Objectify Chicks: My Chat With an Attorney

http://objectifygirls.blogspot.com/2010/05/my-chat-with-attorney.html

Friday, May 28, 2010

My Chat With an Attorney

So I was talking to an attorney earlier this week. The conversation shifted - lurched - from a generic "how-are-you-doing?-how's-the-family-how-ya-likin'-your-new-office-manager?" to "Why I no longer practice family law...." The attorney says to me, "I've had it. All family lawyers are outrageous liars." This was not news to me. "And the judges - for God's sake! - the judges tolerate childish antics from the attorneys because they are afraid of calling women out on their neurotic and juvenile behavior..." Of course, the implicit fact behind this statement is that most family lawyers are, indeed, women. Oddly, family law once was the area of practice that the bottom ten per cent of a law school class went into because it isn't really law - it is more like institutionalized temper tantrum throwing, which suits women well.... "... and the women!" the attorney continued. "Holy #$@&!!! I guess the judges in family court tolerate perjury so much because if they didn't, the women wouldn't be allowed to testify at all!!!" While I agreed with what the attorney was saying, and inwardly was cheering, I did find it odd to be hearing all this - from a FEMALE attorney! While I was tempted to ask her how many of the men she thought were lying, I figured that question might telegraph my position a bit much. Instead, I offered, "Yeah, and those godawful domestic violence hearings. I mean, once I saw a guy get thrown into jail because he had cancelled an insurance policy without telling his wife - she claimed it "made her fearful for her safety" and under the DVPO law in our state, the judge just locked him up....." My female attorney friend didn't miss a beat. "Phshaw!" she exclaimed. "Domestic Violence indeed! I swear that 85% of the allegations offered by women are patently, obviously false. These women start committing adultery and in order to keep their husbands from finding out -or worse, ratting them out to friends and family - all of a sudden their husbands are "controlling" and "emotionally distant" and "emotionally abusive. I have yet to see a woman enter a DVPO hearing complaining of bruising, if you know what I mean" my attorney friend volunteered, somewhat craftily. So it turns out that my FEMALE attorney friend, who admits that she started her law practice with "high hopes" and "faith in the system," now considers herself "jaded" and "never to darken the doors of a family court again." Why? "Those lying women," both the family law attorneys and their clients. Who'da thunk it?

Dont give up....

When you start feeling like you want to give up, remember why you held on for so long in the 1st place. Shared via Tweetcaster

BC family law tax changes

@bcfamilylaw: Child Tax benefit changes effective July 1, 2011 be aware! http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/bdgt/2010/shrdcstd-eng.html Shared via Tweetcaster

BC Family law divorce tips

@bcfamilylaw: Smart BC Divorce Tips if you are considering a BC divorce 1-877-602-9900 http://www.bcfamilylaw.ca/family-law/preparing-for-divorce/ Shared via Tweetcaster

A female lawyer with an understanding of canadian families

Canada Fathers

I really like this writer and its great to she is female, a lawyer and seems to understand our plight with the injustices in the Canadian Family leagl system

here is her blog; http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/
and her web page: http://www.georgialeelang.com/

...

The sign of a "responsible" according to the courts

So once again I see on facebook this morning only to see that christa made a post saying she and corran were partying at Inks Lake, a popular party spot 20min out of town at 3am. Where is this "responsible" mother?

And again it happens

So corran calls me at 230,he is at his girlfriends school and is cold so he's looking for a ride. I'm about 2 blocks away when he calls asking if I have anything else to do in town, long story short Brittanys boyfriend had shown up at the school Magically to pick corran up. It's like lynn and Brittany are "blocking" corran to prevent him from seeing me again.

Common Law Equality?? Really?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/common-law-couples-deserve-fair-share-court-20110218-210956-344.html

.....Common-law couples deserve fair share: court


..Partners in common-law relationships in Canada who separate are entitled to a fair share of assets they contributed to or made possible, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.




In deciding two cases unanimously—involving a couple in Vancouver and another in Ottawa — the court applies to common-law couples remedies that are similar to those covering married couples in provincial law.



In the Vancouver case, Margaret Patricia Kerr and Nelson Dennis Baranow, a couple in their late 60s, separated after a common-law relationship lasting more than 25 years.



They both had worked through much of that time, and each had contributed in various ways to their mutual welfare, the court said.



A lower-court ruling awarded Kerr a share of the house they shared, which was in Baranow's name. That was overturned on appeal, on the basis that Kerr was profiting from "unjust enrichment."



The supreme court has ordered a new trial in the case, mainly because of the complex financial details involved. Among other things, Kerr suffered a stroke and never moved back into the house.



The Ottawa case involved Michele Vanasse and David Seguin.



In the first four years of their relationship (1993 to 1997), they pursued their careers, she with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, where she was training to be an intelligence officer, and he with Fastlane Technologies Inc., marketing a network operating system that he had developed.



In March 1997, Vanasse took a leave of absence to move with Seguin to Halifax, to which Fastlane had relocated "for important business reasons," the court said.



Over the next 3½ years, the couple had two children. Vanasse stayed home, while Seguin developed the company. They moved back to Ottawa in 1998. In September 2000, Fastlane was sold, netting Seguin about $11 million. The couple separated in 2005.



Writing for the court, Justice Thomas Cromwell ruled that not only were Vanasse and Seguin engaged in a joint family venture, but "there was a clear link between Vanasse's contribution to it and the accumulation of wealth.



"The unjust enrichment is thus best viewed as Mr. Seguin leaving the relationship with a disproportionate share of the wealth accumulated as a result of their joint efforts."



The court on Friday restored a lower court ruling — which had been overturned on appeal — that gave Vanasse half the value of the wealth Seguin accumulated during the 3½-year period when she was home looking after the children, enabling him to travel and devote more time to the company.



Stephen Grant, a Toronto family lawyer at McCarthy Tetrault, told the Globe and Mail that the rulings help move common-law relationships toward a more equal footing with marriages.



"As long as the property claimant can show a contribution to the asset or the growth of the assets, he or she will be entitled to share by way of a monetary award," Mr. Grant told the Globe and Mail.

...