Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them!

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

If that means the rest of you all think of me as some Wuss Ass.. then
fine.. Thats your Right.

SpiderHam77

Quite the opposite, actually. I also think you're one of few participants
in this thread making any sense at all.


--
Rhiannon

"DOS, this is WINDOWS, I taking over
the harddisk." -- Anon

However that said. One of the reasons woman have recieve custody
is
due to the fact that when custody is being decided the father is no
where to be seen. Now this is due to a number of reasons.



----Please expand because it sounds like you're saying men are 'hiding
out' as
opposed to 'kicked out'.
You seem to be trying to lessen the effect of TROs and other
manipulations
to gain the upper hand in divorce.

All I said is that during the course of history one of the reasons
that Women have recieve custody over men is due to the fact, that
durring the time of custody hearing, agreements, whatever, men were not
present. Why they were not there is as varied as the relationship
itself.

Could be due to the father not being able to get the time off work,
and deciding that his job was more important then fighting for custody
of his children. Could be the father didn't even know the child
exsisted. Could be the mother didn't try and contact the father to
advise him of this. As I said I'm not saying there is 1 specific
reason for this. But a multitude. Some may include the father not
taking an active role in the proceedings, some may include them not
even knowing.

------ You appear to think that one presupposes the other; if a father
is unhappy
about the amount of money he is forced to send to the mother, it does
not
mean he is not trying to be a father while at the same time paying
support
may not benefit the child. You seem to be making the classic error of
assuming child support is supporting children

I never said that. If I gave that impression I apologize. I do know
of many fathers that despite feeling they are being raped in terms of
Child Support do try their best to be a father to their child.

And anyone who is trying their best to be a parent to their child
will always have my support. But alot of people in here seem to give
the impression they want nothing to do with the child in the first
place, and feel it's unfair that have to pony up the cash to support
something they didn't want. Or bitching about being a paycheque for
their child.

----Most attorneys will admit that a man trying to gain custody after
the mother
has filed for divorce is unlikely to gain it and can only be done
against
her wishes by destroying the mother's reputation by proving her unfit.
This
usually costs at least $50k, ($80 Can).
In short, it is all legal language and positioning; nothing about the
children's best interests

I don't know about in the states. I don't live there. But I know
here in Canada the courts on a daily basis are reconizing the rights of
fathers more and more. And are awarding such things as custody, joint
or sole, in favour of the father petitition as it is in the best
intrest of the child to have 2 caring parents.

You can respresent yourself in court. Just sit down talk to a
lawyer, pay a little for his time to get all that you will need out
him. Ask questions. You don't need him to represent you in court.

As a matter of fact I have heard of many fathers that by appearing in
front of a judge and explaining that it was either pay for a lawyer, or
a home to raise their children. They chose the lader.

As I stated though, that until it can be proven otherwise, at the
terms of custody hearings or however you accomplish it. The father
should automatically be provided all the same rights as the mother for
access to the child.

Hence why I support the idea of Joint Custody. But alot of time for
Joint Custody to work properly the 2 parents involved have to not only
live in the same city, but the same neighborhood. As it has been ruled
on many occasions that to force the child to move across town, or to
the next town would upset the harmony of the childs upbrining more then
it would benefit.

Another big problem in I hear people having in the idea of Sole
Custody, it's not they object to the mother having it, it's that they
just don't want the mother to move away because she can gain better
employment, or meets somone.

I know my parents upon their divorce had a stipulation written right
into it stating that whoever had custody of my brother and I could not
move further then 300kms away from the others place of residence for a
period of longer then 2 weeks. To allow for a vacation or something.

Worked well... Not that either parent did want to move as they were
both established in thier jobs here, ect... But it allowed all parties
to rest at ease a little as my mother was afraid that my Dad was going
to move my Brother and I out to Ontario to be with his family.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in

Well then move to a larger Town where there is public Transit... Move
closer to your Place of work... Walk to Work.. Ride a Bike... Roller
Blade... The point being that you have the option of reducing your
costs... and not spending it unless you choose to live where you are..
and work where you do...

Yes, you have all the answers, don't you?


Ummm just one question.
What are you doing on this group if you have it all figured out?

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
However that said. One of the reasons woman have recieve custody
is
due to the fact that when custody is being decided the father is no
where to be seen. Now this is due to a number of reasons.



