Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #101 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2017, 12:27 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Very interesting case: Gill v. Chiang, 2011 ONSC 6803

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...resultIndex=11
Quote:
“The original Award gave 65% of the access time to the Mother, together with custody, and 35% to the Father. This percentage has now been reduced to 60% to her and 40% to him. They cannot, says the Mother, seem to be able to make decisions together”.
Parties didn’t cooperate/communicate well at all. Very acrimonious.


Quote:
“The parties separated in July of 2006 and were divorced in June of 2009. The Father describes their relationship as “difficult, argumentative and unco-operative.” The Mother says that they still cannot have communications, “…without his threats and insults.”
Interestingly, much like another poster's case, the mom wrote in the affidavit:

Quote:
James stopped paying child support entirely and abruptly in April, 2010 and I believe that was for the sole purpose of putting pressure on me to agree to the parenting change that he was requesting, namely, that the residence schedule in the Arbitration Award of Linda Chodos be changed to a 50/50 or week on week off arrangement
Again, does ^^^ sound familiar?

OCL chimed in with:

Quote:
“Both children have been impacted by the separation and by the conflict between their parents. They are trying hard to keep out of the adult conflict but feel that they are often pulled in by both parents who do not always behave appropriately. They described examples where both parents have behaved in a way as to make them feel uncomfortable or have spoken to them about inappropriate adult matters that have placed them in the middle of their parents’ dispute.”
Both parents had weak points which is understandably, especially during the heat of separation. Both downplayed each other.

Mom felt that:

Quote:
“ The Mother’s position is that there has not been a material change in circumstances, which would lead to a variation of the Arbitration Award with respect to custody and access”.
She goes on to say:

Quote:
“The Mother sees no material change in circumstances, which would lead to a variation. She says that the Father is unable to set aside his own feelings about her and does nothing to foster her relationship with her. I have set out examples in these Reasons, which support the Mother’s position about the Father’s behaviour. That, in my view, does not mean that there has not been a material change in circumstances. While the Mother relies upon the Court’s findings in Reeves v. Reeves, 2001 CarswellOnt 277 (O.S.C.J.), I do not find it applicable in the circumstances of this case”
Judge...we can't communicate so I don't want to give him 50/50. (Wonder if it worked?)

The judge ruled in favour of the father's wish for 50/50, equal parenting.

“The following Orders shall issue for the reasons herein noted:


Quote:
1. The Order of Madam Justice Allen made July 2, 2009 shall be varied so that the child access provision under the Arbitration Award is changed from what is currently a 60:40 split between the Mother and the Father, to a week on/ week off commencing January 1, 2012.”
I get the material change here was the children’s wishes to be with their father more. But if you go back to another posters other thread, she states that it would be detrimental for the kids to lose time with dad .. that told me a lot. It told me that they enjoy spending time with him. It’s only a matter of time before they also express their wishes to see him more.

Aside from their wishes, there seems to be a lot of chatter here about how 50/50 will NOT be ordered if parents don’t get a long. This is just one case that debunks that myth.

I also note that mom tried to use the financial piece (dad stopped paying CS as a way to pressure 50/50). Notice how the judge didn’t buy it and granted 50/50?

Parents need to stop attacking one another. Some falsify e-mails and make up allegations .. some claim other parents don't know how to care for ADHD children, etc.

As you can see...judges don't care much for your subjective thoughts of your ex partner's ability to parent. You better have DUI's, police records, or any other form of significant evidence that shows an extreme inability to parent.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-11-2017 at 12:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #102 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2017, 12:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 228
PeacefulMoments is on a distinguished road
Default

While I am generally in favour of 50/50, I also think there may be some cases where it is not black and white. That is, so unfit as to have supervised versus parent of the year. Best interests of the children certainly is to have the support, love and maximum contact with each parent, however that may not always be a hard and fast 50/50.

