Skip to content

Search results for 'justice quinn'

Can a Parent be in Contempt When Kid Disobeys a Court Order?

Can a Parent be in Contempt When Kid Disobeys a Court Order?

In many of the child custody and access cases I write about, the central dispute boils down to the fact that the parents of the child are at odds in terms of what custody arrangements they want and how much access they should each have to the children.

But even once a court order is in place, the disagreements can continue, because the parents may be at odds over precisely what the order means, and how it should be complied with. In a typical scenario, the custodial parent will have failed to abide by the terms of a court order setting out specific custody or access, perhaps by keeping the child longer than ordered, or else by failing to facilitate the access rights of the non-custodial parent.

But what if the lack of compliance is because it’s the child – not the parents – who won’t co-operate? What if the child outright refuses to spend time with the access parent?

In a recent set of Blogs I talked about the concept of “contempt of court”, in family law proceedings especially. This remedy can be imposed on a parent who refuses to comply with a court order, or otherwise hampers the course of justice.

What may be surprising is that under Canadian law, in some circumstances a parent can still be held accountable for contempt of court even if it’s the child who thwarts the fulfilment of the court order. This is because of the legal principle that if there is a court order in place, the parent is under a duty to do all that he or she reasonably can in order to ensure that it is complied with. And a finding of contempt of court may follow if the other parent can establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the other parent failed to take all of those reasonable steps.

In short: the parent cannot simply leave questions of custody and access up to the child; otherwise it amounts to an abdication of parental responsibility. In an older case called Geremia v. Harb, Justice Quinn put it well when he said:

Undoubtedly, there are many tasks that a child, when asked, may find unpleasant to perform. But ask we must and perform they must. A child who refuses to go on an access visit should be treated by the custodial parent the same as a child who refuses to go to school or otherwise misbehaves. The job of a parent is to parent.

With that said, the contempt remedy is not imposed every time a parent is unsuccessful at coercing a child – particularly an older one – to comply with an order. Rather, the outcome on whether to make a contempt finding will be viewed by the court with its broader duty in mind: which is to balance the need to enforce court orders and to encourage a child’s contact with both parents versus respecting a child’s own wishes and safeguarding his or her needs, safety and well-being.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Geremia v. Harb, 2007 CanLII 1893 (ON SC)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

When the Litigation Lasts Longer than the Marriage Did

Litigation Papers

When the Litigation Lasts Longer than the Marriage Did

A frequent complaint about family litigation in particular is that it’s a costly and inordinately long process, with cases tied up in the family courts for years.

It’s actually surprisingly common for the duration of the litigation between a former couple to far exceed the length of the marriage or relationship itself!

In Geremia v. Harb, Justice Quinn of the Ontario Superior Court commented on this very point:

The parties have a short marital history: they were married in 1999, had a child in 2000, separated in 2001 and were divorced in 2002. Since then, the litigation has been unrelenting. The parties have logged more hours in the court house than many part-time court employees. The continuing record consists of 10 volumes. Theirs is a blueprint for how not to handle a separation.

At the point when Justice Quinn made these observations it was already 5 years after the former couple’s divorce, and the litigation continued beyond that for at least another year.

But even in somewhat longer marriages, the litigation can still quickly outstrip the duration of the union itself.

In a case called Anderson v. McWatt, the couple had been married for 11 years, but had been living together for several years before that. But by the time of their 2015 hearing before the Ontario Court of Appeal, they had been embroiled in 15 years’ worth of what the court called “high conflict” litigation over the retroactive child support for their now-grown children, and over a business they had initially started and run together.

These are just two of many, many examples. Does it still count as a “relationship” when a couple sees each other only in court?

For the full text of these decisions, see:

Geremia v. Harb, 2006 CanLII 38350 (ON SC)

Anderson v. McWatt, 2015 CarswellOnt 14225, 258 A.C.W.S. (3d) 7

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

How Far Must Parents Go, to Ensure a Kid Complies with a Court Order?

access

How Far Must Parents Go, to Ensure a Kid Complies with a Court Order?