----Please expand because it sounds like you're saying men are 'hiding
out' as
opposed to 'kicked out'.
You seem to be trying to lessen the effect of TROs and other
manipulations
to gain the upper hand in divorce.

All I said is that during the course of history one of the reasons
that Women have recieve custody over men is due to the fact, that
durring the time of custody hearing, agreements, whatever, men were not
present. Why they were not there is as varied as the relationship
itself.

In my experience and learning, it seems to me that many fathers don't appear
in court for the reason that the end game has been determined in advance.
From my experience, my attorney claimed right up to going into the courtroom
that we could get a better deal but he never advised custody was ever a
question. It was always a foregone conclusion that she *would* get custody.
Since then, I've asked similar questions of others, including attorneys and
the answer has always been the same. Had I known what was going to happen, I
wouldn't have wasted my time going either. Of course, a better deal didn't
happen either. At the last possible moment, he advised I sign my ex's
petition that he raved we could beat. Obviously, just a means to keep his
billable hours climbing.


Could be due to the father not being able to get the time off work,
and deciding that his job was more important then fighting for custody
of his children. Could be the father didn't even know the child
exsisted. Could be the mother didn't try and contact the father to
advise him of this. As I said I'm not saying there is 1 specific
reason for this. But a multitude. Some may include the father not
taking an active role in the proceedings, some may include them not
even knowing.

Could it be that due to the TROs, many realize that judges are reluctant to
change the status quo? It's an method designed to remove the father
temporarily and it works. Most "good" divorce attorney's advise their
clients to file TROs for just this reason, even when there is no valid
reason to do so other than to gain a foothold in custody.


------ You appear to think that one presupposes the other; if a father
is unhappy
about the amount of money he is forced to send to the mother, it does
not
mean he is not trying to be a father while at the same time paying
support
may not benefit the child. You seem to be making the classic error of
assuming child support is supporting children

I never said that. If I gave that impression I apologize. I do know
of many fathers that despite feeling they are being raped in terms of
Child Support do try their best to be a father to their child.

Then why the denigration of men who despise the current system that is set
up to force a transfer of money to their ex, which is in no way earmarked
for the children?


And anyone who is trying their best to be a parent to their child
will always have my support. But alot of people in here seem to give
the impression they want nothing to do with the child in the first
place, and feel it's unfair that have to pony up the cash to support
something they didn't want. Or bitching about being a paycheque for
their child.

This is possible, just as there are women who want nothing to do with their
children. It happens. I think I can understand some who were never allowed
to be a parent, or those who were legally driven from their children's
lives, financially drained by an unjust system, just giving up. At some
point, even the most ardent fighter realizes when the battle is lost.


----Most attorneys will admit that a man trying to gain custody after
the mother
has filed for divorce is unlikely to gain it and can only be done
against
her wishes by destroying the mother's reputation by proving her unfit.
This
usually costs at least $50k, ($80 Can).
In short, it is all legal language and positioning; nothing about the
children's best interests

I don't know about in the states. I don't live there. But I know
here in Canada the courts on a daily basis are reconizing the rights of
fathers more and more. And are awarding such things as custody, joint
or sole, in favour of the father petitition as it is in the best
intrest of the child to have 2 caring parents.

Having not read a lot about Canadian courts of late, I cannot agree or
disagree with your statement. I do find it difficult to believe. If I had
the time and inclination, I'd research it.


You can respresent yourself in court. Just sit down talk to a
lawyer, pay a little for his time to get all that you will need out
him. Ask questions. You don't need him to represent you in court.

IMO, the result will not change except one could save a lot of money by
going pro se.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have simply signed the first
petition my ex's lawyer produced. It would have saved many thousands of
dollars and lots of headaches.


As a matter of fact I have heard of many fathers that by appearing in
front of a judge and explaining that it was either pay for a lawyer, or
a home to raise their children. They chose the lader.

As I stated though, that until it can be proven otherwise, at the
terms of custody hearings or however you accomplish it. The father
should automatically be provided all the same rights as the mother for
access to the child.

I agree. He should. Pity he isnt'.


Hence why I support the idea of Joint Custody. But alot of time for
Joint Custody to work properly the 2 parents involved have to not only
live in the same city, but the same neighborhood. As it has been ruled
on many occasions that to force the child to move across town, or to
the next town would upset the harmony of the childs upbrining more then
it would benefit.

