People who have experienced Canada’s family courts (including divorcing couples, the lawyers working in the system and the judges), if they were to be perfectly honest, they would admit that gender plays a big part in the outcome. Some argue that gender is the single most important factor in determining custody. This is the worst kept secret by members of provincial bar associations. Loyalty to the higher order (and sheer profitability of family law for lawyers) has mostly contained any whistle blowing by barristers and solicitors. Because it is their discipline, they are overwhelmingly the ones who best understand this.
Whether this is a violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted twenty-five years ago, it is hard to know for sure (though logic would suggest...what ?). This question has not yet been adjudicated.
When it is, family law as we know it will likely change forever. This will be much to the disappointment of lawyers and other special interests who profit from the way the system is right now. Monumental change is happening, so, if anyone looking for ways to use the present system to estrange one's children from an ex-spouse one really doesn’t like, the window is slowly closing - one had better get to it!
If this is really important, there is still time. There is still no non-litigious way of resolving a custody disagreement for divorcing couples on access. In the meantime, one could collect the maximum amount of child support (because child support is a priority and will be dealt with in a short number of days, for the sake of the children). One could use the child support money for litigation (nobody will check - it is paid to the parent :)) and those monies could be used to grind the resolution of the access issue to a snail's-pace via the courts. One's kids may never have to see their other parent, the one who gets in the way, again!
Therefore, the status quo can be preserved in perpetuity and child support monies will still continue to flow. Awesome isn't it!
The best part is that most non-residential parents facing such a system, while paying after tax dollars for their legal fees and their child support (and in Ontario, that means the non-reses paying the max no matter how much residential parents make or have) will just give up. The odds of getting away with it and not being held accountable are pretty good – so why not just do it if it - if it is that important?
So, if anyone is steadfast in having his or her children exclusively and at the expense of an ex-spouse one does not like, the pre-emptive approach will still work – but only for a short time still. If this is important, people had better get in line now.
This way one could retain a hired-gun lawyer and begin denying access to their non-residential ex-spouse right away. It will take them 3 years and cost them tens of thousands of dollars to expose and resolve the access denial, even if it is purely frivolous. The consequences of such a pre-emptive strike are much less than the benefits, especially if one is truly committed to having their children at any cost. Even if it affects the children emotionally later or worse, it could still be worth considering depending on how important it is. After all, some people would rather pay to be absolutely certain there are no doubts as to who is the primary parent, the better parent. If it works, why not?
Where could one find a lawyer who could make this happen within the rules of the existing system? In all cities there are lawyers who will 'play for pay'. The ultimate objective is a matter of content and is it typically of no consequence because of the discipline and the process used by thes legal representatives to remain vigorous advocates. With the window closing, most lawyers of this ethical strain will probably be especially busy, so it might be best to call soon.
The only problem is that parallel forms of accountability emerge when systems are biased or out of balance, like family law in Canada. So, the clients of such lawyers are rumoured to be currently being tracked by social justice advocates and father’s rights groups who will make the information public shortly and from now on.
There are those who are insisting that such legal practices cease now and that the accountability of transparency begin now. They insist such practices are needed to bridge the gap between now and when the rules change, since nothing else seems to dissuade hired guns from crossing the line some say is "criminal".
That is neither here nor there!
Because client information is in the public domain once a Change of Solicitor document is filed with the court, clients of such lawyers may find themselves to become known to share the company of some of Canada’s most successful (or notorious) parents who practice the denial of access of their children to another parent.
If this objective is really that important, fame is a small price to pay.
1 comment:
Post a Comment