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
  #451 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 10:06 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,968
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

This thread is in the "political" part of our forum. According to the header this thread subtitle: "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."

So... members should feel free to express their views without the need for posting case law.

Please correct me if I misunderstand the rules/guidance of this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #452 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 10:15 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

This was a great read as well.

In DBF v BF, 2012 ABQB 520 (CanLII) http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...&resultIndex=1

Dad was an EOW with one weekday visit or so and he wanted 50/50. The mother came with a whole slew of reasons that dad shouldn't have it... including:

Quote:
a) questions regarding B. F.ís motives in seeking to change the parenting arrangements;

b) extent of adjustment required of T in order to respond to a 50/50 Arrangement;

c) subordination of Tís needs by B. F. to his own needs;

d) inconsistent discharge by B. F.ís of his responsibility to pick T up after school;

e) poor diet while in B. F.ís care;

f) B. F.ís failure to communicate the scope of his new relationship to T;

g) Tís feelings of insecurity about being with B. F.;

h) Tís reluctance to sleep at her fatherís residence; and

i) Tís inclination to hide her true feelings from her father.
So what happened you ask?

Well, the 8 year old child was happy and thriving:

Quote:
[35] From D. B. F.ís perspective, it may be asserted that the evidence suggests that T is an intelligent, focussed and functional eight-year old. Rather than indicate that her circumstances have changed materially, D. B. F. might be heard to assert that Tís circumstances have evolved as her parents might have hoped, given the reality of their separation. T is doing well in school, has friends, and she participates in extra-curricular activities.
There was certainly a high level of conflict and inability to communicate or get along:

Quote:
[36] From B. F.ís perspective, it may be asserted that it has been a significant period of time since Justice Hunt McDonaldís decision. T is a year older, her fatherís relationships have evolved, conflict between her parents persists, and the court record reveals a series of appearances before this Court in an effort to resolve issues apparently unresolvable by her parents.
Here's what happened:

Quote:
[39] I do not believe movement to a 50/50 Arrangement would itself create a risk of a fundamental change to Tís circumstances or needs, at this stage of her life. Rather, I am convinced that the move to such an arrangement is an appropriate response to material changes that have already occurred and are ongoing. T is young enough that the amount of bonding time she spends with her father and mother may greatly influence the nature of her relationship with each of them. D. B. F.ís difficulties in separating Tís interests from the conflict with B. F. were a noted concern in the Lux Report. I share these concerns.

[40] I realize that 50/50 Arrangements stand a greater chance of succeeding in circumstances involving limited parental conflict. The Lux Report suggests that her parents have been reasonably successful in shielding T from this conflict. However, it also suggests that D. B. F.ís ability to handle such conflict may be deteriorating with time. This will continue to be an evolving issue which will need to be addressed regardless of what parenting arrangement is selected.

VI. Decision

[41] In respect of T born [...] [...], 2004, I direct as follows:

a) beginning September 4, 2012, Tís parents shall implement a shared parenting arrangement such that each of the parties would have T live with them 50% of the time;
Thank you judge for adding to the beautiful caselaw supporting 50/50 regimes.
Reply With Quote
  #453 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 11:32 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
This was a great read as well.

In DBF v BF, 2012 ABQB 520 (CanLII) http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...&resultIndex=1

Dad was an EOW with one weekday visit or so and he wanted 50/50. The mother came with a whole slew of reasons that dad shouldn't have it... including:



So what happened you ask?

Well, the 8 year old child was happy and thriving:



There was certainly a high level of conflict and inability to communicate or get along:



Here's what happened:



Thank you judge for adding to the beautiful caselaw supporting 50/50 regimes.
Excellent find.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #454 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2017, 09:32 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ange71727 View Post
But isn't it a fair question then for ANY parent - children are happy and thriving in the current regime so why change it?
Many kids are happy and thriving. That doesn't mean there are no material changes in circumstances.

In this case:http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...&resultIndex=1

The 8 year old girl was happy and thriving. Mom said changes to the schedule would be useless as she was already thriving and happy. Dad was an EOW with some midweek access.

Regarding material changes, the judge had this to say:
Quote:
[38] The material before me does satisfy me that T has undergone a change in her circumstances sufficient to warrant a change to parenting arrangements. It would be too simple to conclude that there is no basis for deciding that her needs are fundamentally different than they were at the time of Justice Hunt McDonald’s Order of March 9, 2011. Similarly, it would be too simple to conclude that changes in her life have not fundamentally altered her parents’ ability to meet those evolving needs. More realistically, changes in the lives of T’s parents are changes in her life.
and (B.F is dad)

Quote:
B. F. is moving on in his relationships. Those relationships will create new challenges (and new opportunities) for the meaningful parenting of his daughter. All of this affects T.
Ange, I understand that you don't think dad's new relationship, etc won't be taken in to consideration for a material change.....but just read this judges thoughts.

Also, a "material change" was the fact that although both parents have shielded the child from conflict rather well.......they may not be able to under "ANY" parenting arrangement...not just 50/50. As seen below:

Quote:
[40] I realize that 50/50 Arrangements stand a greater chance of succeeding in circumstances involving limited parental conflict. The Lux Report suggests that her parents have been reasonably successful in shielding T from this conflict. However, it also suggests that D. B. F.’s ability to handle such conflict may be deteriorating with time. This will continue to be an evolving issue which will need to be addressed regardless of what parenting arrangement is selected.
Anyhow......dad got 50/50.

