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
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 01-09-2017, 11:53 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,217
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
I urge readers to really think about what I asked earlier:

What if your ex makes your life hell, but your child's better? Would you go 50/50?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
I still think that if Parent A has been caught red handed in a lie (false allegations) that they should be stripped of custody and have supervised access. They are not fit to parent a child if that's how they have learned to handle situations in life.
Don't these two statements seem contradictory to you?

If your ex makes your life hell, doesn't that seem like the type of person who would not be a fit parent? If they handle situations by making your life hell, then they should not be parenting a child?

I also think 50-50 should be the default, and if one parent disagrees, it should take court to order otherwise only after that parent makes a good case why.

Right now, people who want more than 50-50 are usually a primary caregiver who doesn't want to spend less time with the child, an un(der)employed person who sees greater CS as necessary income, or a vengeful person who sees monopolizing the child as punitive towards their ex.

From the other end, you may also have a workaholic who prioritizes their job over time with their children, an uninvolved parent who finds child care unpleasant, or someone infatuated with a new relationship; these types usually want less than 50-50.

When those types of parents don't pair up nicely, then you would have a 50-50 default, and an uphill battle in court.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 12:02 AM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,217
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
There should be no child support in shared custody situations. Parents who divorce should not longer be financially contributing to the household of the other parent.

It is completely contradictory to the concept of divorce. Every parent brings certain assets to care for their children whether it is cooking skills, love, money, intelligence etc... Why only equalize money?

I think it would change the dynamic of divorce and custody immensely along with default shared custody.

Unfortunately the feminists will fight it tooth and nail.
I always felt CS was important, with both parents supporting their children no matter which household they were in, but I dislike offset, preferring a smooth curve of CS following time, which has half-offset in 50-50 situations.

Your points are good, but reality is that kids are materialistic, and would gravitate to the household with all the money after they reach the age of choice, no matter how wonderful a cook the other parent may be.

I don't see why feminists would fight this. Feminists would like to see men and women have the same opportunities, so male and female incomes would be similar (on average) and there wouldn't be any more issues of the man being disproportionately more wealthy than the woman.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 04:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 396
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Hi Angie ... thanks for stopping by.

To begin, you may have been the catalyst for this thread but I've been meaning to start it for a good while. I've observed threads being derailed on this topic so I thought I'd start a thread where we can get it all out.

Now let's discuss some of your points.


I think "any" false allegations are deplorable and ridiculous....including what you say your ex is supposedly doing (although I do't believe you've even seen if he has yet).

However, I can tell you first hand that if you're accused of sexual/physical abuse it changes you forever. It's the most disgusting, outlandish hurtful thing that one person can do to another. The effects can be felt by the child as well as they're questioned by Dr's, detectives, police, witness counselors, etc. All to gain ground in court? You tell me Angie......is that on the same level as whipping up an e-ail about an argument in a Dr's office?

In Vucenovic v. Rieschi, 2012 ONCJ 658 (CanLII):



I can cite numerous cases whre judges actually use the terminology "not fit to parent" when it comes to false allegations of abuse or any kind. Unfortunately I can't find many for arguments in Dr' Offices or he said she said stuff, such as in your case.

I hope that answers your question.


I am truly sorry if that happened to you. Really I am. That is awful. I can't help if you don't believe the things I am writing here though. It's more than just the one incident you refer to. You are hell bent that my ex is this good person because you want to see all "fighting" dads this way. Sometimes they are not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 07:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 396
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
Don't these two statements seem contradictory to you?

If your ex makes your life hell, doesn't that seem like the type of person who would not be a fit parent? If they handle situations by making your life hell, then they should not be parenting a child?

I also think 50-50 should be the default, and if one parent disagrees, it should take court to order otherwise only after that parent makes a good case why.

Right now, people who want more than 50-50 are usually a primary caregiver who doesn't want to spend less time with the child, an un(der)employed person who sees greater CS as necessary income, or a vengeful person who sees monopolizing the child as punitive towards their ex.

From the other end, you may also have a workaholic who prioritizes their job over time with their children, an uninvolved parent who finds child care unpleasant, or someone infatuated with a new relationship; these types usually want less than 50-50.

When those types of parents don't pair up nicely, then you would have a 50-50 default, and an uphill battle in court.


I agree that these statements are contradictory.
If you plan to resort to sneaky, underhanded deceitful means to obtain your children in court and it gets proven to be false in front of a judge, you don't think that is going to speak to your character? Especially when status quo has been in existence for so long (8 yrs in my case). Why wouldn't your platform be simply "I plan to be a great dad and I respect my child's mom"?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:21 AM
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 Rioe View Post
Don't these two statements seem contradictory to you?