In many of the child custody and access cases I write about, the central dispute boils down to the fact that the parents of the child are at odds in terms of what custody arrangements they want and how much access they should each have to the children.

But even once a court order is in place, the disagreements can continue, because the parents may be at odds over precisely what the order means, and how it should be complied with. In a typical scenario, the custodial parent will have failed to abide by the terms of a court order setting out specific custody or access, perhaps by keeping the child longer than ordered, or else by failing to facilitate the access rights of the non-custodial parent.

But what if the lack of compliance is because it’s the child – not the parents – who won’t co-operate? What if the child outright refuses to spend time with the access parent?

In a recent set of Blogs, I talked about the concept of “contempt of court”, in family law proceedings especially. This remedy can be imposed on a parent who refuses to comply with a court order, or otherwise hampers the course of justice.

What may be surprising is that under Canadian law, in some circumstances a parent can still be held accountable for contempt of court even if it’s the child who thwarts the fulfilment of the court order. This is because of the legal principle that if there is a court order in place, the parent is under a duty to do all that he or she reasonably can in order to ensure that it is complied with. And a finding of contempt of court may follow if the other parent can establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the other parent failed to take all of those reasonable steps.

In short: the parent cannot simply leave questions of custody and access up to the child; otherwise it amounts to an abdication of parental responsibility. In an older case called Geremia v. Harb, Justice Quinn put it well when he said:

Undoubtedly, there are many tasks that a child, when asked, may find unpleasant to perform. But ask we must and perform they must. A child who refuses to go on an access visit should be treated by the custodial parent the same as a child who refuses to go to school or otherwise misbehaves. The job of a parent is to parent.

With that said, the contempt remedy is not imposed every time a parent is unsuccessful at coercing a child – particularly an older one – to comply with an order. Rather, the outcome on whether to make a contempt finding will be viewed by the court with its broader duty in mind: which is to balance the need to enforce court orders and to encourage a child’s contact with both parents while respecting a child’s own wishes and safeguarding his or her needs, safety and well-being.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Geremia v. Harb, 2007 CanLII 1893 (ON SC)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

Does Family Law Deserve the Bad Rap?

bad rap

Does Family Law Deserve the Bad Rap?

It probably goes without saying that the Law (and lawyers) have a bad reputation. In particular, Family Law is notorious for inducing resentment – from those who go through (or are dragged into) its processes, and from those who are affected directly or indirectly by its principles and outcomes.

The question is whether the unfavourable assessment is a fair one – at least compared to other areas of the Canadian legal system.

Part of the reason the complaints are so widespread, is because it’s the one realm – more than any other – to which most people are likely to be exposed at one point or the other in their lives. Whether it’s during relatively happy times (i.e. pre-marital contracts or cohabitation agreements) or more unhappy ones (i.e. separation, divorce, child custody, and estate planning), Family Law principles and proceedings come into play. So as long as human beings continue to connect to and disconnect from each other, Family Law can have a role to play in governing that process.

The other reason is that, by definition, emotions run high in family-related proceedings, and this means that any “wins” or “losses” in the family court system are felt with especially acute impact by its participants. Talk to any random stranger on the street, and eventually they will share some personal complaint or injustice, or even just a story about someone they know who (apparently) “got taken” in a divorce. Or open a newspaper to find discussion of some controversial child custody case, high-profile spousal support settlement, or celebrity divorce dispute.

In prior blogs, I have written about the Family Law judgments of Justice Quinn, which display an unusual candour and often-comical analysis of the cases over which the judge is presiding. But since his judicial mandate extends to the full spectrum of legal areas, Justice Quinn hears cases of all types. In one commercial litigation case called Verge Insurance Brokers Ltd. v. Sherk, he draws parallels between the civil case before him, and the Family proceedings to which he is well-accustomed.

