under the law to make binding decisions with regards to parenting issues, with the criteria being “the best interests of the child only”.
3. Informal parenting arrangements will be respected:
In scenarios where a father and mother have recently separated and have worked out a voluntary parenting plan, one parent cannot unilaterally change the plan. What often occurs is the parties will agree to a particular schedule, but when mom learns about dad’s new girlfriend, or is angry over some event involving dad, it is not uncommon for mother to unilaterally impede the regularly scheduled parenting time of the father. This new law forbids this kind of unilateral action.
4. Denial of parenting time will be treated seriously:
One of the most common complaints from fathers in high conflict marriage breakdown is the capricious, unreasonable denial of parenting time as punishment for the parties’ separation, even when the separation was requested by the mother.
The new law recognizes the importance of a father’s time with his children and will take serious steps to enforce parenting time. The key is that a father must complain to the court within 12 months of the access denial. In those circumstances the court may order compensatory parenting time to make up for the time denied. The court can also order a denying parent to go to counseling, pay a $5000.00 fine or reimburse the father for all of his expenses including travel expenses, lost wages and child care expenses incurred as a result of the refusal to comply with the informal parenting arrangement or the terms of any agreement or court order.
In my view the government has enacted new law that is meant to assist parents who do not want to be excised from their children’s lives. The important matter now is that the public be educated as to the upcoming changes so they can improve their relationships with their children.
A final note: there are many mothers who do not conduct themselves in ways described above, but when they do the emotional and financial damage to the family is devastating and destructive, both for the parents and the children.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Father who blames obesity for losing custody of kids plans hunger strike

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:31:00 +0000

Father who blames obesity for losing custody of kids plans hunger strike

By Jordana Divon | Daily Brew – 19 hours ago

How much weight is too much weight to raise children?

One Ottawa father of two claims the family court has pegged that number at 360 pounds — his current weight.

As CTV News reports, the 38-year-old man, who can't be identified under the Child and Family Services Act, is planning a hunger strike after a judge ordered that his children be put up for adoption.

According to the father, the number on his scale played a role in his loss of custody.

"One of the reasons they used is because I was too fat, and couldn't keep up with my children," he told the news network.

At 360 pounds, a doctor at the family court clinic said the man's physical issues interfere with his ability to raise his children.

"(The father) has struggled with obesity for years, which impacts significantly on most aspects of his life including (his) functioning as a parent," the doctor wrote.

The man previously weighed in at 525 pounds and told CBC that, while he was offered taxpayer-funded gastric bypass surgery, he preferred to do it on his own so he would "respect the weight loss" himself.

He said he hasn't seen his children for over a year and accuses the court of leveraging his obesity to keep the 5- and 6-year-old boys in foster care.

"They picked the one thing they could use as a quantitative number. I'm a fantastic father, I love my kids wholeheartedly."

The father said part of his weight problem stemmed from his poor relationship with his ex-wife (and the children's mother), which caused him to overeat, but that he's overcome that impulse.

The children were removed last year from their mother's home after she was hospitalized for a suspected drug overdose and a "mental breakdown."

Though court representatives are prevented from commenting on the case, they released a brief statement saying, "Every case is unique … mental and physical issues are examined as well as any special needs of the children."

There are also a number of other factors that may have contributed to the court's decision.

While he now claims to be clean, the father has copped to past issues with marijuana use and minor run-ins with the law. The court also described him as aggressive, a charge he firmly denies, adding that he's completed anger management classes.

Meanwhile, the story has traveled as far as the Daily Mail as people weigh in on whether waist size should have any impact on a parent's legal right to raise his or her children.

Top court hears landmark spousal abuse case

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:23:00 +0000

Top court hears landmark spousal abuse case

CBC – 7 hours ago

The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday on whether victims of domestic abuse can hire a hit man to kill their partners, a controversial issue which tests the limits of the defence of duress.

The case involves a Nova Scotia woman, Nicole Doucet, who tried to hire an undercover RCMP officer to kill her husband Michael Ryan.

The high school teacher was arrested in March 2008 and charged with counselling to commit murder.

She was acquitted of the charge two years later after the Nova Scotia Supreme Court accepted her argument that she thought she had no other way out of an abusive 15-year marriage to a man who repeatedly threatened her and her daughter.

At trial, her lawyer successfully used the criminal defence of duress, arguing that she had no other avenue of escape from the situation. Duress is usually used when someone involuntarily commits a crime after being threatened by another person.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the ruling, saying the marriage amounted to a "reign of terror."

The Supreme Court recognized battered woman syndrome in a landmark 1990 case. It outlined how a woman in an abusive relationship who kills her partner can use the Criminal Code’s self-defence provisions to argue for an acquittal.

But Nova Scotia prosecutors say the self-defence provisions and the defence of duress were incorrectly applied in this case.

During Thursday's proceedings, the prosecutor's office argued that the defence of duress has been mixed up with the defence of self-defence, CBC's Leslie MacKinnon reported from the court. They argued that a future jury would find it confusing to deal with trying to filter which defence applies to which case.

Delaney also argued that the "air of reality" was not there for the duress defence and that the two had been separated for seven months and that Doucet was well on her way to independence.

He also said Doucet had an avenue of escape — a transition house — something the trial judge had rejected.

But Joel Pink, a lawyer representing Doucet, argued that the trial judge accepted all the facts and that she didn't tell police about the sexual assaults because police would have gone to her husband and he would deny it.

He said the breaking point was when Ryan showed up at the school where Nicole Ryan worked. Less than a month later she looked for a hitman.

Judge found guilty in rare murder trial; killed wife, court says

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:21:00 +0000

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-found-guilty-rare-murder-trial-killed-wife-185809492.html

Judge found guilty in rare murder trial; killed wife, court says

By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – 7 hours ago

QUEBEC - A retired Quebec judge has been found guilty of murdering his invalid wife.

Jacques Delisle is believed to be the first Canadian judge tried for murder in Canadian legal history.

A jury came down with the first-degree murder verdict this afternoon at the Quebec City courthouse. It had been deliberating since Tuesday.

The retired Quebec Court of Appeal justice was accused of first-degree murder in the slaying of his wife, Marie-Nicole Rainville, on Nov. 12, 2009.

Delisle's lawyer claimed that Rainville committed suicide.

The prosecution told a different story: that the 77-year-old ex-judge shot his wife because she was an obstacle to his plans to live with his former secretary, with whom he was having an affair.

Authorities had originally agreed that Rainville's death was a suicide. But a police investigation eventually led detectives to a different conclusion. Delisle was arrested and charged in June 2010.

More turmoil over divorce

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 19 May 2012 01:57:00 +0000


VIDEO UPDATED: 7 hour standoff over, home reduced to rubble

Last Updated: Friday, May 18th, 2012 \| 12:15pm PDT	Story by: Chad Harris

A nearly 7 hour police standoff in Kamloops last night ended with one man dead and a Dufferin home completely destroyed by fire. The suspect a 48 year old surrey man is presumed dead after the home was rocked with explosions shortly after midnight. The man had just released his former girlfriend from the Cannel Street home. Kamloops RCMP Staff Sergeant Grant Learned says as negotiations for her release went on it became apparent the man had explosives in the home and in his van. Once the explosions in the home were heard it was soon fully engulfed in flames with the suspect dead at the scene. Firefighters were forced to stand by and watch the home burn because of other explosives in the suspects van. Crews finally managed to put water on the blaze and keep it from spreading to nearby homes. Earlier in the standoff the woman's current boyfriend fled the home with three of the woman's four children, with the fourth escaping through a window. Staff Gergeant Grant Learned says the pipe bombs in the mans van were dismantled this morning. The stand off began shortly after 5PM yesterday. The woman released was unharmed.

Canadian Father Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 15 May 2012 00:25:00 +0000

For the purpose of this page I only deal with Canadian Family Law, the province of BC in particular. Not sure if you know or have head of what is known as Familily Maintanence Enforcement Program (aka FMEP) but for all intense and purposes it is a subset and pretty secretive arm of the government that has authority to do anything to an individual from bad credit to jail and all in between that they want including preventing the crossing of borderes, not sure where you are located but divorce in this country is made very expensive by the lawyers and judges and of course intentioally made adversarial to line their own pockets, when all is said and done neither party is really further ahead but one parent is assigned to pay for a basically an unresitricted living for the other parent whether or not childen involved are their genetic childre or not, whether the other parent is capable of working or not etc.. so in a lot of cases one parent (usually the father) becomes broke, frustrated, depressed, suicidal, or worse allienated.. FMEP is relentless and makes you go back to court, but again most have no money, to try and prove that you can't survive... Then the worst of all this is the government of Canada set up this FMEP system to enforce money only.. So custody and access to children or even what is in the best interest of children is left to the wind.. so we can easily be made to feel like terrorists..

FMEP; The Ugly Truth!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 14 May 2012 23:56:00 +0000

FMEP; The Ugly Truth!

British Columbia’s answer to collecting Court Ordered financial support, known as ‘Family Maintenance Enforcement Program’.

This government bureaucracy is within the Attorney General’s Ministry, headed by “The Director” a.k.a. Mr. Chris Beresford, (and we can all feel secure about those officials right?).

Frankly this is nothing more than a government authorized ‘collection agency’ which, IMHO is contributing to the breakdown of families and hence our society as a whole.

‘Excessive’ authority is exercised by employees of this agency, rightly called Enforcement Officers. These abusive government employees operate in secrecy from an undisclosed location for good reason. Even telephone calls are carefully monitored and restricted, callers being required to use a code before talking to EO’s.

FMEP collection officers are authorized by the government to literally wreak havoc on ‘Payors’, in fact they very substantially influence, and undermine, the lives of many, and bear in mind that Payors are simply non-criminal, B.C. citizens!

FMEP legislated authority comes from the ‘Family Maintenance Enforcement Act’ (FMEA), established for the expressed purpose of enforcing support payments ordered by the Courts.

Court decisions on ‘maintenance’ (financial support), are supposedly made for the benefit of disadvantaged parties to a divorce, usually wives and children. Sounds high-minded doesn’t it?

But the legal process and those court decisions often have a major detrimental impact on the lives of divorced mates and parents, usually Payors are husbands and fathers.

Regardless of that fact, ‘Payors’ are treated as ‘collateral damage’ by Enforcement Officers.

Whenever a government assumes the role of ‘enforcer’ of its citizens, red flags should be flying. There are inherent and significant dangers for society in this kind of legislation. At the very least, healthy public oversight should prevail from beginning to end. That is definitely not the case with the FMEP.

FMEP enforcement powers include everything from serious invasions of privacy and cleaning out personal bank accounts at will; to imposition of liens on homes, cars, and any other material assets. Then there’s the punitive crippling of credit ratings; prevention of drivers license renewals and passports; just to name a few of the destructive ‘tools’ available to them!

Even CPP and Old Age Pensions are not protected from exploitation and garnishee by these FMEP government agents!

