Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/)
-   Divorce & Family Law (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f3/)
-   -   Question about Access and Agreement (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f3/question-about-access-agreement-19382/)

blendedinsanity 09-28-2015 10:32 AM

Question about Access and Agreement
 
Hi everyone, unfortunately my partner's ex did not send my step-son for access this weekend. Then yesterday he got an email stating that the reason that she did not send him was because she could not afford it. Their agreement states that she will send him down for access and my partner will pay for him to go home. He comes by Via train. She stated that she would not be paying for him to come to any access between now and the case conference.

My partner's schedule is weird he works 5 days on and 4 days off so he doesn't have regular every other weekend access - their agreement states that he's entitled to have their son Friday to Sunday when he's not working and if the parties cannot come to an agreement about the dates then he's entitled to a minimum of 2 weekends a month. He hasn't had access since the last weekend in August because of the way his schedule works and he's also supposed to have him this upcoming weekend.

He responded to her and asked if she could send him by Go train and then he would pay the fare both ways since it would work out to about the same amount as one way on the Via. She said no. He replied and said he would pick their son up and she said no she doesn't want him near their property and that the only way she will send him is if he pays for both ways on the Via. Then she added that if he pays for both ways he's showing that he can afford it while she can't and therefore she will be asking that their agreement be changed and that he pay for both ways all the time.

So our question is can he deal with this issue at the Case Conference even though its not something that was mentioned in the original paperwork? He's going to pay for him to come both ways this weekend and he has one more access before the case conference, but we just weren't sure if he can raise a completely new issue or not.

Thank you.

Rioe 09-28-2015 03:16 PM

I'd be extremely tempted to pay for the arrival ticket, and then keep the child because of being too broke to cover the ex's responsibility to pay for the return ticket!That's the exact thing she's doing, only in reverse. If she wants the child back, she's just going to have to budget better, or come get him herself.Why do they live so far apart? Who moved away originally?

stripes 09-28-2015 03:31 PM

I would not worry about her bringing this up at case conference. It sounds pretty straightforward to me: Mom told Dad she didn't have the money to send Kid by Via, Dad came up with reasonable alternatives that both he and Mom can afford, taking into account both their financial situations, Mom refused all of them. Mom is basically holding Kid hostage until Dad agrees to deviate from their signed agreement, so that she can use this to leverage a change to the agreement that saves her money.

You can't use access to Kid to try to force Dad to deviate from a signed agreement like that. Mom is clearly in the wrong, and I predict she will have her head handed to her if she tries to change the transport clause at a case conference.

blendedinsanity 09-28-2015 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rioe (Post 200027)
I'd be extremely tempted to pay for the arrival ticket, and then keep the child because of being too broke to cover the ex's responsibility to pay for the return ticket!That's the exact thing she's doing, only in reverse. If she wants the child back, she's just going to have to budget better, or come get him herself.Why do they live so far apart? Who moved away originally?

She moved away. She purchased a home 95 minutes away and then informed my partner after the papers were signed. He did a motion to stop the move unless steps were taken to ensure his access remained the same and then they worked out the arrangement where she would pay down and he would pay back. Shortly after that one was worked out and done (there were a few other issues too) she filed this motion to change to sole custody.

Stripes - we were more worried about whether he could bring it up at the case conference to force her to follow the agreement and send him. She had a lawyer when the agreement was signed and she admitted he told her she wouldn't do well in court because she purchased the home before informing dad and they had joint custody so she should settle before it got to a judge. Hopefully that warning from her previous lawyer (she's self rep now) will come back to her.

arabian 09-28-2015 09:44 PM

She has money to purchase a home and to pay for lawyers but no money to put her kid on the train and obey an access agreement.

It never ceases to amaze me at how stupid people can be.

Just keep documenting everything.

I'd pay the money so the kid can see his Dad. Not the kid's fault.
Is there some way the kid could let Dad know when this happens again so Dad can make sure kid gets on train and comes for the visit?

Courts tend to favor the more reasonable parent I think.

blendedinsanity 09-28-2015 11:55 PM

Arabian - he talked to his son and offered to pay and his son was confused and said he thought dad cancelled access because he was busy. So far it looks like she's going to send him this weekend since my partner bought the ticket and emailed it to her but she has cancelled at the last minute several times so who knows... She emailed and said she knew he would buy the ticket so she doesn't know why he went through all the aggravation of offering Go and pick-up/drop-off and this is more reason that she needs sole custody so she can call the shots. She's obviously very confident she's going to win because why else would you put all this in writing?

arabian 09-29-2015 12:16 AM

how old is the kid? Maybe an inexpensive cell phone for him is in order so he can call his Dad?

HammerDad 09-29-2015 10:22 AM

Save her emails. They reek of manipulation and are self-serving. Your partner offering cheap alternatives is not unreasonable. Neither is offering to pick up the child.

This would be more evidence of why she should not have sole custody as she created the problem by moving away, and now is attempting to manipulate the situation claiming lack of funds when she previously agreed to pay. Her stating that she knew he would purchase the tickets is further proof that she created the problem with the intent of getting this result.

IMO, her emails are gold for your partner and should be included as evidence in any challenge to her requests for sole custody/parenting time schedule changes.

blendedinsanity 09-29-2015 11:09 AM

Well this morning he's not coming again. She emailed and said their son was supposed to spend the weekend with her parents (no he wasn't as per their agreement he gave her this date a couple months ago) and she will only send him if my partner agrees to pay for him to take the via another weekend to visit HER family. She said she wants him to purchase the ticket before she puts their son on the via so he won't back out.

HammerDad 09-29-2015 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blendedinsanity (Post 200058)
Well this morning he's not coming again. She emailed and said their son was supposed to spend the weekend with her parents (no he wasn't as per their agreement he gave her this date a couple months ago) and she will only send him if my partner agrees to pay for him to take the via another weekend to visit HER family. She said she wants him to purchase the ticket before she puts their son on the via so he won't back out.

Do you have a lawyer? If so, make sure these emails are sent to them as they are outright GOLD!!!

I would reply to the ex that they were informed on (X date) that the child was to be with dad for his parenting time this weekend in accordance with the agreement. That it is not his issue that the ex forgot, or otherwise made plans for the child to be somewhere else when the child was supposed to be with dad.

That he intends to exercise his parenting time with the child as prescribed, and that should the child not be at the exchange point as stipulated, that they will deem it to be a unilateral denial of parenting time by her and will seek the appropriate remedy in court.

I would further state that he doesn't appreciate the ex's apparent attempts to blackmail and/or extort him with her recent demands attaching to him exercising his parenting time. That the agreement is clear with what each party must do, and that he expects her to adhere to the agreement as provided.

She doesn't get to create a problem solely for the purpose of forcing Dad into agreeing to something new that is only for her benefit. That is called acting in bad faith and otherwise being unreasonable. She would be crucified in court if a judge sees these emails.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0