In his judgment in connection with an employment matter involving an insurance salesman’s dismissal from a family-run brokerage, and his alleged breach of a non-competition agreement, Justice Quinn writes:

There is much about this case that resembles a Family Court proceeding involving an adulterous spouse: passion has pilfered all perspective; judgment that would otherwise be insightful is clouded; bitterness hangs in the air; and, the IQs of the parties have temporarily dropped to the ambient temperature of the courtroom (otherwise, why would this family be exposing its dirty corporate laundry in such a public forum).

The parties are discovering that revenge has an odour – it is the smell of burning money.

And then in the footnote, Justice Quinn adds:

With a whiff of singed reputation.

So this begs the question – is Family Law different from other areas of the law? Or is it just the one that feels most familiar, gets the most “play” in everyday life, and attracts the most attention?

For the full text of the decision, see:

Verge Insurance Brokers Ltd. v. Sherk, 2013 ONSC 7855 (CanLII)

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at www.RussellAlexander.com

Ontario Courts Tell it Like it Is

A judge-cartoon

Ontario Courts Tell it Like it Is

While reviewing a few Ontario family decisions recently, I noticed that the judges introduced their written reasons with a subtle and judicially-uncharacteristic lament, and in some cases, outright incredulity.

Using phrases like “a family tragedy” or “unhappy story” the judges provide a glimpse of some of the empathy and quiet frustration underlying their otherwise-impartial decisions.

For example, in Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier, the court introduced the case this way:

This lawsuit is a case study of the risks and consequences of intertwining business, family, and marital relationships. On its face, this proceeding involves claims for breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of corporate assets by departing employees, coupled with counterclaims for wrongful dismissal. Beneath the surface it is the unhappy story of the impact of a marriage breakdown on a successful business enterprise, and the decade of litigation that has ensued.

In a case called VanSickle (Elms) v. VanSickle the court began its judgment this way:

This is a family tragedy. The [father’s] relationship with his two children, … is now irreparably shattered. The parties have spent money they could ill afford on four days of trial wherein the [husband] has done his utmost to convince the court that his daughter, a university student, is no longer a dependent and not entitled to any support from him. ….

And from Justice Quinn (who can often be relied on for a little editorializing in his judgments, see my previous Blogs, there is the less-moderate introduction to the decision in Szakacs v. Clarke, where he pointedly tells it like it is:

Introduction

For best courtroom adaptation of a work of fiction, the award goes to the applicant, Clarissa Olenka Szakacs, who shamelessly feigned what she thought was necessary to convince the court to circumscribe access by the respondent to their almost-six-year-old daughter.

One could sit in Family Court for many years and not encounter such a callously conniving and mendaciously manipulative litigant. …

At several points throughout the trial, Ms. Szakacs emphasized that she was a Christian who practiced Christian values. There must be some key pages missing from her copy of the Bible.

Finally, in a judgment from only a few months ago called De Cruz-Lee v. Lee, the exasperated yet still-mindful judge said:

Overview

1 This case is a classic illustration of the difficulty of obtaining justice when a trial is conducted by a party or parties who are self-represented. Ms. Angela De Cruz-Lee (“Ms. De Cruz-Lee”) was self-represented and conducted the trial by herself. It is said that a person who represents himself has a fool for a client. That saying should add something about how self-representation is about the most expensive trial lawyer you can pay for. … [T]his trial originally was scheduled for one to four days and was set … to settle two issues. On November 17, 2014 a further pre-trial was held. The issues were down to ownership of the home estimated to be a one to two day trial. The trial in fact went on for nine days. The dispute was over an approximate $53,000 held in trust. Regrettably, the costs of this trial will consume most if not all of that amount. I note that Superior Court trials in Family Court are governed by a variety of rules. These rules are designed to ensure trials are expeditiously run at some cost efficient level. At this trial, those rules meant nothing. …

In writing this judgment, I have cautioned myself, that in the end, Ms. De Cruz-Lee was poorly represented and I am going to have to make allowance for that fact in making my decision.

