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
  #381 (permalink)  
Old 01-29-2017, 11:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,327
Beachnana is on a distinguished road
Default

LF32. I understand where your opinion comes from. We have all lived through your awful journey and subsequent victorious results. I rooted for you myself and it's good that you have the joy of your life back.

But not all situations are the same and therefore 50/50 is not necessarily the answer to every situation.

Other posters can have their opinion based opinion on their experiences.

I thought this thread was supposed to discuss the various trends, options and issues surrounding a default 50/50 parenting standard. But it seems you become too emotionally charged to let others have any opinion that differs from your own.

It's not IMO really necessary to keep pushing for another poster to declare you are right and they are wrong.

It's really quite undemocractic of you to bully your opinion down some else's throat.

Just saying......
Reply With Quote
  #382 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2017, 12:20 AM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,549
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

I think the point LF32 is trying to make here is that when both parents (Especially the father) are willing, and are spending thousands and thousands of dollars on lawyers to increase and/or secure their parenting role in their child's lives, the opposing parent shouldn't oppose it unreasonably by excuses. The continued fight has negative effects on the child. A shared parenting regime could diminish the fighting and I will quote a reference further below.

50/50 should most always be the starting point. If dad feels mom should be less involved, he should prove why so. and vice versa. Children love both parents, equally. Unless of course one parent mistreats the child and the child expresses a desire to spend less time with that parent (without influence of any other parent)

I also think most of us we are misunderstanding 50/50 to only mean access. The maximum contact principal also applies to custody.

Quote:
[25] In any event, because Cavanaugh makes it clear that there is no rebuttable presumption in favour of shared parenting, we must find a different way than a rebuttable presumption to insert the maximum contact principle into a parenting analysis. Parliament itself made it clear that the maximum contact principle applies both to decisions relating to custody and to decisions relating to access; the principle must be considered in all parenting decisions, starting with the decision about which parenting regime is in the child’s best interests, and, once that regime is determined, in working out the details of access if shared parenting is not the chosen regime.
Also, the law as it currently sits, both parents are technically both equally entitled to custody.

Quote:

Entitlement to custody
20. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, a child’s parents are equally entitled to custody of the child. 2016, c. 23, s. 2 (1).
And to LF32's point, he is absolutely right.

Quote:
Doctor Frank Williams, director of the Family and Child Psychiatry Programs at Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles was referring in a recent address to the American Bar Association[1] when he stated: (as quoted by His Honour Provincial Judge Alan P. Ingram in his address of 4 March 1989 to the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario)

There is the myth in some mental health, legal and judicial thinking that joint custody can only be effectively undertaken by co-operative parents. To the contrary, joint custody provides one of the best methods of stimulating a degree of significant and meaningful co-operation in warring parents who would otherwise continue years of battling to the detriment of their children.


Our experience leads to the conviction that parental identity — if strengthened in both parents — can increase co-operation and that co-operation should not be a criteria for joint custody vs. sole custody schedules for children. During the ensuing years, after custodial orders are in place, children of parents who remain highly unco-operative suffer greatly, and suffer just as much in unilateral sole custody as in joint custody arrangements.

Judge Ingram commented:

He stated that he found that the essential minimum co-operation needed by parents in maintaining a relationship between each parent and the children, develops more rapidly under a joint custody order or agreement. In sole custody situations, the non-custodial parent feels a loss of parental identity or a victim of psychological or “legal parentectomy”, resulting in feelings of powerlessness, depression and rage.

(See page 18 of Judge Ingram’s address).

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/do...resultIndex=36

Last edited by trinton; 01-30-2017 at 12:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #383 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2017, 12:52 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,138
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

I think what Beach is trying to say is we have all HEARD, READ and CONSIDERED LF's posts, case law and opinion. He doesn't need to repeat himself in a hundred ways of saying the same logic over and over to get everyone to agree with him.

To me I t demonstrates a lack of emotional maturity and life experience to think that we will all suddenly see the light and abandon our own (carefully thought out and personal) opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #384 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2017, 12:59 AM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,549
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
I think what Beach is trying to say is we have all HEARD, READ and CONSIDERED LF's posts, case law and opinion. He doesn't need to repeat himself in a hundred ways of saying the same logic over and over to get everyone to agree with him.

To me I t demonstrates a lack of emotional maturity and life experience to think that we will all suddenly see the light and abandon our own (carefully thought out and personal) opinions.
I think at least 90% of us who are members on this forum all have been on the emotional roller coaster one time or another throughout and after our separation. To single out LF32, it's uncalled for.

He's just rebutting each and every argument that is made against shared custody, and has a right to do so. Sorry if I am coming off as his lawyer.