If your ex makes your life hell, doesn't that seem like the type of person who would not be a fit parent? If they handle situations by making your life hell, then they should not be parenting a child?
But what if your ex isn't trying intentionally to make your life hell? What if the chemistry is just so far gone that they have tone every time they talk to one another, are snarky, search for flaws, etc. One parent may "perceive" the other parent as making their life hell is what I'm trying to say. Just as in the abuse truism, some tend to over amplify negativity and downplay actual strengths and positive qualities.

Just because two people cant stand each other doesn't mean they can't effectively parent. I strongly believe the 2 are different.

Quote:
I also think 50-50 should be the default, and if one parent disagrees, it should take court to order otherwise only after that parent makes a good case why.
Big Time agree!!!
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:24 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,486
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

The only time that 50-50 residency should NOT be the default is when the matter falls on the far right of the continuum of conflict and in the case that the requirements of Rule 24.(4) are actually met.

Your Social Worker - Gary Direnfeld, MSW, RSW

Family Court needs a standard practice for identifying and ranking conflict. It lacks this standardized method. I am of the STRONG opinion that Family Law should be guided more by mental health professionals than lawyers.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:28 AM
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 Ange71727 View Post
I agree that these statements are contradictory.
If you plan to resort to sneaky, underhanded deceitful means to obtain your children in court and it gets proven to be false in front of a judge, you don't think that is going to speak to your character?
If he's falsifying stuff for court .. yes it does speak to his character as a person. But so does making recordings of your child to build evidence for yourself (Angie). False allegations of abuse speaks to ones character AND their ability to parent. (Refer to the caselaw I posted earlier).

Quote:
Why wouldn't your platform be simply "I plan to be a great dad and I respect my child's mom"?
When one parent plays gatekeeper and denies another parent more time with their biological child in the absence of any abuse, it is hard for that parent to remain civil for sure.....it's their child too. Not everybody can do what I did and remain positive about my ex the entire court battle.

Please remember that if you had agreed to at least give an equal relationship a shot (few extra days/year) then none of this would be happening.

You want to be respected as a mother...but do you respect him as a father? If yes, enough to add a day or 2 of access as per his request?
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:33 AM
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 Tayken View Post
The only time that 50-50 residency should NOT be the default is when the matter falls on the far right of the continuum of conflict and in the case that the requirements of Rule 24.(4) are actually met.

Your Social Worker - Gary Direnfeld, MSW, RSW

Family Court needs a standard practice for identifying and ranking conflict. It lacks this standardized method. I am of the STRONG opinion that Family Law should be guided more by mental health professionals than lawyers.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Yes sir. This is what I wanted to make the thread about. The actual criteria, Rule 24(4) and maximum contact in the absence of abuse as it relates to potential 50/50 regimes.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:43 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,899
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

I didnt find the statements to be contradictory taken apart in the sense of punishment for a bad behaviour. LF32s ex was proven to be reasonable when she was "punished" for her behaviour. If she had continued to withhold and prevent access and lie and make false allegations then no they couldn't co-parent and they were not a good role model. And in that case he could have continued to say "mommy loves you very much and we are working together to make sure you are happy" or something along those lines.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:47 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 396
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
If he's falsifying stuff for court .. yes it does speak to his character as a person. But so does making recordings of your child to build evidence for yourself (Angie). False allegations of abuse speaks to ones character AND their ability to parent. (Refer to the caselaw I posted earlier).


When one parent plays gatekeeper and denies another parent more time with their biological child in the absence of any abuse, it is hard for that parent to remain civil for sure.....it's their child too. Not everybody can do what I did and remain positive about my ex the entire court battle.

Please remember that if you had agreed to at least give an equal relationship a shot (few extra days/year) then none of this would be happening.

You want to be respected as a mother...but do you respect him as a father? If yes, enough to add a day or 2 of access as per his request?


I recorded my children so that I had proof that his allegations are false. They didn't even know it was happening. I am terrified of what he could plan to use against me. This is why I did that. As I have learned through this forum, a judge will not take my recordings into consideration and will not look favourably upon them; therefore I will not be using them in court. I have other means by which I can expose some of his lies and I will have to rely on those (if this makes it to court).
The fact that it HAS happened for 8 years indicates that it's not just because he wants more time. That is new, within the last few months. There have been MANY lies and manipulations of the kids in that time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 03:36 PM.