View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2017, 07:27 PM
Berner_Faith Berner_Faith is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,035
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough

Originally Posted by Beachnana View Post
It's a clause that has been in the agreement since day one, never really thought about it until now.

This year however, applicant wants summer visitation but will actually not be there as the applicant works away from home and screwed up their vacation dates. Informed the respondant after the agreed upon date of April 30 that they had to have certain dates. The Respondant had already made plans for those dates.

The agreement states that in odd year the Respondant shall have preference and in Even years the Applicant shall have preference.

This year the Applicant is demanding dates which do not work for the respondant and again " scream contempt". It's a usual rant so we will just ignore that! It's the respondents year to have preference so has offered alternate dates that work this summer. There was some discussion about switching years of preference but past experience has shown that this,is,not a good idea as the applicant usually reneges on any promises

Applicant has said they are not available except these particular 3 weeks which clash with the plans of the Respondant. So the question was who wouldlook after S5 if you are not there but away for work.

When asked the reply was. "myob".

The applicant has a bit of a history of trying to bully their way into getting what they want.

So just checking on the wording. The dates the Respondant suggest gives the same amount of time.

So to answer your comment. It's not control it's trying to follow an agreement which The respondent feels that after all the time and effort and money spent on the agreement they should abide by all it's details and not pick and choose. No one is truly completely happy with agreements but you do what you can and do the best you can. Then you live with it.

So let me get this right... its the Respondents year to pick vacation time first, they have done so but those weeks are the only weeks the applicant has holidays from work so the other times the applicant picked they must work so now the respondent doesn't want the applicant to have any summer vacation time? That seems backwards. A parent doesn't have to be there 100% of the time to parent. What if the respondent made arrangements to be able to see the child? What if they made arrangements for extended family to spend some time with the child? It appears the respondent is trying to suck and blow at the same time. Picked access first but now doesn't want the other parent to have any vacation time?

One of two options...

1- the applicant gives up some of the vacation time so the respondent can spend some summer time with the child and the applicant picks a different week out of the three chosen

2- the applicant keeps the weeks chosen and stops trying to control the respondents parenting time

I am sure there are many times the applicant has he child and is not 100% available... school? Sleepovers at friends/family? To me this seems like an unenforceable clause and if it went to court would be removed from the agreement.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote