Reasonable child access for a 3 year old

[CCB]

Thanks so much for the update. So glad to hear that everything went reasonably well for all parties involved.

[HammerDad]

Sounds like a satisfactory result for everyone!! IMO, probably the best result in the end also.

[billiechic]

Fair and reasonable is the way to go. You are arguing for a child, and nobody here has committed a crime. There is no need to punish anyone. At least that is my opinion.

So glad it finally worked out

[Canan]

The father can apply for "undue hardship" because of high access costs to see child. He'll win that.

Child support will not be waived to zero no matter who moved. It will be reduced. Not eliminated.

Courts usually want kids to go to both jurisdictions ie Manitoba and NS and may order that if it's in the best interests of the children. Some don't.

The fact is that lots of ppl move nowadays; you can't protect NCP from CP never moving ever. Read the case law. But typically reductions in CS happen and longer visits if it's age appropriate.

The bottom line is that NCP is usually expected by court to have access in both jurisdictions and will have child support reduced. The CP still needs $ for the child.

When you move away a long distance like in this situation, both NCP and CP will have some unhappiness. It's harder to see your child. That's the reality. Shorter more frequent visits are not possible because of the distance. But try to make it work.

IMO the shorter length visits are better in MN and NS but as the child grows make them longer. The child could eventually go out for July, spring holidays and EO Christmas or dad could also come.

[HammerDad]

Originally Posted by Canan

The father can apply for "undue hardship" because of high access costs to see child. He'll win that.

In this instance, the NCP makes approx $110k-$120k per year, with a $30k living allowance (according to OP). He would lose an undue hardship battle badly.

Child support will not be waived to zero no matter who moved. It will be reduced. Not eliminated.

I have read instances where the courts have reduced the NCP's C/S to nothing in order to compensate for increased travel costs caused by a CP moving. So it isn't unheard of.

[janedoe99]

OK, I haven't read all of the comments so I appologize if this has already been discussed but has anyone actually considered what it would be like at 3 years of age to fly to another province away from your rock (aka primary care giver)?? I remember being 7 and being absolutely traumatized being in another province away from my mother. Father's rights, mother's rights..but seriously it should depend on what that child is capable of handling. In my opinion that is too much for a little 3 year old. I think they should share costs of him flying to the child and spending visits there. I understand that the mother has moved but the child shouldn't be punished. They do recommend shorter frequent visits yet at that age prolonged visists away from primary caregiver are not recommended if the child is not extremely farmiliarized and sees them on a regular basis. I don't know, if I were the mother I would either push for a different arragement or I would move closer to the father. Infact I know if it were me..I'd move closer to the father if he wasn't willing to move. I couldn't imagine being that far away from a 3 year old if I were primary caregiver. Just my opinion.

[HammerDad]

Jane - you don't know the child, you only know your situation. In this case, it may be all the child knows and is comfortable.

It is a case by case scenario.