When Will Our Judges Speak Out Forcefully Against Perjury?

_DSC4851In yet another British Columbia family law decision, the court fails to denounce, in the strongest terms, a litigant whose testimony is rife with lies. Yes, this judge addresses credibility, but in the same anemic way that permeates most family law cases, namely ” I accept the evidence of the claimant where it differs from the evidence of the respondent.”

That’s it, no rebuke, no censure, not even an award of special costs, despite the litigant’s devious conduct requiring untold extra preparation and court time to present a narrative that is flagrantly false, requiring a robust defence….yes, a rebuttal to a pack of lies.

Ngo v. Do 2017 BCSC 83 focuses on the breakdown of the marriage of a Vietnamese couple who agreed they married and immigrated to Canada in 1994. From that point on the parties’ evidence is sharply divergent.

He said their marriage ended two years later, in 1996, while she maintained they lived together as husband and wife in the family home in East Vancouver until their separation in 2012. When asked where he lived after 1996, since he alleged he did not live with his wife and children,  he was unable to provide a single address, except to say that he lived in East Vancouver with a friend.

When asked to explain how it was that he and his wife added three additional children to their union after his alleged departure in 1996, he acknowledged that despite the shattering of the bonds of matrimony, they remained intimate with one another.

The date of separation was critical to a determination of the wife’s interest in two homes, a crab boat, and a license to catch crab. Ms. Ngo testified their first home was purchased in 2000 and became the family home where she and her husband raised the children, for all but one year of their marriage.  She believed the home was registered in her husband’s name. Not so, said Mr. Do. He testified that the home’s owner was Mr. Den Van Ta, who he said he barely knew, although he had earlier said Den Van Ta was”like a brother” to him.

A second home in Maple Ridge was purchased in 2004, however, Mr. Do said it was purchased by his cousin, Kevin Phan. He testified that he lived with the children in the home from 2004 to 2008 rent-free and that Ms. Ngo was not permitted to live there. Ms. Ngo gave evidence that her husband told her the second home was rented out, but in 2006 he moved the family to the second home for a year, advising her that it was a more convenient location to travel to his employment in Maple Ridge.

Eventually the Maple Ridge home was registered in Mr. Do’s name. He explained that his cousin took pity on him and gifted the property to him in 2007. However, land title documents described the transaction as a cash sale for $445,000, subject to his cousin’s existing mortgage. Mr. Do sold the Maple Ridge home in 2009 netting $145,000 in profit.

Mr. Do’s lucky streak continued. He advised the court that the first home in East Vancouver was later gifted to him by Mr. Den Van Ta. The statement of adjustments described the transfer as a “gift of equity from the seller to the buyer in the amount of $269,000.” He also purchased a vessel and crab license sharing the cost equally with Mr. Den Van Ta, who, no surprise here, later gifted his one-half interest in their crab business to Mr. Do, gratis, for free.

The parties’ two eldest children corroborated Ms. Ngo’s evidence, while Mr. Den Van Ta was called to back up Mr. Do’s version of events with respect to the first home and the crab business. He was less than impressive. Mr. Phan was not called to testify leaving the court to draw an adverse inference.

The outcome? Mr. Do’s evidence was rejected and all the family property was shared equally. However, nowhere does the court suggest that Mr. Do’s perjured testimony is an abuse of process or of such a character as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Can anybody reason why Ms. Ngo was not awarded special costs, which is a full reimbursement of every penny she paid to her lawyer to respond to her husband’s pernicious lies? The court’s apparent trivialization of perjury by failing to award  special costs to Ms. Ngo sends a strong message to litigants that perjury is acceptable.

Pulitzer prize-winning author James B. Stewart succinctly writes in “Tangled Webs: How False Statements are Undermining America”: “Our judicial system rests on an honor code: “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Perjury is not acceptable behaviour.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Christmas Parenting Conflicts

GEO CASUAL

Christmas is supposed to be the happiest time of the year, but we know that for some it is a lonely, regretful time, remembering the sorrows of seasons past.

In homes divided by separation and divorce, the areas of conflict arise from the dynamics of struggling to ensure you see your children, and the difficult discussions between former spouses about sharing their children’s holiday time.