A lack of police evidence or CAS abuse findings does not mean that spending 50 percent of time with a parent is the best thing for a child if there is a lot of bad parenting going on but not to the level of actual charges. There may be situations where having the majority of time with the more positive and stable environment is for the best while still maintaining contact and reasonable time with the other parent. The trouble is having actual criteria and proof of this when the parents don't agree. I still think 50/50 presumed at separation is a good starting point, just not that it is the end all and be all and the absolute best for the kids in all circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #103 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2017, 01:01 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,542
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeacefulMoments View Post
While I am generally in favour of 50/50, I also think there may be some cases where it is not black and white. That is, so unfit as to have supervised versus parent of the year. Best interests of the children certainly is to have the support, love and maximum contact with each parent, however that may not always be a hard and fast 50/50.

A lack of police evidence or CAS abuse findings does not mean that spending 50 percent of time with a parent is the best thing for a child if there is a lot of bad parenting going on but not to the level of actual charges. There may be situations where having the majority of time with the more positive and stable environment is for the best while still maintaining contact and reasonable time with the other parent. The trouble is having actual criteria and proof of this when the parents don't agree. I still think 50/50 presumed at separation is a good starting point, just not that it is the end all and be all and the absolute best for the kids in all circumstances.
It's never black and white. There will always be these grey areas. That's why we have lawyers to work through these grey areas. But then again, we wouldn't have lawyers in a perfect world.
Reply With Quote
  #104 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2017, 01:41 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeacefulMoments View Post
While I am generally in favour of 50/50, I also think there may be some cases where it is not black and white. That is, so unfit as to have supervised versus parent of the year. Best interests of the children certainly is to have the support, love and maximum contact with each parent, however that may not always be a hard and fast 50/50.
Totally agree. I've always mainained that maximum contact and 50/50 is not for everybody and not absolute. But I firmly believe that the CLRA's Rule 24(4) (past conduct/violence) need to be thoroughly examined in conjunction with Rule 22(2).

If a parent is seeking 50/50 and has a clean record, not an addict, shows an extreme amount of effort, is already heavily involved in the child life and there are no other extenuating factors that would inhibit a healthy equal relationship.....then why not?

Quote:
The trouble is having actual criteria and proof of this when the parents don't agree.
You bet. Thats' the precise reason I started the thread. To discuss the "criteria" a parent uses to deny another loving parents equal relationship. Some I totally agree with ... other's not so much.

When there's a parent (mom or dad) who's been there for many years and is almost at 50/50 and meets all the criteria of 24(4) (abuse, addictions, etc) and simply wants the last few percent of time for an equal relationship ... we need to get rid of our "He's only doing it for money" .. or "He cant properly give meds"...or "our kids calls my ex's g/f mom", or "We just can't get along".

These are highly subjective predictions and put downs that don't satisfy criteria to deny an equal relationship .. at least in my opinion.

If a parent is already heavily involved in a child's life and just wants that equal relationship, is not an axe murderer and comes with a great parenting plan and sense of motivation to effectively parent ...... it really shouldn't matter what the other parent thinks.

Quote:
I still think 50/50 presumed at separation is a good starting point, just not that it is the end all and be all and the absolute best for the kids in all circumstances.
I agree 100%^ PM. There ARE many situations where 50/50 doesn't work. TOTALLY agree. Gawd I hope posters don't think I'm saying 50/50 is for everybody. lol That would be so silly.

This thread is to get a better understanding of that "CRITERIA" parents use to deny equal relationships. Is the criteria good enough to deny it? Do you have evidence contradicting CLRA's criteria for "ability to act as a parent" 24(4)?

Unfortunately, I'm observing a lot of "No's to all those q's and parents are relying on their subjective opinions of their ex's parenting ability.....often assuming that their ex can not adequately parent, which in many cases is the furthest from the truth.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-11-2017 at 01:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #105 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:00 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 57
lulubuttons is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
You don't want to pay any child support. Show's the type of parent you are.

