Sorry it will not load for me, so if you want to read it you will have to do it here;
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/01/best_court_judgement_ever.html
I wish every Family Court Judge wrote Judgements like
this…If you decide to read it, make sure you read his ‘footnotes’ (in italic) and yes this
case is real and written by a Judge!
A few of his notable
points……
…..the parties repeatedly have shown that they are immune to
reason. Consequently, in my decision, I have tried ridicule as a last resort.
[1] Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.
[2] This is yet another case that reveals the
ineffectiveness of Family Court in a
bitter custody/access dispute, where the parties require
therapeutic intervention
rather than legal attention. Here, a husband and wife
have been marinating in a
mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a
personality disorder requiring
treatment.
…parental-alienation conduct of Catherine (in respect of
the parties daughter)…..
[8] Presiding over a family trial, with many issues,
where the parties are self-represented
…. is a solitary and unfulfilling experience. What
evidence was not brought forward
because the parties failed to appreciate its relevance?
What evidence that was
introduced would have been recast under a skilful
cross-examination? With whom
do I play devil’s advocate on questions of law?
[10] In the midst of this social stew perhaps it is not
surprising that Larry and
Catherine are having problems, serious problems,
regarding the custody of, and
access to, their children. The source of the difficulties
is hatred: a hardened,
harmful, high-octane hatred. Larry and Catherine hate
each other, as do Larry and
Sam. This hatred has raged unabated since the date of
separation. Consequently,
the likelihood of an amicable resolution is laughable
(hatred devours reason); and,
a satisfactory legal solution is impossible (hatred has
no legal remedy).
3, I am prepared to
certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.
The Hell’s Angel’s
get a mention…….
[18] Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later,
Catherine, Tried to run me over with her van.
6. This is always a
tell-tale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart.
[19] On November 21, 2006, Catherine demanded $400 from
Larry or her brother was going to get the Hells Angels after me.
7 The courtroom
energy level in a custody/access dispute spikes quickly when there is evidence
that one of the parents has a Hells Angels branch in her family tree.
Certainly, my posture improved. Catherine’s niece is engaged to a member of the
Hells Angels. I take judicial notice of the fact that the Hells Angels
Motorcycle Club is a criminal organization (and of the fact that the niece has
made a poor choice).
Said Larry: .She threatened me with her brothers and
Hells Angels again..
[21] On August 13, 2007, Catherine's niece (Donna),
telephoned Larry and told
me I will get a bullet in my head if I don’t sign the
adoption papers. She called
back later and told me I’m as good as dead.. She called a
third time, to tell me her
father and uncles are coming to kill me..
[22] The next day, Catherine telephoned Larry and said
that she wanted my
truck or her brother and the Hells Angels are coming to
get it and me.
[23] On October 18, 2007, a nautical theme was added.
According to Larry:
Donna Taylor, Catherine's sister-in-law, yelled out her
window that I was going
to be floating in the canal dead.
[24] As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are
one-dimensional problem
solvers.
8. When one considers that the parties then
had been separated for a mere four months and that Larry was exercising access,
this is a remarkable request. What does it tell us about Catherine?
9. Donna is a devotee of the literary device
known as, ‘repetition for emphasis’. I do not know whether Donna is the niece
who is engaged to the Hells Angels member. If she is, they may be more
compatible than I initially surmised.
[48] Catherine
denied access entirely to Larry from some point in January of
2010 up to the
commencement of the four-month hiatus in the trial (May-October
of 2010). This
was a remarkably bold step on her part, taken without reasonable
excuse or
explanation. Most litigants are on their best behaviour as their trial
approaches. Her
conduct reflects the lack of respect she has for the legal system
and the utter
disregard with which she treats Larry’s parental rights. She is a law
onto herself. She
is also oblivious to her lack of objectivity in matters of access.
[50] During these
enforced access visits, Taylor repeatedly said to Larry: ‘You're
not my father.
Sam’s my father. You’re a loser.’ These are comments that Taylor
would have
parroted from Catherine, I have no doubt. They are the result of
persistent,
behind-the-scenes brainwashing by Catherine.
