On 16/09/2010 12:33 AM, [Name omitted] wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
I’m a father of two girls … My common law wife took off with the girls 18 mths ago. My life has been he’ll.
I was the stay at home dad … Took care of kids and also worked and gave all money to wife for investments and expenses.
When she left she put a retraining order against me even though I had done nothing …. She simply told me she wishes to move away and is determined not to have me involved in my girls lifes.
I have went bankrupt and the judge states I can see my girls 6 hrs per week. I’m currently on social assistance yet the judge does not feel I should get spousal support even though my ex earned over 120k last year. Judge Curtis is known as a pro feminist and my lawyer says there is nothing left to do. My girls want an ocl involved as they wish to live with me but the judge says no.
What r my options?
Who can help?
This will probably be too long to be displayed on your cell phone, but the next couple of paragraphs should show.
Fathers for Life has a few articles on how to select a lawyer. Check those out and pick a lawyer accordingly.
To explore your option in Ontario, you need to get in touch with Ontario fathers-rights organizations.
Don’t just pick one. Check out several, specifically those that have frequent meetings of their members. You will learn more from them than you can from a lawyer, as they will have reached various points of progress (or lack of it) in their battles. A directory is here.
Get your case out of family court and into a Court of Queens Bench. Family courts are not there to solve family problems but to speed the easy dissolution of families. (Read more on family courts.) Here is a summary of what family courts are all about:
[When no-fault divorce became a reality, it] became soon apparent that the courts could not cope with the flood of divorce applications that caused ever-increasing waiting periods before divorce decrees could be issued. To expedite the dissolution of marriages, family-court systems were implemented throughout the developed nations. Nothing much would have been accomplished by merely shifting venues and leaving the rules of the court intact. Therefore the family-court systems were made to operate without jury trials, without the traditional rules of the court, without rules of evidence, and without the mandatory and constitutionally-guaranteed right of respondents (usually fathers, in family courts) to have legal representation [or even to face their accuser]. Many procedures that had been put into place over the centuries to ensure that anyone could be assured a fair trial thus vanished in the family courts.
That, too, was nothing new. All totalitarian regimes that were obsessed with the eradication of enemies of the state did the same when they created their people’s courts. We can’t be certain that the example of the people’s courts in totalitarian states was used as a model for the more recent creation of the branch of the judiciary in which the rules of law could be held in abeyance and circumvented. One thing is certain; all of that worked fine and produced fine results.
The enormous and overwhelming backlog of divorce applications got soon cleared, and the process of the dissolution of marriages has been operating with great speed and efficiency ever since. In some countries (e.g.: the U.K.) the process operates behind closed doors, ostensibly to protect the interests of the children, although it should be quite obvious to anyone reading this who is being protected….(Source: Freedom, Equality, and Society’s Treatment of Men and Families)
All the best,