I suggest you stop using your child a pawn in a chess game or a piece in a monopoly game. It's not a game and it's not a business. It's a child's life. I would have left you for dad and never looked back if I was your child and you were my mom. I love my dad and would love to have more time with him, even if it's just an extra 5%, but you keep thinking that he just wants more time with me to lower his child support. I'm now caught in this conflict that is going to give me depression, anxiety, and a stream of other problems because you want me all to your self. I love dad as much as I love you. I'm really happy to know that he want's to spend more time with me. I enjoy spending time with dad.

8 years is quite an awful long time. The passage of time can be a material change in circumstance paired with other relevant minor changes.

Sounds like the extra money you are trying to save by not agreeing to 50% access, triple or quadruple that amount you will spend on a lawyer opposing it. Makes total sense. Instead of coming to an agreement with the father of your child and setting that money aside for your child's education or future, you are going to spend it on lawyers for the next 2 -3 years because you don't think things should be fare and equal. You're putting your wishes before the wishes of your child.

CAUTION - I was recently informed by a lawyer about parents who spend the child's entire life fighting over him and in the end, the child left both of them..Didn't want to see either. You think children enjoy this stuff? You think you're setting a good example for your children or society by being so selfish ? THink again. What is your true motivation? What are your intentions? Is he abusive? Does he want more time to reduce CS? Or he shouldn't have an opportunity to have the child instead of daycare? Which one is it? What's next? He returns the child home hungry? Trust me, we've heard it all.

You keep mentioning ROFR.. you mentioned it again in this thread ... are you seriously that concerned that the ROFR might give him the extra 5% that you don't want him to have? You're a state of art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

If you're going to accuse him of seeking 50-50 to reduce CS, be prepared to be accused of opposing 50% and keeping him at strictly 35% to avoid having to pay CS.

You keep fishing for reasons to oppose 50/50 and keep him below the 40% mark. If I was the dad on the other side, none of the reasons you have posted here would stop me from perusing 50/50, if anything the serious allegations you have made against me would persuade me to seek sole custody. I promise that I would bury you in debt along the way.
Thank you for posting this. This is exactly what I meant in my post.

At the end of the day, he is fit enough to have them for 35% of the time and nothing I've read from her has convinced me otherwise.

She is going to piss away thousands and effectively ruin her and possibly her children's financial future because this is the hill she's chosen to die on.

I honestly do NOT know how one spins that to their children. How do you tell them it was worth all that money and the ruining of their childhoods?
Reply With Quote
  #106 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:06 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,213
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
I get the material change here was the children’s wishes to be with their father more. But if you go back to another posters other thread, she states that it would be detrimental for the kids to lose time with dad .. that told me a lot. It told me that they enjoy spending time with him. It’s only a matter of time before they also express their wishes to see him more.
In this closed thread http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...tml#post215841 she says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ange71727 View Post
]I HAVE considered a reduction in custody. I just think that less time with them would be detrimental to my kids. I would have to explain why daddy is getting less time now because they would need justification at their ages. I think they're too young to hear the adult stuff. I'm not a mom who needs to slander my ex to my kids despite all of your comments about me being jealous and throwing tantrums etc.
So I interpret that as her thinking it's not the loss of time with the father itself that would be detrimental for the children, but that it would be detrimental for them to be told the reduction is because he's not a good father.

I agree that we are only getting one side here, but arguing with her because of misinterpretation of her words should be stopped.

Even if you weren't misinterpreting, less time being detrimental doesn't automatically mean that more time is beneficial. For ALL parents there's a sweet spot where the time spent provides the most benefit. Ideally, that sweet spot would be over 50%, and the parents compromise by meeting at 50-50. Maximum contact principle. Children with a bad parent still need to spend some time with them, but should spend the majority with the good parent. For some, however, that sweet spot may be less, where the children derive benefit from knowing that parent, but are not around so much that the poor parenting has a chance to cause problems. And as Rockscan pointed out, sometimes children are caught between two poor parents with sweet spots under 50%, and there's nothing anybody can really do.