[70] On fourteen
occasions, within eighteen months, the parties drew the police
into their petty
disagreements . A sad commentary on their inability to get along
and a shocking
abuse of the Niagara Regional Police Service. Although this
statistic
probably sums up all that one needs to know about the parties, I will
elaborate for the
doubters.
[71] Larry, who
regularly drives by the residence of Sam and Catherine, often
shoots the finger
at Sam and, on about three occasions, has yelled: ‘Jackass,
loser’.
20 A further testament to the hopelessness of
the custody/access situation is that the parties and their common-law spouses
are unable to jointly attend Brandon’s ball-hockey games without erupting into
mutual conflict. This is very stressful for Brandon.
21 A finger is worth a thousand words and,
therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a
thousand words.
22 When the operator of a motor vehicle yells
‘jackass’ at a pedestrian, the jackassedness of the former has been proved,
but, at that point, it is only an allegation as against the latter.
[73] On August
14, 2007, Larry sent three text messages to Catherine within a
space of four
minutes, saying: ‘The game is just starting’. ‘Prepare yourself for a
long winding
road’ ‘Busted! Always look in your rear view mirror’ and, ‘Blood
isn’t’ always
thicker than water’. Two days later he texted: .Loser! Homewrecker!
23 In recent years, the evidence in family
trials typically includes reams of text messages between the parties, helpfully
laying bare their true characters. Assessing credibility is not nearly as
difficult as it was before the use of emails and text messages became prolific.
Parties are not shy about splattering their spleens throughout cyberspace.
24 These do not strike me as the statements
of someone who is concerned about precipitating a Hells Angels house call.
I admonished the
parties on a number of matters, one of which was the importance of not
denigrating the other in the presence of the children. Yet, in August of 2010
(in other words, during
the hiatus), Taylor was having an access visit with
Larry when she received a text message from
Catherine that read: Is dickhead
there?.
[80] At one
point, the children told Larry that if they were to telephone, or talk to,
him they would
'to jail'. Catherine was behind this cruel misinformation.
25 I confess that I sometimes permit a
lengthier hiatus than the schedule of the court might otherwise dictate, in
order to afford the parties an opportunity to reflect on the trial experience,
come to their senses and resolve their difficulties like mature adults. It is
touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the
bench.
26 The
New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'dickhead' as a stupid
person. That would not have been my first guess.
Larry passed Sam
in the hallway outside the courtroom, You’re done.
29 It takes a special level of audacity to
utter threats under the roof of the Court House.
[90] On another
occasion in July of 2009, Larry said to Taylor: .'You put shit in this hand and
shit in
this hand, smack it together, what do you get? Taylor.
30 I gather that this is Larry’s version of
the Big Bang Theory.
[134] Finally, on
this issue, I observe that Taylor calls Sam 'dad’. Where as Brandon refers to him
as
‘Sam’. Neither Sam nor Catherine attempted to dissuade Taylor, calling the
matter ‘her choice’. Yes,
the alienation indeed is complete.
[209] The
parental alienation in this case reflects an intent by Catherine to destroy the
relationship
between Taylor and Larry; it is shocking conduct. It also amounts
to a hideous repudiation of the
relationship between Catherine and Larry as
co-parents of Taylor. The harm here probably is
irreparable. Certainly, it is extremely
serious at best.
[210] While Larry’s
access-conduct has largely reflected nothing more than inept
parenting,
Catherine’s parental-alienation behaviour has been evil. Is there a
remedy?
[211] Dollars
cannot replace the father-daughter relationship that Catherine has
destroyed.
However, in the circumstances of this case, justice has only a Hobson’s
choice.
Catherine’s alienation of Taylor and Larry must be condemned and, an
effective method
of expressing that condemnation, is by way of a reduction in spousal support.
[212]
Accordingly, the spousal support to which Catherine would otherwise be
entitled shall be
reduced to one dollar monthly.
[213] Despite the
involvement of Niagara Family and Children’s Services, Ms.
Katz, Mr. Leduc
and the court, the parties repeatedly have shown that they are
immune to reason.
Consequently, in my decision, I have tried ridicule as a last
resort.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.