View Single Post
  #85 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 06:26 PM
wife#2 wife#2 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 84
wife#2 is on a distinguished road

Specifically, I did not get involved in the debate because I felt I had nothing to add to it. Both sides were making the points that I was thinking myself. I at no time felt that any military member was suggesting that they should get special treatment. I would love to see the military member's post's that suggest this though, that Tayken is referencing (past and present). I believe the argument was simply the uniqueness of military life and believe that this was demonstrated. Also that others who are not military may also encounter similar circumstances, but generally, different to the vast majority of society.
Do I think military should get special treatment on custody and access? Yes and no. No they should not simply because they are military. But yes to them and ANYONE who works shifts, is sent away to work and all the other issues discussed already on this thread. My feeling is, the purpose, or so I thought, of family court is to mimick what would have happened as closely as possible had the family stayed intact. So if you chose to have a child with someone who works military or anyone who works in the conditions discussed, then I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the child move and spend a few years in one province, then a few years in another. If it is ok to do this to children in intact families, why is it suddenly not in a child's best interest when there is a divorce? This would have been the reality for the child if the parents were together, so why not now? Just my thoughts, since you asked.
Reply With Quote