When former spouses remarry and introduce new partners into the family, it is not unusual to hear complaints of resentment and  recrimination focused on the new stepmother or stepfather.

Perhaps one of the most annoying irritants is hearing  8-year-old Johnny call his father’s new partner “Mom”.  An unkinder cut is hard to imagine for newly divorced parents.

One parent was so disturbed she asked a judge to intervene to stop her young son from calling her ex-husband’s fiancee “Mom”.  She was also opposed to her ex’s girlfriend having increased input into her son’s life.

In this case the parents shared legal custody but Johnny lived primarily with his father. New Jersey Judge Lawrence Jones found that both parents and father’s fiancee contributed to Johnny’s well-being, but noted that while the fiancee’s opinions were welcome, it was up to Johnny’s biological parents to make decisions for Johnny.

However,  the Judge declared that it was up to Johnny to decide how he wished to refer to his parents and his father’s fiancee, mainly because the young boy was mature enough to decide for himself. The Court said:

“At this challenging point in his growth and development, he certainly does not need his parents, or a stepparent, or the court, hoisting further unnecessary burdens upon his fragile shoulders by micromanaging his words and thoughts, or commanding him how to address his stepparent in order to please his mother or father.”

I’m sure Johnny’s mother thought the decision was unfair to her, but the reality is that it is not about her feelings, it’s about her son’s self-determination and development.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Would You Hire a Lawyer if You Don’t Want to Take Their Advice?

BarristerI could never understand why someone would hire a high-priced, hotshot lawyer but refuse to take their advice.  It happens more frequently than you might realize, sometimes the result of an uneducated neighbour or friend, who after going through their own divorce, deigns to give (bad) advice to all who will listen. Other times it’s a litigant who thinks he or she knows better.

In a recent case in Vancouver, a lawyer had a difficult time persuading her client that his strategic decisions were wrong-headed and would ultimately lead to disaster. Here’s what the lawyer told her doubting client:

“Family law is a breed apart. Affidavit evidence is generally full of crap, most of which doesn’t matter. ” (Editorial comment: A true statement)

“…if you bring numerous expensive court applications that are out of the ordinary in family law in response to her material, you can guarantee she will get her advance for legal fees because you will have proved to the court what she has said in her material that you will seek to prolong the court proceedings by litigation tactics that are outside the norm in family law and not only will they be unsuccessful, those tactics will backfire spectacularly.” (Editorial comment: Also true)

“You might be better served with a puppet lawyer than with someone who is trying to save you money and grief. Think about it, as once you start down this type of path, you have blown your potential opportunity to get this litigation over with relatively easily.” (Editorial comment: A puppet lawyer is a stooge, a dupe)

“We won’t fire you now because you are stuck with a rapidly approaching court date but (John) or (Jane) will have to argue the motions you want to argue that I think are a waste of time and money, as my reputation as ethical counsel with the court and other lawyers is important to me and I don’t want the court or other counsel to think I am suddenly trying to rip off my clients by bringing motions that appear to be designed to make me money and not to help my clients.” (Editorial comment: Lawyers cannot abandon clients if a hearing is pending)

Tough words, but ethical lawyers who see their clients heading in the wrong direction are obliged to point out the crash course they are on. Most often the solicitor/client relationship ends dramatically, with unpaid legal bills and complaints to the lawyer’s governing body. (Editorial comment: Most times these complaints are dismissed)

To you who hire lawyers, you’d be wise to remember that the legal system is a  complex maze that requires  a steady hand at the wheel, a driver who has the expertise you need and the interest and passion to pursue justice on your behalf. Of course, in all litigation there are winners and losers, and competent counsel should tell you what side you will likely land on.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

 

Judge’s Decision Results in Tragedy

BarristerHave you ever thought about how judges make decisions? Frankly, I rarely think about this as my focus is simply on persuading a judge to see it my way. But learned scholars have studied and researched the psychology of judicial decision-making with interesting results.