Just out of curiosity, (MODS/JEFF), can we setup a poll on this site, to vote anonymously? For simple things such as how many members are moms, dads, how many kids, what percentage supports shared parenting, what percentage doesn't, what percentage has sole, joint , etc ?
Reply With Quote
  #385 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2017, 08:36 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,138
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

I think you're preaching to the wrong audience. I think you should be talking to men who don't ask for 50-50 and trying to determine why they do not want it or ask for it. I know more men that have never asked for 50-50 then men really want it. If every single father leaving a relationship asked for 50-50, maybe that would change things. To me, that's who you should be talking to. Dads.

Once every dad asked for 50-50, then it might become a default status.
Reply With Quote
  #386 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2017, 09:16 AM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,846
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

^exactly. Many people are quite content to see kids on weekend for a variety of reasons (employment, new relationships, personal living conditions, etc.). Nothing wrong with that if kids are well-cared for and happy.

I think this thread has lost its usefulness.
Reply With Quote
  #387 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2017, 10:36 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,138
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
.

Just out of curiosity, (MODS/JEFF), can we setup a poll on this site, to vote anonymously? For simple things such as how many members are moms, dads, how many kids, what percentage supports shared parenting, what percentage doesn't, what percentage has sole, joint , etc ?
Or you can just do a little search Trinton.

Here is the link you are looking for.

How to make your own Ottawa Divorce poll!!!
Reply With Quote
  #388 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2017, 12:15 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,549
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
I think you're preaching to the wrong audience. I think you should be talking to men who don't ask for 50-50 and trying to determine why they do not want it or ask for it. I know more men that have never asked for 50-50 then men really want it. If every single father leaving a relationship asked for 50-50, maybe that would change things. To me, that's who you should be talking to. Dads.

Once every dad asked for 50-50, then it might become a default status.
Not really digging your attitude towards men in your post, but I have some questions. I will avoid the use of the term "men" and refer to these men as fathers.


What about fathers' who don't ask for 50-50 because they don't know their rights to their children or are uninformed or mislead?
Reply With Quote
  #389 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2017, 12:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,138
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

That is exactly my point Trinton. I think efforts/energies should be directed to educate fathers rather than convince women who have already made up their minds.

I really believe if more men asked for 50-50, it would become the norm and more women would accept it too.

In my situation, my ex never asked for 50-50.

My new bf has exactly 50-50 of his S8 and D4. His ex and he agreed without any court or lawyers or anything. His kids call his house "home" and their mother's "Mom's house". They hate the back and forth and sometimes leave something at Mom's that they need or vise versa. Both parents are trying their best but ultimately it is just the least bad solution of all the solutions. The son has expressed that he just wants to live at Dad's. I adore the bf for the incredible father he is.

Sorry if my last post came off with a "tone". I voice texted it while rushing to work. Apologies. Of course 50-50 should be default but I think unfortunately it is the majority of men (rather than women) who end up not pursuing up to 50% of parenting time.

Last edited by SadAndTired; 01-30-2017 at 12:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #390 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2017, 12:57 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 Beachnana View Post
But not all situations are the same and therefore 50/50 is not necessarily the answer to every situation.
Beach, I don't recall ever saying or assuming this anywhere in any thread. I'm very aware it's not for every situation.

Quote:
Other posters can have their opinion based opinion on their experiences.
They have their's and I have mine. I don't see an issue with that, especially on a "political" debate thread.

Quote:
I thought this thread was supposed to discuss the various trends, options and issues surrounding a default 50/50 parenting standard.
It is... kind of. If you go the first page I think I write about the "criteria parents use" to deny 50/50. Which is EXACTLY what I've been doing with a certain poster.
Also, I do look at all angles and accept all opinions.
If you go back a few pages I had a conversation with Enscrolled, who is a happy parent without 50/50. I thanked her for her input as I liked to see both sides. I'm very open to analyzing all angles...I'm also entitled an opinion. That's why I'm here.

Quote:
It's not IMO really necessary to keep pushing for another poster to declare you are right and they are wrong.
Nobody's right or wrong. If a poster wants to air their case out and I see inconsistencies .. I point them out. Why is their something wrong with that? If anything it's preparing them for court. I should be thanked. BTW .. if she wasn't interested in what I had to say, one would assume she'd stop passing by this thread. We were long away from her case many pages ago .... she joined again to chat .. so we are.

Quote:
It's really quite undemocractic of you to bully your opinion down some else's throat.
Beach I'm surprized you went that path having followed my journey for 3 years. I'm anything but a bully, I abhor bullying of any kind. I endured a terrible amount of bullying by certain posters here when I was the weakest.

There have been no attacks on anybody's character. If you can write in one sentence that your kids have been harmed and you can see the effects, and another sentences saying they're happy and thriving .... I point it out. Better me than the judge, no? How is that bullying?

I don't have to..or even want to be right. I simply provide my opinions, caselaw, studies, etc on the matter. When posters discuss their case .. I provide my viewpoint. That's what a Political debate isn't it?