Joint custody or shared custody? Joint custody is just another name for sole
custody. Shared custody means each parent retains at least most of their
rights as a parent. If done correctly, child support becomes a non-issue.


Another big problem in I hear people having in the idea of Sole
Custody, it's not they object to the mother having it, it's that they
just don't want the mother to move away because she can gain better
employment, or meets somone.

You may actually hear it. Feminsts have been using innuendo like this for
decades because it works.
Phil #3


I know my parents upon their divorce had a stipulation written right
into it stating that whoever had custody of my brother and I could not
move further then 300kms away from the others place of residence for a
period of longer then 2 weeks. To allow for a vacation or something.

Worked well... Not that either parent did want to move as they were
both established in thier jobs here, ect... But it allowed all parties
to rest at ease a little as my mother was afraid that my Dad was going
to move my Brother and I out to Ontario to be with his family.

SpiderHam77

Well then move to a larger Town where there is public Transit...
Move
closer to your Place of work... Walk to Work.. Ride a Bike... Roller
Blade... The point being that you have the option of reducing your
costs... and not spending it unless you choose to live where you are..
and work where you do...


Yes, you have all the answers, don't you?

Ummm just one question.
What are you doing on this group if you have it all figured out?

What am I doing in this group. Thats Simple I enjoy a good debate.
I enjoy to hear others ideas on correcting a problem. I have yet to
hear good ideas that would help solve these problems. Ones that will
work, and alot more people simply bitching about what the current
problems are.

If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.

SpiderHam77

--In my experience and learning, it seems to me that many fathers don't
appear
--in court for the reason that the end game has been determined in
advance.
--From my experience, my attorney claimed right up to going into the
courtroom
--that we could get a better deal but he never advised custody was ever
a
--question. It was always a foregone conclusion that she *would* get
custody.
--Since then, I've asked similar questions of others, including
attorneys and
--the answer has always been the same. Had I known what was going to
happen, I
--wouldn't have wasted my time going either. Of course, a better deal
didn't
--happen either. At the last possible moment, he advised I sign my ex's

--petition that he raved we could beat. Obviously, just a means to keep
his
--billable hours climbing.

You could be right, I have heard about the tatic of the whole TRO to
stop you from seeing the children. However that said you can as a
father also file for a Immediate Custody order, ask for an emrgency
hearing, and gain at least visitation rights until such things are
decided.

And just simply ask the Police to attend with you durring the pick
and drop off of the children. I know of a few people in the states
that a similar thing happend to them, and that is how they accomplished
seeing their children.

--Joint custody or shared custody? Joint custody is just another name
for sole
--custody. Shared custody means each parent retains at least most of
their
--rights as a parent. If done correctly, child support becomes a
non-issue.

Sorry when think of Joint Cusotdy I think of it as you say shared
custody. I didn't realize there was a major difference between the 2.
And your right in Joint (Shared) custody usually the idea of support
payments are simply thrown out the window, as the actual cost of the
child is being shared by both parents equally.

--This is possible, just as there are women who want nothing to do with
their
--children. It happens. I think I can understand some who were never
allowed
--to be a parent, or those who were legally driven from their
children's
--lives, financially drained by an unjust system, just giving up. At
some
--point, even the most ardent fighter realizes when the battle is lost.


Your right I think some people do just eventually throw in the towel.
Which is one of the reasons I think the reforms we should be fighting
for is equality of parents. Both parents should automatically be
awarded the idea of joint custody unless one parent gives that up.

If they do give that up, then I don't think they really have a right
to bitch about paying child support as the option was given to them in
advance to not have to pay it. They would simply have to arrange care
50% of the time in any given month for their child.

One of the other things I think that needs to made up in this new
model I am envisioning is a like a No Fault Insurance model. Doesn't
matter who you are.. what the claim is, if this, this and this has
happend, then bang this is the result. End of story.. no questions
asked.

However that said, no 2 cases can truley be judged exactly the same
when it comes to the well being of children. But I think there needs
to rules set up in advance.

--Then why the denigration of men who despise the current system that
is set
--up to force a transfer of money to their ex, which is in no way
earmarked
--for the children?

