Thread: How to proceed
View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2006, 09:01 PM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,944
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

Another case interim motion

Stewart-Croll v. Croll - 1996

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Factors governing award of interim custody -- Status quo.

The parties separated six months after the birth of their child. The child, now almost aged 2, had remained in his mother's care ever since the separation, but the father had been exercising access every second weekend when he worked weekdays, and two days per week when he worked weekends. The mother moved to a town 45 minutes away to live with her parents. The father remained in the matrimonial home. The father grossed $2,692 per month. The mother grossed $2,168 per month. She anticipated that if she moved out of her parents' home, she would be in a deficit position of $900 per month. The child care costs alone were $357. The father had been paying $400 per month child support pursuant to an interim interim order, but he did not disclose that he received rental income over the summer, nor did he volunteer to pay increased child support when his income was increased by the rental income. The mother sought an order of sole custody and the father sought an order of joint custody.


Paragraph 5

On an interim basis, it is my view that there should not be an order of custody. However, in light of the fact that the mother has been the primary care giver of Dylan prior to and after the separation, common sense dictates that on an interim basis, this situation should not be disturbed. I am therefore satisfied that on an interim basis, it is in Dylan's best interests to remain in his mother's primary care and control.

and Paragraph 6 and 7 respectively

6 In considering the father's periods of care and control, I wish to ensure that the child have as much contact with each parent as possible. This becomes more complicated due to the 45 minute drive between Winnipeg and Carman. Fortunately, frequent and regular contact by the father is not impossible, due to his work schedule. Although the affidavit material did not set out the father's present work schedule, counsel agreed that I could take into consideration unsworn information that was presented respecting his present schedule. When he works weekdays, the father works shifts from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. This arrangement will be in place until spring of 1996. In addition, there will be some weekends when the father will be required to work.

7 I am therefore ordering that when the father is working weekdays, he will have care and control of the child every second weekend from Friday after day care to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. In addition, during the weeks when the father is working weekdays, the father will also have access to the child 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. When the father is working on the weekend, his periods of care and control will be three days during the week, the days to be chosen by the father. The father will have the choice as to whether or not he wishes to pick the child up at noon from the day care on the first day and/or drop the child off at the day care in the afternoon of the third day. This would be one way of avoiding the inevitable penalty imposed by the day care for missed days. In any event, the father will be responsible for any penalty imposed by the day care for missed days, while he is exercising his access.


The language in this endorsement is similar to Joint Parallel Parenting regime and endorsed the child's primary residence in the interim due to status quo.

It appears that both parties received a custody order of when the child is in theri respective care and control.

LV