Ex reads `Divorce Order` to kids

[MommaBear73]

Kids came home today from weekend at exs and older two (15 and 13) were upset and told me that the ex took them aside this weekend, pulled some papers he said was our divorce order and read to them a part that said until they were 16 they have no choice in visitation regardless if something comes up here at home (work, friends, girlfriends etc) He then told them if they don`t go when they are supposed to they are breaking the law and I would go to jail for contempt. No where in our divorce order does it say any such thing. Then he tells them when they`re 18 hes taking them out for some beers and he`ll let them read the whole thing as well as hes going to tell them some horrible stories about me. Wtf?
Am I wrong in thinking hes lost his marbles? The Judge at our case conference even told him as the kids are older they do have a say and he needs to be more flexible. *sigh* Poor monkeys
Should I do anything about it, or chalk it up to just one more thing for the `Exs Nonsense Box'

[standing on the sidelines]

just remind them the drinking age is 19. As for letting them read the divorce papers and listening to the horrible stories about you. Well they have the choice to not read and to walk out of wherever they are when he starts that type of nonsense at that age.

As much as I feel kids should not be involved in the divorce matters between their parents, your ex opened that door now. Is there a way to show the kids that is not what it says in the papers without showing them it all?? That way it proves to them what it says exactly and that dad is just stretching the turth a bit?

[HammerDad]

She lives in the "Ottawa Area" and the drinking age in Quebec (probably about 20-30 minute drive for them) is 18.

He is right about them not having a choice on whether or not they choose to exercise their parenting time. Yes, he should be flexible, as the kids are at ages where their parents are not their priority. But while there is an standing court order, they are supposed to go. If they want to do something else, they should ask him and let him decide.

If they have homework, there is no reason they can't do it at his house. Same thing with going out to see friends or to work. They can ask him to drop them off and pick them up etc. If he says no, all he will do is show his true colours. For work, he should be extremely accomodating in getting them back and forth etc.

Reading the order to the kids is bad form and possibly alienation. Your response should be that he shouldn't be involving the kids in adult matters and that you don't agree with him doing so.

[TLCRN]

It was clear at our trial, that the children even of adult age who are attending post secondary education, are not to be involved in Court proceedings, be reading court documents, or discussing court issues. These are between the parents. As tempting as it may sound, do not show the children divorce papers, it is not fair to them.
What is a child at 13, 15 or any age suppose to think when being read or shown divorce papers? there is absolutely no need for this, and agreed with HammerDad, they are suppose to go, but at that age it's not always easy. Their reason for not wanting to go might be a big deal/valid reason to them which is not to us as adults. Legally, are they not old enough to make their own decision especially at 15?

If he wants to take them for a beer, it doesn't matter what age they are 17, 18, 19, they are old enough to tell their father "yes" or "no" they want to drink. Reality is: kids will drink if they want regardless the age and if parents agree or not. There is a will, there is a way.
Perhaps it was a joke as a lot of dads will say this to their kids as the "manly" thing to say when they reach the age of 18. Don't worry about it, still 3 years to go.

[Tayken]

This is 100% "Hostile Aggressive Parenting" (HAP) at its prime:

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/hap2004.pdf

Hostile-Aggressive Parenting (HAP) is defined as: A general pattern of behaviour, actions or decision-making of a person (usually a parent or guardian) that either directly or indirectly;

1) creates undue difficulties or interference in the relationship of a child with another person (usually a parent or guardian) involved with the parenting and/or rearing of the child and/or,

2) promotes or maintains an unwarranted unfairness or inequality in the parenting arrangements between a child’s parents and/or guardians and/or,

3) promotes ongoing and unnecessary conflict between parents and/or guardians which adversely affects the parenting, well-being and
rearing of a child.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[TLCRN]

Tayken: are the Ontario Court Judge and the social workers from the family services agencies/schools/CAS social workers trainned to recognize PA and/or PA?

[Tayken]

Originally Posted by TLCRN

Tayken: are the Ontario Court Judge and the social workers from the family services agencies/schools/CAS social workers trainned to recognize PA and/or PA?

Personal opinion:

1) Judges - Some are. Some will see it. The judge needs to be in the family law system. So unless you are in a large jurisdiction (York, Peel, Durham or Toronto) you are not going to find many if any at all.

2) Social Workers - No. Social Workers are not psychologists nor are they properly trained in mental health issues. Social workers may be able to recognize the "social" aspect to the problem but, they do not have the training necessary (my opinion) to clinically recognize the resulting problems.

3) Schools - No.

4) CAS - No. Which is unfortunate as they are the one agency that should be leading experts on the problem.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

Originally Posted by TLCRN

Tayken: are the Ontario Court Judge and the social workers from the family services agencies/schools/CAS social workers trainned to recognize PA and/or PA?

Sorry forgot this very classic quote from Justice Quinn:

I point out that I am not concerned with “parental alienation” as a psychological or a psychiatric term. My reference to parental alienation is merely factual and reflects the ordinary dictionary meaning of the words: “parental” – “of, pertaining to, or in the nature of a parent”; “alienation” – “the act of estranging or state of estrangement in feeling or affection”: see The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

CanLII - 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII)

[MommaBear73]

The ex lives 5 hours west of us, he won't be taking them to Hull anytime soon. He should not be reading our divorce agreement to them, fake or not. The kids are not asking just to randomly stay home, what they wanted to know is if they have to work, or if they had something important come up can they stay home without it turning into a huge battle between me and the ex as he lives so far away its not like they can just go to his place after they're done work etc. According to the lawyers I spoke to and the Judge we had as they are older they do have a say and he needs to be more flexible. The kids love going to see their Dad, but are frustrated with the double standard. He has cancelled on them numerous times for many reasons and sees no problem with that. When he cancels he says it doesn't matter as it doesn't affect me. He's right, it doesn't affect me, but it does affect our boys. They have just as much right to see him as he has to see them.

[ddol1]

This is 100% "Hostile Aggressive Parenting" (HAP) at its prime:

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/hap2004.pdf

Hostile-Aggressive Parenting (HAP) is defined as: A general pattern of behaviour, actions or decision-making of a person (usually a parent or guardian) that either directly or indirectly;

1) creates undue difficulties or interference in the relationship of a child with another person (usually a parent or guardian) involved with the parenting and/or rearing of the child and/or,

2) promotes or maintains an unwarranted unfairness or inequality in the parenting arrangements between a child’s parents and/or guardians and/or,

3) promotes ongoing and unnecessary conflict between parents and/or guardians which adversely affects the parenting, well-being and
rearing of a child.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Thank you Tayken,
I thought for a long time that was i paranoid, delusional or just plain going crazy. Not planed but i read the document this evening and my jaw hit the floor so many times. Then there was the section that made this so real.....

Jekyll & Hyde nature - vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target sees both sides.

My children are older but that has not lessened the real damage in my eyes. I was just at the point of giving up for the sake of my children - and my self-preservation. Selfish yes, but the fact remains that what goes on here is so blantantly obvious that the children have been conditioned in such a short period of time. They do not even pick up on the really big things, then the lies and fabrications, her continual envolvement of the children in the divorce details, more lies and - where there should be no envolvement at all. It is like this is just part of their lives and now treat me as an outsider. This is what hurts the most.

I am not going crazy after all.