I just wanted to address your thoughts on "Happy & Thriving" = no change to 50/50. It can certainly still change to 50/50.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 02-01-2017 at 09:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #455 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2017, 09:42 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Many kids are happy and thriving. That doesn't mean there are no material changes in circumstances.

In this case:http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...&resultIndex=1

The 8 year old girl was happy and thriving. Mom said changes to the schedule would be useless as she was already thriving and happy. Dad was an EOW with some midweek access.

Regarding material changes, the judge had this to say:


and (B.F is dad)



Ange, I understand that you don't think dad's new relationship, etc won't be taken in to consideration for a material change.....but just read this judges thoughts.

Also, a "material change" was the fact that although both parents have shielded the child from conflict rather well.......they may not be able to under "ANY" parenting arrangement...not just 50/50. As seen below:



Anyhow......dad got 50/50.

I just wanted to address your thoughts on "Happy & Thriving" = no change to 50/50. It can certainly still change to 50/50.
And what if the custodial parent is in new relationship but access parent isn't? Sounds like I need to get myself in a relationship



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #456 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2017, 10:05 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
And what if the custodial parent is in new relationship but access parent isn't? Sounds like I need to get myself in a relationship



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
I know that my judge took my new relationship and family life into consideration just like the judge in the caselaw.....but not all judge are alike.

If you find a partner... Just make sure its for the right reasons and its for the long haul.
Reply With Quote
  #457 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:18 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,350
Beachnana is on a distinguished road
Default

Both parents should be involved agreed.

But I am not in favour of splitting any child's life into 2. So unless parents can live in very close proximity to each other so that the children can stay in one home I believe that 50/50 which means the child has to move back and forth is not good for the child.

Nesting is the only way I would accept 50/50 is in the best interest of a child. Let the parent move back and forth, let them have their possessions shuttle back and forth or lost in the confusion of where they actually live.
Reply With Quote
  #458 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:32 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachnana View Post
Both parents should be involved agreed.

But I am not in favour of splitting any child's life into 2. So unless parents can live in very close proximity to each other so that the children can stay in one home I believe that 50/50 which means the child has to move back and forth is not good for the child.

Nesting is the only way I would accept 50/50 is in the best interest of a child. Let the parent move back and forth, let them have their possessions shuttle back and forth or lost in the confusion of where they actually live.
Thank you for your opinion Beach. My stance differs obviously.

Moving from home to home on say a 2-2-5-5 is not as bad as not having maximum contact with one parent at a young age in my opinion. Studies have shown that younger kids need that attachment/bond with both parents...not just one. In order to establish those healthy bonds/attachment (which is very significant for emotional intelligence/health as they grow), consistent and equal routines, etc with both parents are needed.

Thus, bonds, attachments, routines, consistency, and an equal relationship with both parents seems to outweigh having to travel to 2 homes and any problems that may elicit (although I haven't read much about children hating 2 homes).

As always, your input is welcomed though Beach....I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong. Just differing opinions. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #459 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,350
Beachnana is on a distinguished road
Default

Well we need to have a maximum contact arrangement that does not move the child ( who,is the innocent party) but moves the adults. Nesting is the only way I would accept a 2-2-5-5 or 7-7 or any other shuffling back and forth schedule is good for any child.

No case studies to prove it's best, no studies based on whose opinion? Just my own feelings, plus talking with young 12-14 year olds who hate it.

Dr Laura got it right. Sure if you split up for whatever reason that's your right but now you need to wait until your kids reach 18 before you start another relationship or family. Your god given duty is to the child/ children of your first relationship.

Last edited by Beachnana; 02-01-2017 at 11:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #460 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2017, 12:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,049
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachnana View Post
Well we need to have a maximum contact arrangement that does not move the child ( who,is the innocent party) but moves the adults. Nesting is the only way I would accept a 2-2-5-5 or 7-7 or any other shuffling back and forth schedule is good for any child.

No case studies to prove it's best, no studies based on whose opinion? Just my own feelings, plus talking with young 12-14 year olds who hate it.

Dr Laura got it right. Sure if you split up for whatever reason that's your right but now you need to wait until your kids reach 18 before you start another relationship or family. Your god given duty is to the child/ children of your first relationship.


While I can appreciate your points I personally disagree.

I home is more than where a child lays their head. It is about creating memories, decorating the house with pictures and items that belong to that family/home. There is so much that goes into a home from the choices of furniture, to the colour of the walls. I cannot imagine how hard it would be for a child to be in a nesting arrangement and have the adults bicker about wall colours or photographs! How would new furniture be decided? A court case? Or would each parent be tossing out the other parents choices because they don't like them? I don't see how that would be in the best interest of the child. Sure in a perfect world this would work wonderfully but we must remember most times ex spouses don't get along which is why they separated.

Plus who would be in charge of the extra expenses? There would essentially have to be three residences. One for mom, one for dad and one as the nesting house. Who pays for what?


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 02:41 PM
Velacott's new Bill C-560 (equal parenting) SingingDad Political Issues 16 06-13-2014 04:04 PM
Equal Shared Parenting Mother Divorce & Family Law 56 02-21-2014 05:43 PM
Equal parenting Bill tabled in house of commons SingingDad Divorce & Family Law 1 12-17-2013 09:43 AM
Vellacott celebrates National Child Day with announcement of Equal Parenting bill logicalvelocity Political Issues 7 11-24-2008 07:22 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:35 PM.