The authors of “Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Make Decisions”* say that judges are predominantly intuitive decision makers, a characteristic that unfortunately can lead to flawed decisions. Of course, some intuitive decisions are accurate, but as between those kind of decisions and  the more academically rigorous “deliberation” method,  acting on gut feelings or hunches can be a dangerous way to adjudicate matters of critical importance to participants in the justice system.

A case this week out of Madison, Kentucky highlights the impact of judges’ “getting it right”.

Local prosecutor Chad Lewis was in court in Madison on October 6, 2016 seeking an arrest warrant against Laura Russell’s husband, Anthony Russell, age 51. The couple was divorcing and it was going far from well. Charged in August 2016 with strangulation and domestic battery for allegedly attacking his wife on several occasions. Mr. Russell was out on bond of $500.00 and subject to a restraining order, that he apparently ignored.

This court appearance was scheduled after Ms. Russell advised the police that her husband was continuously stalking her. She was upset, intimidated and frightened.

Judge Michael Hensley presided at the hearing, however, he refused to issue a warrant for Mr. Russell’s arrest and instead issued a summons requiring Mr. Russell to attend court on  October 11, 2016 after the three-day long weekend.

Mr. Russell did not show up at court on October 11 and neither did his estranged wife. They were both dead. Mr. Russell went to Ms. Russell’s home on October 7 and stabbed her multiple times. He then  committed suicide, blowing his head off with a pistol…a tragedy that devastated Judge Hensley.

The judge released a statement to the press expressing his condolences to Ms. Russell’s family, saying he felt “horrible about her death” and understood that his sincere regret would not “bring her back”. He explained that he didn’t believe there was “probable cause” to issue a warrant and said “I made what I thought to be the correct legal decision…obviously I made a decision that had the most tragic result possible”.

Prosecutor Lewis criticized Judge Hensley for failing to accede to his request for a warrant for stalking. Meanwhile, Ms. Russell’s lawyer suggested that it was Mr. Lewis’ fault as he could have asked for a warrant for multiple breaches of the restraining order, instead of seeking a probable cause hearing for a new charge of stalking.

Judge Hensley also announced that he would institute a new procedure in respect of arrest warrants, by ensuring that a hearing be scheduled for the day the warrant request is made.

 Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

*Chris Guthrie,  Jeffrey J. Rachlinski & Andrew J. Wistrich

Guest Post: Abduction by Adoption

Could your teenage child be secretly adopted without your knowledge? If New Jersey sets the example, then the answer looks like yes.

The New Jersey horror story started out typically enough. Parents of three children got a divorce. To make the transition as easy as possible on their children, these parents agreed to custody arrangements outside of court.

The children would remain in the family home with their father. The mother moved into a home 15 minutes away and the two parents shared parenting duties and privileges as well as parents from two households can. Things went well, and the parents never needed the courts to intervene to enforce any of their arrangements.

It was the good divorce that we want and expect should our marriages fail.

A few years later, when the eldest was a young teenager, the mother remarried. The new couple began holding the children at their house.  It was not a power play as much as a bid for control. The new husband came from a fatherless home. The mother was adopted. Together, they had a view of fathers as replaceable, and it would make their life so much easier to simply cut the ex-husband away.

As they worked to cut the father’s connections with his children, one time even snatching them from the lawn, the father had to resort to the courts to enforce their custody agreements. There were multiple hearings, interviews, and appeals. By 2015 the court had issued various orders upholding the shared custody plan and instructing the stepfather not to interfere with any of the father and child relationships.

Things got so bad that the judge even openly entertained the idea of awarding sole physical custody to the father so he would have more enforcement options. (As many divorced parents know, states have various laws and assumptions about equal legal custody, but in practice custody agreements mean as much as the parent with physical custody wants them to mean.)

The mother and step-father did not like this development. They did not want to abide by the custody agreements or have to appear in court when they ignored the agreements. Therefore, when the eldest daughter turned 18 the step-father used an odd adoption provision in New Jersey law and petitioned for an adult adoption in another court. It was granted.

The Adoption Loophole

The adult adoption provision is typically used for inheritance issues. For instance, prior to the legalization of same sex marriage, one member of a homosexual couple might adopt the other so they would have tax advantaged inheritance rights.  It is a simple process. The adopting parent petitions for the adoption and certifies that there are no obstacles to the adoption.

