The Trial

After reading this anyone that thinks justice is in the best interests of the children and not for the obvious results, profit, has an agenda to conceal the truth.
The first ties into the last.
The first. I was subpoenaed as a witness by the plaintiffs lawyer. In case you`re not aware of Cdn court rules that means I could not present any evidence or say anything in court unless it was to answer a question by the exs lawyer. If I said anything the judge was required (gleefully) to ignore it. I did have two section 15 custody and access reports present. The court counselors recommended shared custody while the expert independent assessment recommended split custody, two weeks for the children with each parent continuously.
The reports took a total of three years to complete but the judge decided that because they were now six months old at trail date they were stale dated, not to be used. I found this particularly interested because when asked by her own lawyer on whether she had ever denied access she said "no". She admitted to the Dr. that she had repeatedly denied access for no reason and this was noted in his report.
The judge commented that she must have had a reason. The only place the judge would have found out she had denied access was in the stale dated report that the judge refused as evidence. The judge knew she lied in court but excused it with `she must have had a reason`. Perhaps I misunderstood the judges comment, perhaps the judge was saying she must have had a reason to lie to her and it wasn`t about denying access. Is this a case where two wrongs make a right? Apparently in the courts eyes it is.
The last. Because I could not present evidence or even speak on my childrens behalf I filed for an appeal to the sole custody decision. I was refused on the grounds `the judge heard enough from your ex to make her judgement`.
This is the way the justice industry in Canada works. The best interests of the child or creating the potential for profit.
Shouldn`t be a hard call.