Judges are only human. Such sentiments are no real surprise in light of the parade of difficult, doubtless heart-wrenching family disputes that come before them daily – some of which should never have been aired in a Canadian courtroom at all.

For the full text of the decisions, see:

Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier, 2010 ONSC 5810

VanSickle (Elms) v. VanSickle, 2012 ONSC 7340

Szakacs v. Clarke, [2014] O.J. No. 6214

De Cruz-Lee v. Lee, 2015 ONSC 1900

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit us at www.RussellAlexander.com

Ex-wife Lives with Male “Friend”, But Never Pays Him Rent; Should Ex-Husband Still Pay Her Support?

tenant

Ex-wife Lives with Male “Friend”, But Never Pays Him Rent; Should Ex-Husband Still Pay Her Support?

In a recent case called Colley v. Colley, Mr. Justice Quinn — who has an established history of writing interesting decisions  as judge for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice – expressed some healthy scepticism at the story by a wife who was now living with another man. In short, he did not buy her story that he was a “friend” from whom she was “renting” accommodation; he suspected she was living with him common law but still trying to maximize the spousal support she was getting from her ex-husband.

The parties had been married for 23 when they separated in 2000. Under their 2005 divorce, the husband agreed to pay the wife $3,100 per month in spousal support. The wife was earning about $29,000 as a dental assistant at the time.

After 12 years of paying, the husband applied to end his support obligations entirely, partly because his income had dropped by more than half after a catastrophic and debilitating stroke in 2011. He was on disability benefits, and would never return to work since half his body was paralysed and he was confined to a wheelchair needing 24-hour care and assistance.

But even aside from this, the husband also claimed his support obligations toward his 55-year old ex-wife should be reduced because she was now living with a male “friend”, and claimed she was his tenant. However, she never paid rent. In her court documents the wife purported to explain the situation this way:

The arrangement was that I would contribute $500.00 a month towards the housing expenses and I would pay all my personal expenses and for my food. I am indebted to him $6,000.005 for the back rent and he has told me quite bluntly this month that my living with him has become a financial drain and that he is tired of carrying me.

However, Justice Quinn was clearly not convinced. To this, he remarked:

[The wife] has alleged something in the nature of a landlord-tenant relationship with [the male “friend”]. Accordingly, she bears the burden of proving this fact, otherwise she must face the logical inference that, instead, it is a romantic or common-law relationship. She has not met that burden. The essence of a landlord-tenant relationship is the payment of rent. She is not paying rent.

The court said:

This means that [the wife], who, by this time, had been living with [the male “friend”] for 12 months, had not paid a penny toward “rent.” Am I really supposed to believe that this was some form of landlord-tenant relationship?

The court found instead that the wife was living common-law with the other man, and that it was her responsibility to provide evidence as to his income, so that the wife’s need for spousal support could be properly assessed in light of it. Without that information, the court was likely to draw unfavourable inferences.

The court also noted that it was not the sheer fact of her living with another man that potentially affected her spousal support entitlement; rather it was the financial impact of that re-partnering, and how it might affect her need for spousal support.

Having found that the husband’s reduced income was permanent and that it was a material change, the court granted his motion to vary; his support obligations were gradually reduced from about $800 per month down to about $500 per month over the next few years.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Colley v. Colley, 2013 ONSC 5666, [2013] O.J. No. 4055

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit our main site.

Another Ontario Judge Tells it Like He Sees it

Another Ontario Judge Tells it Like He Sees it

In past blogs, I have focused on some interesting Ontario decisions in which judges rather uncharacteristically “told it like they saw it” in terms of assessing the parties’ character or credibility.
For example, you’ll recall that in my blog on Bruni v. Bruni  http://bit.ly/lhJ15r , I highlighted some of the amusing quips by Mr. Justice Quinn in a family law matter.  And in my blog about a case called Pirbhai v. Singh (c.o.b. Sarwan Auto Sales)  http://bit.ly/l0Tt86 I excerpted passages in which that same judge was unusually forthright about his conclusion that one of the litigants was completely untrustworthy in his evidence and re-telling events.

