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
  #421 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 11:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 396
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

So what do people think about the current caselaw that a material change must be proven in order to vary an access agreement? If 50/50 should be automatic unless a parent is unfit, addiction, abuse, etc then why do the courts require that a material change that affects the children be present?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #422 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 12:00 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 Ange71727 View Post
So what do people think about the current caselaw that a material change must be proven in order to vary an access agreement? If 50/50 should be automatic unless a parent is unfit, addiction, abuse, etc then why do the courts require that a material change that affects the children be present?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where there is an order already in place .. .then yes I agree a material change has to be put to the test....just like the last caselaw I posted where dad renovated his home, acquired a new g/f, and stopped caring for an elderly relative. In that caselaw mom said that the schedule shouldn't change, that the kids couldn't handle it. The judge disagreed and immediately ordered 50/50.

It all depends on the details of the case, the judge you get and what his/she interprets as a material change.

That's a very good question though Ange. As mentioned...dad's who choose not to be there in the beginning have a tougher time. But their time gets easier as they become more involved over the years...as your ex has.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-31-2017 at 12:07 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #423 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 12:03 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 agree with all those situations where 50/50 wouldn't work. Also past abuse and addictions, extreme mental health conditions, etc.
Those are not good reasons to deny 50/50. If father is fit enough for overnight weekends, and week-long access visits in during the holidays, he is fit enough for equal parenting.

We live in a modern society where we believe in rehabilitation . There are drug re habs, counselling, therapy, medication, and all sort of things to help these people. If they are engaged in all of that and have shown improvement and are better able to care of them selves and their children today than they were in the past, no reason to deny them.
Reply With Quote
  #424 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 12:09 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 trinton View Post
Those are not good reasons to deny 50/50. If father is fit enough for overnight weekends, and week-long access visits in during the holidays, he is fit enough for equal parenting.

We live in a modern society where we believe in rehabilitation . There are drug re habs, counselling, therapy, medication, and all sort of things to help these people. If they are engaged in all of that and have shown improvement and are better able to care of them selves and their children today than they were in the past, no reason to deny them.
Agreed. Once rehabilitated with a pattern of positive, healthy behaviour (no abuse, addictions), then a graduated schedule leading to 50/50 would be the best route in most cases.
I was just saying that those are pretty good reasons for one parent to deny a 50/50 relationship in the beginning as it complies with 24(4) of the CLRA's "ability to parent".
Reply With Quote
  #425 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 12:17 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,480
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Tayken:

Actually, I think we're midst of a pretty good, mature little discussion right now Tayken.....no need to google broken trains and post them here....you interrupted a nice little convo.
I disagree. This thread is way off track and is nothing but a debate on ideology. It has lost meaning and value.
Reply With Quote
  #426 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 12:38 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 Ange71727 View Post
So what do people think about the current caselaw that a material change must be proven in order to vary an access agreement? If 50/50 should be automatic unless a parent is unfit, addiction, abuse, etc then why do the courts require that a material change that affects the children be present?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
because if the children are happy and thriving in the current regime, then why should that regime be changed? What has changed (since the regime was implemented) that now makes it better for the children to be in a 50/50 arrangement?

But then again, you likely wouldn't be in this situation if 50/50 was automatic in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #427 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 12:40 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 Tayken View Post
I disagree. This thread is way off track and is nothing but a debate on ideology. It has lost meaning and value.
Desperately trying to "re-rail" it. I'm trying to amalgamate caselaw, current peer-reviewed studies and family law rules to support my stance. I would hope all of that doesn't only constitute "ideologies". There's some good stuff there.
Reply With Quote
  #428 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 01:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,138
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

Tayken, what would you like the thread to be like?

We are not legal professionals. Political policies are often changed by ideologies.

I am interested to know what would have meaning and value to you??
Reply With Quote
  #429 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 01:20 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,480
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
Tayken, what would you like the thread to be like?

We are not legal professionals. Political policies are often changed by ideologies.

I am interested to know what would have meaning and value to you??
Feel free to bicker amongst yourselves. You are simply convincing each other of your points. Look at the thread from an outside view without the personal dynamics going on. Is there really valuable information being shared with the broader community? Or is this an ideological debate between a few people who do not like each other and continually debate topics like this on a personal level without a larger view of the entire audience to this site.

I am seeing more ad hominem discussion than an actual debate on the subject matter that was the original intent of this thread.

The reality is that the posters contributing to this thread have their own personal set of beliefs that no matter how hard you try to debate them they are not going to change their perspective. Nor is there any residual value in trying to convince them otherwise.

Time would be better spent helping people rather than confusing them with personal attacks and ideological debate.
Reply With Quote
  #430 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 01:23 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,480
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Desperately trying to "re-rail" it. I'm trying to amalgamate caselaw, current peer-reviewed studies and family law rules to support my stance. I would hope all of that doesn't only constitute "ideologies". There's some good stuff there.
Avoid the ad hominem attacks and ignore the ones that people are making against you. As soon as people bring "personal experience" into the thread or try to attack your own personal experience. They are simply trying to derail what could be a valuable exploration of the topic.

You are easily baited by some posters. Don't fall for their typical cyclical arguments. Break the cycle and you could save it.

You may want to re-frame the discussion again. This is your thread really. So don't let those who have a personal dislike of you derail you.

Good Luck!
Tayken
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 10:29 AM.