Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Parenting Issues

Parenting Issues This forum is for discussing any of the parenting issues involved in your divorce, including parenting of step-children.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2005, 11:27 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2
April W. is on a distinguished road
Unhappy 50/50 Custody

I'm currently going through a long and drawn out divorce and 1.5 years later...the Child Custody issue has not been finalized. I have one child under 12 and currently he is living with a shared custody arrangement. I have him 70% of the time and the Interim order was arranged as per my shift work schedule. Since June 2004 it has been status quo. However, my child's father insists on 50/50 custody. In turn my child states they want the same. We are talking about alternating weekly. Sometime in the summer I saw a program where this type of arrangement was proven not to work for the child if the parents did not get along and I mean...do not get along. One reason was that the parents could not make decisions in the best interest of the child because the hatred for both got in the way. It was also known to cause the child not to have a sense of being and not knowing where home was. I would agree to such an arrangement if my ex-husband had the best interest of the child in mind but this is not the case. Rather the child is used as a tool for revenge. Has anyone experienced this? Any advise for court?
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-29-2005, 08:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 860
Grace has a spectacular aura aboutGrace has a spectacular aura about
Default

So you have joint custody, 70-30 access? If this has been the status quo for 1.5 years, it will most likely stay the same, if you go to court.

As for your ex using your child as revenge. This cannot continue. You have to try to find alternative methods to communicate with your ex, without involving the child. E-mails, a communication log, third party drop offs & pick ups, anything to keep him out of the line of fire.

Have you tried councelling, even if the ex won't participate, you and your child will benefit.

When I first separated, I was so hurt, betrayed, angry that I said some thing in front of my children, that I now regret.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-29-2005, 10:14 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2
April W. is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks for the response. If the access remains as status quo then I could live with that because I will remain as the primary and care and control. I do have my child in councelling every two weeks and it seems to be helping however, my ex doesn't think that our child needs it so he refuses to take him when he has his access time.

I realize that no one can stop someone from being a complete jerk and using the child as a tool of manipulation...maybe that's a sign that the adult need help.
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2005, 12:32 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1
Grechan is on a distinguished road
Default

I think that the key thing to keep in mind in this case is how the child is going to view the contested issue...

Look at it this way. Basically, you are saying that you do not want to increase your contact from 30% of the time to 50% of the time. The same goes for the father who seems to want to decrease his contact with the child from 70% to 50%.

The reality of the situation is of course not this callous, but you need to make sure that whatever arrangement is reached that the child is completely aware of why exactly why custody was assigned in the way it was.

As for whether or not a change is good/bad... I would suggest talking with the child and if he/she wants to spend more time with you to try and make it work. It might be difficult, but it is very important.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2005, 09:04 PM
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

April,

Sounds like you have a difficult situation on your hands.

You have an interim order for 70-30 shared custody regime. I am not sure how long its been in effect.

Shared custody is defined as equal sharing of time.

Joint Custody is defined as such as your current situation where the child spends more time with one parent. However each parent can make decisions in regards to the child.

Parallel Parenting is defined that the parent will make decisions for the child when the child is its its care and also responsibilities can be divided
such as schooling, medical, religious etc

The onus will be on your x to prove that a 50-50 shared time regime will be in the child's best interest. I suspect some weight would be given to the voice of the child considering the age.

Joint Custody has been ordered in situations to prevent parential alienation and for other reasons. You do have a staus quo situation on your hands but claim there has been problems. What the courts will see is all of a sudden these problems come to light when they are all of a sudden dealing with a request for more access. They will see you never filled a motion to change the status quo and they would question why you haven't in light of the problems. Timing is everything and how your side is expressed.

The courts may grant the increase, they may not. They may order that the office of the children's law to be involved to get the views of the child.

They would consider proximity of residences and how the child's schooling would be effected etc with the increase in time. The court's objective is to maximize contact subject to the best interest of the child here and now and forever into the future.

You could argue that the other parent wants 50% time is to get out of child support obligation however this often fails nowadays because they could counter this argument and say you want 70-30 to collect child support.

I will look up some case law that I know where the courts ordered joint custody contrary to having virtually no communication and no - co-operation and post it in a subsequent link.
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2005, 11:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 860
Grace has a spectacular aura aboutGrace has a spectacular aura about
Default

Logicalvelocity,

Besides the CanL11 website, is there any other sites to look up case law?