A different judge in a recent Ontario case continues this trend.  In Sri Guru Nanak Sikh Centre Brampton v. Dhadda, Mr. Justice D.L. Corbett was asked to resolve a dispute involving two Sikh temples, which were owned by a corporation.   However, acrimony had developed between various members, directors and congregants of the temples.   Eventually – amidst allegations of financial mismanagement, theft of donations and other similar assertions – control of the both temples had been seized by a group of individuals, who purported to install a new board of directors and oust certain others from the temples’ membership rolls.

Not surprisingly, this prompted a great deal of chaos within the temples’ congregation, which was punctuated by rancorous meetings of various groups, together with continued mud-slinging across different factions. Ultimately, the corporation took the matter to court to obtain an injunction, and to have control restored to it.

Against this background, Justice D.L. Corbett wrote:

[3]           The defendants resist the injunction.  They say the plaintiff [corporation] is now run by a small clique.  They say that 1049 members have been disenfranchised illegally.  The defendants have been trying to put matters right.  They say the plaintiff has mismanaged its money.  The defendants say that donations are being stolen and something must be done.

[4]           The plaintiff has a long sad history of conflict.  And this just has to stop.  It is an embarrassment: the plaintiff is an important religious, social and cultural institution.  The conflicts have been riotous, often petty, and are concerned with issues of control, and not the high-minded principles cited as justifications for this lawless behaviour.

Before outlining the history of the legal proceedings, Justice Corbett commented generally on the behaviour of the participants, writing:

[11]      Some of the defendants have engaged in gross misconduct in the conduct of this litigation.  For them apparently, the ends justify the means.  It is offensive that some defendants should perjure themselves so blatantly in their evidence.  The ends do not justify the means.  Through their misconduct, these defendants have, in the end, only discredited themselves.

[12]      Litigation is not some childish game.  It is serious process of conflict resolution.  It is not acceptable to lie under oath or to falsify documents to try to win a lawsuit for control of a temple.
Justice Corbett then went on to examine – in great detail – the various events that led up to the usurping of control by the group of members.    After cataloguing a large number discrepancies between certain of the parties’ evidence and the established fact – including the false assertion by some members that they never received certain trespass notices – Justice Corbett wrote:

[184]       It is telling that, again, the defendants deny receiving the trespass notices.  It is clear from the record that they did. Their principled defense to these notices is that management may not bar them from attending a properly constituted meeting of members, since they, themselves, are members.  But rather than take the principled approach, they contest the notice itself.  It is so sad that these defendants, in the guise of invoking important points of principle, are prepared to tell such naked lies under oath.  The notices were served by the corporation’s solicitors, as evidenced by affidavits of service.  In addition, the notices were posted at the temple itself, and were handed out at the temple on the day of the meeting.  The on-site surveillance cameras show the defendant Dhillon walking in the hallway of the gurdwara, reading the trespass notice he had been handed.  And yet he claims under oath he did not see it.

[185]       Does the oath mean absolutely nothing to the defendants?  What conclusion do they think the court will draw about them when faced with such overwhelming evidence that they are prepared to lie so baldly under oath, and then persist in lying when the evidence is placed before them?  With great sorrow I conclude that the defendants care nothing for telling the truth or following the law.  The only explanation appears to be that, where they think their cause is just, they need not observe the basic moral tenets so fundamental in any society governed by the Rule of Law.

While Canadian judges can always be counted on to hear cases and evaluate credibility with a certain measure of objectivity, in cases like Bruni v. Bruni, Pirbhai v. Singh (c.o.b. Sarwan Auto Sales), and now Sri Guru Nanak Sikh Centre Brampton v. Dhadda, it is refreshing to see such articulated candour in judges’ realistic assessment of the litigation and litigants that come before them.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Sri Guru Nanak Sikh Centre Brampton v. Dhadda, 2012 ONSC 716 (CanLII)  http://canlii.ca/t/fpvk4

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at  www.RussellAlexander.com

 

 

Familyllb’s 5 Most Popular Blogs of 2011

Familyllb’s 5 Most Popular Family Law Blogs of 2011

Well it has been quite a year, our Familyllb blog was viewed over 30,000 times in 2011, over a 1000% increase in viewer traffic from 2010. We had over 150 new posts in 2011. So here we go with a summary of:
 

Our top 5 family law blog posts for 2011

# 5

Top 10 Things to Know About Children and Passports

published February 7, 2011

Reference: http://bit.ly/rVYJhD

With Spring Break coming soon, and summer holidays being just around the corner, it’s a good time to revisit the law in connection with passports for children of parents who are separated or divorced.

Even if a valid passport has been issued for the child, any time they are scheduled to travel outside of Canada – whether alone or with one parent or other relative – a Letter of Consent should be obtained from the other parent. This serves as evidence that the child has the consent of both parents to embark on the trip.

The rules surrounding passport applications for children in cases involving separation and divorce will differ according to the facts of each situation.

# 4

Top 5 Questions About Adultery and Divorce in Ontario

published May 23, 2011

Reference: http://bit.ly/kq4h1Q

It seems that celebrity gossip tabloids will never have a shortage of topics to cover, as long as there are stories about extramarital affairs by successful, high-profile celebrities. Most recently, it has been alleged that Arnold Schwartzenegger fathered a child with the housekeeper employed in the home he shared with his wife of 25 years; prior to that, Tiger Woods has admitted to having sexual trysts with at least 14 women outside of his relatively short marriage.

Leaving aside the intriguing question of how adultery affects couples psychologically and emotionally (and why such powerful, successful people would jeopardize their marital relationships in this manner), the legal effect of adultery is quite clear.

# 3

Ontario’s Bill 133 & Regulation for Pension Division to Commence January 2012

published June 27, 2011

Reference: http://bit.ly/lAWCij

Ontario’s Attorney General Chris Bentley reports that starting January 1, 2012, the pension division and valuation provisions in the Family Statute Law Amendment Act, 2009 will come into force. The changes are designed to make the family justice system more affordable, faster, simpler and less confrontational.

The new regulation under the Pension Benefits Act that sets out the valuation methodology and the process for receiving a payout from the plan will be made available at a later date.

The six month transition period will hopefully provide some time for the Financial Services Commission of Ontario to create the requisite Superintendent’s forms; for administrators to prepare their systems for compliance with the new regime; and for lawyers and other professional advisors to familiarize themselves with the new legislative and regulatory framework.

# 2

10 Things You Should Know About Child Support

published April 9, 2010

Reference: http://bit.ly/iEWqu2

All dependent children have a legal right to be financially supported by their parents. When parents live together with their children, they support the children together. Parents who do not live together often have an arrangement in which a child lives most of the time with one parent. That parent is said to have custody of the child. This arrangement can be written in a separation agreement or court order (sometimes called legal custody), or may occur without a written agreement or court order (sometimes called “de facto” custody).

Either way, the parent with custody has the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child and has most of the ordinary expenses of raising the child. The other parent should help with those expenses by paying money to the parent with custody. This is called child support.

and # 1

15 Best Quips by Justice Quinn in Bruni v. Bruni

published December 18, 2010

Reference: http://bit.ly/lhJ15r

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released the 2010 decision of Justice Quinn in the case of Catherine Bruni v. Larry Bruni on November 29, 2010.

In decision filled with wry quips and comments by Justice Quinn, the court awards, amongst other things, monthly spousal support in the amount of one dollar.

Those were our top 5 posts for 2011.  Congratulations to Justice Quinn for once again making our top spot.

Thank you to everyone who visited our blog and for your comments and support throughout the year. We hope you have found the information we have provided useful and informative.

Further information on family law and related issues is also available on our main website www.russellalexander.com  or you can now also visit us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/RussellAlexanderFamilyLawyers

%d bloggers like this: