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
  #481 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2017, 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 trinton View Post
For the purposes of this thread, can we stick to the issue of 50/50 ? Though it's good to see all of things that can come up against 50/50, even material change threshold, I think that's a different issue all together.
I think that "Material Changes of Circumstance" is of great significance when it comes to achieving 50/50. Most the time one parent is saying "No 50/50 because there's no material change" ... so it can be relevant to this thread also.

We'll just keep it civil and toned down from here on out.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 02-02-2017 at 12:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #482 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:09 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,559
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
I think that "Material Changes of Circumstance" is of great significance when it comes to achieving 50/50. Most the time one parent is saying "No 50/50 because there's no material change" ... so it can be relevant to this thread also.

We'll just keep it civil and toned down from here on out.
Good point.

Should the mere act by a parent to put an application by 50-50 be considered a material change?

How can a parent prove that 50-50 would be in the best interests of child absent of a material change?

What if something was decided at trial to deem 50-50 not appropriate, say the parents didn't get along well, but started getting along after the order, would that be a material change to revisit 50-50?





Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #483 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:20 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
Should the mere act by a parent to put an application by 50-50 be considered a material change?
Naa, not that easy. It's not what the parent wants. It's what is best for the child. The judge needs to do a careful analysis of all the facts to see if it betters the life of the child in any way.

If you've been almost at 50/50 for a long time, I've read cases where judges say that in itself is a material change. Routines, transitions, etc have already been established, the children are already comfortable .... and it may cause more STRESS to deny the parent an equal relationship than to grant 50/50. So they grant 50/50. So much BS is left behind when everybody is on equal footing....and the kids feel that release of tension in a lot of cases.

Quote:
What if something was decided at trial to deem 50-50 not appropriate, say the parents didn't get along well, but started getting along after the order, would that be a material change to revisit 50-50?
It could be, in combination with other factors. If you have texts, e-mails and other proof that communication and co parenting has drastically improved, the judge would surely take it in to consideration (especially if the old order denied 50/50 because of inability to communicate or effectively co parent).

My ex tried that route also.

"We can't communicate"...etc...So I want sole custody..blah blah.

Her problem was that every form of communication I had with her was reasonable, resolution-oriented and child-focused. All of her communications were combative, negative and hostile. It didn't take long for the judge to see what was going on.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 02-02-2017 at 12:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #484 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:27 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,559
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Naa, not that easy. It's not what the parent wants. It's what is best for the child. The judge needs to do a careful analysis of all the facts to see if it betters the life of the child in any way.

If you've been almost at 50/50 for a long time, I've read cases where judges say that in itself is a material change. Routines, transitions, etc have already been established, the children are already comfortable .... and it may cause more STRESS to deny the parent an equal relationship than to grant 50/50. So they grant 50/50. So much BS is left behind when everybody is on equal footing....and the kids feel that release of tension in a lot of cases.


It could be, in combination with other factors. If you have texts, e-mails and other proof that communication and co parenting has drastically improved, the judge would surely take it in to consideration (especially if the old order denied 50/50 because of inability to communicate or effectively co parent).
I think it's safe to conclude unless a parent consents to eow access, when there is nonevidence to link maximum exposure to both parents unhealthy to the child, then 50 50 is presumed to be best.

If a parent has consented to eow , uneducatedly, and that arrangement is not what would have been put in place by courts, what effect does the material change threshold on the best interests of a child that is not thriving with eow access?

What about court delays that make eow status quo?

Should eow status quo be a road block to 50-50?





Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #485 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2017, 03:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 396
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Naa, not that easy. It's not what the parent wants. It's what is best for the child. The judge needs to do a careful analysis of all the facts to see if it betters the life of the child in any way.

If you've been almost at 50/50 for a long time, I've read cases where judges say that in itself is a material change. Routines, transitions, etc have already been established, the children are already comfortable .... and it may cause more STRESS to deny the parent an equal relationship than to grant 50/50. So they grant 50/50. So much BS is left behind when everybody is on equal footing....and the kids feel that release of tension in a lot of cases.


It could be, in combination with other factors. If you have texts, e-mails and other proof that communication and co parenting has drastically improved, the judge would surely take it in to consideration (especially if the old order denied 50/50 because of inability to communicate or effectively co parent).

My ex tried that route also.

"We can't communicate"...etc...So I want sole custody..blah blah.

Her problem was that every form of communication I had with her was reasonable, resolution-oriented and child-focused. All of her communications were combative, negative and hostile. It didn't take long for the judge to see what was going on.


Can I ask what you would deem "almost at 50/50"? What percentage of access time what put you at "almost" as opposed to "50/50 is going to be a huge change"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #486 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2017, 11:45 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
Can I ask what you would deem "almost at 50/50"? What percentage of access time what put you at "almost" as opposed to "50/50 is going to be a huge change"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Almost 50/50? 35?, 40?, 45 perhaps.

Maximum contact is preferred when:

a) "ability to parent" has been examined thoroughly and objectively.

b) When the above does not meet the criteria of 24(4)--->patterns of abuse, addictions, patterns, etc.

c) Parent is almost at 50/50 anyways (not a huge routine change for children. Increased binding with both loving parents seems to trump minor changes in schedule in most studies and caselaw.

d) Maximum contact for parents in the above situations is 50/50. So IMO that's what it should be.

Furthermore, the more cases I read the more I see that judges are considering "kids getting older" = new challenges = trumps status quo. Especially in teenage years and when it's nearly 50/50 anyways.

It was correctly stated that having a new partner and a more stable family life (cooking, cleaning, bonding, affection, increased social stimulation, more organized, etc) DOES NOT in itself usually constitute a material change (in my view anyways)

BUT .. it can push it over the threshold of a material change when combined with other factors..such as .....

a) Kids are getting older (new hormones, confusion, challenges, etc)
Status quo is not as significant if the order was made 10 years ago, etc
With an increase in age = new challenges and new criteria to meet the
needs of the child. Especially with romantic relationships, etc .. kids
will benefit from having maximum exposure to both genders top confide
in.

b) Less parental stress (hard feelings over not seeing children as often as
you'd like. (Research shows a dramatic decrease in tension in
parents with an equal regime...even less depression, etc...which
obviously directly affects the children

c) Cases there one parent has BEEN there already for 35-40% of the time.
No need for reunification procedures, etc. Kids happy and thriving for many years while under both parents care = Equal time will benefit even more (above points)

I still hold my stance that there ARE TOO MANY situations where parents believe they are self-entitled, and spend way too much time trying to villify the other parent, limit their time, etc instead of swallowing their pride and giving equal parenting a go.

One parent can not objectively assess another's ability to parent OR whether 50/50 should occur...that's for sure!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #487 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2017, 08:17 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,559
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

LF32, I think I have an interesting new topic to discuss here.


What about a parent who denies the other parent 50/50 due to subsidized daycare being in place?
Reply With Quote
  #488 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2017, 11:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 162
Desperate_Dad is on a distinguished road
Default

Here is my two cents

Equal parenting will never happen without equal taxation.

So until our delusional policymakers make child support taxable to the recipient and tax deductible to the payor, equal parenting will never be feasible.
Reply With Quote
  #489 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2017, 11:55 PM
trinton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,559
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
Here is my two cents

Equal parenting will never happen without equal taxation.

So until our delusional policymakers make child support taxable to the recipient and tax deductible to the payor, equal parenting will never be feasible.
doesn't sound like you are aware that child support is payable by both parents and that you are both entitled to child tax benefits in a shared custody regime (40% access threshold).

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #490 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2017, 10:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 162
Desperate_Dad is on a distinguished road
Default

LoL - It sounds like you aren't aware of how are tax system works. The benefits you describe are based on net taxable income. Since child support is non taxable, it doesn't affect the calculation. So what ends up happening is the lower income earned gets less benefits because its now shared custody but the higher income earned doesn't get additional benefits because they are clawed back because their net taxable income is too high. The result is that between them the benefits are hundreds of dollars less per month. Therefore there is an incentive for the higher income earned to give custody to the lower income earner. Do you understand now?
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 04:04 AM.