Anyways, this is the debate thread, not the advice to Ange71727 thread. So I'll just be general and say that anyone who thinks a default 50-50 is wrong for their situation has to have solid evidence why this is the case. Documented journaling of poor parenting examples would be a start.
Reply With Quote
  #107 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:38 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Hi Rioe

All I'm saying here is that it doesn't sound like the kids are having a tough time at dad's and are thriving at almost 50%. (Why not just push it to 50%) What's the "criteria"? for the big court fight? What am I missing?

She also stated that dad loves them, they already do 50/50 weekends, dad's g/f is good to them, etc. I'm not sure what I'm missing here besides she just doesn't want to. If she plans to go to court and say "I think he's doing this for money"..she may not get far, just as the parent didn't with the same reasoning in the caselaw just posted.

Quote:
Anyways, this is the debate thread, not the advice to Ange71727 thread.
Agree. But it's nice to have a case like this to refer to as many parents are in the exact same situation and not sure how to navigate.

Quote:
I'll just be general and say that anyone who thinks a default 50-50 is wrong for their situation has to have solid evidence why this is the case. Documented journaling of poor parenting examples would be a start
I would agree with this for sure. But setting up a tape recording of you and your child is not the way to go about it.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-11-2017 at 02:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #108 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:42 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lulubuttons View Post
Thank you for posting this. This is exactly what I meant in my post.

At the end of the day, he is fit enough to have them for 35% of the time and nothing I've read from her has convinced me otherwise.

She is going to piss away thousands and effectively ruin her and possibly her children's financial future because this is the hill she's chosen to die on.

I honestly do NOT know how one spins that to their children. How do you tell them it was worth all that money and the ruining of their childhoods?
Precisely. It's not worth a court fight. Some posters here will say "yea..so dad should give in and not want an equal relationship". I say, 50/50 all the way, save money (court costs).. put it towards their education and call it a day.
Parents need to stop denying equal relationships when there's no grounds to do so....period.
Reply With Quote
  #109 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:51 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,542
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
I'm not sure what I'm missing here besides she just doesn't want to.
She just doesn't want to. She doesn't want to just because. And no I'm not taking her side.

Cross examination:

You have stated that you fear for the well being of your children under the father's care correct?

Yes.

You have been allowing the father to exercise his access , correct?

Yes

and have had no issue with the child having access with the father correct?

I have.

Were your concerns that he was emotionally abusive to your child?

Yes

Did you ever share your concerns with the correct authorities?

Yes I called CAS.

They didn't have any concerns and closed the file, correct?

Yes.

You have no other concerns with the child spending more time with the father correct?

I do, he just want's more time to avoid paying child support.

Judge: I'm ordering 50-50. case closed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe
And as Rockscan pointed out, sometimes children are caught between two poor parents with sweet spots under 50%, and there's nothing anybody can really do.
The courts can do something about it, and so can the OCL, and the lawyers, and the parent who's got the short end of the stick. You may not get what you wanted but at least you did something about it.

Last edited by trinton; 01-11-2017 at 02:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #110 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2017, 03:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,836
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

I think what Rockscan's trying to say is that ideally, both parents want an amount of time with Kid that adds up to 100%. So if parent A wants 50% and parent B wants 50% - all good. If A wants 25% and B wants 75% - all good.

Court battles arise both parents' desired time adds up to more than 100% - for example, when A wants 50% and B wants 75%.

And I think Rockscan is referring to the situation in which both parents' wishes add up to less than 100% - if A only wants the kids for 30% of the time and B only wants 25% - which is a situation that really sucks for the kids.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Faulty to assume Shared Parenting: here's why SilverLining Divorce & Family Law 44 06-29-2014 01:41 PM
Velacott's new Bill C-560 (equal parenting) SingingDad Political Issues 16 06-13-2014 03:04 PM
Equal Shared Parenting Mother Divorce & Family Law 56 02-21-2014 04:43 PM
Equal parenting Bill tabled in house of commons SingingDad Divorce & Family Law 1 12-17-2013 08:43 AM
Vellacott celebrates National Child Day with announcement of Equal Parenting bill logicalvelocity Political Issues 7 11-24-2008 06:22 AM


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