What was the motive for creating this arbitrary and abusive monstrosity? Perhaps we should ask; "Do governments ever prioritize the public interest over ‘their own’ best interests?!"

For example if divorcees weren’t forced to pay support to unemployed former spouses, it would fall to the government to provide some form of relief. That may well explain the motive for law-makers passing this abusive legislation. Forcing non-criminal citizens to pay support relieves the government from considerable social safety-net responsibility.

Ironically, in recent years moral judgments have been disregarded in favor of a secular approach under the Canada Divorce Act. For example unfaithful or disloyal spouses are not judged on the basis of morality. Divorced parties are simply instructed to realistically ‘become self-supporting as soon as possible following divorce’.

So from the Federal Divorce Act point of view, the marriage is viewed much as any other commercial ‘contract’.

Yet, in spite of the Divorce Act’s secular approach, Provincial court decisions continue to impose financial responsibility on Payors in a way that goes well beyond a merely secular approach.

The effect of those ‘quasi-moral’ decisions go well beyond simple contract obligations. They deeply affect the lives of divorced parties, especially Payors, to their long-term detriment. I believe this is also detrimental for families and society as a whole.

There is no argument that its necessary to fairly divide material assets ‘at the time of divorce’, taking into account any underage children involved.

However, imposing the burden of long-term financial support for the sole benefit of a former spouse with no handicaps, or children to care for, is clearly wrong! This is often done.

Support for divorced wives may have been necessary a century ago, but that historic method is out of date. Women have equal employment opportunities (sometimes more and sometimes less), and as mentioned, the Federally legislated obligation to become self-supporting!

Forcing a former spouse to pay long-term support inevitably fosters animosity,besides providing an actual incentive for self-seeking wives to initiate divorce in the first place!

To restate; Provincial Court support orders fly in the face of the Federal Divorce Act which implies the failed marriage is in the category of a broken contract, which it arguably is.

Imposing an ongoing burden of support on former husbands contributes to divorce actions and has a debilitating effect on society as a whole. Its divisive, contentious, and in many cases, grossly unfair as countless men will testify. It is a virtual ‘ball and chain’.

This is the ugly truth, made more so by the excessive collection powers granted to a handful of government bureaucrats.

Adding insult to injury once those support orders are made it becomes a debilitating drain on Payors to mount a court challenge in order to try to change their support order. Courts are very reluctant to make changes to orders issued by their peers, regardless of difficulties and changes in the lives of the men burdened by them.

Courts regard most life-changes as merely the ‘choice’ of the payor, irrelevant to the ordered support payments!? Genuine free choice is therefore not possible for payors. Is that not an abuse of human rights and freedoms?

Is it even remotely possible for imperfect Judges to stipulate a completely fair and balanced support order? An ongoing debilitating effect on Payors that will have a major impact on them for five, ten, or even twenty years in the future..? Hardly!

So stressed by court imposed support orders, some distraught Payors have committed suicide. (And that’s not even mentioning the trauma of child custody issues.)

No, I certainly don’t have all the answers to these difficult divorce issues, but the present method of placing the primary burden of support on divorced husbands is clearly not the answer and should not be ordered by the courts.

Unfortunately, most people are unaware of these quasi-police powers grated to the FMEP bureaucracy by the government. Why doesn’t this agency have public oversight and review?

They can, and do, abuse innocent citizens with no regard for the charter of rights and freedoms.

In fact its very questionable if the Family Maintenance Act would be able to withstand a Supreme Court of Canada legal challenge.

The FMEP is not even accountable to a provincial ombudsmen! They can and do blithely enforce flawed court decisions with impunity. The have been given powers well beyond those allowed for mere debt-collectors. This is blind-folded justice and frankly; it stinks!

There are few, if any, benefits to society from granting such authority to mere public employees.

Its not working well, and never will work well. I rest my case.

——————–

Supplemental added July 26, 2010;

Here’s an example of FMEP policy…

Question: “How would it be known if the recipient is deceased, i.e. someone wrongly receiving their payments, forwarded by the FMEP collection agency?’

FMEP answer: “It would be up to someone to notify us if the recipient has passed away. We do not check on a regular basis.”

In other words ‘FMEP is unconcerned if the money collected from Payor’s is even getting to their clients. How hypocritical is that!?

The nerd defence: Non-prescription glasses the latest trend in criminal testimony

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:58:00 +0000

The nerd defence: Non-prescription glasses the latest trend in criminal testimony
By Lindsay MacAdam | Shine On – Tue, 3 Apr, 2012 8:31 AM EDT
Email
Print