Thanks
Grace
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2005, 11:18 PM
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

April,

Some jurisprudence on joint custody mostly in Ontario

I posted links to the cases I could find at canlaw:


Kaemmle v. Jewson (1993), 50 R.F.L. (3d) 70,

Stewart-Croll v. Croll (1996), 24 R.F.L. (4th) 219, 113 Man. R. (2d) 60, 131 W.A.C. 60,

Mol v. Mol (1997), 40 O.T.C. 1, [1997] O.J. No. 4060, (Ont. Gen. Div.)

Waugh v. Waugh (1998), 42 R.F.L. (4th) 415, [1998] O.J. No. 4041 (Ont. Gen. Div. Oct 01, 1998),

Dagg v. Pereira (2000), 12 R.F.L. (5th) 325, [2000] O.J. No. 4450, (Ont. S.C.J.),

McDonald v. McDonald - 2000 Ontario

South v. Tichelaar (2001), 20 R.F.L. (5th) 175, [2001] O.J. No. 2823,

R. (C.) v. A. (I.) 2001 WL 447488 (Ont. S.C.J.), 104 A.C.W.S. (3d) 705, [2001] O.J. No. 1053,

Desouza v. Desouza – 2002 WL 36331 (Ont. C.J.),

Anderson v. Wilkins –2002 WL 1603430 (Ont. S.C.J.), 115 A.C.W.S. (3d) 96, [2002] O.J. No. 2724,

M. (T.J.) v. M. (P.G.) – 25 R.F.L. (5th) 78, (Ont. S.C.J.),

Cox v. Stephen (2002), 30 R.F.L. (5th) 54, [2002] O.T.C. 499, [2002] O.J. No. 2762, (Ont. S.C.J.); affirmed at

Cox v. Stephen (2003), 179 O.A.C. 45, 47 R.F.L. (5th) 1, [2003] O.J. No. 4371, (Ont. C.A.).
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/20...onca10838.html

Hartlen v. Hartlen (2002), 2002 WL 42066 (Ont. S.C.J.),

Huffman v Kuffner, 2003 SKQB 208, [2003] S.J. No. 292 (Sask. Q.B. May 02, 2003),

Sidky v. Sidky (2005), [2005] W.D.F.L. 2496, [2005] W.D.F.L. 2489,

D.R.H., v. K.B.K (2003) (Ont. C.J.)
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/oncj/20...oncj10013.html

HEWAT v. HEWAT(2003) (Ont. S.C.J)
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc12707.html

FARQUHARSON-MYERS v MYERS (2003) (Ont. S.C.J.)
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc12922.html

SUKHU v. HAMID (2003)
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc12841.html

LEFEBVRE v. LEFEBVRE (2002) (OCA)
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/20...onca10596.html

Szczecina v. Piatek, 2003 CanLII 2255 (ON S.C.)
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc12842.html

Sellick v. Bollert (2004), 130 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1164, [2004] O.J. No. 2022,
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc11218.html

Z. (A.) v. W. (J.) 2004 ONCJ 157, 11 R.F.L. (6th) 180,
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/oncj/2004/2004oncj157.html

Papp v. Hunter (2004) (Ont S.C.J)
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc10697.html

BERNARDI v. BERNARDI (2005) (Ont. S.C.J.)
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc14521.html

To summarize, from a lot of these cases, there was poor communication and co-operation between the parents. However, Joint-shared Custody regimes were ordered as it was determined to be in the best interest of the child.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2005, 11:35 PM
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

Grace,

Can law is the only site that I know of that has free viewing of collections of case law.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2005, 12:51 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 860
Grace has a spectacular aura aboutGrace has a spectacular aura about
Default

Logicalvelocity,

I find the Can Law site very useful, although I feel for the litigants that now have to share with the public their "dirty laundry", not to mention how their children would feel to know this information is available online.

Do you know of any reputable sites, that charge a fee, and open to the "non lawyer" that would be useful to anyone that wishes to represent themselves.

Thanks so much,
Grace
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2005, 01:33 AM
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

Grace,

Most judicial records are available to the public. Additionally, anyone can attend a hearing etc unless the judge orders otherwise.

All you need is a case name or file number and the registar will allow you to view these records unless there is a publication ban issued by the judge. You can also make photocopies of these files.

One concern I would have is since these records are available to the public, anyone in general, makes you really wonder about privacy and financial information such as Itax returns etc are attached to financial statements.

Is this a really good idea, considering all the identity theft that goes on nowadays. Those financial statements ask for account numbers etc.

Best to put some XXXXX is the account numbers for privacy purposes or block out your SIN number on itax returns and assessments.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 PM.