I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Friday, September 1, 2006

Chapter 26, Case Conference September 1, 2006

I had spent a great deal of preparation on this Case Conference as I had hoped to make a break through with the courts for access to the children. I guess I just didn’t completely understand that it was more for discussion than to get court orders accomplished. We did have a discussion and there was agreement I should see the children in other venues but it would take a couple of weeks as Mr. Kwolek’s secretary was going on Holiday. (Mr. Kwolek is my wife’s lawyer if you just joined my drama) Due to the nature and volume of paper a lawyer generates a secretary is indispensable. For many of us though the Personal Computer was a major break through where we can get a lot of what we used to write in long hand or dictate to the secretary done ourselves in the same amount of time freeing up the secretary for more complex work. I digress again. I still haven’t had a chance to present my evidence formally with respect to fraud and other financial matters associated with the business. I did get a previous agreement on an order for financial documents that are missing but that was through consent. I brought up the matter of missing business documents, like the Bank of Montreal monthly statements and cancelled cheques, going back many years that only my wife had access to. At least the Judge indicated to M the seriousness of not returning them if she knew where they were. She doesn’t seem to understand that when we go to trial on this all of the evidence and witnesses will be brought to bear on her and I think she is going to be quite surprised at the outcome. Her credibility will be devastated and I don’t want to see her have to go through it. A person can hope that reason will prevail before then. In a week or so I will send a letter off to a few lawyers in town to see if they are interested in doing a joint civil/divorce trial against her. There is absolutely no way I will stand by and let her get a piece of my pension – my only source of income - and 50% of my financial assets after what she has done to me since 1994. It will also be accountability time for Tossell and the City of Sault Ste. Marie (see Chapter 17 for the activity here. It got personal) as well as the Children’s Aid Society. I believe Justice Pardu was more balanced in her approach this time and I agreed with her that giving the children aliases in this blog was a good idea. I did that the same evening. I was struck by the ex's composure at this session. She looked like she had a rough night with some tossing and turning as did I; I just don’t show it as much on my features. She didn’t say too much at all but she sat up straight and tall and remained very dignified with one exception. When the judge suggested she return the documents M went on about all the abuse I had heaped on her such as calling her lazy, incompetent and a few other things and that I should get the statements from the bank. (in the heat of family arguments much name calling can occur and she gave as good as she got) Lazy, however, would be a rare word I would use. The ex is the antithesis of lazy. She is a workaholic and far from such an inaccurate description. I could have said it in a moment of irrationality though – who knows. She did make me "crazy" for a good many years!!! The judge responded that her story might be true but if she was holding back on the financial documents it would not help her. She was trying to steer away from directly answering the question of whether she had them. Her deviousness was telling and it was then that I truly believed she does probably still have them in storage. She seldom throws stuff like that out and her guile was true to form when she does not want to directly answer a question. (AKA telling the truth). Oddly I was proud of her composure though. It was much better than normal and makes it easier for me to present my case. (I’m still self-represented) The empathy I have for her can stay deeply subdued and I can concentrate on my delivery and thought process better. It is still pretty emotional though. It would be incredibly incriminating for her if these missing bank statements surface as it would show all the personal items for which she used the account. It is supposed to be a business account. I was only able to get one that showed activity while she was at the store but meals at Swiss Chalet aren’t business expenses and the cash withdrawals for personal use are income as far as the Canadian Revenue Agency are concerned. I don’t understand why she doesn’t “get” the seriousness of what she has done, especially when she is showing less than $5,000.00 in income for 2005 in her court documents yet she signed the children up for a private Christian School in September 2005. The normal fee at this school is $250.00 per pupil per month. I’m no rocket scientist but I was pretty good in business math – not accounting though - and this doesn’t add up. The implications for her are tremendous financially as the Revenue Agency may want to audit her income going back a great many years and could cost her 10’s of thousands of dollars. She has received child tax benefits which are based on income as well and could have implications for welfare as she probably told them an understated income story. That’s fraud isn’t it? If you read Chapter 17, however, you may get the impression the welfare people don’t care about fraud but spend more of their time sending libelous cheerleading letters off maligning innocent Dad’s. I remain a very perplexed person but that is par for the course. If she continues to refuse to return the financial documents I will get the statements from the bank or try and convince the court she is in contempt. It will be costly and won’t have the cancelled cheques but the information is essential. I further become the “bad guy” trying to sort out the financial mess. I keep hoping we can have a more two-way approach but she may be in too deep to even think about collaborating as it might expose what she has done. I hope not and remain open to a less adversarial approach. I’ve had no luck so far with my gestures.