In a recent U.S. court case, defendants all wore plastic thick glasses to give the impression of innocence, under the suggestion of their lawyer. Do you believe this is ethical? (Credit: Thinkstock)
Thick, plastic-framed glasses are no longer reserved for hipsters, fashion editors and computer geeks. In the world of criminal law in the United States, it seems they've become the new 'it' accessory, donned by defendants in an effort to convince the jury of their innocence.
A prime example: Five men charged with a 2010 string of murders in the District of Columbia caused quite a stir when they showed up to their recent trial, each wearing a pair of non-prescription, plastic-framed glasses, reports the Washington Post.
The prosecutor drew attention to the strange coincidence, and after asking a witness if he had ever seen the defendants wearing glasses before, the answer was a resounding "No."
Related: Bringing your dog to work could make you feel less stressed
"This goes beyond shirts and ties," says Richard Waites, chief executive of jury consulting firm The Advocates, to the Washington Post. "Jurors expect to see defendants wearing those. Jurors don't expect to see defendants wearing glasses if they don't have to."
The idea behind the glasses is, of course, to make the accused appear less intimidating and more trust-worthy. In fact, a study published in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology in 2008, found that African American defendants were believed to be more honest and intelligent and less threatening when they were wearing glasses. The accused in the D.C. murder case were all African American.
That isn't the only case where non-prescription glasses have been used to sway a jury. Harvey Slovis, a New York-based defence lawyer, makes all of his clients wear glasses in the courtroom. According to the Washington Post, Slovis calls it his "nerd defence."
Related: Gucci vs. Guess: A trademark lawsuit over the letter 'G'
Whether the glasses succeed in persuading the jurors or not, the question on everyone's mind is whether or not this type of strategy should be permitted in a court of law. Is it ethical? Some people don't think so.
"It says you're trying to hide," says Gladys Weatherspoon, a Washington-based defence attorney, to the Washington Post. "It makes them look more guilty because it's not who they are."
Patricia Jefferies, a grandmother of one of the D.C. murder victims, didn't shy away from voicing her opinion about the accuseds' glasses. "Those glasses are influencing the jury, trying to make them think they're Boy Scouts or something," Jefferies tells the Washington Post outside the courtroom.
What are your thoughts on the use of misleading props in the courtroom? Where should judges draw the line?

Divorce Can Be Profitable

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:38:00 +0000

Divorce Can Be Profitable

Posted February 23, 2012 by LawDiva in Uncategorized

A growing industry is developing in the area of litigation loans. Though not unusual in personal injury cases or residential school litigation, entrepreneurs are beginning to look to the lucrative divorce market to turn a profit.
In high-net worth divorce cases it is typical to hear that only one of the spouses has their hands on the purse-strings of the family wealth, usually the husband, but not always. The economically challenged spouse may reside in a beautiful family home and drive a BMW, but once her savings have been used for her lawyer’s retainer and her credit cards are maxed out, she is playing on a field skewed in favour of her cash-rich spouse.
In British Columbia the Supreme Court may order that family funds be made available to a spouse who has run out of financial options, but only for the purpose of hiring expert witnesses, such as a chartered accountant, business valuator or property appraiser.
The Court will not order one spouse to pay the ongoing legal fees of the other, except in the most extreme circumstances. Of course, the rules on the costs of a court case do allow a court to order the losing spouse to pay the winning spouse, but that comes at the end of the litigation. Also, it is not full reimbursement, but a limited contribution to the victorious spouse’s legal fees.
Business woman and lawyer, Stacey Napp of California, has jumped on the litigation financing bandwagon with her firm, Balance Point Divorce Funding, a company she founded after her own brutal eight-year divorce.
Borrowing from friends and relatives, Ms. Napp settled her divorce case by agreeing to retain the family home and receive $500,000 as her share of her husband’s mobile home parks business. Not a bad deal you say?
It turned out to be a very bad deal, since shortly after the settlement; her husband offered his business for sale for the princely sum of $5.7 million.
Eventually an Arizona judge reopened the fraudulent settlement and awarded her an appropriate share of the actual value of the business. Using the funds from the court judgment Ms. Napp decided to put her money to work, funding divorce cases for others who like her, did not have the financial means to compete with their husbands’ deep pockets.
As a lawyer with a career in finance, Ms. Napp recognized she had all the skills required to run her new business. She knew how to find assets, understood the litigation process and had the money to make loans.
As for her clients, they don’t see it as a loan; rather they view it as an investment in their future financial security.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Warning to Men: Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse– New Alimony Law

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:36:00 +0000

Warning to Men: Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse– New Alimony Law

Posted December 22, 2011 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law. Tagged: alimony, Carol Rogerson, Rollie Thompson, separation agreement, spousal support, Supreme Court of Canada

You can’t quarrel with the fact that a stay-at-home mom, who has been married for 20 years, has three kids and has never worked, is a worthy recipient of spousal support. And, believe me…she needs it.
It took some time for Canadian men to accept that if they had income and their ex-wife did not, they were bound to pay some spousal support, even if their spouse left the marriage or worse even took up with another partner. Forty-years ago it was not too big a “hit”, as our Courts favored a “clean break” approach, meaning not much support, for not very long.
A few years later, as lawyers, legislators and judges encouraged and promoted support agreements, supported spouses who entered into separation agreements, but wanted or needed more support, had to prove their increased need was based on a “radical” change in their circumstances, causally related to the marriage. That too posed a challenge for women seeking support and carried on the pattern of low support orders for limited periods of time.
In the 1990’s the law changed rapidly and saw more women getting more support for longer periods of time, until 2006 when the federal government empowered law professors Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson to create “Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines”, which though never passed into law, were quickly adopted by all the Provinces.
This was real change. It became more difficult for a smooth-talking lawyer to convince a judge that the old rules still applied, namely that spousal support should be “short and not sweet”. The Guidelines provided schedules based on the payor’s income that introduced consistency in support awards across Canada and the new theme meant that men had to dig deeper and pay for a much longer period of time, even indefinitely.
Any hope of reprieve for long-time support payors was that when their financial circumstances changed due to illness, retirement or the vicissitudes of life, they could go back to court and apply for a reduction in spousal support, based on a “material change” in circumstances, theirs or their ex-spouse’s.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada gave short shrift to support payors’ “faint-hope”. What the majority of the Court said was because a separation “may result in dramatic life changes and emotional stress…these circumstances give rise to the possibility that the ability of separating spouses to realistically and objectively assess their current and future needs and preferences, can be impaired”.
In other words, don’t count on a separation agreement dealing with spousal support to be upheld in Canada. The Court held that the notion that separation agreements should be accorded “significant weight…is problematic”. Now they tell us?
Lawyers, who have been criticized for years, for “promoting” litigation, have just learned that Canada’s highest court eschews long-held contract principles of finality and certainty, comparing them to the condemned “clean break” approach of the 1970’s.
For what good it does, it must be noted that Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Cromwell took a different view, holding that a support agreement plays a central role in the variation of a support order. They voiced puzzlement at the logic employed by the majority of the court, saying their approach is at odds with the “basic purpose of agreements, namely to apportion the risks of future uncertain events in order to achieve finality and certainty.”
What is certain is that while there is a new wave of American lawmakers restricting long-term alimony, Canada is on the opposite track. If this is the Court’s way of discouraging divorce, they may be on to something.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Divorce Can Be Deadly

