Fallacy 1: The courts and judges are biased towards women.
Some of the males who hire us are worried about the stereotype that women “win” in divorce. As far as they’re concerned, the courts and judges are biased in favour of women when it comes to issues like alimony, child support, custody, and visitation. In the past, courts frequently granted custody to the mother, but this is no longer the norm. Today’s courts and judges address contentious issues without taking sides. Fathers can be the primary caretaker of their children, or they can be the recipient of child or spousal assistance, learn more.
The outcome of a divorce case is typically determined by the evidence and facts produced in court, the law’s application to the specifics of the case, and, most importantly, what is in the best interest of any minor children involved.
Second Fallacy: My Ex Must “Lose” in the Divorce.
In a divorce, neither party comes out on top. There will be more tension and conflict if you want to win at any costs. It would be a waste of resources, both time and money. Several issues do wind up being battled in court and decided by a judge, rather than being able to be resolved with the assistance of your divorce lawyer and the other party.
Your divorce settlement should be viewed as a process of giving and taking in order to benefit both parties. If you do this, you’ll be able to move forward with your divorce and start your new life much sooner. It’s also in everyone’s best interest, especially any children, for this to be handled as amicably as possible.
Fallacy 3: If my kids only want to live with me, the court will listen to them.
The judge or court will consider your children’s wishes, but they will not use that as a reason to deny one parent visitation or custody. Prior to the passing of the Divorce Act in 2016, the Maximum Contact Principle was in effect. It is in the child’s best interest to maintain close ties with both parents, so in cases where there are no arguments from either side, the court will order frequent visits by the child. The court was concerned, however, that the language implied that shared parenting was always in the kids’ best interests.