Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

139.0. "Discussion on Law and Justice" by TROA09::AKERMANIS (ԥ�) Wed Jul 03 1991 12:34

Instead of muddying the waters in my other note, I thought maybe a separate note
around what Law and Justice appears to be. The following comments would also
apply to other situations outside the domain of NCP notes, and not only apply
here.

After sitting down and looking at past events, I fail to understand why certain
points or issues were never raised before a separation/divorce agreement is
signed, sealed and delivered. Then after the fact, these points and issues
suddenly rear their ugly head. An example of this would be the decision of who
will be the CP and NCP. At no time are you informed of the possible long term or
problems that you may face either way. In Ontario (Canada), if my ex-spouse (CP)
was to meet her maker, I would have to apply to the courts to have custody of
my son. It is not automatically assumed that the other parent will have first
rights of custody. I can understand the courts intentions here, not all NCP's
may be in the child's best interest if he/she has spent 90% of his/her time in
and out of jail or has a serious drug problem or never has anything to do with
the child over the past years.

My point in this situation is, why do I have to go through the expense (hundreds
of $$$) to get what should be legally mine in the first place? Why are these
potential problems not put on the table in the first place?

We seem to have a lot of law but very little justice being done unless you
have $$$$$ to toss away to obtain justice. When it should take 10 minutes for
any judge with common sense to dispense justice, it take hours/days/weeks/months
and hundreds of $$$$ to get the same thing.

The point of getting custody of my own son was raised during the current round
of negotiations. I cannot include a clause that would have the CP agree that
I should have custody if something happened to the CP. Even if we did include
it, the courts would only ignore it under these circumstances.

After reading may of the other notes here, one finds many other examples where
the law has been enforced without justice. The result of these actions inflict
hardships on the NCP or the CP. You often see the words 'IN THE CHILD'S BEST
INTEREST' being used as judgments are handed down. In a number of cases I fail
to see how some judgments are in the child's best interest and at who's
expense.

It seems that justice is not practiced in many instances by the courts and the
lawyers only seem to have you drag something through the courts which are not in
your best interest. To me it looks like how much money can we take from our
client before he/she can no longer afford to pay me. For instance, I have a
female friend who has been battling it out for over a 1� years. A reasonable
offer from her ex has been made, yet the lawyer says it not enough and we can do
better if we go to court. I am not a financial genius by any means, but fail to
see what additional benefit the client gets out of it. The offer is 50% of the
house, all the contents (except for a couple of his personal odds and ends) plus
$12,000.00 cash in lieu of spousal support (works out to about $500.00/month over
two years). The lawyer sees the 12,000 as an issue and seems to think it should
be more and may take two years before the case comes up. The lawyer figures ask
for $1000 and expect $800/month for three years. Of course the equity from the
house would be frozen while you wait for the case to hit the court. The
difference between (800 x 12 x 3= 28,800) - 12,000 = 16,800. Factor in the
$5,000 to take it to court 16,800 - 5,000 = 11,800 and the lost interest on the
equity (90,000 @ 8% = 7,200 1st year) just in the first year 11,800 - 7,200 =
4,600 and second year loss would negate the gain totally. She has also been told
that the $5000 legal fee may be higher if the ex-spouse fights the case.

Again I fail to see justice here considering IMHO, there is nothing unreasonable
in the offer and sounds fair. Even if she wins, she losses.

I get the feeling lawyers in general are just out to make a buck and dispense
what ever justice that accidentally comes out of it all. Yet in this process, do it
in such away you cannot come back at them if you feel ripped off in the
aftermath. I should be careful here to also note not all lawyers operate in this
mode and there are a few out there that really give a damn about their client
and justice. There are a few who only ask for what can be paid and continue to
defend their client to ensure justice is done without compensation.

This may be one of the reasons you are not told may things just in the event it
comes back to haunt them nor do they ever promise or guarantee the outcome
(standard operating procedure). It's like the statement 'Hey, you can't loose,
you can come out $16,000 ahead, but there are no guarantees the judge will see
it our way'. A guarantee with a disclaimer all built in to nullify the
statement.

Anyway, I suppose it is time to get off the soap box and hear your views or live
experiences with the justice system. When it has served you well and when it
hasn't.

John

    John,
    
    Welcome to the system...
    
    As you can see from my node I too live in wonderful Ontario.
    
    I am the custodial parent and let me tell you, life is still hell.
    I have spent many $$$$ (last count was over 20K$CAN - Maybe I have the
    same Lawyer as your friend ;-)...)
    
    
    Your Lawyer is the guy/gal who should have told you... and I bitterly,
    suspect you are right about the motives.
    
    I undersatnd, in Canada, that if you ask advice, even remotely,
    surrounding an issue, your lawyer is responsible for all matters on
    that issue. But who ever want's to sue a lawyer.
    
    My (now rich) lawyer would like me to forget about him, I suspect,
    because he knows how much I have paid into his kids college fund - and
    is guilty as hell to nickle and dime me ala law school biz 100. I also
    suspect he will do a poorer and poorer job until I leave disgruntled -
    you only get what you pay for...
    
    One thing he did leave me with is one very good piece information that
    I refer too often (esp. friends who are going through this sh**)
    
      "	When you go to court you don't get justice - you get law
        Don't expect anything else. "
    
                              W. Meninga
                              Rich Lawyer
    			     (Law 101)
    
    Use the law to get your justice, if you can, otherwise stay out of
    court.
    
    
    BTW - I have had full custody since Oct 87 - I will be going back to
    court to ANOTHER custody battle next week.
    
Bruce Grayson
    London Ontario

>    
>    I undersatnd, in Canada, that if you ask advice, even remotely,
>    surrounding an issue, your lawyer is responsible for all matters on
>    that issue. But who ever want's to sue a lawyer.
>

I believe you are right here, and suspect that is one of the reasons lawyers
here choose their words carefully. For every statement they make, there is
usually a disclaimer tossed in with the same breath.

<    One thing he did leave me with is one very good piece information that
<    I refer too often (esp. friends who are going through this sh**)
<    
<      "	When you go to court you don't get justice - you get law
<        Don't expect anything else. "
<    
<                              W. Meninga
<                              Rich Lawyer
<    			     (Law 101)
<    
<    Use the law to get your justice, if you can, otherwise stay out of
<    court.
    
I'll second that..........
    
John