Personally, I've been attacked over and over by a select few posters on this site for 3 years. Much of the time it's my character being attacked and nothing about my case. I find it "very" interesting that some of you ladies don't come out of the woodwork and voice your opinions about bullying then. Guess your selective .. oh well.

I'm proud to say that all my opinions are based on actual studies, caselaw, FLR's and of course my opinion.

As Jeff pointed out .... make use of the ignore button or stay out of the thread if you do't like my opinion on equal, 50/50 relationships. Also, HAVE THICK SKIN...it's a political debate thread.

Moving on,

In Puddicome Vs Puddicombhttp://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlsctd/d...&resultIndex=3

Another father looking for equal time with his daughter (and he is almost equal already). Mom says the schedule is fine the way it is.
Quote:
Since the parties separated in 1995, Meghan has resided primarily with Ms. Peet. Mr. Puddicombe’s access has varied and has included having Meghan with him every second day, every third day, and, eventually since November 1995, to alternate weekends and Monday and Wednesday evenings from 5p.m.to 8p.m.summer access is divided equally. The parties agree that the present schedule works well. Ms. Peet wishes it to continue but Mr. Puddicombe seeks equal “shared” custody on a 50-50 basis.
I wonder if the judge will entertain the mother having a step sibling for her daughter to help her case?

Quote:
She also contends that she is comfortable and has adjusted well to 17 Stirling Crescent where she has many friends. She also advised that Meghan has made friends with Mr. Parsons’ four year old daughter Danielle who Mr. Parsons parents on alternate weekends.
As I've been trying to convey throughout the thread, consistent routines are formed and no rushing is needed. Everyone can relax and have their time = stress.
Quote:
He dislikes having to rush through supper or homework which he contends often interferes with time for other activities with his daughter prior to her bedtime, which is 9 o’clock.
And of course the "We can't communicate so I don't want to give him 50/50 crap:

Quote:
Ms. Peet is apprehensive about attempting to rebuild a relationship with Mr. Kelly because there is no guarantee that her relationship will improve with him. She argues that this will have a negative impact on shared parenting. Mr. Kelly, although presently, for all intents and purposes, ignores Ms. Peet, testified that “from my perspective the relationship can be improved”.
Material changes?
Dad secured and renovated a nice new home, now has a partner, is no longer caring for their sick mother .. and yes they took the 9 year old's wishes in to consideration.

Quote:
The evidence also discloses that Mr. Puddicombe had a history of moving residences and whether he could provide adequate accommodations for Meghan in early 1997 is doubtful. It is not in dispute that he can today. He also appears to have developed a solid relationship with Mr. Kelly. Mrs. Kelly is deceased and there is therefore no issue today as to the possible negative effect of Meghan bonding with a terminally ill person.
[29] The foregoing shows that Meghan’s circumstances have materially changed since the making of the February 1997 parenting order. I am therefore satisfied that Mr. Puddicombe has met the threshold requirements of S.17(5) of the Divorce Act. This is sufficient to justify a review of such parenting order pursuant to S.17(1).
And of course....50/50 shared parenting was ordered.

Read the below carefully. Much of what I've been trying to asy here:

Quote:
Because of the foregoing, I cannot reasonably conclude that Meghan has more friends at Stirling Crescent or will find it hard to adjust to shared equal parenting, if ordered.
[44] Although Meghan’s report from Mary Queen of Peace Elementary School shows that she needs to be “more attentive”, it also states that she has “experienced a good term” and “she is a capable student”. According to Ms. Molloy, she is “under a great deal of stress”. This however is because of the tug-of-war between her parents and because Meghan believes that she has to choose between them.
[45] The foregoing does not convince me that Meghan’s parenting must remain, as it is, because shared parenting will result in her becoming “unfocused”. There was also no empirical evidence led to show that a parenting schedule, such as the one which presently is in place, is preferable to shared equal parenting.
Especially when it's just a little bit of time a parent is requesting:

Quote:
Therefore, if shared equal parenting was ordered it would not result in a “quantum leap”.
READ THE BELOW VERY CAREFULLY:

Quote:
[53] In short, when all of the foregoing is considered cumulatively, I can find no compelling reason why Meghan should not receive equal direction and input from both of her parents on a consistent and continuous basis. The fact that one parent has an aversion to this arrangement cannot dictate the outcome. This is because I have concluded that shared equal parenting will serve Meghan’s best interests. This will comply not only with s.17(5) of the Divorce Act but also S.17(9) which essentially promotes maximum contact between both parents and their children unless there are compelling reasons not to support such a principle.
Apologies if you find this caselaw as being "shoved down some throats" or bullying in any way.. but I found it interesting.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-30-2017 at 01:11 PM.
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 03:52 PM.