Reasonable child access for a 3 year old

[nsiceman]

Hello, this is my first post. My daughter lives in NS and her husband lives in Manitoba but works in Alta usually 3 weeks on and one week off. They separated 2 years ago. One child turning 3 years of age in April 2012. Still fighting over reasonable child care access and cost. His income $150,000, her income $22,000. She thinks 4 visits a year to Manitoba is reasonable due to age of child. Most visits are 10-12 days. He wants visits every 2 months for 7-10 days. He flies to NS to pickup and she flies to Manitoba to return as child cannot travel alone. She feels that if spouse really wanted to see child more often then he could come to NS to reduce costs and have less disruption to child's routine. So she doesn't mind monthly or every second month visits but just no more than 4 in Manitoba. She also understands that as child gets older this will change and understands that longer visits will be normal in summer vacations, Christmas and that type of thing. The main question is what is reasonable for a child that isn't even 3 years old.

[HammerDad]

There are 1y/o that do 50/50. So I can't see why a near 3y/o wouldn't be able to handle being with the NCP every other month.

To be honest, shorter and more frequent parenting time would probably be in the childs best interests. Numerous studies have shown that in order to build proper bonding, frequent and consistant contact with the parents is highly recommended.

Of course she would believe that if he "really wanted to see child more often then he could come to NS to reduce costs and have less disruption to child's routine", because that is in her best interests. The reality is, his job doesn't provide for that ability and if she expects him to pay c/s based on his current income, he is going to have to work where he is.

Personally, I think having the shorter, yet more frequent time with the NCP will help facilitate the childs relationship. I don't see how having longer time spaced further apart helps the child as they lose that familiarity and it would be more likely to cause the child distress.

[CCB]

Hmmm...that's a tough one. I don't know what everyone else feels, but I think frequent, shorter visits are better at such a young age.

[mcdreamy]

Who moved?
Was the relationship in NS, child born, and then the NCP moved out west? Or was the relationship in Alberta, and the CP moved home to NS after the child was born?

[nsiceman]

The official residence was Manitoba when she moved to NS 2 yrs ago. The father only lives there when he has the child at his parent's home. He travels elsewhere on his time off if he doesn't have his child. So he has no home of his own anywhere. One of the issues with every 2 months is that both parents have to make return trips to Manitoba to either pick up and return and the cost involved. He would like the costs split 50/50. The child communicates by Skype 2-3 times a week with father now evn though the mother initiates this. She does also find that there is also a 3-4 day adjustment period after each visit.

[HammerDad]

More frequent and shorter times would likely help with the adjustment periods.

Since she was the one responsible for removing the child from the jurisdiction, she should generally be the one to:

a. bear the burden of the costs associated with exercising the NCP's parenting time; or

b. be waving c/s in lieu of NCP bearing the costs of exercising their parenting time.

The reasoning for this is, why should the person who didn't move be adversely affected (either in costs or time) by the other parents decision to relocate? If he moved away from Manitoba and she remained, he would be responsible for the costs, and so it is only fair in this case that she choose one of the options above due to her decision to relocate with the child.

But yeah, as the child gets older and in school, his parenting time will likely shorten more during the school year. What concessions is she willing to make when that happens? These are things that should be discussed and worked out now before they become immediate issues.

[dinkyface]

Originally Posted by nsiceman

One child turning 3 years of age in April 2012. ... he could come to NS to reduce costs and have less disruption to child's routine. So she doesn't mind monthly or every second month visits but just no more than 4 in Manitoba.

In Sept 2013 (in 1.5 years) the child will be starting JK, so this whole argument is about 2 or 3 trips i.e. 2-3 more flights for him and 2-3 more flights for her (or 4 more flights for him). Or about $1400-$2100 in total.

She wants the 2 extra visits to occur in her hometown because ... it will minimize disruption. So logically she is claiming that the flights themselves (not the visits) are causing disruption.
My toddler LOVES flying, I'm assuming your GD also does, so doubtful that the flight itself is causing disruption - other than from new experiences/excitement.

She wants the 2 extra visits to occur in her hometown because ... it will minimize costs. Well, sure, it will minimize HER costs (and increase his ... in addition to the flights, he would also need to find accomodations in NS for the visit).

She is pulling in $37K tax free (22K income - no tax due to credits, plus $15K CS). An extra $1400 per year should not be a big burden.

His net income is $150K - $60K tax - $15K CS = $75K.

Access costs could be split proportionally i.e. 33% - 67%. Meaning he would pay for 4/6 flights, and she would pay for 2/6 flights. That corresponds to him covering the cost of the extra 2 accesses.

I think your best chance at resolving this would be to argue that the access costs should be more proportional to net income. Disruption/schedule are all blah-blah arguments (inconsequential).

As stated earlier though, the main objection to this would be that she was the one to remove the child from the jurisdiction. So it would be reasonable that HE should not have to bear the increase in access costs.

[nsiceman]

Thanks for all the responses to date. Definitely getting a better feel that maybe the every 2 months is not a bad situation for the child. Our opinion was this was too much travel and disruption but the views here say otherwise. Thanks for that. Now for the second part relating to costs. Father actually makes $120,000 plus $30,000 tax-free living allowance. And has no rent or mortgage payments at this time. The mother net pay per month is about $2800 including c/s with $1200 just being rent payment. Nice apt but not extravagant. Is it fair that she pay 1/3 or 1/2 of these costs as some of you suggest. She barely gets by each month and extra travel costs would be a huge burden. Do the courts take this into account?

[HammerDad]

To flip this around.....the burden of the travel costs were caused by her. Why should he have to pay because she moved?

The matrimonial home/residence was in Manitoba. She moved from Manitoba with the child. While it may have been in the child's best interests to move (no need for reasoning as now it is irrelevent), it is only fair that she bear a large part of the burden of the cost due to her decision.

From my reading majority the courts take 2 positions on this when the custodial parent moves:

1. the CP pays all or a good portion of the costs of transportation; or

2. waves CS or a portion of CS significant enough to mitigate the costs associated with the NCP exercising their parenting time.

In some cases, where the NCP is wealthy for instance, the courts may order a slightly reduced amount of c/s (in this case maybe $200-400 a month reduction) to offset the costs of NCP parenting time. If it goes to court, it is kind of a crap shoot though. If NCP gets a good lawyer, they stand a good chance of reduced c/s.

I don't know what status quo has been, whether NCP has paid the childs ticket both ways already, but it may make a difference. If he is paying for the ticket and it is just her having to pay for her own to get the child, a judge is likely to keep this arrangement.

[dinkyface]

Harshness coming ...

She is making 22K because she either does not have the skills or desire to make more money. This is life. She can either accept that her standard of living will suck, or try harder. Expecting someone else to pick up the slack is not reasonable.