Adopting a step-child is an entirely different matter and New Jersey law has provisions for step-parent adoptions. As common sense suggests, those adoptions require notice to the biological parent and a waiver of parental rights, as well as background assessments of the adopting party. The law knows — the public knows — that adoptions of children are not to be taken lightly.

In the New Jersey case, the mother and stepfather waited until the eldest girl turned 18 so they could use the adult adoption provision. The step-father did not inform the new court about the many and current restraints set to keep him from interfering with the father and daughter relationship.  He simply verified there were no controversies and adopted the eldest daughter away from her father.

The father was never notified. He even continued paying child support, un-aware that legally, according to the State of New Jersey his daughter was no longer his. The next time he tried to enforce the custody arrangements the adoption rendered them meaningless.

Such is the tale told by the pleadings in the New Jersey Supreme Court where the father has asked the court to vacate the adoption of his daughter.

In addition to this new use of the adult adoption statute, the ultimate interference with the father and child relationship, and the lack of notice to the father and protections to the child, the court must also consider the implications of letting this adoption stand. Custody agreements will mean nothing if one parent can simply find someone, anyone, to adopt a child away from a biological parent. It’s a custody loophole, abduction by adoption.

According to Alice M. Plastoris, attorney on the Board of Directors of the New Jersey Association for Justice and Chair of the Matrimonial Committee, “This is not how the legislature intended for this statute to be used and the courts have cautioned against using the adult adoption provisions without notice.”

In a surprise move, the New Jersey Court denied the petition last month while agreeing to hear a related case. Another New Jersey couple’s divorce decree stated that neither parent could move the children out of state — and then the mother promptly moved the couple’s children to Utah. A parent’s ability to rely upon custody agreements is clearly in question in New Jersey. The father in the adoption case has asked for reconsideration.

If the New Jersey courts allow these events to stand, then what comfort could any divorced parent take in child custody agreements? The agreements can be ignored by legally or physically removing the children from one parent. And thus, New Jersey could set a new standard in child custody: the first parent to capture the kids wins.

AUTHOR: LESLIE LOFTIS,  LAWYER AND WRITER: Her writing typically covers feminism, law, politics, parenthood, and pop culture, particularly where they intersect. A member of LEADING WOMEN FOR SHARED PARENTING.

NOTE: In British Columbia an adult may be adopted based on the criteria in section 44 of the Adoption Act.

44 (1) One adult alone or 2 adults jointly may apply to the court to adopt another adult.

(2) The court may make the adoption order without the consent of anyone, except the person to be adopted, as long as the court

(a) is satisfied that that person, as a child, lived with the applicant as a member of the family and was maintained by the applicant until the person became self supporting or became an adult, and

(b) considers the reason for the adoption to be acceptable.

(3) An adoption order made with respect to an adult has the same effect as an adoption order made with respect to a child.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

Why Would Angelina Jolie Demand Sole Custody?

GeorgiaLeeLang025When I read this morning that Brad and Angie were kaput, I didn’t believe it. After all, every month for the past several years some gossip magazine has splashed this headline across their cover page. Only it was never true.

But today it is, and to my surprise the liberal heroine of human rights, Ms. Jolie,  wants to deprive her children of a basic human right: the right to have a full relationship with their father.  Yes, children have a right to know both their parents, a right so precious that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child includes this provision in Article 18:

“State parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.”

In this day and age when a mother, like Ms. Jolie, asks a court to award sole custody of the children to her,  it can only be interpreted as a denunciation of the children’s father. In most family courts, a claim for sole custody in favour of one parent usually signals that the other parent is a drunk, an addict, a child molester, is in jail,  or so mentally ill that he or she is incapable of taking care of the children.

Sole custody means that the custodial parent alone will decide where the children live, where they go to school, what kind of school they will attend and what religion will be taught to them.

In Canada a judge of the Supreme Court held that a non-custodial parent has no more rights than an “interested observer”- A shocking pronouncement for a parent who finds him or herself estranged from his children by virtue of relationship breakdown.

