Wanting to relitigate old issues is a common trapping... not just for appeals but for motions to change.
In an appeal, one may think it's the venue for a second crack at the bat. It absolutely is not. An appeal is to point out a gross error in law, or introduce new evidence that was NOT available at the time of trial that is so great no judge would have ruled the way they did if that evidence had been known.
Motions to change are of a similar ilk. You are not permitted to reargue "things" that occurred prior to the date of the final order (or agreement). Doing so may signal to the court that you "can't let go" of past conflict and things will probably go very bad for you.
This is a case on that point. Parents had 50/50, Dad brought forward a motion to change and had counsel that did him no favours by allowing it to go on. Good lawyers either reign in their clients for fire those that refuse to believe they are wrong. As a result the child lost 50/50 with the Dad, and Dad was forced to pay costs. (Interesting note, counsel for the losing party is well known to one of the people in this group )
Some excerpts : [17] .. The trial was not intended to revisit the entire parental history ... Instead of focusing on this child’s best interests in relation to the material changes in circumstances which took place following the 2019 Final Order, this has now become an opportunity to relitigate years of conflict and dysfunction between the parties, their new spouses, their extended family members and their friends (and former friends)
[19] Despite this direction, the father and witnesses called on his behalf referred to evidence relating to events predating the Final Order. At trial, I informed the parties that I would not consider events pre-dating 2019...
[20] The father and witnesses called on his behalf also referenced a considerable amount of hearsay evidence in their affidavits.
[27] Upon review of the evidence, I find that all of the references, save for a few exceptions discussed below, are inadmissible because the evidence predates the Final Orders...
There were other factors too, Dad was not being transparent (moved and Mom found out afterwards, uncommunicative, video taping exchanges, etc.
Even if Dad had not been stubborn in his insistence of relitigating past events, the other factors would still have played a part, but it certainly didn't help.
If you are being told issues are irrelevant, or old... don't be the stubborn fool that just wants your story heard again and again. Stubborn tenacity at remaining in conflict can backfire horribly... these are not admirable traits. Post trial... move on with the new reality.
Comments