My intention in the argument was that when child support is paid, it
really doesn;t matter where the money goes. As long as the bills for
that child are paid. If your ex has say paid her bills 6 months in
advance on the Hydro. Does it really matter that she is not directly
putting that money towards the hydro bill. No Because it has been paid
regardless.

My argument about that has been it's simply 6 of 1, half dozen of the
other. It really doesn't matter where the money cames from, or where
it's going. Just so long as the end result is the same. All the bills
are paid.


SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
--In my experience and learning, it seems to me that many fathers don't
appear
--in court for the reason that the end game has been determined in
advance.
--From my experience, my attorney claimed right up to going into the
courtroom
--that we could get a better deal but he never advised custody was ever
a
--question. It was always a foregone conclusion that she *would* get
custody.
--Since then, I've asked similar questions of others, including
attorneys and
--the answer has always been the same. Had I known what was going to
happen, I
--wouldn't have wasted my time going either. Of course, a better deal
didn't
--happen either. At the last possible moment, he advised I sign my ex's

--petition that he raved we could beat. Obviously, just a means to keep
his
--billable hours climbing.

You could be right, I have heard about the tatic of the whole TRO to
stop you from seeing the children. However that said you can as a
father also file for a Immediate Custody order, ask for an emrgency
hearing, and gain at least visitation rights until such things are
decided.

?
One is served with a restraining order keeping him contacting his wife or
children in any way, signed by a judge and you expect him to overlook this
and grant some type of exception or amendment to the TRO?
Why do I doubt this?


And just simply ask the Police to attend with you durring the pick
and drop off of the children. I know of a few people in the states
that a similar thing happend to them, and that is how they accomplished
seeing their children.

and many times they will tell you this is a civil matter and none of their
business. Even if they do accompany one to the pickup and the other parent
refuses to allow the visitation, the police are powerless to do anything but
stand by, nothing more.


--Joint custody or shared custody? Joint custody is just another name
for sole
--custody. Shared custody means each parent retains at least most of
their
--rights as a parent. If done correctly, child support becomes a
non-issue.

Sorry when think of Joint Cusotdy I think of it as you say shared
custody. I didn't realize there was a major difference between the 2.
And your right in Joint (Shared) custody usually the idea of support
payments are simply thrown out the window, as the actual cost of the
child is being shared by both parents equally.

No, the support is not "simply thrown out the window". In most cases of
shared custody one parent (guess which) is usually forced to provide
financing to the other parent.
You really don't know much about that which you speak, do you?


--This is possible, just as there are women who want nothing to do with
their
--children. It happens. I think I can understand some who were never
allowed
--to be a parent, or those who were legally driven from their
children's
--lives, financially drained by an unjust system, just giving up. At
some
--point, even the most ardent fighter realizes when the battle is lost.


Your right I think some people do just eventually throw in the towel.
Which is one of the reasons I think the reforms we should be fighting
for is equality of parents. Both parents should automatically be
awarded the idea of joint custody unless one parent gives that up.

Finally, a statement I can agree with fully.


If they do give that up, then I don't think they really have a right
to bitch about paying child support as the option was given to them in
advance to not have to pay it. They would simply have to arrange care
50% of the time in any given month for their child.

One of the other things I think that needs to made up in this new
model I am envisioning is a like a No Fault Insurance model. Doesn't
matter who you are.. what the claim is, if this, this and this has
happend, then bang this is the result. End of story.. no questions
asked.

However that said, no 2 cases can truley be judged exactly the same
when it comes to the well being of children. But I think there needs
to rules set up in advance.

--Then why the denigration of men who despise the current system that
is set
--up to force a transfer of money to their ex, which is in no way
earmarked
--for the children?

My intention in the argument was that when child support is paid, it
really doesn;t matter where the money goes. As long as the bills for
that child are paid. If your ex has say paid her bills 6 months in
advance on the Hydro. Does it really matter that she is not directly
putting that money towards the hydro bill. No Because it has been paid
regardless.

I you buy a loaf of bread and give the clerk a $100 bill, don't you expect
change?
What you are saying, in effect, is that if you gave the clerk a $100 bill
for a loaf of bread, you got the bread so what happens to the excess money
beyond the cost of the bread is unimportant because you got the bread.



My argument about that has been it's simply 6 of 1, half dozen of the
other. It really doesn't matter where the money cames from, or where
it's going. Just so long as the end result is the same. All the bills
are paid.