If reports that the Jolie-Pitt’s are frequently on different continents is accurate, it will be difficult to craft an equitable parenting schedule. Note that I didn’t say equal. That may be impossible, but children need stability as much as they need both parents in their lives.

Ms. Jolie has a reputation as a compassionate humanitarian and has undertaken massive charitable projects throughout the third world focusing on children’s rights.  I believe that if she understood what her claim for sole custody really meant, she would resile from it.

I hope that for the children’s sake she does and does so very quickly.

GUEST POST: FATHERLESS IN NORTH AMERICA

BarristerTERRY BRENNAN is the co-founder of “LEADING WOMEN FOR SHARED PARENTING”, an organization based in the United States, with invited members located world-wide. Members include women who are Senators, members of the House of Representatives, state and municipal politicians, social workers, psychologists, scientists, psychiatrists, journalists, attorneys, child custody experts, domestic violence experts, and many other professional women. I am a member of LEADING WOMEN FOR SHARED PARENTING and proud of it.

Terry Brennan’s  letter to the editor  of the Kearney Hub, a Nebraska publication, dated August 30, 2016, has caused quite a stir in the Cornhusker State, a state whose Bar Association actively lobbied against shared parenting in an attempt to maintain the revenue they earn from custody litigation. They were successfully sued for their misguided efforts.

The Kearney Hub deserves praise for calling out the largest social issue impacting America. Fatherlessness is an epidemic connected to virtually every social pathology in children. More local papers, who are in the trenches of America’s problems, are calling out the desperate need to address fatherlessness, even as the national media stays silent.

However, it’s ironic to see a Nebraska paper calling out fatherlessness. Why? Because while fatherlessness has multiple causes, using the low estimate, family courts create a fatherless child every single minute of every single day, and Nebraska courts are among the worst offenders.

Every mother of a son should know, a 10-year study found Nebraska family courts gave children an average of five days a month “visitation” with their non-custodial parents, a.k.a. “father.” Recently, Nebraska family courts showed they prefer that convicted pedophiles spend time with children rather than their loving and capable fathers. It’s shameful, considering the overwhelming research that shows shared parenting is best for children.

Shared parenting is endorsed by 110 world experts, supported by 43 peer reviewed papers, favored by 70 percent of the population, and was the conclusion of the largest study on children of divorce, reviewing 150,000 kids. The 110 experts stated they’re “united in their concern that flawed science is leading to parenting plans and custody decisions that harm children.”

Cordell & Cordell, a law firm with offices in 30 states, noted: “It is becoming increasingly clear that any argument against shared parenting is not based on empirical data. Logic would dictate that it should be painless to pass laws that grant children more equal access to each parent following a divorce.”

With such support, 20 states recently considered shared parenting with Arizona, Utah and Missouri changing laws, allowing children more time with the paternal side of their family.

Although bills are put forth annually, shared parenting hasn’t advanced in Nebraska as it reduces the income of lawyers. In reviewing the implementation of shared parenting in Australia, Professor Edward Kruk found a marked reduction in child custody litigation has also been noted since the new legislation, with applications to court over child custody falling by a staggering 72 percent. Court-determined parenting arrangements fell from 7.8

percent to 2.8 percent of cases and lawyer negotiation from 10.6 percent to 5.8 percent of cases, Kruk found.

Corresponding to decreased litigation has been a marked increase in the use of family relationship centers and family mediation services. And most Australian parents (72 percent) now resolve parenting arrangements without the use of any legal services. (“The Equal Parent Presumption”)

The Nebraska Bar Association so feared this loss of revenue it acted illegally and was sued for lobbying against shared parenting, resulting in its dues being halved, the elimination of staff, and sublet of office space.

If we’re to pay more than lip service to addressing fatherlessness, follow the advice of psychiatrists, psychologists, child development experts and domestic violence practitioners who’ve endorsed shared parenting as best for children.

Until the Nebraska Legislature follows the lead of other states, the fatherless crisis will continue.”

Terry Brennan, Newtonville, Mass.

LAWDIVA’S NOTE:

Several bills  advocating shared parenting have been voted on in Canada’s Parliament. None have passed.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang