View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-08-2017, 02:50 PM
Doctor Martins Doctor Martins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 84
Doctor Martins is on a distinguished road
Default

J) JURISPRUDENCE IN SUPPORT OF EQUAL TIME SHARING PARALLEL PARENTING TRANSITIONING TO SHARED PARENTING ARRANGEMENT

12) Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 7476

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...1onsc7476.html (Exhibit “C”)

SUCCESS
*
5.** ** The Respondent was overwhelmingly successful.* When the trial started in June 2011, the Applicant had temporary residency of the now almost three year old child, and the Respondent had very limited non-overnight access.* The Applicant sought a sole custody order in her favour, with modestly liberalized access to the Respondent.* Her position was supported by a s.112 report prepared by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).*
6.** ** At the commencement of the trial the Respondent submitted a comprehensive parallel parenting plan which would have quickly evolved into equal time sharing, with mechanisms to deal with parental decisions and dispute resolution on an out of court basis.* In the alternative – if parallel parenting was not viable – the Respondent sought sole custody in his favour, again with an equal time sharing arrangement.
7.** ** In my judgment I concluded the Respondent father had exemplary parenting skills; the Applicant unilaterally terminated a viable co-parenting arrangement when the child was 9 months old; she lied at the motions stage to marginalize the Respondent and create a self-serving status quo; she misled the OCL investigator (who in turn did a superficial investigation which simply rubber stamped the status quo); she engaged in alienating behaviours to shut the Respondent out of the child’s life; she demonstrated questionable decision making in vitally important areas such as the child’s health and education; and she clearly demonstrated that she was unprepared to promote meaningful and beneficial contact between father and son.
8.** ** As a result, the Respondent’s alternate position prevailed at trial:* sole custody to the father, with gradually evolving equal time-sharing. *Child support was not in issue at trial, but may need to be further addressed to reflect the evolving shared parenting arrangements.

*
K) RELOCATING CLOSER TO APPLICANT

13) We have even made plans to move closer for when _________ goes to school so that we can help with taking her to and from school________

L) PROPOSED COMPROMISE

14) I suggest that since my location has been brought up as an issue for shared parenting, that a reasonable middle ground would be that shared parenting (eg. in a week-about manner) be conditional on myself moving to _________. Additionally since the OCL could take several months (current completion of assessment time is a minimum of 9 months, once the case has been assigned) then it is reasonable that the parties transition to Shared Parenting and/or parallel parenting with equal time share upon my move to _________. Since only a judge can make decisions whereas the OCL can make recommendations I feel that it is reasonable that a judge can revaluate the parenting situation at that time and make any necessary changes at that time to an order.

M) JURISPRUDENCE ON DETAILED PARALLEL PARENTING PLAN EVOLVING TO EQUAL TIME SHARE AND CUSTODY SHARE

15) Again referring to Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 7476 Exhibit “” There is extensive jurisprudence on these matters: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...1onsc6451.html (Exhibit “D”)

Including a detailed breakdown of a Parallel Parenting with equal Custody and Time Share, all broken down detailed jurisprudence with a comprehensive order resulting from extensive case law assumptions.

N) PROPOSED DETAILED PARENTING PLAN IN HIGH CONFLICT SITUATION

16) I find Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 7476 similar to our case. The applicant mother currently has physical custody, I am seeking joint custody and shared parenting. The child is the same age and there is high conflict which requires a detailed outline. Additionally I find Justice A. Pazaratz’s ruling to be well thought out, based on case law in Ontario and Canada, up to date, fair and applicable. Based on this, I suggest a parenting plan almost identical when it comes to parenting and custody. Specifically with regards to the following parts: 566-567, 568 (as it currently stands in our interim order), 569 (the Wizard app proposed or free alternative), 570-
585, 588-589, 591-595, 598. Using this order as a case study, I propose the following:

a) By the time _________ becomes involved in full-day attendance in school (anticipated to be September 2018), the parties shall have equal time with the child.* There shall be a presumption that this shall be on an alternating week basis, with a mid-week visit with the opposite parent.* In making future residential arrangements, both parties should be mindful of the benefit of residing in fairly close proximity to one another, to facilitate the desired 50-50 timesharing.** In any event, the child’s ordinary residence shall not be relocated outside of _________ (including its suburbs within the municipal boundary) without the written consent of both parties or further order of the court.

b) *** Summers: Commencing the summer of 2018, the parties shall have alternate weeks during the summer..*

c)** ** Christmas: in even numbered years the child shall be with the Applicant from December 24 1:00 p.m. to December 25 3:00 p.m. and with the Respondent December 25 3:00 p.m. to December 26 1:00 p.m.* In odd years this shall be reversed.* Whichever parent did not have Christmas Eve overnight with the child, shall have December 31 1:00 p.m. to January 1st 3:00 p.m.

d)** ** ** March Break:* Once _________ has commenced even part-time school, if her March break is two weeks long the ordinary access schedule shall prevail.** If it is only one week, then the total number of days (including weekends) shall be divided equally.*

e)** ** Easter Weekend:* The child shall be with the Applicant Thursday 5:00 p.m. to Saturday 7:00 p.m. in even numbered years, and with the Respondent Saturday 7:00 p.m. to Monday 7:00 p.m.** In odd numbered years, this shall be reversed.*

f)* ** Father’s Day/Mother’s Day:* Irrespective of any other scheduling, the child shall always be with the Applicant on Mother’s Day from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and with the Respondent on Father’s Day from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

g)* ** ** Child’s Birthday:* If the ordinary schedule would result in the child being with one party during the entire day on his birthday, the other party shall have the option of having the child on their choice of either the previous day or the following day from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

h)** ** ** Telephone Access:* If one of the parties will have _________ for two or more overnights in a row, on the second, forth, and sixth overnight, that party shall initiate _________ having telephone access to the other party at approximately 8:00 p.m., for at least five minutes.

I) Right of First Refusal:* If parent has to work 12 hours or more the other parent gets first right of refusal to watch _________ over any other party.

J) Regular Communications:* Unless both parties agree otherwise in writing, all ordinary communications shall be in writing using the Our Family Wizard website (or similar application such as various free versions).** If that website is no longer available, the parties shall use e-mail.*
Reply With Quote