When discussing other people's money, it's amazing how liberal one can be.
You just don't have a clue, do you?
Phil #3




SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in
ups.com:

Well then move to a larger Town where there is public Transit...
Move
closer to your Place of work... Walk to Work.. Ride a Bike... Roller
Blade... The point being that you have the option of reducing your
costs... and not spending it unless you choose to live where you
are..
and work where you do...


Yes, you have all the answers, don't you?

Ummm just one question.
What are you doing on this group if you have it all figured out?

What am I doing in this group. Thats Simple I enjoy a good debate.
I enjoy to hear others ideas on correcting a problem. I have yet to
hear good ideas that would help solve these problems. Ones that will
work, and alot more people simply bitching about what the current
problems are.
If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.
SpiderHam77

I am not sure why I am responding to this thread. Maybe it will show up
in a Google search to help someone... because honestly, I do not see the
value of your posts.

You see everything as black and white. Just show up to your hearing and
you will get custody. hmmm... right.

Congratulations... you got what you wanted... but your smugness and
hidden vindictiveness make you know better than lots of ex's (i.e. ex-
wives). From you posts I gather your ex did not want custody (or
access)? Or something you're not telling. But your case is far from the
norm...

The fact you enrolled your son in a special school and your ex was
leaving town, the judge gave that a lot of merit. But, not everyone has
the "enrolled-in-special-school-and-my-ex-wants-to-leave-town" card in
their pocket. Most children are just in public school, or not in school
yet, and most former spouses live in the same town.

Judges go to the default. They perceive the child will be better off
with the mother. This is their safe choice. And, if you are in court in
the first place (a vindictive ex), that 'safe' choice of giving the
children to the ex will be used against you over and over again. Sure,
Judges then can go home and sleep at night thinking they made the right
choice. Hey, if they were raised by their mothers, it must be okay. But
that is in an intact family, in different times. I wonder if they were
raised by a vindictive ex using them against the other parent, perhaps
you would see some more interesting rulings. But judges dismiss
vindictiveness, they dismiss false accusations (I have seen it
personally and from friends), they dismiss punishing actions
and abuse to the children and on and on. It simply boggles the mind.

A father has to be 10 times better than the mother to get a least some
equal footing. If you are 8 times better, that might not be good enough.
You'll be the every other weekend dad with a fast track to the poor
house. It sickens me to know end.

So you might get joint custody with about 20% access (and really what
decisions do you really make), or joint custody with final decision to
the mother and some more access... but rarely joint custody and joint
access. And all a mother has to do is not make joint custody work, and
the judge will give her sole custody. Nice reward, eh.

And you mention preparation. How much can you really prepare? I guess
you could secretly siphoning off funds from any joint accounts. Move
assets to another person (if you can). If you are an involved parent,
and both have careers, what can you do? You enter court for custody and
access as two parents, maybe one you makes a little bit more than the
other, maybe one had a little bit more day-to-day responsibilities...
but basically equal. You will lose.

Unless you basically kidnap your children, or walk away. Sadly a lot of
men give feint accompli. Basically giving in instead of going through a
biased system and ending up with a 30K debt at the end. An no further
ahead.

You ask how to change the system. You need to change the laws. That
requires aggressive mailings, faxings, rallies, lobbying, etc. It
requires a political clout (i.e. hey, if I'm pro 50-50 I will get more
votes). It requires more than just a single senator or MP or private
bills. The government has no reason to change the laws. It is a
political hot-potato.

Right now my contribution is to educate people all the time how bad the
custody, access, child and spousal support rulings are. It's a start.

H.

Henry. Your know I do agree with the goals of giving fathers equal
say in everything from the get go. But again your right, we don't
currently live in a system that allows for this to happen.

But I still have trouble seeing how I'm so unique. I know people who
went through the same thing I did, with out the Autism Card as you put
it. And were able to arrange for Joint Custody without to much
headache. Even though their exes tried everything in the book, right
down to the TRO's as keep getting pointed out.

And when looking at their specific cases, I see they did pretty much
the samething I did. The planned ahead. Some may call that expecting
a divorce to happen. But I simply call it Hoping for the best,
planning for the worse.

In my specific case my Ex had already arranged for my son to enter
into a similar program, if not better one in the city she was going to
move to. She had ample resources to care for the child, on a more 1-1
level, as she was going to be supported by family out there.

Essentially the only Con I could find with her taking my son, was the
fact she would be moving him 2000 miles away. And into the US. Not
that I would nevr be allowed to see my son, as I could if I wanted to
relocate out there.

My issue, and the one I presented to the Judge was that for 2 reasons
my son should stay here in the Vancouver area. 1 - I am currently set
up here. With a home, same home he has grown up in all his life. 2 -
I don't feel I should have reorganize my life to simply accomidate my
EX's wishes.

I did also play the Autism card slightly, but agreed in open court
that in either place my son would adapt quite quickly, and that there
was nothing wrong with the environment she was taking him into.

The Judge ruled that due to the circumstances of myself being able to
prove a stable and reliable lifestyle for my son I would be allowed to
have Joint Custody with my wife.

And technically thats how the agreement still stands. Just that the
other stipulation in the agreemant was that my Ex was going to have to
live within a 30km radius of my current home to allow easy transport,
to such things as school, daycare, therapy sessions.

My Ex about 2 days after the ruling was given climbed on a plane and
left. As she knew she would have to wait a year before it could be
contested, and she didn't want to live in Canada anymore.

She did file a petition down in Ohio State to have the BC Court
ruling declared null and void as that was now her place of residence.
But luckly there are agreements between Canada and the US in regards to
Custody agreements, and courts will not step on each others toes. She
was told she would have to fight it in BC.

That is the extent of my case. And I have told my Ex on many
occasions that if she so choses she is more then welcome to set up
residence here and have access to her son on a Joint Custody basis.
But so far she has declined the invitation.

But the point to all of this is simply that at the start of all of
this I kept a level head, and planned for the worse senario. In all
honesty I actually planned for worse case senarios then what happend.
But I planned.

And as a result, following the current laws as they exsist. Having a
Female Judge maybe helped as mentioned she didn't have anything to
prove. But see I didn't apply for Sole Custody. I applied for Joint
as I felt thats what I was entitled to.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in
oups.com:

Henry. Your know I do agree with the goals of giving fathers equal
say in everything from the get go. But again your right, we don't
currently live in a system that allows for this to happen.

But I still have trouble seeing how I'm so unique. I know people who
went through the same thing I did, with out the Autism Card as you put
it. And were able to arrange for Joint Custody without to much
headache. Even though their exes tried everything in the book, right
down to the TRO's as keep getting pointed out.


Can you eloborate on what "planning" all these people did in advance of
entering the court that basically assured them of joint custody, joint
access and no or reasonable amount of support? I would like to see what
they did differently than anyone else. Like I said, short of kidapping or
withholding the kids (since posession is 9 out of 10 points), you go in
equal with a system that is biased towards women. Actually, you go in not
equal, and have to be 10 times as good to be equal. So, please enlighten us
on your super-secret strategy.


And when looking at their specific cases, I see they did pretty much
the samething I did. The planned ahead. Some may call that expecting
a divorce to happen. But I simply call it Hoping for the best,
planning for the worse.


All I see in your "plan ahead" strategy, as indictated by your next 10
paragraphs, is that you had a child in special needs and enrolled them. The
ex took off. The judge didn't want to move the child. What else did you
do. What is the super-secret plan-ahead that you keep elluding too?

[snipped a bunch of examples repeating the same kid-has-special-needs-ex-
took-off wildcard]


That is the extent of my case. And I have told my Ex on many
occasions that if she so choses she is more then welcome to set up
residence here and have access to her son on a Joint Custody basis.
But so far she has declined the invitation.

How nice and tidy. Good for you.


But the point to all of this is simply that at the start of all of
this I kept a level head, and planned for the worse senario. In all
honesty I actually planned for worse case senarios then what happend.
But I planned.


Okay, I guess your one piece of advice is to keep a level head. As for
planning ahead, you have yet to share your grand scheme. Can you put it in
a bullet list?

And as a result, following the current laws as they exsist. Having a
Female Judge maybe helped as mentioned she didn't have anything to
prove. But see I didn't apply for Sole Custody. I applied for Joint
as I felt thats what I was entitled to.

Yah see, there's that smugness again. People that truly understand the
system and what is going, don't shove it in people's face.

Joint custody is awarded less than 8% in Canada... and somewhere around
5% for sole-custody to the father. So, good for you. Have a cigar.


H.