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:32:00 +0000

Divorce Can Be Deadly

Posted January 11, 2012 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law, Uncategorized. Tagged: death, divorce, health risks of divorce, Professor David Sbarra

We’ve been told by experts that smoking, overeating and excessive consumption of alcohol can shorten our life span, but now we find out that divorce may be as bad as the above-mentioned vices.
A new study from the University of Arizona reveals that the risk of premature death is 23% higher in divorced people than those whose marital bonds are still intact.
The research involved more than 6.5 million adults in eleven countries, over a time span of 27 years. To ensure accuracy, the research was statistically controlled for age, smoking, weight and medical conditions, allowing only the effects of divorce to be measured. Breaking the data down into gender, divorced men were at a substantially higher risk than divorced women.
Professor David Sbarra, who led the study, left open the issue of cause and effect. Does divorce lead to poor health or does poor health lead to divorce? He noted that further research is required to determine how divorce affects us biologically.
I can hear people saying “If I had stayed with my husband/wife I’d be in the grave by now!”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

No Spousal Support Reform for Canadians

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:30:00 +0000

No Spousal Support Reform for Canadians

Posted January 19, 2012 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law. Tagged: alimony, alimony reform, Messier v. Delage, Moge v. Moge, Pelech v. Pelech, spousal support, Supreme Court of Canada

While alimony reform is on the march in the United States, I predict that Canadian law makers will not jump on the bandwagon. In fact, I believe Canadian spouses (read “women”) will hold their place as the “most likely to succeed” financially post-separation, particularly in relation to their foreign sisters.

Yes, it’s true that it hasn’t always been this way. In the early 1980’s a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Messier v. Delage held strong to the philosophy that the obligation of support between ex-spouses “should not continue indefinitely when the marriage bond is dissolved,” and decried the notion that “one spouse could continue to be a drag on the other indefinitely; acquire a lifetime pension as a result of the marriage; or luxuriate in idleness at the expense of the other.”
The support noose got even tighter in 1987 after a trio of cases made their way up to Canada’s highest court. In Pelech v. Pelech, Caron v. Caron and Richardson v. Richardson the Court determined that spouses who had signed agreements dealing with spousal support could not easily shake loose of them.
The test to challenge an agreement to obtain support, to increase support, or to extend support required the applicant spouse to show there had been a radical change in circumstances causally linked to the marriage.
The first part of the legal requirement, establishing that a change was radical, was relatively easy. If a wife agreed to take no support and later became fully disabled it was not difficult to characterize the change in her ability to work as radical.
More stringent, however, was the additional requirement that the radical change be attributable to the marriage. So, for example, if a wife signed a separation agreement that gave her no spousal support because she was fully self-supporting, and she later became disabled from an illness that did not manifest itself until after the divorce, her financial need could not be linked to her marriage.
For women who found themselves in this situation, their only hope was family support, welfare, or a second marriage. Meanwhile, the federal government overhauled the Divorce Act 1968 and replaced it with a new Divorce Act in 1985. The new model for support became an analysis of the economic advantages and disadvantages suffered by both spouses from the marriage or from the breakdown of the marriage. The stage was now set for a groundbreaking Supreme Court of Canada decision.
In 1992 the support pendulum swung hard in the opposite direction with a case that involved a spousal support payment of a mere $100.00 per month. In Moge v. Moge the Supreme Court of Canada introduced a new way of thinking about spousal support with a support rationale that was based on compensation to a spouse, instead of just a consideration of “means and needs”.
In this ground breaking decision the Court directed judges to explore the economic consequences of divorce with a greater focus on women’s work at home as mothers and wives and the aftermath of staying at home, while their husbands worked.
The Court recognized that women in this position typically had no job skills, limited opportunities for education, and no pensions, savings, or health benefits.
Fast forward to 2006 when the federal government introduced Canada’s Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, a further move to a more generous system of spousal support. The Guidelines provided a scheme to ensure that supported spouses received support that was up to 43% of their partner’s gross income. They also set a formula to determine how long support would be paid.
The upshot was that spouses who were married for 20 years or more typically received indefinite support that could be reviewed or varied if there was a material change in circumstances. Spouses in marriages under 20 years would receive support equivalent to the length of their marriage, also subject to variation if the supporting spouse could show a material change in circumstances.
While this analysis is a simplification of the Guidelines, there could be no doubt that women benefitted and men were burdened with higher support payments paid for a greater length of time.
In recent cases in British Columbia, men seeking to decrease their support have only been mildly successful, while most obtain no relief at all.
Last month the Supreme Court of Canada reinforced their model of generosity in L.M.P.v. L.S. where they decided that spouses receiving support pursuant to an agreement were not necessarily bound by the terms of their agreement because recipient spouses may have been under intense emotional strain at the time they negotiated their agreements.
As a result of this decision husbands in Canada can now wave good-bye to well-established principles of certainty and finality when they settle support issues.
Hearkening back to my original point, the Canadian trend in spousal support in no way resembles the burgeoning alimony reform sweeping through the United States. In fact, Canada continues to move in a direction that will eventually financially cripple husbands, particularly those that pay both child support and spousal support.
Yes, we need alimony reform but we are unlikely to get it anytime soon.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Grass Roots Group’s Goal is to Change Family Law

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:27:00 +0000

Grass Roots Group’s Goal is to Change Family Law

Posted February 10, 2012 by LawDiva in Family Law. Tagged: Canadians for Family Law Reform

Concerned citizens in Sarnia, Ontario banded together last summer to form “Canadians For Family Law Reform”, after years of frustration with Canada’s family law justice system. Beginning with a core group of nine members, the organization continues to grow as it raises its profile in Sarnia.

The CFLR organized a public rally last month in front of the Sarnia Courthouse where 50 members converged with signs to picket throughout the day. The group also picketed outside the office of one of Sarnia’s family law lawyers, referring to him as a “poster boy for what is wrong in family law”. This unnamed lawyer allegedly has the largest family law case load in the city and it was reported that on one day in court he was counsel in 37 of 39 family law cases being heard.

Some of the reforms sought by CFLR include:
1. Simplification of the court process;
2. More expedient decisions from judges;
3. Deterring lawyers from overbilling;
4. Eliminating conflicts of interest where lawyers and judges are closely connected;
5. Avoiding the tendency to push proceedings into higher courts;
6. Stopping lawyers from creating hostilities where none exist;
7. Addressing the practice of adjourning cases for months or years.

The group will rally again on February 16, 2012 at the Sarnia courthouse and hold a candlelight vigil on February 20, 2010 to commemorate “the tragic death of families due to an antagonistic family legal system”. Check out their Facebook page for other events.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

The Lighter Side of Divorce

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:24:00 +0000

The Lighter Side of Divorce

Posted February 12, 2012 by LawDiva in Divorce

We all need a few laughs once in while, so today’s post is intended to focus on the lighter side of divorce, which, believe me, does not exist when you are in the middle of it. It is always amusing to see what Hollywood has to say about the subject, given their residents are abundant among the divorce statistics.

For those who have survived divorce and those who watch from a distance (and are grateful for that), consider the following sound bites and barbs.

1. “Ah yes divorce, the Latin word meaning to rip out a man’s genitals through his wallet.”
ROBIN WILLIAMS, divorced twice

2. “I’m an excellent housekeeper. Every time I divorce, I keep the house.”
ZSA ZSA GABOR, divorced seven times, one anulment

3. “The difference between a legal separation and a divorce is that a legal separation gives the husband a chance to hide his money.” JOHNNY CARSON, divorced three times

4. “Today Pamela and Tommy Lee announced they are getting back together. You know what that means? There’s still hope for Ike and Tina Turner.”JAY LENO, married for 30 years

5. “I’ve given my memoirs more thought than my marriages. You can’t divorce a book.”
GLORIA SWANSON, divorced four times

6. “The secret of a happy marriage remains a secret.”
HENNY YOUNGMAN, married for 60 years

The literary world also has something to say on the topic of divorce:

6. “A divorce is like an amputation, you survive it, but there’s less of you.”
MARGARET ATWOOD, divorced once

7. “The worst reconciliation is better than the best divorce.”
MIGUEL DE CERVANTES, married for 32 years

8. “When two people get a divorce, it isn’t a sign that they “don’t understand” one another,
but a sign that they have at last, begun to.”
HELEN ROWLAND, marital status unknown

As Billy Joel once said “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang, happily married for 23 years!

Defamed Husband Sets the Record Straight

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:22:00 +0000

Defamed Husband Sets the Record Straight

Posted February 13, 2012 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law. Tagged: England, Lancashire

The rumour mill was running rampant in the village of St. Michaels on the Lancashire coast in England when Gary Dean said “That’s enough.”

Dean, a successful advertising executive and publishing entrepreneur, decided to set the record straight by starting a website at deandivorce.com called “The Truth About Helen Louise Dean v. Gary Dean.”

Dean and his wife separated after nineteen years of marriage and four children. The divorce was finalized in 2007 and all financial issues had been resolved, yet the gossip mill continued to pump out offensive, inflammatory, even defamatory stories about how Dean left his wife and children penniless. He was describe as “greedy, tight, and ruthless.”

The problem was none of it was true, so Mr. Dean posted the settlement pronounced in the local Preston Court on his website. He disclosed that his wife received $5.9 million, including diamonds, other jewelery, watches, a Mercedes and an Audi convertible together with $24,000 per year for each of the four children and payment of the children’s private school fees.

Dean remarked that if he lived in in London, Manchester or a similar city, his divorce would not have attracted any attention, but in his small village, which he likened to “Coronation Street”, he was forced to go public.

At the time of the Dean’s divorce, family law hearings were private and the media had no access to decisions. As of April 2009, the law has changed and divorce and family law cases in England are now in the public arena.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Wives Want Out

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:20:00 +0000

Wives Want Out

Posted February 14, 2012 by LawDiva in Divorce. Tagged: Britain, divorce statistics, United States.

A survey of 2000 men and women in Britain reveals that the British divorce rate could be much higher than it is, if wives were assured of future economic security. That’s how 59% of the women surveyed responded to the question “Would you divorce your spouse?”

While statistics are highly manoeuvrable, the consensus among government agencies that track the data is that in Great Britain the divorce rate for first marriages is 40%, while second marriages and third marriages have a 60% and 75% rate of failure.

The United States divorce rates are similar although 50% of first marriages are likely to fail, while 67% of second marriages and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. Canadian statistics fall somewhere between the United Kingdom and the United States.

So, why are the unhappy British wives staying in their marriages? The survey showed the following:

12% stayed to have an “easy life”
30% stayed to avoid a major upheaval in their lives
37% stayed for the children
42% stayed so they would not lose their homes
33% stayed because they feared if they left they would get nothing
25% stayed because of the cost of legal fees in a divorce

Additional data indicated that 30% of men stay in a “loveless” marriage because they fear losing contact with their children. Were the survey participants open to marriage counselling? Yes, 50% would welcome marital therapy while 20% said they wouldn’t bother.

Surprisingly, 60% of the participants were unaware of mediation as an alternative to a court battle to resolve issues arising from marriage breakdown.

I often remind clients who are weighing the pros and cons of divorce to consider that marriage requires hard work and it doesn’t get any easier the second time around. Like author and marriage therapist Lori Gordon PhD says “Love is a feeling, marriage is a contract and relationships are work.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Lawyer Liable for $950,000 Judgment in Parental Abduction Case

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:15:00 +0000

Lawyer Liable for $950,000 Judgment in Parental Abduction Case

Posted February 16, 2012 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law. Tagged: Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, Marie Carrascosa, parental abduction, Peter Innes, Spain, Victoria Innes. 4 Comments

A lawyer who mistakenly released a child’s passport to the child’s mother, contrary to a court order, has been ordered to pay $950,000 to the father of a child abducted by her client from New Jersy to Spain.

The parents of Victoria Innes, Peter Innes and Marie Carrascosa, were married in Spain in 1999 but resided in the United States. Their daughter, Victoria, was born in 2000. Their marriage ended in 2004. Victoria had both US and Spanish citizenship.

After an acrimonious dispute Victoria’s parents signed an agreement in 2004 that prohibited both parties from international travel with Victoria without the consent of the other parent. The agreement also provided that Victoria’s passport would be held in trust by Ms. Carrascosa’s lawyer.

When Ms. Carrascosa changed lawyers her file was delivered to the new lawyer, however, her new lawyer, Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, was not aware that Victoria’s passport was to held by her and not released to her client without Mr. Innes’ consent or a court order.

Ms. Carrascosa, a lawyer in Spain, took advantage of the situation, obtained the passport from her lawyer and promptly fled to Spain where she and her daughter stayed with Victoria’s maternal grandmother. Later Ms. Carrascosa returned to New Jersey but refused to return Victoria, alleging the Spanish court had jurisdiction and would not let Victoria leave the country until she was 18-years-old.

In the meantime, Victoria’s father had obtained an American order for custody of Victoria and attempted to enforce it, to no avail. Ms. Carrascosa was charged with contempt of court and interfering with custody and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison, where she has been languishing since 2006, determined not to comply with American justice.

Despite all efforts and the involvement of Spanish/ American judicial mediators at the Hague Court in Holland, Victoria remains in Spain.

Parental abduction is the worst form of child abuse. While the Hackensack court undoubtedly meted out strict punishment, so far it has not motivated Victoria’s mother to relinquish her hold on Victoria.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month wins reduction of payments to ex-wife

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:40:00 +0000

Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month wins reduction of payments to ex-wife

By NEAL HALL | Vancouver Sun – 22 hours ago

VANCOUVER - A Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month recently went to court and succeeded in having his payments reduced to his ex-wife.

The lawyer, identified only as C.D. in a B.C. Supreme Court judgment, had urged the court to reduce his monthly spousal support payments to $8,500 a month this year, to be stepped down over the next three years to $5,000 a month.

Until this month, he was paying $11,500 a month to his ex-wife, A.B., plus another $49,000 a year for the educational expenses of his two children.

Justice Susan Griffin decided a more appropriate payment was $10,000 a month for the next 10 years, when the matter can be reviewed.

The judge noted that the ex-wife, a former flight attendant, did not work during the 15-year marriage and stayed home to look after the couple's two children, allowing the lawyer to work long hours and become very successful.

When the couple married in 1990, the lawyer was making $50,000 a year in Ontario.

The couple decided to move to Vancouver in 1994, where the lawyer's career took off, allowing him to earn up to $800,000 a year.

During the last three years, the lawyer has made on average $684,000, which works out to $57,000 per month.

The husband argued his ex-wife was deliberately underemployed.

The wife took an interior design course and has won awards as a "home stager" - selecting furniture and furnishing to stage homes to make them sell quickly.

She hoped to earn $15,000 to $20,000 this year, the judge pointed out.

"Her actions are inconsistent with the suggestion that she has deliberately been underemployed," the judge observed this week in a written judgment.

The judge found the wife lived a modest lifestyle in a 1919 home in North Vancouver, compared to the lifestyle of the husband, who lives in West Vancouver, has another home in Qualicum Beach, has substantial retirement savings and is earning a large income that will allow him to continue to accumulate assets and savings.

"It is very unlikely she will ever achieve self-sufficiency to a degree that overcomes the economic disadvantages of marriage or approximates the advantages the husband gained from the marriage," the judge concluded.

The judge also noted that while she saw no reason information to justify hiding the litigants' names by reducing them to initials, the husband "strongly opposed" having his name made public.

The full judgment is online at: http://bit.ly/ykLDLR

nhall@vancouversun.com

5 Of the Dirtiest Divorce tricks

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:52:00 +0000

5 of the dirtiest divorce tricks

Posted October 29, 2011 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law. Tagged: child support, dirty divorce tricks, father's access, spousal support. 7 Comments

Some divorcing spouses treat each other deplorably. In these sad cases, it is actually hard to believe they were once in love. Candour and kindness are replaced by artifice and cruelty. Divorce lawyers are well aware of the grab bag of dirty tricks spouses inflict on each other. My top five dirtiest divorce tricks are:
1. Conflicting Out All of the Top Divorce Lawyers
An age-old practice for a spouse who expects a long, drawn out divorce battle is to ensure their estranged partner can’t retain a top divorce lawyer. It goes like this – husband or wife makes appointments with the top lawyers in the area. At each meeting they reveal enough about their situation that the top lawyer, who they have no real intention of retaining, cannot act for their spouse. If each top lawyer charges them $500.00 for a one hour consultation, they only spend a few thousand dollars to ensure they have defanged their spouse by preventing him or her from hiring a “gun” equivalent to their top-tier counsel. Yes, this happens in the world of high net worth divorce.
2. Firing Your Lawyer Just Before Trial
Another effective divorce trick is to fire your lawyer weeks before your divorce trial is set to commence. How does this work? It’s easy. Let’s say you are the wife of a wealthy husband. Since you obtained a court order ejecting your husband from the family home, you now reside in luxury with peace and quiet; you are receiving thousands of dollars a month in tax-free child and spousal support; and your life consists of tennis lessons, lunch with the girls at the Club and evening soirees. Meanwhile your husband is doing what he always does: travelling around the world doing business deals to support your mutual lifestyles. He doesn’t even see the kids much, so there’s no hassles at all.
Why would you spoil all this by taking a chance that a judge may eliminate some part of your lavish lifestyle or impose an access schedule for the children to see their father that may interfere with your plans?
3. Transferring Your Assets Off-Shore
While you may live a life of champagne and caviar, it is unlikely you can maintain that level of opulence if your spouse has arranged to stash all his liquid assets off-shore in trusts set up in any number of tax havens such as the Bahamas, the Isle of Man, Turks and Caicos or Switzerland.
In many jurisdictions a Court may make an order that off-shore assets be divided between the spouses, but just wait until you see how difficult it is for you to convince the foreign jurisdiction they must obey the order of a North American Court. All I can say is good luck!
4. Arranging Multiple Mortgages on Your Real Estate
It is not uncommon to see marriages where the “little lady” has no idea of what she and her husband are really worth. Imagine a spouse’s disappointment when their lawyer informs them that the family home and their summer cottage are mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no equity. Their once middle-class standard of living evaporates as Mrs. now looks for a basement suite to house her and her two children.
Another real estate divorce trick is to build a lavish home on leased land that is situated on property that is in the agricultural land reserve, so that while it may have cost $3 million to build, it has no real market value since nobody in their right mind would purchase this property. Yes, this is a true story.
5. Building a House of Cards
For a time life is grand, but inevitably problems arise in your marriage. In an effort to please your spouse you try you to spend your way back to the marriage you once had. Little does your spouse know that the trips to Europe, Hawaii and the Super Bowl were leveraged, courtesy of American Express or Visa. The marriage does not survive and you discover your net worth is much less than you expected as you have tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt all used for the family. Let’s just hope the Sistine Chapel was worth it.
Perhaps you think that with the explosion of mediation and collaborative divorce, these tricks have lost their lustre? Think again. For spouses who need revenge more than they need closure, they are alive and well.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Canadian Fathers

Family Violence Affects Men Too

Original Air Date: Monday, February 04, 2013

What Parents Need to Know to Protect Their Children in Divorce and Get Custody

Twenty Years of Research on Custody is Very Clear, But the Divorce Industry Continues to Do the Opposite!

Submit solid evidence to the judge that they can NOT ignore.Judges can legally ignore anything you say (testimony) but MUST legally act on physical evidence submitted.

You may also be able to avoid an expensive trial using this information to educate your spouse

For Years We Had Theories. Now We Have Real Answers!

Learn why judges award sole-custody to ONE parent about 92% of the time andhow to avoid this damaging scenario for your children.Every Judge, Lawyer and Parent Needs to View This Video!

Dad must support kids not his: Court

To My Children

Divorce Myths Uncovered

Technology can lift Canadian courts out of the dark ages. So where is it?

Four Reasons Why BC’s New Family Law Act is Good for Fathers

Father who blames obesity for losing custody of kids plans hunger strike

Top court hears landmark spousal abuse case

RELATED CONTENT

Judge found guilty in rare murder trial; killed wife, court says

Judge found guilty in rare murder trial; killed wife, court says

RELATED CONTENT

More turmoil over divorce

Canadian Father Blog

FMEP; The Ugly Truth!

The nerd defence: Non-prescription glasses the latest trend in criminal testimony

Divorce Can Be Profitable

Warning to Men: Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse– New Alimony Law

Divorce Can Be Deadly

No Spousal Support Reform for Canadians

Grass Roots Group’s Goal is to Change Family Law

The Lighter Side of Divorce

Defamed Husband Sets the Record Straight

Wives Want Out

Lawyer Liable for $950,000 Judgment in Parental Abduction Case

Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month wins reduction of payments to ex-wife

5 Of the Dirtiest Divorce tricks

Submit solid evidence to the judge that they can NOT ignore.
Judges can legally ignore anything you say (testimony) but MUST legally act on physical evidence submitted.

Learn why judges award sole-custody to ONE parent about 92% of the time and
how to avoid this damaging scenario for your children.
Every Judge, Lawyer and Parent Needs to View This Video!